GET ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

€225/250$ FOR 10 ISSUES

SUBSCRIBE or PURCHASE

The island of Lampedusa – a new pilgrimage site of the pontiffs

A few days ago (4 July 2026) Pope Leo the 14th paid a visit to the island of Lampedusa, which is located in the Mediterranean and which is famous for accepting immigrants from the Dark Continent on their way to the Old Continent. This island had been visited also by his predecessor, Pope Francis. As we all know, Pope Francis was a harbinger of the good news to the people who want to relocate to Europe. His successor Pope Leo the XIV seems to be continuing and pursuing the same policy. He is of course very much concerned with the fate of the Third World people: less so with the people living in Europe. His message – cloaked in diplomatic language – is simple and banal… and maybe even childish:

From this far-flung corner of Europe on the Mediterranean Sea, one can more clearly perceive the momentous challenge that the phenomenon of migration poses to European societies. In this regard, just as with the ecological transition and the promotion of peace, Europe possesses a unique potential, stemming from its history and culture, and therefore bears a corresponding responsibility. Thanks to its geographical location and institutional framework, Europe is capable of addressing the crisis — in this region — in a comprehensive manner, integrating immediate relief efforts into a long-term strategic plan capable of receiving, protecting, supporting and integrating migrants, while at the same time assisting developing countries so that no one is forced to emigrate. All of this must be done with vigilance, ensuring respect for the dignity of every person. This is a task not only for public institutions but also for civil society as a whole and for the Church. [Pastoral Visit of his Holiness to Lampedusa]

So, Europe should embrace immigration and at the same time should contribute to developing the Third World countries so that people will not want to leave the place of birth and so that they will not want to settle in Europe. That kind of talk is characteristic of politicians and all the people who want to present themselves to the public as the do-gooders. But what does it mean that Europe should accept more and more immigrants from the Dark Continent, not to say anything about Asia? What does it mean that Europe should take measures to improve the economic situation in Africa (again not to mention Asia)?

Well, simply Europe should be glad and happy about having more and more new inhabitants and at the same time – quite apart from paying for the upkeep – Europeans should also streamline their money and all kinds of resources to the other countries just to prevent more people from arriving in the Old Continent. That is to say, Europeans should pay the nations of Africa for staying at home or else. If one knows something about history of ancient Rome, one will immediately recognize the same pattern. Rome, too, was invaded by barbarians and Rome, two, was too weak to oppose them. What solution did the rules of Rome come up with? Yes, you remember it right: they suggested paying the barbarians to stay outside the Roman borders. Alternatively, if that was not feasible, they suggested paying the barbarians to serve the Roman empire rather than destroying it. Still better, the Romans came up with the idea of employing the aliens as soldiers defending Rome against… other aliens. How this all ended we all know too well.

Now, the Catholic Church as a religious institution should care more about whether Europeans – cradle Christians or lapsed Christians or just Christians in name only – follow the precepts of their faith. What is important in terms of faith? It is important that a believer should learn God and save his soul, which is to say, the believer should earn a happy life after death. How does a believer earn a happy afterlife? A believer earns a happy afterlife in that he follows the precepts of his faith. What are these precepts? To live a life that is sinless. Or at least to avoid grave sins. What are those grave sins that the Church has taught for centuries and seems to have forgotten to teach now? Well, these are abortion, extramarital sexual life, waging wars, theft, and other similar things. Now when did you last year a pontiff or bishops speaking about the sinfulness of extramarital sex or abortion? Have you heard the current pontiff preaching peace and trying to do something about putting examination end to the war in Ukraine or preventing the conflict with Iran? No? I haven’t either.

For a couple of decades Christian churches and the Catholic Church among them have started preaching the secular gospel of libertarianism. Be it the Pope in Rome or Protestant bishops – they all seem to be predominantly interested in the protection of the environment or the acceptance of the immigrants. When you visit the website of many a Catholic parish, you are immediately struck by the texts posted there, texts that preach the culture of welcoming immigrants. That’s all there is to it. no other moral issue seems to matter anymore.

The worst thing about it is that neither environment protection nor the welcoming culture has been invented by any of the protestant churches, least of all the Catholic Church. No. These ideas are the ideas of the secular world, of libertarians, of capitalists, of lay activists – in general – of the people who are for the most part non-believers, and sometimes actively hostile towards the churches or religion, people who view Christianity as a backward idea. For all that, the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches seem to be under the spell of such people and such organizations. The churches have become the mirror reflection of what the secular world proclaims. One cannot fight off the impression that the priests and the theologians have started reading the bibles again and suddenly discovering that the Holy Writ is all about environment protection and the acceptance of immigrants.

Why is that happening? Maybe because the Protestant churches and – sadly – the Catholic Church have been saturated with agents of influence. Maybe because the Protestant churches and the Catholic Church have lost their backbone. Or maybe all this is due to the state-run education which has shaped and continues to shape the minds of children and young people. Some of those young people choose to become priests. Well, when they enter seminaries or other religious institutions, they come there with the minds that are already full of secular ideas. They all have been to schools, colleges, and universities; they have watched movies and programs; they have read books and newspapers and websites – all of which have been pounding one and the same message: planet earth is what we should worship and a third world man is who we should serve.

Priests and theologians sometimes keep asking the question why it happens so that with every year fewer and fewer young people want to become priests. They keep asking questions why with every year more and more young people drop out of the churches. And they continue to ask questions why so many people have stopped being interested in things religious. They probably think that if they follow the secular agenda they will attract people – young and old – back to their communities. How wrong one can be! If an individual is infected with the idea of preserving the environment and accommodating Third World people, then his mind will naturally want to belong to an organization that performs the acts of environment protection and pursues immigrant policy. Now of the two big branches that are concerned with these problems – the secular world all the religious world – which one will you choose if you want to participate in environment protection all in welcoming aliens? Well, my guess is that you would like to join those who are the avant-garde of the movement. As it is, it is the secular world that takes the lead in both environment protection and the welcoming culture. The churches are nearly following the secular branch. One might even say that the churches are a knockoff of the secular branch. If that is so, then no wonder that people – if they want to be social activists – join the secular institutions rather than the religious ones. we always prefer the original to the knockoff, don’t we?

The pantheon of tragic heroes 2

Stephen Bandera’s fate was very sad. He wanted to create an independent Ukraine, but his personal life was ruined. Of his three brothers two died in a concentration camp – a German concentration camp – and one under unknown circumstances. His three sisters were imprisoned by the Russians and resettled somewhere far away to the Eastern provinces of the Soviet Union. His father (the priest) was a imprisoned as well and sentenced to death for his nationalistic political persuasion. Stepan Bandera himself was arrested twice: the first time by the Polish authorities after the assassination of the ministry of the interior, and the second time by the Germans after the failed attempt of the Ukrainian nationalist to declare an independent Ukrainian state. After the Second World War Stepan Bandera settled in Munich, Western Germany (where the Hitlerite movement began). His political career was done. All his dreams had gone wrong. He cut a sad figure.

What must he have thought about in the early 50s of the previous century? Ukraine had been incorporated into the Soviet Union or – to put it otherwise – it Ukraine fell to Moscow. Poland retained scraps of Ukrainian territory and these scraps had been rid of the Ukrainian population who was scattered around the Polish territory. Germany (once Ukraine’s big ally and hope) had been defeated: it had lost much of its territory had been divided into two states. To make things even worse, the Russians kept pursuing Stepan Bandera, and eventually, they managed to locate him in Munich, and kill him. And you know what? It was another Ukrainian – Bogdan Stashinsky – who shot Bandera dead in the staircase of Bandera’s apartment house.

Stepan Bandera committed himself to the cause of an independent Ukraine. His life was for all practical purposes wasted. None of his objectives had been reached. Rather, Ukraine’s fate had been worsened. Still today, Ukrainian nationalists, venerate Stepan Bandera as one of the greatest national heroes, if not as the greatest national hero. Street are named after him in very many Ukrainian cities and towns, and he has monuments that have been put up here and there across Ukraine. In Poland and in Russia, though, Stepan Bandera is equated with figures like Adol Hitler. Such a comparison is also invoked in the Jewish minds. For all that, we can barely hear any objection from the Western leaders and Western political class to venerating Stepan Bandera and other leaders of OUN-UPA. It appears the Western political class is ready to ally themselves with the devil himself to hurt Russia.

What do the present-day Ukrainian leaders think about their own fate? They must be familiar with the life of their spiritual guru Stepan Bandera. Do they ask themselves uncomfortable questions like, Is my life going to be like that of my political hero? Because the chances that Ukraine can prevail over Russia in the current war are next to none. If so, will those nationalists leaders that will manage to survive the war be condemned to a life in exile, just like their political guru? What do they expect to do in exile? Just like Stephan Bunder, will they look at their Ukraine from afar and see it partly captured? and partly controlled? by Moscow, the same Moscow that they hate so very much?

What’s worse, Ukraine has been facing and will continue to face a demographic catastrophe. The many millions people who have already left the country and the very many millions people who have been killed or wounded will have left a gaping demographic gap. Now, who will take their place? If the rump state of Ukraine continues to exist, and if the Ukrainian political class continues to follow the orders from Brussels, then the only solution to plug this demographic hole will be to import people from other countries. What countries? Certainly, not European countries, because no European will be willing to relocate to a war-torn country. Ukraine may only remain attractive to people from the Third World. So Ukraine is likely to be settled with people from India and Pakistan, from Kenya and Somalia. Will that be to the liking of Ukrainian nationalists? They and their political predecessors ethnically cleansed Ukraine of Slavic poles and Slavic Russians to end up with having Ukraine saturated by completely unrelated ethnicities from Asia and Africa? Such were their political dreams?

Stepan Bandera did more harm to his nation than any good. He was not a skilful politician but rather a battering ram used by Third Reich. Stepan Bandera was a political gambler. He did not take into account the real balance of powers in the then world. Present-day political elites in Ukraine are doing the same – they are walking in Stepan Bandera’s footsteps. They have allowed their Ukraine to be used as the West’s battering ram against Russia. How could they have ever thought that Ukraine could prevail against Russia, even is supported by the West? The whole of Europe (Germany and the industries of all the conquered European countries along with hundreds of thousands of volunteers from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway Spain, Italy, Croatia, and the regular armies from Romania and Hungary) did not conquer Russia in the forties of the previous century, why should it conquer Russia now?

Consider neighbouring Belarus. It’s leader, intensely hated by the west, has managed to steer clear of military conflict. And he has managed to keep his country intact in terms of territory and demographics. You may say about him whatever you please, but cannot deny the simple fact that for the last 30 years it’s been much better for any individual to have lived in Belarus rather than in Ukraine. Even if we assume – as the Western propaganda says – that Byelorussian President Lukashenko is a dictator while Ukrainian presidents were democratic leaders, still we must admit that it has been better for the common man to have lived in Belarus rather than in Ukraine for the last 30 years. Why? Because living in Belarus you have not risked being killed or maimed, whereas living in Ukraine, you have risked your life and health and your possessions. It is the Byelorussian leader who has proved to be politically savvy whereas Ukrainian presidents have played havoc with their country and their nation. Just like Stepan Bandera and his ilk once did. Is that the reason why the present-day Ukrainian political class wants to venerate such heroes?

And a post scriptum. Roman Shukhevych, commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, was hunted down by the Russian KGB and shot dead in 1950. Andrei Melnyk (OUN-M – the moderate branch) died in his bed in the West.

The pantheon of tragic heroes 1

The day was July the 1st, the year – 2026. Ukraine’s parliament passed the bill the purpose of which is to create the Pantheon of National Heroes. Now this bill only needs to be signed by President Vladimir Zelensky to become law, but there is little doubt that Ukraine’s president will sign it into law. What is this idea of creating the national Pantheon all about?

Well, Nations commemorate the national heroes. It is not only Ukrainians who want to venerate great personalities from their past. Everywhere national heroes are iconic individuals that serve as a focal point of national awareness and national identity. They serve as paragons of courage, self-sacrifice and heroism. It should be little wonder that Ukrainians would like to join other nations in this respect and have their own National Pantheon of their national heroes. And yet there is much objection to it. Who is objecting to Ukraine’s National Pantheon in the first place?

It is Poland, the Polish Nation. Why does the Polish Nation object to Ukraine having the pantheon of national heroes? Well, because this Pantheon in all likelihood will include individuals who are responsible for massacres that were conducted against the Polish Nation during the Second World War.

Ukrainian and polish national sentiments have very often clashed throughout the history of the two nations. Throughout centuries there have been numerous bloody wars between the Poles and the Ukrainians. One of such events that has imprinted itself on the national awareness of the Polish people was the so-called Volhynia massacre that occurred in the year 1943. In a series of concentrated attacks Ukrainian military units would circle Polish villages in the said region and they would systematically murder the inhabitants to the last man, woman, and child. This was ethnic cleansing par excellence, no doubt about that. To make things worse, the murders were conducted very ruthlessly: victims had their limbs cut off, the eyes gouged out, bellies ripped open, and sometimes their bodies were crucified. We have already written about it on more than one occasion.

Now it’s not certain yet which individuals from Ukraine’s history will be included in the mentioned Pantheon as national heroes. Yet, both the Polish authorities and the Polish Nation fear and suspect that the heroes would include individuals who were responsible for the aforementioned atrocities. How do the Polish authorities and the Polish Nation know about it? Simply because those individuals have been and continue to be venerated across the whole of Ukraine. They have streets named after them and monuments put up in the memory of them and they are presented to Ukrainian schoolchildren as their national heroes. Who are these individuals that create this bone of contention between Warsaw and Kiev?

First of all it was the leaders of the nationalist or – better put – chauvinist organization that was established in Ukraine almost a century ago. The political organization was known as the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists or OUN for short. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists was headed Stepan Bandera and Andrii Melnyk. Bandera was more ruthless than his competitor. That is why the organization OUN split into the Bandera (OUN-B) and Melnyk (OUN-M) branches. Yet, there was a lot they both shared. What both had in mind was to create independent Ukraine, a Ukrainian state that would be free of all ethnic minorities. They hated and wanted to get rid of Russians, Poles, and Jews. Though the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalist was established in the then Czechoslovakia while some of its leaders stayed for a time in Mussolini’s Italy, they began to carry out terrorist attacks inside the territory of pre-war Poland because the westernmost part of today’s Ukraine was then a part of Polish territory.

One of those attacks was performed in the city of Lvov, where Stepan Bandera’s henchman tried to kill the Soviet consul. Another attempt was carried out in broad the daylight in Poland’s capital city Warsaw. The attempt was successful. The Polish minister of the interior was killed. Now the police managed to capture Stepan Bandera who was the mastermind of the assassination. He was put on trial and sentenced to death. The Polish government proved to be lenient, though, and so that penalty was commuted to life imprisonment.

How did the Ukrainian problem emerge in the first place? why did the Poles and Ukrainians clash?

Medieval Rus’ was one political entity (though, as it was customary in the Middle Ages across Europe, ruled by a number of princes simultaneously, contesting for ultimate power). Consequently, Rus’ would have emerged in modern times as an enormous state – like France – but for the 13th century Mongol invasion. The invasion broke the backbone of a medieval Rus’. Some of the territory was occupied by the Mongols while the western parts were taken over by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and – later – by the Polish Kingdom. This was how some of present-day Ukraine found itself within Polish territory and remained under Polish rule for a few centuries. Under these circumstances the westernmost part of Rus’ (today’s westernmost part of Ukraine) developed a little bit different language and a little bit different political awareness. Some of its inhabitants of the orthodox Christians persuasion were at a time made to join the catholic church, though preserving its separate religious custom. Then in the 18th century came the time of the partitions of Poland; the terrain of present-day western Ukraine was divided between Austria (west) and Russia (east).

The territory captured by Austria was again separated from Russia proper. For another century it continued to develop a slightly different language and a different political awareness. At the end of the First World War those Russians who lived in the part of Ukraine that had been occupied by Austria wanted nothing to do with Moscow and they wanted to create their own state. At the same time the reborn Polish state did not want to hear of an independent Ukrainian state occupying the territories that once had belonged to the Polish Kingdom. There erupted a war as a result of which Warsaw managed to incorporate what is now Western Ukraine into the Polish state. Yet, Ukrainians sustained the resistance to the Polish authorities – hence the emergence of the aforementioned Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, and hence the resultant Ukrainian terrorism performed within Polish territory.

Christian Orthodox Ukrainians were a large ethnic minority within Catholic Poland. One might be tempted to say that Poland and (Western)Ukraine were united in one state – the Polish state. It was something similar to Yugoslavia, a country that also emerged at the end of the First World War, a country that united Christian Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats. In Yugoslavia Serbs were the dominant nation whereas Croats wanted to separate from Serbia-dominated Yugoslavia as much as Ukrainians wanted to separated from Poland. Croatian Stepan Bandera was known as Ante Pavelic. Croatians, too, had their terrorist organizations, and they too, carried out terrorist attacks. And the same year (1934) as the Polish minister of the interior was assassinated, Croatian terrorists killed the Yugoslavian King Alexander III in Marseilles as he was paying a state visit to France.

Then came the Second World War during the initial years which Germany conquered both Poland and Yugoslavia. Whereas Berlin allowed the Croats (Ante Pavelic) to create their own state, it did not allow Ukrainians to create theirs. Whereas Ante Pavelic enjoyed the recognition of his authority by Berlin and ruled his nation almost independently, Stepan Bandera’s attempts to declare an independent Ukraine just after Germany invaded the Soviet Union met with Berlin’s touch resistance and decisive countermeasures. Stepan Bandera was imprisoned and put in the Sachsen-Hausen concentration camp where he was an inmate for two long years.

It did not stop other Ukrainian political activists from both serving Germany and carrying out ethnic cleansing. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists had its military arm which was known as Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). It was headed by Roman Shukhevych. It was this Ukrainian Insurgent Army that massacred the Polish villages in Volhynia. Now both Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych are regarded by today’s Ukrainians as national heroes. Though we do not know yet which of the many Ukrainian historical figures will find their way into the National Pantheon the likelihood that it’s going to be both Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych is very high.

The reaction of the Polish government of the Polish nation is understandable. What is difficult to comprehend is the reaction or rather lack thereof on the path of the Poland’s Western allies. Ukrainian Second World War national heroes did not only exterminate the Polish and Russian minorities, but they also exterminated – an very assiduously at that – the Jewish minority. As you know, the Western elites are very sensitive when it comes to the extermination of the Jewish people. Why then are they not objecting to the idea of turning the likes of Bandera and Shukhevych to National Heroes of Ukraine?

The answer seems to be very simple. Poland’s Western allies only need Ukraine as a tool in their war against Russia. In order to prolong this war, they need to have Ukrainian soldiers who are ready to die and suffer. A soldier who is ready to die is an individual who – apart from being very well equipped – is also psychologically primed to actually do the killing. Now soldiers whose minds have been infused with the ideas of Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych are ideal warriors. Make no bones about it, during World War Two Bandera and Shukhevych openly supported Adolf Hitler and enthusiastically took part and the extermination of the Jewish people. Any veneration of such people in any of the western nations would be crushed by the police, by the authorities and by the legal system without no hesitation. Now somehow the Western leaders and the Western elites appear to be insensitive to such an anti-Jewish phenomenon in Ukraine. Are they applying double standards?

That tragic part of all this is that Poland will continue to support Kiev. For one thing, Poland is a firmly anchors in the western system and cannot act on its own; for the other, Warsaw is strongly antagonistic against Russia and will readily swallow any insult offered by Ukraine. Strange how things that turn out to be…

Peace is an illusion

Negotiations took place between the US and Iran in June. These resulted in the announcement of a temporary agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) providing for a 60-day ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to tankers. Both sides have portrayed this as a step towards genuine peace. But can we really believe that?

The latest statement by US Vice-President J. D. Vance casts doubt on this. In an interview with Michael Knowles, Vance explicitly admitted that this was in fact a tactical pause and not a permanent agreement. He explained that the main objective was to restore global oil reserves, and that what happens next remains an open question. War could break out again, or there could be lasting peace. The latter, however, depends on a “major shift in Iran’s approach”.

Apart from Vance, it is safe to assume that Tehran will not back down from its demands, and therefore an escalation is highly likely. However, there is one factor that could really weaken Iran’s position: oil. Iran is having serious problems selling it. Following the announcement of the MOU and the lifting of some of the sanctions, Tehran has attempted to export oil on a massive scale, but so far without success. According to Stephen Innes, between late June and early July, more than 58 million barrels of Iranian oil were at sea, of which more than 90 per cent had no clear destination, as shown in the chart below.

Fully loaded tankers are anchored near the Strait of Malacca and the Chinese coast. Iranian oil is flowing there in huge quantities (more than 2 million barrels), but Chinese refineries are unwilling to buy it. The reason is the sharp fall in domestic demand in China, which is leaving Chinese refineries with insufficient margins. In any case, Iran only has until the end of August before the period set out in the MOU expires. The longer the problems with oil sales persist, the greater the pressure on Tehran’s public finances, as the anchored tankers merely incur additional costs. This, in turn, could lead to Tehran making major concessions to the US when the time comes for further negotiations.

At the same time, we must not forget Israel, which will do everything in its power to torpedo the peace negotiations. The current agreement should therefore be viewed primarily as a strategic pause before the cards are reshuffled in the Middle East conflict.

Techno-fascism is coming

Palantir is not just a US technology company, but a software developer whose software is used primarily by government agencies, as well as commercial clients. Tracking the enemy, planning and managing the battlefield are Palantir’s core areas of focus. The company has access to vast databases of classified information, not only in the US but in many different countries simultaneously. It is often perceived as a company that profits from surveillance, war and human suffering.

It used to be people like Rockefeller or the titans of the steel industry, the owners of the railway companies, who influenced and shaped politics. Today, it is people like Musk who, through social media and their decisions, shape world events and stand shoulder to shoulder with politicians. These people have become arrogant; they are beginning to presume they know better how the state should function, and even what this new, brave new world should look like in their visions. Musk, for example, failed in his attempt to work hand in hand with Trump to cut public spending (particularly in the civil service), but his self-assurance regarding the direction the country should take remains immense. Palantir goes a step further and has published a manifesto setting out what makes the Silicon Valley movers and shakers tick and how they view the world.

It is a dystopian essay reminiscent of the works of Huxley or Orwell. Here are some key points from it:

The limitations of soft power have been laid bare: moral appeals are no longer enough for free and democratic societies – they need hard power (Hardpower), and in this century, this will be built on software.
The era of nuclear deterrence is coming to an end; the era of AI-based deterrence is beginning.
The introduction of universal national conscription should be considered. Palantir justifies this on the grounds that the risks and costs of war must be borne by society as a whole.
Some cultures bring about civilisational breaks, whilst others remain dysfunctional and regressive.
Germany’s weakening went too far, and Europe is now paying a high price for it. Japan’s theatrical commitment to pacifism, if it continues, would jeopardise the balance of power in Asia.
American politicians are powerless in the face of crime, which is why technology should step in where the state has failed.

So the decision-makers in Silicon Valley want an authoritarian state governed by AI, which is, after all, capable of making erroneous decisions – be it in the case of criminals or an attack on another country. The Belgian philosopher Mark Coeckelbergh writes aptly on this subject: “The danger lies not only in the overt talk of repression and incitement to war, but also in a more subtle transformation: the normalisation of surveillance, the delegation of judgements to opaque systems, and the quiet concentration of power in the hands of the few actors who design and control these infrastructures whilst simultaneously wielding global influence.”

To me, proposals such as those put forward by Palantir are nothing more than a call to increase the pool of ‘assets’ under the company’s control. The proposal for universal conscription aims to make society as a whole responsible for the war. A society whose children join the army is far more likely to accept astronomical budgets for systems such as Palantir – after all, nobody wants to send their loved ones to the front without the best technical support to minimise their risk. Furthermore, the call for the remilitarisation of countries, the fuelling of hostility towards other societies, and AI-based weapons all serve one purpose: more power and money for the techno-political tandem, and more chaos to enable them to take control of everything. It would be a veritable ‘brave new world’ with a narrative of constant threat, where governments would be reliant on the digital infrastructure that Palantir will provide. How lovely!

Sources:

The Manifesto
An extract from the book on which the Manifesto is based.

Property – a huge problem in the US

The US has been battling the property crisis for years, and it is coming to a head.

According to the report by the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers, there is currently a shortfall of 10 million homes in the US. One of the main causes is the growing disparity between income and expenditure on rent or housing costs. Almost half of the country’s tenants spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing. More than a quarter of American households who rent spend more than half their income on housing, and recent surveys show that most Americans consider housing costs to be too high.

The difficult situation in the housing market is also reflected in the eviction figures. The number of evictions is rising steadily, leading to an increase in homelessness. A distinctive feature in the US is that the reasons for eviction vary according to tenants’ ethnic background. Whilst only 7% of white tenants fail to pay rent, the corresponding figures for Black and Latin American tenants are 19.5% and 14.5% respectively.

The housing crisis not only poses a growing threat of homelessness but also contributes to the impoverishment of society. When property prices rise (relative to income), people have less money left over for other goods and services. As a result, some citizens will never be able to buy their own home. For this reason, some young people are forced to return to their parents’ home or never leave it at all, preventing them from starting an independent life and raising a family.

The shortage of affordable housing is causing a decline in economic productivity. Employees find it difficult to live in metropolitan areas where demand for skilled workers is rising or where well-paid jobs are being created. High property prices are also having a negative impact on fertility – many couples are postponing the decision to have children.

The report also points out that the climate policy decisions taken by former US President Joe Biden have contributed to higher costs for house building. These relate to energy-efficient building regulations that imposed an obligation to install more efficient air-conditioning systems and water heaters in buildings. The document cites a 2021 analysis by the National Association of Home Builders, which concludes that the installation of environmentally friendly appliances can increase the price of a house by 31 thousand dollars. It can take up to 90 years to recoup the costs associated with purchasing these solutions.

Added to this are the American bureaucracy, which is in a state of disarray, and restrictions on land-use planning that prevent the construction of denser housing. The consequences? The most difficult situation is in California (where 187,000 people are living without a roof over their heads) and in the State of New York (with 158,000 homeless people).

Welcome to America, the land of opportunity.

Swallowing insult after insult

Sometime ago we wrote about the Polish president who wanted to strip the Ukrainian president of his Order of the White Eagle. Ukraine’s president received that order in the time when Russia invaded Ukraine. It was a mark of recognition on the part of the Polish state that Ukraine had the right to defend itself and it was also a kind of support on the part with Polish government, the Polish authorities, the Polish people that Ukraine should continue fighting, should continue resisting Russian aggression. Then came an event that upset the Polish president and the Poles in general. It was the fact that Ukraine’s president gave the name of the heroes of the Ukraine Uprising Army UPA) to a newly formed Ukrainian military unit. the Ukraine Uprising Army (UPA) was notorious for its numerous murders that its members of perpetrated during the time of the Second World War predominantly on the Polish people, but also in Russians, and Jews who inhabited the terrain that today belongs to Western Ukraine but before the war belonged to the Polish state. Historians estimate that Ukrainian bandits killed all together approximately 100,000 Polish people.

The atrocities were such that it is difficult to find similar atrocities anywhere around the world in the past or in the present. Polish villages would be regularly surrounded, attacked, the houses were set on fire, the people were killed, tormented, tortured, burnt alive, and crucified; they had their limbs cut off and so on and so forth. These atrocities were committed by the militants of the UPA organization. The acronym UPA to many Polish people is synonymous with the most heinous atrocities one can imagine. These infernal scenes that took place in the years 1943-1945 have been depicted in historical books, historical novels, and movies. The man who was responsible ideologically for these atrocities was Stepan Bandera. It is not only in Polish but also in other languages that – coincidentally – his surname overlaps to a certain degree with the word bandit, which compounds the unpleasantness of the historical memory. The trauma that millions of people suffered after the Second World War was caused in Poland not only by the killings carried out by the Germans, but also by the carnage carried out by Ukrainians. No wonder then that the Polish president wanted to strip the Ukrainian president of the highest order that the Polish Republic can grant: the Order of the White Eagle.

At the time when we wrote about the presidential considerations, it was yet not known whether the Polish president would eventually decide to strip the Ukrainian president of this Polish highest order. Now it came to pass that word became flesh: the Ukrainian president has been stripped of this order. And do you know what happened next?

Volodymir Zelensky ostentatiously packed his order of the White Eagle and sent it back by courier to Warsaw. He also wrote that he was glad to receive the Order because this order had also been given to Russian Zarin Catherine II and to Benito Mussolini. The reader will have remembered that we, too, mentioned the many names of the recipients of this highest Polish order who did not deserve it at all (the only merit oftentimes seems to have been the fact that the recipient was a head of state). These names also included people who were even enemies of Poland. The Ukrainian president used the same argument while sending back the Order of the White Eagle: he wrote that it was given to individuals who had not deserved, which is why the Ukrainian president preferred not to be in their company.

Do you know what also happened next? After Ukraine’s president had sent his order back to Warsaw, a number of Ukrainian diplomats, politicians, ministers, and presidents began returning their Polish orders or crosses to the Polish authorities, to the Polish president. They showed solidarity with the head of the Ukrainian State, and they also showed how little they valued the decoration that they had received from the Polish authorities.

You may start wondering what will happen next. To be precise, you may start asking questions whether the political relationship between Warsaw and Kiev will deteriorate. If you think that Poland feels insulted and consequently will retaliate then think again. rest assured that Poland will certainly continue supporting Ukraine. For one thing, simply because the Polish people hate Russians so much that they are ready to support the devil himself if the devil happens to fight against Russians. For the other, Poland is anchored in the western system. Warsaw will not – and cannot – and even must not – pursue a policy that diverges from that of Brussels or Washington. The comedy that we have been witnessing for the last few days will fizzle out and end in nothing. Yes, the Polish authorities have been insulted, and they have insulted twice: by the fact that Ukrainians openly venerate as national heroes those who murdered the Polish people by the thousands during the Second World War; and by the fact that Ukrainian diplomats showed in how small regard they held the Polish crosses, orders, and other decorations.

Why didn’t the Ukrainian diplomats think that giving the name of the heroes of the Ukrainian Uprising Army known as UPA to an Ukrainian military unit would not entail serious consequences for Kiev? Why were they not afraid that such a move might provoke Warsaw to bring about an end to the support that Poland gives to Ukraine? Well, the answer is simple. Kiev knows full well that Poland is going to support Ukraine irrespective of what Ukraine does the Poland. How do they know that? Why, they know the Polish national spirit; they know that Poland will not stop supporting Ukraine if the United States or the European Union continue to support Kiev. It may also be that they are familiar with the famous quotation by Roman Dmowski, a Polish politician and the ideologue of the Polish national movement, who acted at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. He is known to have said that there are many Polish people who hate Russia more than they love Poland. That means, as we have already said above, that the Polish authorities along with the overwhelming majority of the Polish people, are ready to accept insult after insult and still continue to support Ukraine so long as Ukraine fights against Russia.

Horn of Africa

This part of Africa is playing an increasingly important role in the context of the war in Iran. For whoever controls the ports in Somalia and Somaliland controls the ‘Gate of Tears’, the Bab-al-Mandab Strait – the alternative to the Strait of Hormuz.

On 26 December 2025, Israel became the first UN member state to officially recognise Somaliland’s independence. This significant decision has fundamentally altered the balance of power in the Horn of Africa and has led Somalia and numerous international organisations to take action against it. Two powerful, competing geopolitical blocs have formed over the construction and expansion of the strategic port of Berbera in Somaliland

[1] The pro-Somaliland bloc. Alongside Hargeysa (the capital of Somaliland) stands a coalition of states that are investing in port infrastructure, seeking access to the sea, or striving for military control over the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait:

[a] United Arab Emirates: The key financial and logistical driver. The UAE’s state-owned logistics giant – DP World – operates the port of Berber, has invested millions of dollars in its modernisation and is reaping ever-greater profits from it. The UAE regards this region as its key geopolitical and logistical base for extending its influence deeper into Africa and exploiting the resources of the African continent (including through its support for the paramilitary group RSF in Sudan).

[b] Ethiopia: A country with a population of over 120 million, which lost its access to the sea following its separation from Eritrea. In return for a promise to recognise Somaliland’s independence, Addis Ababa signed a lease agreement for 20 km of coastline around Berbera, with a view to building its own commercial port and a naval base. For Ethiopia, this is a matter of vital independence from the port in Djibouti.

[c] Israel wants to establish an intelligence and military base right in the Gulf of Aden in order to monitor naval movements, counter attacks by the Yemeni Houthis and limit Iran’s influence.

[d] Taiwan: Maintains close diplomatic ties with Somaliland (neither state enjoys full international recognition) and provides technological support to Hargeysa.

[2] The Pro-Somalia bloc (Mogadishu Coalition). Standing alongside the Federal Government in Mogadishu (Somalia) are states that oppose the violation of Somalia’s territorial integrity, as well as the regional rivals of the UAE and Ethiopia:

[a] Egypt: Somalia’s most vocal and resolute ally. Cairo regards Ethiopia’s plans to build a naval base as a direct threat to its national security. Egypt is already embroiled in a deep-seated conflict with Ethiopia over the waters of the Nile (the Grand Dam) – and now fears that Ethiopian warships could undermine Egyptian dominance in the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. In early 2026, Egypt deployed more than 1,000 soldiers to Somalia and stepped up military cooperation with Mogadishu.

[b] Turkey: Somalia’s most important military and economic partner for more than a decade. Ankara operates the largest foreign military base in Mogadishu, trains the Somali army and has signed an agreement to defend Somalia’s territorial waters. Turkey defends Somalia’s sovereignty, as the destabilisation of the country would jeopardise its substantial investments there.

[c] Saudi Arabia: Riyadh is strongly opposed to the destruction of Somalia. The Saudis are competing with the UAE for influence in the Arab world and in the Red Sea; for this reason, they signed a military cooperation agreement with Somalia in February 2026 to counter the influence of the former bloc.

[d] Qatar, Iran and the Yemeni Houthis: Qatar provides financial support to the administration in Mogadishu (in opposition to the UAE). Iran opposes Israel’s presence in this region, and the Houthi rebels have officially declared that the infrastructure in Somaliland (including the port) will be their military target should Israeli forces appear there.

It is a high-stakes game in which the outcome will determine whether the Berbera port becomes an autonomous gateway to the world for Ethiopia and a base for Israel and the UAE, or whether Mogadishu – with the help of the Egyptian and Turkish military – can block these plans by invoking international law and the inviolability of borders. It is also a matter of survival for Djibouti, the tiny country in the Horn of Africa that depends entirely on its port and for which the expansion of the port in Berbera would spell disaster. The next war could therefore break out in this very region of the world.