US earns, EU pays, Ukraine dies

It’s that simple. Lindsey Graham, the senator, explained it in a few sentences. Americans will produce the weaponry, Europeans will finance the production, while Ukrainians will receive them. That’s what he said. He only omitted to add that Ukrainians would receive the weaponry in order to die. What else? No one in his right mind thinks they can win.

Is that the re-industrialization of the United States? Manufacture of military items alone is not exactly what makes for a healthy economy. For the United States to be an economic superpower, it needs to produce competitive automobiles, digital devices and all the rest that makes the world develop and prosper. More to it: the United States needs not only to produce such items, but also to outproduce China, and Taiwan.

Is that the benefit that the European Union gets from being allied with the United States? Paying for American military equipment will inject money into American economy, but how does that relate to Europe’s economy? With no cheap oil or gas, the EU is going to have a hard time.

Is that a real aid that Ukraine needs? Unlikely. Russia has gained the upper hand and its military strength is on the rise. Ukraine is on its last legs while its soldiers are alleged to be deserting the ranks in droves. Why then bleed the nation?

When Napoleon was defeated at the 1813 Battle of Leipzig, he was compelled to retreat to France. The allied forces – Russia, Prussia, Austria, England – were not quite sure whether they could eventually beat the Emperor, so they offered him a peace settlement which stipulated that France would retain the territories up to the Rhine River and some chunks of northern Italy, i.e. an area that France’s King Louis XIV (the Sun King!) wanted to control, but eventually could not because he did not manage to prevail over France’s enemies. What did Napoleon do? Yes, you know it very well. He defied the allies and continued the war effort. France, like today’s Ukraine, was exhausted by war but never mind! You can always count on a miracle. The result was that France lost and was reduced to the pre-war area, while Napoleon was made to resign from his throne, which was much to the joy of the common French people who by that time had had enough of his wars. What do you think Ukrainians dream of now? Of prolonging war? Of having Mr Zelensky on the throne? Give me a break!

Americans are running low on the stock of arms, the EU is running out of sanctions, while Ukraine is running out of manpower. President Donald Trump has threatened all the countries around to world to impose 100% tariffs on them if they continue trading with Russia. Well, if countries trade with Russia it means that they profit from it. Many of them have purchased American treasuries. In other words, they are American creditors. Will the American president punish American creditors? That would be another bad signal to all the world, another bad signal after the West’s freezing Russian financial assets back in 2022. Given such a development of events, how can particular nations trust the dollar as a safe store of value, and SWIFT as s safe system of financial exchange?

Are we not in a death spiral downwards? Are these measures not like reckless body movements of one drowning in a swamp? What an irony, especially when you think of someone wanting to dry up the swamp…

What if the most powerful person on the globe is a patsy?

President Donald Trump wanted to end the war in Ukraine. He is known to have been repeating that he would end the war within 24 hours of taking office. No one took the phrase at its face value – surely you cannot do much within 24 hours – but everybody understood in good faith that the phrase meant QUICKLY.

Europe was flabbergasted, the American Democrats were despairing, and Ukrainians felt stranded by their greatest ally. Well, President Donald Trump had a couple of talks with President Vladimir Putin and also had an American delegation conduct talks with their Russian counterparts. Half a year has passed and peace in Ukraine is nowhere to be seen.

Then President Donald Trump began changing his rhetoric. He stopped saying nice things about his Russian counterpart and started to voice his criticism of him. What has happened? Putin has not changed, has he? Russians have not changed, or have they? Neither have the American Democrats changed, nor the European like-minded leaders. Yet, Trump has.

It looks like Europeans and the American Democrats have eventually managed to bring President Donald Trump over to their side, to their point of view, to their anti-Russian policies. NATO’s secretary general Mark Rutte, visiting Trump in Washington on July 14-15, showed a happy face briefing the journalists together with the American president. It almost looked like he was saying by means of his facial expression that ‘we have eventually managed to bring our pressure to bear.’ as for Donald Trump – he began speaking like his predecessor Joe Biden (I don’t like Russia) and just in line with the European leaders (we don’t like Russia, either). Eventually Donald Trump rolled out threats against Russia, the usual set of threats: raised tariffs (read: sanctions) and enhanced arms supply to Ukraine (as if the supplies have ever stopped coming or been less intensive).

Was President Donald Trump sincere half a year ago and later when he promised to end the war soon? Was President Donald Trump sincere when he described President Vladimir Putin as a man he knows how to talk to? Either – or. Either the American president genuinely wanted to end the hostilities, or he merely made believe that he wanted only for the purposes of the presidential campaign. After all, he needed to have some points that made him different from Biden. This assumption points at Trump’s mendacity, intentional mendacity.

There is though yet another assumption possible. President Trump is under enormous pressure, the kind of pressure that he cannot but cave in. He may have been brought under someone’s control. The Epstein case comes to mind, the Epstein’s case might explain a lot. The case was recently mentioned by a journalist in the White House. President Donald Trump’s response was defensive, unusually defensive.

If – just if – Jeffrey Epstein was an operative of a secret service, and if – just if – President Donald Trump is to be found on the feared Epstein’s list of his customers – people with pedophile inclinations – then the American president is no more than a patsy. The only question that remains is whose intelligence has got hold on the leader of the world’s exemplary democracy.

Assassination in Kiev or the dirty phase of the war

Recently the news about the assassination of Colonel Ivan Voronych from Ukraine’s SBU in Kiev, on July 10, has made the headlines. Several hours later the Ukraine authorities said the men suspected of killing Colonel Ivan Voronych were liquidated. The assassination was caught on surveillance cameras. Colonel Ivan Voronych, who commanded a special operations unit, was hit by a few bullets, almost point blank. What does that event imply?

If it was Russia’s FSB (Federal Security Service or Федеральная служба безопасности) who were behind the assassination, then it means that they have very good intelligence inside Ukraine’s SBU (Sluzhba bezpeky Ukrainy or Служба безпеки України). They must have one or a few moles providing them with the necessary data about the individual officers and their responsibilities. Surely, the man earmarked for liquidation was selected with a purpose: Colonel Ivan Voronych may have been a mastermind behind some of the attacks within Russia. If that is the case, then Ukrainian officers – especially those responsible for actions in Russia – might become a bit nervous. Suspicion in their ranks has certainly crept in, while countermeasures are certainly being taken.

The assassination might also trigger a series of similar events. Up to now it seems that Russia has exercised restraint when it comes to hitting the commanders and leaders. That may have changed and so we are in to witness more actions like that. If so, then it might also imply that the Russian side feels relatively secure: they wouldn’t begin chasing after Ukrainian military and civilian leaders without feeling relatively secure at home, without feeling that their leaders are well protected. That assumption, if correct, entails that the prevalence of Russia over Ukraine extends beyond the military in the strict sense of the word and encompasses intelligence.

Judging by the available footage from the surveillance camera, Colonel Ivan Voronych was neither protected by anybody nor did he have a weapon on him. He was casually dressed, unsuspecting or not much suspecting. That is to say he felt himself secure enough to move about on his own.

If the assumption that Colonel Ivan Voronych was behind some of the actions carried out inside Russia is correct, the killing might put a brake on executing other actions that are being planned. It might have a deterring effect. On the face of it, Ukrainian officers might maintain a bellicose attitude – what else can they do while confronting the public? – but the psychological factor of being the next on the hitting list will certainly be brought to bear.

Some commentators say that the dirty phase of the ongoing war has begun, a phase of assassinations of top civilian and military leaders.

1812 – 202? Following in the Footsteps of the Great

Before Napoleon entered Moscow and established his headquarters in the Kremlin, he won a few campaigns against Russia and imposed some of his rules upon the country ruled by tsars. One of those rules was the continental blockade aimed against England. Though the blockade was aimed against England, it also had a deteriorating effect on the countries that observed it, hence also on Russia. The said blockade was no other thing as what we know as sanctions nowadays. It was as successful, but we digress.

In the beginning of 1812 the French emperor ruled over almost the whole of the Old Continent. As is known, it did not satisfy him. He needed more. He needed more and so he began an invasion of Russia. allegedly the Russian tsar did not comply with the blockade against England. The French emperor would have thought that if he had the whole of Europe at his disposal, he would be able to beat Russia within months or weeks. He would have thought that he was fighting against a backward country. He certainly thought it would be enough to have one, two or three decisive battles and the problem with the Russia would be solved.

At first it looked like he had a great success. His armies crossed the state border and moved eastward. The emperor is said to have asked about which way he ought to choose to reach Moscow. It is said that someone told him that – as it is in the case of Rome – all roads in Russia would lead him to Moscow, and that of the many he could choose, led through the town of Poltava, present-day Ukraine. Being knowledgeable about history, Napoleon grasped the hint. It was near Poltava that Swedish king Charles XII was beaten by Tsar Peter I in 1709 when he was criss-crossing Russia’s vast territory. That was the beginning of the end of the Swedish preponderance in north and eastern Europe, and the beginning of the ascendancy of Russia as a European power.

Almost the whole of Europe, including yesterday’s enemies of Napoleon, set foot on Russian soil. The emperor had his decisive – as he had hoped – battle near Moscow, and he captured the city. What did he do next?

He waited for the tsar, who had moved to St Petersburg, to request peace. He waited, and waited, and waited. And then he sent two envoys in succession, signalling that he was ready to accept such a request for peace. The request never came.

Was Napoleon not a spiritual predecessor of Biden-cum-Trump, or of von der Leyen? They, too, have the whole Western world at their disposal, they, too, have taken over yesterday’s allies of Russia/the Soviet Union, they too had hoped to make short shrift of Russia. They dismantled much of the Soviet Union, they created a big anti-Russian coalition (NATO), they imposed a blockade, and they ultimately moved to make the kill through Ukraine, through Poltava. They repeated the route of Charles XII and in a way of Napoleon I.

The war that began in 1812 finished for all practical purposes only in 1815, when Napoleon was ultimately defeated at Waterloo. It took three years to reshuffle Europe’s political scene. France – yesterday’s superpower – began a political slide, Russia – ascendancy. Europe got rid of the anti-Russian alliance and… continued to exist. Though the Russian troops wended their way to Paris, the city’s occupation was temporary. Europe was not invaded by the tsar. The propagandists and warmongers of that time might have threatened Europeans with such a perspective, but it never materialized.

And, truth be told, even if such a scenario had materialized, the Europeans were too exhausted by constant Napoleonic wars to even care. Everybody wanted just to live.

There was then a difference in the way nations accepted the French troops once those troops conquered a country. Europeans greeted and saluted them. Once Napoleon entered a city or a town, he was recognized as a new ruler. He was, too, admired as a great general. Now in Russia, everything was different. No warm acceptance, no acceptance at all. No riots on the part of the peasantry against their own ruler although they were allegedly severely exploited by the Russian gentry. To the contrary, the peasants and the gentry hand in hand took part in a guerrilla war against the invaders. There was no such movement in the German countries, nor was there anything comparable in the Hapsburg Empire. Once battles decided the course of the hostilities – be it Austerlitz (1805) or Wagram (1809), be it Jena or Auerstedt (1806) – these battles opened the roads up for the French to the capitals – Vienna or Berlin – and compelled the vanquished sit at the negotiating table. In Russia it was all different. The presence of the French troops in Moscow meant nothing whatsoever. Napoleon found himself in a different civilization. Most of the town-dwellers had left the city before the French came. The few that remained began setting the city’s buildings on fire. Russians preferred to set their holy city on fire rather than let it be occupied by the enemy.

What beat Napoleon ultimately? Self-pride and misinformation. He thought Russians would behave the way Europeans did. They didn’t.

What does the automotive industry look like

The shares of the German car giants have been in decline for three years. At the same time, you can see that hardly anyone in the world (in terms of sales figures) is buying American car brands apart from Americans. Well, Tesla was an exception and Ford Mondeo and Mustang fans are not representative either. This is why American cars are hardly considered in future predictions for developments on the market. The Japanese are getting more and more expensive, while the Koreans are (still) getting better. In the queue to the customer, the Chinese are doing best, as the graph below illustrates. It turns out that Tesla has also been on a downward trend for three years, even if the brand has always been a symbol of the progressive West, which was supposed to only use electricity.

Tesla may have been hurt by its owner’s meddling in politics. Musk has leaned to the right and exaggerated, Jaguar has leaned to the left (with its LGBT commercials) and its sales figures have also dropped significantly as a result. Slowly, managers, and probably in other industries such as fashion, are realizing that meddling in politics is hurting them and perhaps it will be them (as lobbyists and influencers, to put it mildly) and not the masses who will make politicians change their minds.

The fact is that the Chinese giant BYD is now opening most of the car showrooms in Europe. But I’m not very interested in what European politicians will do about it (I’m sure – nothing at all). I am interested in what the Koreans will now do to defend their strong position on the market.

Germany’s shortage of soldiers

Since the general conscription for males was suspended in 2011, Germany has been relying on volunteers. Recently the number of young males wishing to serve in the German armed forces has become insufficient. According to a report some 28% positions among the lower ranks, and 20% of commissioned officers remain unfulfilled. We can wonder why.

To serve in the military, a young man needs to be attracted to it by either good wages or a heightened feeling of patriotism. Obviously, neither of the two factors operates. Young men can look for a better career elsewhere while patriotism has too long been ridiculed and downplayed to remain relevant. Besides, as is officially stated, every fourth citizen of Germany has the immigration background. The new Germans are Germans in name only. Why, their parents or grandparents left their countries and relocated to Germany not to defend Germany or fight for it, but to earn money or to simply receive welfare from Germany’s extensive and magnanimous social system. There can be Germans-cum-Turks who feel German rather than Turks – to take one exemplary ethnicity – but that is rather the exception to the rule. If their parents or grandparents did not feel patriotic enough towards their countries of origin, why should we assume that their children or grandchildren should feel obligated to their adoptive country? That’s a matter of mentality that is passed down from generation to generation biologically and through upbringing. The point is that you don’t leave one country for another in order to fight for the adoptive “homeland”. You relocate purely because of materialistic incentives and you raise your children in this particular spirit.

How about genuine Germans? Young Germans have been groomed to feel ashamed of Germany’s recent past. Germans were evil during the First and the Second World Wars, Germans were evil also before, colonizing and exploiting parts of Africa and China. German militarism was at the core of this evilness. If so, then why join the armed forces in the first place? Young German boys and teenagers have soaked up thousand of American movies in which the German military was presented as repugnant and repulsive. Why should these boys strike upon the idea of continuing this dishonorable tradition?

Those few who might consider joining the German armed forces are looking around and they have second thoughts. In German cities, the majority of inhabitants happen not to be German. That is, many of them carry German passports but genuinely German they are not. Why should a young male join the armed forces, be sent to Afghanistan or Ukraine, lose a limb or an eye, get killed, and leave Germany to all those Germans whose Germanness is confined to carrying a German passport? Why should a genuine German defend a German in name only?

Only money can solve the problem of recruitment, big money. But then you become a soldier not because you love your country and your nation – there is none actually – but because you are paid for it. Thus, Western democracies have come to a point where they can only rely on… mercenaries. Mercenaries confronted with patriotic soldiers stand little chance.

There comes yet another factor: that of the alleged Russian threat. The German authorities are worried that they cannot field an army capable of defending the country, and they maintain that more troops are needed because – as is repeated again and again – Europe in general and Germany in particular are threatened by Russian aggression. Obviously, young German males do not feel like that statement is true or else they would flock to the military ranks. Obviously, the threat card does not work. Propaganda is effective only so much. Though exposed to the reports about Russian aggression, somehow people do not feel this aggression is real. Why? Maybe because some of the consumers of (mis)information can still use their brains. Using their brains they can figure out that Russia hasn’t been able to defeat Ukraine in three years, so how come is Russia going to defeat the whole of NATO?

Then comes this psychological factor. The complaints about the shortcomings in Germany’s military personnel have been voiced by one Eva Högl, defence commissioner(ess). You might say what you want, but an army is a masculine profession, a vocation for males. The long-standing policy of saturating the armed forces with women and homosexuals along with placing women at top military positions as practised in the Western world has beyond doubt discouraged many a young man from even considering joining the armed forces. However much reeducated young German boys might be, you cannot break the underlying biological reality in their psyche. To be given orders by a woman or a gay is certainly not one of those perspectives that a male teenager has been dreaming of all his life. Effeminate men are certainly not about to become soldiers anyway – manly men are not about to have their masculinity emasculated by taking orders from women officers and – for that matter – commissioners. That’s pure biology at play here, that’s nature. No one has ever been able to free himself from natural laws.

The push for women soldiers has played havoc with the willingness of men to commit themselves to a soldierly career. This policy is destructive. The biological differences cannot be ignored or played down. Recently a video has been doing rounds showing a resounding defeat of the all-women football Swiss national team playing against boys under 15. As can easily be observed, men lose interest in professions in which women are overrepresented. That’s what happened to the profession of teachers, and many others. So, if the military is going to continue accepting more and more women and homosexuals, they can as well not count on remaining attractive to male adolescents.

Five Shades of the collective West

What are these characteristics of the present-day collective West? Democracy? Not really. Freedom of speech? Certainly not. Freedom of association? Go and check out. Peaceful policies? Give me a break! What strikes the eye are these:

① green economy;

② rainbow sexuality;

③ ethnic replacement;

④ women empowerment; and

⑤ hostility to Russia.

① Green economy is an obsession. It has been an obsession for decades now. It began long ago, with an ozone layer – do you you still remember that craze? Already in the eighties of the previous century we learned that the planet earth was allegedly exposed to the pernicious sun rays. Refrigerators were kept responsible for it. Strictly speaking, a chemical compound used in them. Then came the news about acid rains, about the shrinkage of the Amazon forest, about this and that. Then alternatively global warming and global freezing. We were told with all seriousness that we only had a decade or so before we all would die miserably because of the degradation of the environment. There were people, especially young impressionable women with pseudo-education, who believed it all and had genuine panic attacks. No wonder: the doomsday was about to hit the planet anytime soon. Unlike their ancestors those young impressionable people did not expect the Final Judgement that used to be associated with the end of the world. Those young impressionable people – scared pout of their wits as they were – wanted to destroy the industry around them and put the technological clock back. Windmills and bicycles were to become the basis of the new era. (But still, they loved to listen to music using their most advanced technological devices…)

② Strange as it might appear the Western part of humanity sort of suddenly discovered the multiplicity of biological sexes. There were not two of them, but three, thirteen, thirty, and rising. Where did such a proliferation of biological sexes come from? Why did it emerge in the modern times? The answer was deafening: humanity has always had more than two biological sexes. They have always existed in the underground, suppressed by patriarchy, the Christian churches, and generally the mental backwardness of the preceding centuries. Literature and history began to be analyzed through the lens of the multiplicity of biological sexes: suddenly we began to learn that this and that scientist, writer, painter or inventor was gay while all the novels and poetry contained concealed messages of alternative sexuality. The United Nations issued school syllabuses aimed at educating almost babies about the many biological sexes and the possibility of changing them on demand. It began to be preached that there is no difference between boys and girls, between men and women. Serious people, university professors and top politicians began having trouble defining the term woman.

③ This went hand in hand with intense ethnic replacement. All of a sudden people from the Third World began to be imported en masse to Europe and the United States along with Canada, allegedly because of wars and persecution. Well, wars have accompanied humanity since Adam and Eve and somehow there was no regular and constant influx of foreigners from countries thousands of miles away, from other continents. At first, cities, then towns and eventually villages began to darken from one day to the other. This darkening could be observed very well if you looked at the sports teams. The French football team is a prime example: it infrequently happens that there is not a single white player. The incompatibility of the newcomers with the host nations was obvious to everyone trusting his senses but not to the powers that be. Riots in the suburbs? No, these are peaceful demonstrations. Heightened levels of crime? These are perpetrated by the French and the British, the Germans and the Swedes. You don’t believe it? Look into their passports! No-go zones? These are but areas of cultural diversity. Forget about the freedom in your economic activity: you need to employ “people of colour” or else you are going to be denounced as a racist.

④ The political class is gradually being saturated with women: we need women, more women, women everywhere. (Actually, not everywhere, not in the coal mines or on construction sites, but that’s a digression). Some look like have-been models, others like… hags. Women are allegedly as good as men, especially in positions of power. Women have been exploited and suppressed for millennia, but that needs to be redressed, and redressed it is. Women will lead us along the lines of feminist policy-making, and along the lines of combating toxic masculinity. Surely it was men who have made all the wars up to now? With the era of women, the world will experience peace, heavenly peace. Women do the same kind of job with the same quality (if not, of course, better) and they are paid less! That must be put to rights. Forget about the freedom in your economic activity: you need to employ women or else you are going to be denounced as a misogynist.

⑤ Russia is such a big country where men rule and where no rainbow sexuality is allowed to display intimate acts in the public. Russia is a country that has always had bad press in the collective West irrespective of whether it was tsarist, Bolshevik or capitalist. It needs to be subjugated and fragmented, it needs to let itself be controlled. If it refuses, it is painted as a tyranny, as an aggressor, as the mainspring of all backwardness. Besides, Oceania needs to have Eurasia, in the capacity of a bitter enemy. An enemy – an out-group – unites Western citizens – an in-group – around their incompetent leaders. An enemy diverts attention from ethnic replacement and failures of green economy, an enemy allows for expenditure on the military things and easily explains economic shortcomings. An enemy is a blessing! A few years back an attempt was made to reset the world by means of David 19. The attempt was partly successful: it wiped out lots and lots of businesses. Yet, David 19 did not solve all the old and emerging problems. These can be solved with the aid of a formidable enemy, with the aid of war.

Such are the five shades of the collective West. Can anyone challenge this depiction?