800 000 troops at Russia’s underbelly

The American peace proposals have been countered by the proposals drafted by the European Union. The European Union has frantically elaborated its own vision of the peace process because the American points are not much to the commissioners’ liking, and because – and that is utterly important – the European Union desperately seeks to become politically relevant. As it is, the war is going to be brought to an end through negotiations conducted by the Russian Federation and the United States – the only protagonists on the world’s political stage. Neither Ukraine nor the EU matters. Ukraine has been objectified, while the European Union – sidelined.

The EU’s attempt to regain political traction reminds one of France’s attempts towards the end of the Second World War to play the war game on a par with the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union. And, indeed, France managed to restore at least a semblance of its political relevance. The allies allowed Paris to be present at the ceremony of accepting the German surrender and to have its own occupational zone in Germany. It was – as said above – only due to the political generosity of the victorious powers that France was recognized as one of the winning parties because in reality France had been routed and occupied for a couple of years and – what follows – without the intervention of the Americans (and the British) France would not have liberated itself, on its own. No wonder then that when Marshal Keitel saw the French delegation attending the act of capitulation he could not restrain himself from remarking, ‘They, too, have defeated us?’

Today, it is not France alone but the entirety of the European Union plus Great Britain. In particular Germany, France, and the United Kingdom want to take a seat at the negotiating table and put forward their own proposals. They want to leave their mark on the peace process. And again, it depends on the United States of America and maybe also on the Russian Federation whether the EU will be admitted to the inner circle of world politics.

The counterpoints drafted by Brussels at times converge with those authored by Washington, and at times they diverge. Of the 28 points, Point 6 is quite peculiar. It states: ‘Size of Ukraine military to be capped at 800,000 in peacetime.’

800 000 troops at peacetime! That’s more than the standing armies of France (200 000), Germany (180 000), and the United Kingdom (140 000) combined! That’s more than twice as many troops as Turkey has (350 000). Consider that the Turkish armed forces are the second most numerous in NATO. And consider that Turkey’s standing army of 350 000 is sustained by Turkey’s population of 85 million, while Ukraine’s ‘capped’ military of 800 000 would have to be supported by 30 million, maybe even fewer people! If you add to it the devastation of Ukraine and the million or so of Ukrainian young men who have been killed or maimed, you begin to wonder how such an army could ever be raised in the first place.

The enormity of the size of Ukraine’s armed forces is one thing. The other is: why should Ukraine have such a huge standing army even if its maintenance were feasible? This question will surely be answered by Brussels along the lines of ‘making Ukraine capable of defending itself against the Russian aggressor,’ but is this explanation plausible? After all, at present, the Ukrainian army numbers maybe more than the said 800 000, and – as can be seen – it cannot withstand the Russian steady offensive. Why should it be capable of withstanding a similar offensive in the future?

Or maybe what the European Union covertly seeks is to keep using Ukraine as a permanent battering ram against Russia. in such a scenario the negotiated peace is going to be a mere ceasefire.

The proposal allowing Ukraine to have such a large army also runs counter to one of the two aims of the Special Military Operation, which is (apart from denazification) – demilitarization. How can Brussels expect Moscow to even consider Point 6? How could President Vladimir Putin or anybody in his place agree to having such an army at Russia’s underbelly after four years of war, after all the sacrifice and effort? Do Brussels politicians believe in the acceptability of this proposal? If they do, then their sanity is questionable. If we assume that their sanity remains all right, then we must come to the conclusion that this point alone serves the purpose of torpedoing the whole peace process, for a 800 000-men-strong army on Russia’s doorstep is a non-starter for Moscow.

Stated goals – genuine goals

Among the twenty-eight points of the peace proposal that has been drafted by the Americans is one that – if agreed upon – promises amnesty to all the participants of the conflict in Ukraine. This point reveals a huge lot.

For a long time now we’ve been fed the narrative that it was the Russian soldiers who were cruel and inhumane. Stories were spun and, indeed, pictures shown in the media about the atrocities committed by the Russians on Ukrainians. Do you still remember the notorious Bucha massacre? The intended pun on words – Butchery in Bucha or Butchers from Bucha – and the village carefully and intentionally selected to make the headlines sound alarming?

At the same time we’ve been fed the narrative that Ukrainian soldiers behave themselves gallantly. They are not the ones who commit atrocities, they are not the ones who assault civilians. Such things are only done by those evil Russians.

Let us assume the veracity of such statements. Then, like a bombshell, we can read one of the points of the peace proposals about pardoning the perpetrators of war crimes or other atrocities. If it was the Russians who committed those crimes, then the pardon extends to them and them alone, right? Why does the United States want to spare the Russian ruffians in uniform? Why such magnanimity? Didn’t the collective West – the United States and the European Union – label Russia’s president a killer, didn’t the commissioners want him on trial in the Hague? They wanted to hold accountable no less a figure than Russia’s president: surely they would be much stricter while handling figures of a lesser caliber!

Reading this point of the peace proposal you suddenly learn that atrocities and war crimes are not worth prosecuting. Are the Americans genuinely trying to shield the hated Russian evil-doers? Do the Americans genuinely suggest that justice should not be done? No, certainly not.

As usual, we need to distinguish between stated goals and genuine goals. The stated goal is the amnesty, something enticing for the Russians who are allegedly up to their hilts in blood. The genuine goal is – yes, you guessed it right – to protect the Ukrainian soldiers and the multiple mercenaries fighting on the Ukrainian side who have committed atrocities and downright war crimes. They are to be shielded from justice, they are to be protected, they are to be saved for future conflicts when they will come in handy.

Barely anyone remembers or, indeed, knows about the 2014 Odessa fire, a fire that burnt fifty or so (Russian) men and women alive in the Trade Union House, which was set ablaze by Ukrainian political activists. Still fewer people took notice when Russia’s President Vladimir Putin announced in one of his speeches at the very beginning of the conflict in Ukraine that Moscow knew the identity of the perpetrators of that fire and was about to track them down with the purpose of bringing them to book. Europeans or Americans may not have taken notice of those words; most probably they wouldn’t have heard them, since they only consume the news from the official channels. Yet, the wrongdoers would certainly have heard those words and consequently must have had the fright of their lives. The influential ones, those with connections to the powerful figures in the West, must have used all their influence to extract that kind of guarantee for themselves from their Western overlords.

Oh dear, Mr Trump!

Trump may have stopped the left-wing revolution, but his achievements as a top manager in the top position remain miserable: the US is running a record deficit and DOGE is ceasing to exist.

The first year of Donald Trump’s second term will soon be over. In January, the public watched with interest as the new president made statements about restoring national finances. Elon Musk and his DOGE were supposed to reduce waste, fraud and bureaucracy and optimize the government’s work. New IT systems were to be introduced, useless jobs abolished, and unnecessary expenses reduced. Musk ran across the stage with a chainsaw accompanied by Javier Milea (the Argentine president), and Trump said that DOGE was a revolution and that they would find hundreds of billions in savings and reduce bureaucracy, including the federal administration. In short: America will be great again!

However, reality proved cruel. October marks the start of a new financial year in the US and thus a new budget. The budget deficit reached a record high of $284.3 billion this month, which is $300 million more than during the Covid-19 crisis, a time when the entire economy was shut down and the world was turned upside down. Never before in US history has there been such a high budget deficit at the start of the financial year.

However, it is important to note that an increasing proportion of this is attributable to the rising cost of servicing the debt. At present, it already accounts for 19% of all revenue, and forecasts indicate that expenditure on servicing US debt will exceed all social programmes and transfers within 10 years. Therefore, it can be argued that DOGE attempted to clean one room without realizing that the entire house is dirty and the owner is constantly walking around in dirty shoes. The savings should have amounted to more than $200 billion, while audits showed that this could be four times as much. This means that not only did loud statements come to little, but in the end there was still a record budget deficit. Ultimately, DOGE ceased to exist after 11 months, even though it was supposed to function until mid-2026.

Hopefully Mr Trump manages world affairs better on the military front than he does on the economic front in his own backyard, otherwise…

Trump once danced with Arabs to their sword dance, and today…

In November, Donald Trump announced that he would approve the sale of F-35 Lightning II fighter jets, the most advanced V-generation aircraft equipped with AI sensors and other technological innovations. Even more important is who the buyer of these weapons is. It is, of course, Saudi Arabia, which will purchase more than 20 F-35s, 300 Abrams tanks, MQ-9 Reaper drones, air defence systems and a variety of missiles. Why do the Arabs need so many advanced weapon systems? Well, it’s obviously about superiority over Iran, but also (though this is not said out loud) over Qatar, which is not exactly a friend of the Saudis and is armed to the teeth.

This is a situation similar to that of the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan tried to emphasize the power of the alliance with the Arabs by providing them with the latest military technology. At that time, AWACS systems and F-15 aircraft were sold despite opposition from the United States’ most important ally in the region, Israel. At that time, it was a blow to the Soviet Union, and today Trump’s game is focused on China and Russia. The Americans had to somehow “consolidate” the Saudis in their camp, as they had recently been buying more and more weapons from China and Russia. The purchase of weapons such as the F-35 makes Arabia dependent on American technology and service.

On the other hand, the US had to use the “carrot and stick” approach to keep oil prices low, which is unlikely to please the Arabs and OPEC+ as a whole. This is an important issue for the United States, as cheap black gold keeps inflation low in the country, satisfies consumers, secures the voter base, and weakens the major exporters of this commodity, such as Russia and Iran. This shows that it is enough for the US to be present in this region through arms exports in order to remain a strategic player there.

The psychology of sanctions

Is it the twentieth package of sanctions that the European Union is about to impose on Russia? The European Union seems to never be running out of things – economic, political, cultural – it can sanction. Strange, isn’t it? Either the European Union commissioners knew right from the start that the sanctions would be ineffective or…? Or what? Maybe the European Union loves playing big and pontificating to the whole world about morals. Yet, even the citizens of the European Union do not seem to care which package it is now.

Are the European Union commissioners not aware of the fact that they are losing face every time they impose a new packet of sanctions and they remain ineffective? What they do is laughable. Imagine a policeman telling a ruffian to behave himself or else. Or else the policeman will call him names, or else the policeman will report on him to the higher authorities, or else the policeman will not smile at the ruffian, or else… Laughable.

Obviously by imposing those numerous packages of sanctions the commissioners want to impress it on the Europeans that they still matter and that they are to be reckoned with in the whole world.

Or maybe it is a pseudo-religious cult that is being practised in Brussels? You know, something like voodoo. The commissioners are piercing the doll representing Putin with pins and needles in the hope that those pins and needles will bring about his disease and demise? Consecutive packages of sanctions are such pins and needles. Maybe the twenty-first or the twenty-ninth, or the thirty-fourth package will ultimately bring about another February or October revolution in Russia, topple the government and the hated president, and render Russia helpless and defenceless like she was in 1917 and later or 1991 and later? Who knows? Let the commissioners do their best.

Or maybe it is a travesty of the practice of the Catholic Church when she used to anathemize those who dared to believe in ways different from what the Petrine throne pontificated about? Well, the commissioners are very distant from any religion, but there may be more in their behaviour than meets the eye. Brussels may have become an anti-church replica of the Vatican with all the trappings of the latter turned inside out. For the commissioners imposing ineffective sanctions are sort of anathemizing those they do not like (read: those who do not bow and crape to them). If you are familiar with medieval history of Europe (Europe!) then you will have remembered the popes who would anathemize monarchs and whole kingdoms and principalities. Isn’t it the same now? It is not done in the name of God this time, but in the name of human rights and democracy, but then what’s the difference? In either case – be it the popes or the commissioners – anathema is a psychological and ideological weapon with which to combat the political enemy.

For that matter think of the 28-point peace plan that is being discussed nowadays. The plan is American but some of its contents might as will have been drafted by the European Union commissioners, like the point saying that if Russia bends over backwards she will be magnanimously accepted back to the international (read: Western) community, she will again be regarded with dignity, she will stop being the world’s pariah. Isn’t it the same as we had it in the Middle Ages? If the monarch recanted his errors and kowtowed to the pope, the anathema was lifted and he was again regarded as a regular member of the community of the decent. Yet, such instances of medieval anathema worked only so much. Anathema worked in a couple of instances until it began to be overused and its effectiveness wore off. Especially when it was applied too often… like the packets of sanctions. The commissioners should have learnt it from history.

But then, I have always suspected the commissioners to have been weak in history. Rational are they not, nor do they have much knowledge about anything. Contrarily, they fit the definition of being deeply religious individuals. No, they do not believe in the Christian God or any god for that matter. They believe in their omnipotence, in Mother Earth, in human rights, in rainbow rights, in globalism, and the like. Yet, religion is religion. It needs its god or gods (nature, humans, animals) and its Satan (Putin) and his devils (the leaders of China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela etc.). It also needs a set of commandments (you shall honour the Pachamama, your Mother Earth, you shall elevate man above all things but not above nature, you shall perform two minutes of hate against the dictators and regimes) and it needs theological language: there are governments and presidents as opposed to dictators and regimes, for instance. The world is black and white, torn between heaven and hell, and we are the good ones while they are the bad ones. Very simple.

Thus the consecutive packages of sanctions serve the religious purpose of anathemizing the bad ones, those who are the problem. They need to do penance and atone for all the wrong they have done. We on the other hand are faultless. We have the right to pass judgement over others. They, obviously, do not have this right because they are the problem.

We may watch another session of anathemizing those that the European Union regards as heretics. The Europeans will light up candles, say a solemn formula and then cast those candles on the floor, believing that they have just triggered the anathema to work. Candles are consecutive packets and the accompanying formulas are the speeches in which the good tell the other good gathered in their echo chamber of the like minded that they are collectively the good ones and as such have the right to reprimand the bad ones who should eventually realize that they really are the bad ones. To this end the good ones will reprimand the bad ones on and on (package after package after another package of sanctions) till the bad ones come to their senses.

They should have sent the Western warmongers packing but they didn’t

They are dying and dying and dying. They have been dying for almost four years now. The Ukrainian soldiers. They have been dying for the delusion of Ukraine being non-Russia – anti-Russia, and for the delusion of Ukraine becoming a NATO member, and for the delusion of Ukraine becoming a sovereign state. Now Washington has rolled out a twenty-eight-point peace plan for the conclusion of the conflict, and some of the points of this plan say it openly that Ukraine will not be a NATO member, that Ukraine’s independence or sovereignty will be guaranteed by the United States (is it then sovereignty?) and that Ukraine will stop persecuting the Russian language or that part of the Orthodox Church that obeyed Moscow. And – to top it all – Kiev will have to cede territory to Russia.

Hundreds of thousands of men have died for what? Hundreds of thousands of men have died to compel reality to fulfil Ukraine’s political wish list. Hundreds of thousands of men have died so that the EU commissioners could play their political games. Hundreds of thousands of men have died as if the outcome of a war against Russia could not have been envisaged!

Ukraine’s political class should have a troubled, uneasy conscience. Ukraine’s political class should feel constant pricks of conscience. But do they have a conscience? Are they empaths? Barely. People holding the reigns of power rarely are. Anywhere, not merely in Ukraine. That’s why they have managed to make it to the top in politics (or business). Do the members of Ukraine’s ruling class feel responsibility for what they have done? Can they look straight in the face of the relatives of the fallen soldiers?

A country’s leaders should behave towards their country’s citizens like caring and responsible parents towards their children. A caring and responsible president should act like – forgive the pathos – a nation’s father. What should the purpose of a caring and responsible leader be? Yes, right, it should be the material welfare and the psychological wellbeing of the citizens. A responsible leader pursues these two goals. A responsible leader does not pursue a wish list because reality does not honour wish lists. A responsible leader should not even look for justice or sovereign rights out there in the world. These are mental constructs which – again – reality does not respect.

Imagine a father driving with his family somewhere and encountering irresponsible drivers along the way. What does a responsible father do? How does he behave? It might be that he has the right of way, but the other driver does not want to yield this right to him. Will the caring a responsible father drive on anyway because he has the right of way? Will he put the lives of his wife and children at risk by stubbornly driving on only because he has the right of way and he wants to exercise this right? Will he accelerate putting his vehicle on a collision course even if the other vehicle, the one that does not want to yield way to him, is a juggernaut?

Is Russia not a juggernaut when compared to Ukraine? What did Ukraine’s ruling class expect? Ah, yes, they knew it right from the start that they would not prevail against the Russian juggernaut, but they counted on the aid from the European Union and especially the United States! If that was the case, then they should have remembered the classic Western movie under the title High Noon. The town’s marshal could not enlist the support of a single man. Yes, the marshal single-handedly routs the four members of Miller’s gang, but then it is a movie, and so in this respect the movie’s plot runs counter to reality. Ukraine’s ruling class should have known better. Ukraine’s ruling class should have also known that apart from the movie’s happy ending, the remaining plot depicts reality one to one: if you count on anybody’s help, then think again.

Ukraine’s ruling class will have been familiar with High Noon: the whole world is familiar with it. At least some of the members of Ukraine’s ruling class will also have been familiar with Aesop’s tales, some of which carry the same message: self-help is the best help. They should have recalled a tale of a bird who had a nest in a field of corn and who did not let herself be bothered by the alarmist stories of her nestlings when they would tell her what they had heard from the owner of the field. She remained calm so long as she herd from her nestlings that the owner of the field counted and the help of his relatives and neighbours in reaping the corn, thus putting her nest at danger. She only began to worry when she heard from her nestlings that the owner of the field decided to begin the harvest on his own. Only then did she know that now it was for real. The story, as old as the world, teaches you and me that you cannot – you should not – you must not rely on anybody’s help, especially if the help calls for huge sacrifices on the part of the helper. Shouldn’t Ukraine’s ruling classes have known it? Shouldn’t the ruling classes anywhere in the world know this age-old truth?

Four years ago Ukraine was larger by the four provinces, while eleven years ago it also controlled Crimea. Three and more years ago Ukraine’s population was much larger, especially its male population. Now all this – men and territory – is gone, gone irretrievably because Ukraine’s political class either wanted to prove a point taken straight from wishful thinking or refused to guard Ukraine’s interests trading them for the West’s interests. As a result, Ukraine let itself be used and abused and misused. The war is now in its final stages, territorial and human loss is unavoidable, while Ukraine’s sovereignty remains an unattainable dream: if Kiev does not need to obey Moscow, it certainly must obey Washington and Brussels. Was this outcome worth the hundreds of thousands dead or wounded, the territorial loss and the destruction of the country’s infrastructure?

Who in his right senses thought that Ukraine could become a NATO member without expecting Russia’s preventive and retaliatory reaction? Did nobody see what was coming? Obviously, Mexico militarily allied with China or Russia, hosting Chinese or Russian military bases – advisors – centres would be an abomination to the United States! Washington would intervene in Mexico in the same way as Moscow has in Ukraine. Really, was there no one in his right senses among the ranks of Ukraine’s political class to see how dangerous a game they were playing?

How sad! As we speak Ukrainians are dying and dying and dying by the thousands, and they have been dying for almost four years now in order to… finally and officially block Ukraine’s NATO membership for ever, and in order for Russia to gain some of Ukraine’s territory! What a calamity, what senselessness, what a disaster! And Ukraine’s fate will be decided by Washington and Moscow, not even by Brussels – Ukraine’s best friend – to say nothing of Kiev! Is that the sovereignty that Ukraine so desperately wanted to achieve?

One can make a safe guess that the closest family members of Ukraine’s ruling class have never ever exposed themselves to real warfare at the front. That explains why they did not care about common Ukrainians who have rotted and continue to rot in the trenches, bunkers and under the swarms of drones, for if the political class had had sons at the front, they would have long finished this senseless war; nay, they would not have allowed this war to break out, and they would have sent the Western warmongers packing.

An alliance of the enemies over Poland

The European Union hates patriotism, which the EU labels nationalism. The European Union hates Belarus, which it regards as a dictatorship and Russia’s reliable ally. Belarus does not like the European Union because the European Union does not like Belarus. Up to now the distribution of political forces is clear, and yet…

…and yet the European Union, which dislikes Belarus, and Belarus, which dislikes the European Union, are in bed with each other when it comes to Poland: they both hate Polish patriotism, which they call – yes – nationalism.

For a few decades now 11 November – the Polish national holiday, the Independence Day – attracts tens – if not more – of thousands of people who march along the main streets in Warsaw, and also in other larger cities. It is not the so-called pride parade, which the EU would embrace wholeheartedly and consequently for which Poland would be praised to the skies. No, these are patriotic marches, waving thousands and thousands of Polish national flags with not a single flag of the European Union to be seen. These are the marches that exude intense patriotism, national pride, connection with the past, and national unity. These are the marches that defy the European Union. These are the marches that pose a threat to the European Union. Well, was it not in Poland where the collapse of the Soviet system began? Was it not in Poland where the nation’s patriotism coupled with the nation’s religiosity armed the people spiritually to defy both the local communist authorities and the Soviet Union as such? Is not not going to be Poland again that will disrupt the European Union from inside the way it disrupted the Eastern bloc four decades ago? So the EU fears and hates those marches and so do the EU’s political outposts operating in Poland, outposts rallying citizens of Poland who are, indeed, native speakers of Polish, but whose mentality is barely Polish. Those are the citizens who are rather ashamed of being Polish, citizens who would much rather be European than Polish, or cosmopolitan than Polish. These are the citizens who receive full backing from the European Union.

One might tend to think that if there are anti-EU forces within Poland, Belarus would be glad to make use of them. After all: the enemy (the patriotic share of the Polish nation) of my enemy (the European Union) is my ally. But no. Not in the least. Since Poland’s policy towards Belarus is not particularly friendly (which is putting it mildly), Minsk will not let any opportunity slip to have its political revenge. So the Belorussian mass-media comment the independence march taking place in Warsaw in just as unfriendly a way as the mass-media subordinated to the EU commissioners and ideologues. The Belorussian mass-media liken the Warsaw Independence Day marches to… fascist marches once practised in the Third Reich in the 1930s of the previous century. The vocabulary used to describe those Warsaw marches features such words and phrases as aggressive parades, torch-bearers, maddened crowds, nationalists who want to burn all that stands in their way. The listener can almost hear the word fascist or Nazi between the lines. No, these words are not spoken, but the selection of phrases along with the selection of shots from the streets do the job very well: the associations with the Third Reich marches complete with torches and flags springs to mind without fail.

To think of it: both the European Union, which dislikes Belarus, and Belarus, which dislikes the European Union, hate Polish patriotism and, as a result, use more or less the same vocabulary to give vent to their resentment against Polish national feelings. You might be beside yourself with wonder why Minsk does not see it fit to support forces in an EU member-state, forces that are potentially dangerous and disruptive for the integrity of the European Union. Has hatred towards Poland blinded the Belarus authorities? Yes, Poland is an easier target in comparison with the European Union, but at the same time the weakening of the EU’s integrity through Polish patriots and a possible future fragmentation or even dismemberment of the union is a much more ambitious and politically profitable aim, is it not? Anyway, if I were Belarus’s leader, I’d support the Independence Day marches in Warsaw and anywhere in Poland rather than taking exception to them.