Global Analysis from the European Perspective. Preparing for the world of tomorrow




Gefira #48 Western Europe to become a Third World subcontinent

Illegal immigration into Europe continues #alwaysandeverywhere

A chi apparterrà la Germania del futuro?

Il crollo demografico dell’Italia; Dal 2080 gli Italiani saranno una minoranza nel proprio paese

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Gone are the days when the world watched, with bated breath, the many talks between the United States and the Soviet Union on reduction and control of nuclear arms development. Gone are the headlines announcing the beginning, continuation and completion of the SALT or START talks. The world has changed.

Now it is the United States – as before – Russia – a replacement for the Soviet Union – and… China! When the SALT and START talks were conducted, no one paid any attention to the Middle Kingdom. Now China is a power to reckon with, not merely economically but also militarily. China is estimated to have some 350 strategic missile launching pads as opposed to some 480 American. That’s hard on America’s heels. Now what negotiations on nuclear arms control and arms limitation can be conducted between the United States and the Russian Federation without taking into the equation the Middle Kingdom?

The problem is that Moscow says it has nothing to do with China: China is not Russia’s military ally, though Washington perceives it as such. Contrarily, Russia views France and the United Kingdom as America’s closest allies, and rightly so: all the three countries belong to NATO. Hence, Russia’s demand that both France and Great Britain be included in the talks is legitimate.

On the other hand, Washington is legitimately concerned about China: under the current circumstances Beijing can certainly be viewed as Russia’s ally rather than that of America. (Just to think of it: China’s might have been created by the United States of which we’ll make a reminder later in the text.) Neither does the Middle Kingdom want to be included in the trilateral talks with the Russian Federation: why should it? It is an independent power – superpower – and it can act at the negotiating table on its own. So much so that Beijing has something to win from Washington: ok, the Chinese may say, we could reduce our military development if you lift the sanctions on China and the countries that wish to trade with the Middle Kingdom. How about that? Nuclear might is always a fine bargaining chip, is it not?

It is even true of tiny North Korea as well: not that North Korea is so powerful as to be considered for joint talks. No. But Korean nuclear potential is a sufficient deterrent even for such a superpower as the United States. And there is something more to the nuclear potential: it is the determination of the Korean leadership to actually use the missiles if push comes to shove. It is not Venezuela, whose president can be adducted in broad daylight without the perpetrator of the abduction fearing any retaliation, but we are digressing.

The balance of forces has changed since the year in which the Soviet Union disintegrated. For maybe as many as two decades the United States dominated the globe and felt so self-assured that Washington began to dictate to the whole globe. This, however, has changed. Russia has reasserted herself while China has risen to the status of a(n almost) superpower.

Which by the way is good for humanity. One superpower with no rival to fear would soon become corrupted and degenerated. All the other countries would have felt intimidated with no alternative anywhere in sight. Fortunately, a world emerges where there are three or maybe four (if we include India) big players, which allows for the smaller entities to have a political alternative, and which keeps each superpower in check.

A new arrangement needs to be made – no one power wants the prospect of a nuclear shootout. Talks are not going to be easy, because it is now three big entities, not two.

Political persistent rumour has it that Adolf Hitler was the creation of the Western elites who wished to rebuild Germany and direct its power against the Bolshevik Soviet Union. That is why London and Paris did not react when Germany began to arm itself, when Germany incorporated Austria and annexed Czechia; that explains why they did not react when Poland was attacked. The Western elites wanted Germany to expand, grow stronger, and come into physical contact with the Soviet Union. Now Adolf Hitler – assuming he was the darling of the Western elites – stopped playing by their script and turned against them when he attacked Denmark and Norway, the Low Countries and eventually France. It came as a shock: he was supposed to attack the Soviet Union!

Isn’t history repeating itself? The Middle Kingdom was supported by the United States for the express purpose to turn it against the Soviet Union. Washington would have rubbed its hands in glee if Beijing and Moscow started a real hot war! Decades have passed and – due to clumsy American policy-making – Moscow was pushed into Beijing’s embrace while Beijing was pushed in Moscow’s. Now they are – though not formally – economic and military allies. But again, the Kremlin may repeat: we have nothing to do with it. Had not Washington acted the way it did, there would have been no war in Ukraine, no sanctions on Russia and China, and consequently no Russo-Chinese cooperation.

The three gunslingers have a hard nut to crack. Certainly, none wants a nuclear exchange, yet each wants to get the upper hand. They are observing each other attentively, not knowing in which direction to level their guns. It reminds one of the cultic cemetery scene from the 1966 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly classic movie. Do you recall it? Good Blondie (Clint Eastwood), bad Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), and ugly Tuco (Eli Wallach) are facing each other – graves and crosses around them, their hands over their holsters, their eyes darting from face to face, their minds calculating. That’s the United States, that’s the Russian Federation, and that’s the People’s Republic of China facing each other (who is the good, the bad or the ugly is a matter of your political persuasion). In the graveyard scene only one emerges victorious. How will things play out in political reality at beginning of the 21 century? 

Davos 2026

After the notorious Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, resigned following allegations of financial and ethical misconduct, the forum took on a new dynamic. Whereas speeches used to be an expression of blind faith in mainstream ideology such as globalisation, green transition, climate change, sustainable development, human and LGBT rights, today they feel like a breath of fresh air. Take, for example, US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, who said:

“We are in Davos at the World Economic Forum and the Trump administration and myself, we are here to make a very clear point. Globalization has failed the West and the United States of America. It’s a failed policy. It is what the W has stood for which is export offshore farshore find the cheapest labor in the world and the world is a better place for it. The fact is it has left America behind. It has left the American workers behind and what we are here to say is that America first is a different model. one that we encourage other countries to consider, which is that our workers come first. We can have policies that impact our workers. Sovereignty is your borders. You’re entitled to have borders. You shouldn’t offshore your medicine. You shouldn’t offshore your semiconductors. You shouldn’t offshore your entire industrial base and have it be hollowed out beneath you. You should not be dependent for that which is fundamental to your sovereignty on any other nation. And if you’re going to be dependent on someone, it darn well better be your best allies. Okay? And so that is a different way of thinking. It is completely different than the WEF” (Video)

Oh dear! It’s a good thing Klaus Schwab can’t hear that, otherwise he’d have a heart attack.

Canadian Prime Minister Carney also pointed out in Davos that “the existing world order is collapsing.” He also highlighted the plight of small and medium-sized countries, which now have to cope with pressure from the largest ones. The Canadian Prime Minister said that these states should join forces so as “not to be crushed by the rivalry of the superpowers.” It seems that these words refer most to the countries of the European Union, which in recent months have pursued a different policy as a group from what Donald Trump is trying to do.

Due to the many controversial actions of the US president, we are gradually reaching a situation where simply showing resistance to him is enough to gain popularity. Previously, Justin Trudeau’s popularity grew because of such a conflict (it was Trump’s fault, not Trudeau’s merit), and now Carney also received a lot of praise after his speech, although as a former banker, he is more reminiscent of Macron in terms of credibility.

Among other important statements from Davos, the following are also worth mentioning:

[1] Larry Fink (CEO of Blackrock) stated that tokenising assets is the only sensible decision and that next-generation financial markets should already be based on tokenised shares or bonds.

This proves that the elites have not given up the fight against cash.

[2] Christine Lagarde (head of the ECB) drew attention to the problem of wealth inequality. And indeed, this problem does exist, but Ms Lagarde has probably forgotten who fuelled this problem over the last decade through massive money printing and intervention in the financial markets.

[3] Javier Milei (President of Argentina) reminded us that the West could still have a bright future ahead of it, but that it needs to turn towards freedom. These words were probably directed at the United Kingdom, Belarus and Germany, where freedom of expression is being fiercely opposed. (See also: Article in Gefira)

Merz versus Merkel and Scholz?

Friedrich’s speeches were always boring and merely reflected Germany’s political mainstream. They provided fertile ground for criticism from the AfD. Yes, if chancellors like Scholz or Merz were concise, witty and non-conformist, the AfD would not have risen so high. And lo and behold: the chancellor, who has long since surpassed Olaf Scholz in terms of total unpopularity among his own people, is finally speaking plainly:

“I would like us to return to acceptable market prices in energy production at some point and not have to permanently subsidise energy prices from the federal budget. [Applause] We cannot do that in the long term. And that is possible – I want to say this here, it is almost trivial, but I want to say it again: it was a serious strategic mistake to phase out nuclear energy. If we were going to do it, we should at least have kept the last remaining nuclear power plants in Germany online three years ago, so that we would at least have the electricity generation capacity [applause] that we had at that time. As it is, we are now undertaking the most expensive energy transition in the world. I don’t know of any other country that is making it as difficult and as expensive for itself as Germany. We have taken on something that we now have to correct, but we simply do not have enough energy generation capacity. So, we want to improve this quickly. The power plants are to be built. As I said, we now have the approval, which is imminent. All the necessary documents have been exchanged, and then we can get started, put it out to tender and start building. Incidentally, construction can also take place at the old sites. The old grids can also be used. That was different under the previous government. They wanted to do everything from scratch.” (Video)

Exactly: making everything new – that is the core idea of all revolutionaries, whether they are red, brown or green. But where was this combative Merz when his party colleague Angela Merkel shut down nuclear power plants in 2011 amid the Fukushima fever? There is a lack of men with backbone in both the CDU and the SPD, because it was under Merz’s government that the two 160-metre-high cooling towers of the Gundremmingen nuclear power plant were blown up in front of thousands of spectators.

So is this policy change genuine, or just empty words? The question is not insignificant, especially for Germany’s neighbouring countries. France, for example, supplies Germany with electricity from nuclear power plants to prevent blackouts in the country and is therefore more of a lobbyist for the Greens. Poland, on the other hand, is a subcontractor to the German automotive and engineering industry, and if Germany commits economic suicide through its green policies in recent years, this will have a negative impact on the country’s economy.

2 million draft dodgers

On Jan 30. 2026, Czech Radio Plus (Český rozhlas Plus) conducted a thirty-minute interview with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The journalist kept asking questions in English, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy kept answering in Ukrainian.

Most of the time the talk was predictable and boring. President Zelenskyy is giving such interviews by the hundreds, and there is really nothing new he might say. The war is going on as it has been going on for four years now. The president’s pleas and requests that he has been making throughout this time – at first embraced with understanding – have slowly begun to fall on deaf ears: Europe is no more capable of supporting Ukraine while the United States has reversed political course. If the European Union cannot send more aid to Kiev, what could Czechia do?

Towards the end of the talk there emerged an interesting piece of information. The journalist quoted Ukraine’s current minister of defence saying that there are as many as two million Ukrainian men avoiding draft, men who are for the most part outside Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was asked what he would like to say to those men and whether he would not like European governments – among others the Czech government – to push those men back to Ukraine. What may come as a surprise Volodymyr Zelenskyy neither condemned military dodgers nor did he call for measures to make them join the Ukrainian army. Ukraine’s president tried to understand the different motivations behind the decision that made those men quit their homeland. He also grew philosophical when he began describing the war-seasoned soldiers in the front and saying that they would not be too happy to have among themselves guys who are unwilling to fight. Fighting men necessarily hugely rely on their brothers in arms because they depend on them for their life. A dodger forced into military service might bring more detriment than be of any use.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s lenient stance on draft evasion poses questions. Has the president become soft on dodgers because he feels politically insecure? Has he become soft because he fears being imprisoned at the war’s end and accused of sending hundreds of thousands to the front to be killed and mutilated, knowing full well that the war cannot be won? Has Volodymyr Zelenskyy understood the senselessness of the hostilities? Does he anticipate the near end of the war? Or maybe he has realised that Ukraine will need men – lots of men – after the war for reconstruction? Has he understood that even if Ukraine won the war, the huge lack of men would make it impossible for the country to rebuild its economy? 

One of the final questions was whether Volodymyr Zelenskyy considered being elected for the second term. The reply was that he did not know yet whether he would run again for president, but – yes – he kept thinking about it. Now, the Western listener might remain indifferent to this statement on the part of Ukraine’s president, but Ukrainians – at least some of them — remember that Volodymyr Zelenskyy promised to act in the capacity of president for only one term. What has changed? Has Volodymyr Zelenskyy tasted the flavour of power? Are the powers that be still backing him? Do the powers that be still wish him to occupy the highest post in Ukraine?

Two million draft dodgers and their families are not likely to vote Volodymyr Zelenskyy into office again. They remember one more thing: Volodymyr Zelenskyy promised to stop the hostilities in the Donbass. They remember that he even performed theatricals in the public in that he knelt down to show how urgently and humbly he would be in his talks with Moscow only to deescalate the conflict and bring peace. People remember. Instead of peace they got war and bussification – abducting people from the streets in broad daylight and sending them to the front. Two million draft dodgers are the tip of the iceberg. There are certainly more others who would have followed suit but for one reason or another could not. Ukrainians voted for Zelenskyy precisely because he promised to end the hostilities. Does he not know it? Does he cherish hopes of still being liked by the people? Does he think he might be elected?

It is often said that people vote with their feet. Yes, two million (officially) draftable men have already voted against Kiev’s bellicose policy. Add to this the women and the men that cannot be drafted, add the silent resistance inside the country and you will get the picture. Some commentators say that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is divorced from reality. His statement that he thinks about being re-elected – i.e. about being liked by the majority of Ukrainians – confirms that he is. 

 

Market situation at the end of January 2026

I. The Magnificent Seven lose their cohesion

Analysts are beginning to divide the Magnificent 7 into smaller subgroups. They talk about the “Fab 4” or “Mag5” – that is, the 4 or 5 companies from the group that continue to drive the market upwards, while the rest have become a burden. Only Alphabet and Nvidia outperformed the S&P 500 in 2025. The gap between Mag7 share prices in the second half of 2025 was enormous. 

Competition in the field of AI has become a wedge that divides the group. Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft and Meta are spending hundreds of billions on AI infrastructure and data centres. Nvidia dominates the market for the chips needed to power these models. Apple and Tesla are lagging behind. Apple has been criticised for lower costs and slower AI development, while Tesla has suffered from slowing electric car sales. Nevertheless, the “magnificent seven” still have a huge impact on the market, accounting for about 36% of the S&P 500’s capitalisation.

Source: MSN

II. Withdrawal from defensive sectors

The defensive sectors of the US economy are currently the most undervalued relative to high-tech companies in history. Defensive sectors include companies whose services are in demand regardless of the state of the economy or consumer sentiment: healthcare, consumer staples, utilities, including electricity, water and gas companies, and the telecommunications industry. We observed similarly low valuations for defensive companies before the dot-com bubble burst in 2000. Investors were so obsessed with the internet craze that they forgot about the major sectors. The same is true today, with the difference that the above-mentioned glorious companies are benefiting from it.

III. Can precious metals continue to shine?

In 2025, the price of gold rose by 64% in dollar terms. Over the past 5 years, this growth has been 152%, and the price of gold is currently at its ATH (all-time high). Does gold have a chance for further growth? Let’s take the ratio of US stocks to gold. Every time gold reached its 1929 peak of 1.54 gold, it provided a solid foundation for growth in the gold market. 

Factors that point to a further rise in GOLD prices include geopolitical tensions, interest rate cuts by central banks, mistrust of the bond market and the weakness of the US dollar. Another such factor is high demand from central banks. In 2025, after a hiatus of almost 30 years, central banks hold more gold than US bonds. However, we must remember the dangers. These include a possible recovery of the dollar, the return of investors (at least temporarily) to the bond market, and young investors choosing Bitcoin over gold. It should also be noted that gold has grown by an average of 11% per year since 2000.

2025 was also a phenomenal year for silver. The metal rose 146% in dollar terms. This growth had a solid foundation, as it was driven by demand for silver in the economy and the limited availability of the metal. Another important factor was that the US classified the metal as strategic and China (the world leader in silver processing) restricted its exports. Is silver expensive now? At over $90 per ounce, silver is at an all-time high. However, compared to M2 (a measure of money in circulation that takes into account funds in current and savings accounts), this value is well below its historical peak. If the price of silver had reached a level similar to that of 2011, given the growth in M2, the price would be $97. But if it were the same as in the 1980s, an ounce of silver would cost approximately $531!

Silver therefore has potential for further growth. This may be driven by increased demand from industry, the aforementioned export controls from China, or the fact that the silver market is relatively small and demand for silver is high. Since 2000, silver has grown by an average of 10.4%. The 146% growth projected for 2025 is a significant deviation from the norm. It is also worth noting that the gold-silver ratio, i.e. the ratio of how many ounces of silver we can buy for one ounce of gold, is currently at a low level of 50. This indicates that silver has become significantly more expensive compared to gold over the last 30 years. Speculators, industrial lobbies and politicians, who would benefit from a fall in the price of silver, could have a negative impact on the price of the metal.

IV. Refinanzierung von US-Schulden

The high price of precious metals is mainly due to capital migration from bonds. The US debt will have to be repaid in 2026. This problem will be solved through refinancing, i.e. issuing new bonds (taking on new debt) to repay bonds that are approaching maturity. The last two times we saw a similar situation – during the GFC, the global financial crisis, and the “Covid recession” – interest rates were at 0%. Currently, interest rates are at 3.75%. The higher the interest rates, the higher the borrowing costs and the burden on the government, which is already enormous. In the current fiscal year 2026 (since October 2025), the government spent $179 billion in just two months to service its debt. This is the second largest expenditure after social spending.

 

V. Die Globalisierung des Renminbis

The dollar’s share of global reserves (black line) is falling in favour of gold. The decline in confidence in the US financial system will not go unnoticed by its biggest competitor, China. Beijing is expanding its financial payments network and developing an alternative to the US-led Swift system. The Middle Kingdom is lending more and more money to developing countries and encouraging international companies to issue bonds denominated in Chinese currency. About half of cross-border transactions in China are currently denominated in its own currency, compared with almost zero yuan share in such transactions 15 years ago. As a former member of the Chinese central bank said, the government wants the yuan “to be seen as a strong currency that is used more globally”. The yuan currently accounts for 8.5% of global foreign exchange transactions. That is a small amount compared to the dollar, which accounts for 89% of this category. However, the message is clear: China will fight to strengthen the role of its currency in international trade. This is another area in which Beijing is challenging the United States.

 

The growing social stratification in America

The richest 10% of Americans currently account for a record share of total consumer spending (49%). This percentage has risen by 13 percentage points over the last 30 years. At the same time, the 80% of people with the lowest incomes account for only about 37% of total consumer spending. This is a decline of 11 percentage points since 1995. 

It is extremely important because consumer spending accounts for 68% of US GDP. This means that the richest 10% account for a record 33% of GDP. Meanwhile, the poorest 80% of Americans account for only 25% of the US economy. These figures show that the US economy has become dependent on the spending of the richest. When 10% of the population generates 1/3 of GDP, it is no longer just a question of inequality — it is a question of the imbalance of the system.

This very pessimistic sentiment among consumers in the United States is the result of a declining sense of security. When consumers are uncertain about their future, they spend less. Consumer sentiment is currently at the same level as during the pandemic in 2020, a time of economic downturn, because Americans fear the consequences of the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. To reverse this view, Trump announced the introduction of “dividends” from tariff revenues. This dividend would amount to at least $2,000 for every taxpayer, with the exception of high-income individuals. However, apart from the announcements, there are still no official regulations or an official programme to implement this initiative. Such low morale among the American middle and lower classes is also due to the fact that almost one in four Americans has no savings. 

Incidentally, with raw materials becoming more expensive, especially metals, the social transfers announced by Trump are adding fuel to the fire of inflation. And Trump is doing everything he can to stimulate it, devalue the dollar and appoint to the Fed his man from May onwards (when Jerome Powell’s term ends), who will certainly lower interest rates on the President’s orders to accelerate the whole process.

Mare Nostrum

At the peak of its development, the Roman Empire ruled over all the countries that were located around the Mediterranean. Carthage had been destroyed, Greece had been subjugated, even Egypt had been conquered. Gaul and Spain had been turned into Roman provinces as were the coastal regions of the Adriatic Sea. Hence the proud Romans could declare that all the waters in between Europe and Africa and Asia were Mare Nostrum or Our Sea. All merchantmen were controlled by Rome as were all the ports. No one could travel freely without Rome’s permission. The Romans did not need to bother about tolls or tariffs or whatever. (Sometimes they were bothered by pirates, but that problem would be swiftly solved by Rome’s military might.)  

The Baltic Sea is five times smaller than the Mediterranean (approximately 0.5 million square kilometres against 2.5 million square kilometres), but it is an important and – in many cases – the only sea route for many European countries to the high seas, to the Atlantic Ocean.  These countries include (clockwise, starting from the north) Sweden, Finland, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia again (the Kaliningrad oblast), Poland, Germany, and Denmark. Since Sweden and Finland have recently joined NATO, the Baltic Sea had become a sea that is surrounded by NATO member countries with the exception of Russia. But Russia has a very narrow access through the Finnish Gulf (that’s where St Petersburg is located) and through the Kaliningrad oblast, which in turn is cut off from Russia proper by territories that belong to Poland and Lithuania. Having in mind the two narrow slips of land where Russia has access to the Baltic Sea, we can say that the Baltic has become NATO’s Mare Nostrum.

Considering the enmity that reigns supreme between the Western bloc and the Russian Federation, we can easily imagine the temptation on the part of the Western countries to view the Baltic Sea as a stranglehold on Russia. The leaders of these countries might choose to block Russia from sending its ships via the Baltic to the Atlantic Ocean or they might at least want to make life miserable for the Russian fleet. Let us not forget that Russia might access the Atlantic Ocean also through the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, but then, again, the access looks like a narrow throttle – especially in the place called the Bosporus Straight. It is controlled by Turkey, and although the 1936 Montreux Convention makes the Straight passable internationally, Turkey is a NATO member.

As it is, Russia can easily be cut off from the Atlantic Ocean irrespective of whether she chooses to access the ocean through the Baltic or through the Black and the Mediterranean Seas. Yet, being a nuclear superpower and finding itself in a mortal struggle with the West for sheer survival as an independent, sovereign state, the Russian Federation might be compelled to (aggressive? defensive? pre-emptive?) measures. Recall how the so-called Polish Corridor – a strip of land that cut off East Prussia from Germany proper during the time of 1918-1939 sparked the war between Germany and Poland, and consequently the Second World War. At that time Germany did not fight for its survival, certainly not against Poland, which did not threaten Germany’s existence, and still Berlin decided that Germany could not do without the corridor. Now Russia as a superpower needs access to the high seas or else. The Russian Federation is the largest country by territory, but its location is somewhat infelicitous. While the United States has unrestricted access to both the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, Russia only has direct access to the Pacific Ocean. The problem is that while the United States’ eastern and western seaboards are equally well economically developed, Russia’s far east is not. The other point is that Russia’s far east is far flung from the European part of Russia. The distance between the western- and easternmost parts of the Russian Federation is much longer than that between America’s western and eastern seaboard. Moscow must, therefore, fight for access to the high seas cost it what it may. What may we expect?

If any one or all of the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) choose to alienate Russia, to deny its access to the Baltic, then they might fall prey to Russia’s military intervention. Will the said Baltic states risk such policy? In all probability, they will. Why? Because already we can see how bellicose they are in their dealings with the Russian Federation, and how their leaders bend over backwards to oblige their Western overlords. They might choose to take over the role which has been played by Ukraine for the last several years. Taking such steps, they will force Russia to step in militarily. Once Russia intervenes in the Baltic states, she might choose to either incorporate them, or install there governments that will be Russia friendly. Bear in mind that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia used to be parts of imperial Russia (where they had no autonomy) and then of the Soviet Union (where they enjoyed the status of union republics with their governments, constitutions and the like; a status similar to that that they have now within the framework of the European Union).

If Finland chooses to thwart Russia’s access to the Baltic Sea, it might expose itself to a repeat of the Winter War of 30 November 1939 – 13 March 1940. That war cost it territorial losses. Finland, too, used to be part of the Russian empire as an autonomous grand duchy (1809-1917) with its own parliament. If push comes to shove, Finland may again lose some of its territory or become an autonomous part of the Russian Federation.

I hear you say NATO will never allow that kind of land grab! If you think so, then, please, think again. If the scenario that we are presenting materializes, the ruling classes of the Baltic states and Finland will swiftly and comfortably run away (that’s the usual behaviour of the ruling classes), while the common Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians and Finns will remain, as is usually the case with the common people.

The Baltic as Mare Nostrum is a powerful geostrategic instrument in the hands of the managers of the Western world, but concurrently – a curse for the common people of small nations who matter to the managers of the world about as much as the pawns on the chessboard.

Human malleability

Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are shuttling between Washington and Moscow in an attempt to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine. Whether their intentions are honest and sincere is a matter of your and my conjecture, but the fact is that they travel to and fro.

The Russian side is represented by one Kirill Dmitriev rather than Sergei Lavrov. Kirill Dmitriev is an interesting person. He was born in 1975, in Ukraine – Soviet Ukraine. Nonetheless, between the ages 14 and 25 he studied at… no, not Kiev or Moscow university. He studied at Stanford University and Harvard Business School. His father was – yes, you guessed it right – a high-ranking member of the Communist Party of Ukraine. This did not prevent his son – Dmitriev – from working for Goldman Sachs in the capacity of an investment banker for a couple of years. A son of a staunch communist transitioned to being a capitalist from one day to the next. His father fitted into the communist system because it was then the order of the day; Kirill became a worshipper of capitalism because – yes – now capitalism has become the order of the day. One wonders about the human psyche.

The human psyche seems to be very malleable. Human psyche might fit the definition of what liquid is. You may remember the simple and nice definition from your elementary school that liquid is any substance that takes the form of the container into which it is poured. So does the human psyche. When communism reigns supreme, you become a communist; when capitalism gets the upper hand, you become a capitalist. That’s all there is to it.

Such changes often take place within the same generation. Imagine a German born in, say, 1900, and living to be a hundred in 2000. During his childhood and early youth our Helmut would certainly have been an ardent follower of the German monarchy, of the Kaiser; after the fall of the monarchy in 1918, he would have certainly changed gear and become an obedient citizen of the Weimar Republic; during the national-socialist times of 1933-1945 the same Helmut would have certainly become a loyal member or supporter of the NSDAP; after the 1945 debacle he would have become either a regular citizen of (capitalist) West Germany operating under American tutelage or a regular citizen of (socialist) East Germany operating under the Soviet tutelage, depending on in which part of the country he would have found himself at war’s end; after 1989 he would have eagerly voted for the unification of the two German states, although prior to this event he certainly would have willingly fought in a fraternal war against the Germans across the border if such were the circumstances. More to it: during much of his life our Helmut would have been a German patriot (of imperial Germany, national-socialist Germany, the Federal Republic or the German Democratic Republic) to end up as a globalist and cosmopolitan in the post 1991 reunified Germany. As the citizen of national-socialist Germany he would have looked down upon non-European human races and even on the Slavs; after 1945 – irrespective of his place of residence, be it West or East Germany – he would have sloughed off his racism while in the 2000s he would have embraced not only Slavs but also — and predominantly so – people from the Third World. All those changes would have occurred during the life of one man, during the life of one generation.

In the case of the Dmitrievs it took two generations to transit from anti-capitalism (communism) to capitalism (anti-communism), but the time span during which those epic changes in the worldview of the two related individuals occurred is comparable with that of our Helmut. Both examples showcase the infinitely malleable human psyche. 

gif loading

We are quoted by:

 
UK flag German flag Spain flag x
Menu
More