Nobel Peace Prize for Viktor Orbán

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has recently made a peace trip to Kiev and Moscow. The West reacted with howls of outrage. How could he! One does not go to an incarnation of Hitler to talk about peace! One ought to induce Ukrainians, then Poles and Lithuanians along with Latvians and Estonians, to go to war with Russia so that the West can benefit from it! Viktor Orbán is no fool, however. He is a sovereign leader, a rarity in the Western world. Of sovereign leaders in the whole of the European continent there are but four: Vladimir Putin, Alexandr Lukashenko – but these are outside the Western world – and Robert Fico along with Viktor Orbán, who run two very small countries of the Western club. All the rest are stooges of Brussels, which in turn is Washington’s stooge.

In a normal world – and we hope in the not so distant future to have back a normal world – someone like Viktor Orbán might be awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. In recent days he did what ought to have been done long ago: he visited the warring parties, he listened to their arguments, and tried to act as a go-between. Those who run the European Union are mad at him because they – with their mouths full of humanitarian values – are goading Ukrainians to lose their lives, limbs and property in order to spite Putin and in order that the Ukrainian possessions of BlackRock and other companies might be preserved. Yet, Viktor Orbán, true humanist and political realist, followed the dictates of his mind and conscience, and did what is right: he tried to bring peace. That step raised howls from the EU gang. The EU commissioners know it better.

What a paradox! The EU commissioners just cannot shut down the European borders in order not to let in millions of immigrants because their hearts bleed at the sight or just rumour of the alleged immigrants’ plight in their countries of origin, but they can indifferently receive news of tens of thousands of Ukrainians killed and maimed, and they just don’t care two hoots about the evident suffering of millions. That’s humanitarianism made by the European Union, a political circus necessarily run partly by women who happen to be more belligerent than men (talk of the fair sex’s human instincts that are supposedly trumping men’s).

Viktor Orbán, as already said, is his own man. He is no one’s lackey and he has the courage to stand up to the liberal West. It was in April this year (2024) that Viktor Orbán delivered an opening speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference that took place in Budapest, Hungary. In this speech the Hungarian Prime Minister laid down all that he believes in. His words, if heard by the commissioners, would certainly have ruffled their feathers. Hungary remains – as Viktor Orbán says – a conservative island that has miraculously survived and defies the “liberal tide, Brussels thunderstorm, and the Washington hurricane.”

The liberal tide, the Brussels storm, the Washington hurricane, indeed! The Hungarian Prime minister remains highly critical of what is happening with the Western world. He believes that central and eastern Europeans having been vaccinated by communism are not going to fall prey to the madness that has the continent – especially its Western part and the United States – in its firm grip. Those who run the project named the European Union will stop at nothing, continues the Prime Minister, while common people feel threatened by ever new ideas being rolled out by Brussels. “Have we arrived at liberalism yet, or will things get even worse?” paraphrases the Hungarian Prime Minister a joke that he and his compatriots used to repeat when they lived under communist rule, a joke in which the word communism is now to be replaced by the word liberalism.

The Prime Minister’s speech reveals the five-step mechanism with which the Western world is governed and people are controlled. Step one: reformulate norms (or notions, or the meaning of words). Step two: spread the inverted norms (new normal) by state institutions. Step three: brand those who do not comply with the new norms or dare to stick to the old ones as security risk. Step four: use the media and the NGOs to pummel non-conformers with an avalanche of attacks, accusations, and inconveniences, all of which will eventually lead to step five: the state institutions will find themselves obliged to investigate the case of non-conformers. “This is what they do to Hungary in Brussels,” says Viktor Orbán, “and this is what they do to conservatives in progressive liberal European capitals.”

In the light of other parts of the same speech we can better understand what drove the Hungarian Prime Minister to have talks with Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin: Viktor Orbán does not subscribe to the viewpoint of the Western liberal elites, the elites that “divide the world into democracies and autocracies, and claim that their role is a crusade against autocracies.” The elites that will make war to export democracy. The result is that “this world order has produced leaders who are unfit to lead, who are not up to the task, who make mistake after mistake, and who are ultimately racing towards their own doom. They say that there must be a hegemon, an ideological ascendancy, under whom and under which everyone must fall in line. And if this happens, they say, then peace will arrive at home and peace will arrive in the world.” What an apt analysis!

Viktor Orbán believes in the future of a different world, a world “in which the state protects its citizens; one in which migration is not organized, but borders are defended; one in which founding a family is highly prized, and the family is protected as an important institution of the nation […] a sovereigntist world […] free of ideology.” This new world must come and will come because the alternative – liberal hegemony – is nightmarish, because “liberal hegemony has made the world a worse place. It has created war where there could have been peace. It has brought chaos where there was order. It has tried to break up our countries and our families, and to wipe our nations off the face of the earth.” Sadly, continues Viktor Orbán, “the disciples of that old world are still sitting in Brussels.”

As of now it appears that his is “the voice of one crying in the wilderness.” Yet, who can tell? Was there anyone in 1988 who knew that in three years there would be no Soviet Union?

Babies pierced with pitchforks

There was a time when Poland was officially an ally of the communist Soviet Union. There was a time when Polish communists with the help of their Soviet comrades took over Poland and established themselves as rulers of the country. The Polish nation throughout its history had barely had Russians – irrespective of whether they were white or red – in high esteem. The Polish nation certainly despised the red variety of Russians even more intensely as the latter proved to be culturally rather not sophisticated. On top of this, Soviet Russians – or Bolsheviks – were busy suppressing some of the elements of Polish culture and they churned out primitive propaganda, one of the tenets of which was to convince the Polish nation that Russia, and especially Soviet Russia, had always been well disposed to the Polish people. True, there were individuals among the Polish nation who were ready to rise to the Soviet bait, and there were some who could be politically neutralized. Those who were prone to collaborate with the new masters thought that after the Second World War Poland had no choice and was doomed to stick to Moscow. Realpolitik. There was, however something, that was a thorn in the conscience of even ardent pro-Soviet Polish communists. This something was an event collectively known in Polish history as the Katyn Massacre. What was that?

When in 1939 Poland was attacked by Germany, by the German Third Reich, within two weeks of the beginning of the hostilities Poland’s eastern territories were invaded by the Soviet Union, which step by the way had been agreed with Germany in the run-up to the war. In autumn of 1939 the Polish territory ended up been occupied by Germany and Soviet Russia in a rough proportion of fifty-fifty. Both occupiers were hellbent on subduing the Polish nation and both saw it fit to first of all do away with the Polish elites: with teachers, doctors, priests, writers, engineers, military officers and the like. Both occupiers understood that a beheaded nation – the intellectuals were regarded as the nation’s head or mind – was much easier to control. They both – Germany and Russia – started to eliminate the intelligentsia in one way or another, with mass executions taking place on a regular basis.

After the war had come to its end, the German crimes were systematically exposed and condemned: Germany was a defeated nation, and there were many trials of German administrators or officers responsible for war crimes, not only in Poland but anywhere in Europe. Though guilty Germans were tried for their reprehensible deeds, the guilty Soviets were not. Why? That’s simple. After Germany had attacked the USSR, Soviet Russia became Poland’s (and the West’s) greatest ally and as such its image could not be dragged through the mire in the eyes of the Polish nation by exposing Russia’s exterminating operations executed against Poles. Yet, the Poles knew that Russians had been as cruel in their dealings with the Polish nation as Germans had, carrying out deportations, imprisonments and mass executions of not only the Polish intelligentsia but vast swathes of other social classes. The Katyn Forest (in the neighbourhood of Smolensk) – just one of the many places where such mass executions were performed – became an icon in the collective memory of the Polish nation. After 1945 every Pole in Poland could openly condemn the Germans for what they had done during the war, none could say anything against the Soviet Union. The nation was forced to live in a kind of schizophrenia: though both Germans and Soviets were the nation’s henchmen, the latter were to be viewed as friends and allies: as morally impeccable friends and allies. No mention of the Katyn Massacre found its way into history textbooks, no discussion about it was allowed even among historians. The nation’s mouth was gagged.

Sure enough people knew the truth and the truth spread by word of mouth, not to be suppressed by anybody. The more it was officially denounced, the greater currency among the nation it enjoyed.

When in 1989 communism in Poland collapsed and the country opened up to the so-called Western freedom of speech, the literature – popular and scholarly – about the Katyn Massacre became suddenly available to anybody who cared to familiarize himself with it, and, of course, this historical fact found its way straight into school textbooks. Numerous monuments were erected and commemorative plaques placed on the walls of important buildings to make a point, to show that the nation remembered, and to pay homage to those who had been murdered.

Monument to the Katyn Massacre, Wrocław /VRATS-wahff/, south-western Poland.

Why are we giving account of this story? Because much has changed and it looks as if little has changed. Now, more than thirty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and seventy years after the end of the Second World War (more than seventy years since the Katyn Massacre) the same old story seems to repeat itself. Now Poland has found a new friend and ally in the east. Yes, this friend’s name is Ukraine. Ukraine used to be a part of the Soviet Union, so naturally Ukrainians were also a part of the Soviet repressive system, but never mind that. Ukrainians could easily be exonerated as acting under the Russian yoke. The point is, however, that Ukrainians themselves executed yet another Katyn Massacre against Poles (or, to be precise, a long series of such massacres) quite independently of their being subordinated to the Soviets. When in 1941 the Germans attacked the Soviet Union, they relatively soon took possession of Ukraine, and being involved in the bloody conflict further to the east, they did not have either time or resources to fully control Ukraine. Ukrainians saw a chance for themselves in the fact that Soviet Russia was being defeated. Ukrainians seeking to have their own state, allied themselves with the Germans and began to lay corner stones for their statehood, starting with ethnic cleansing. They targeted Poles and performed more or less regular bloodbaths in the territories that had ethnically mixed populations as located between Poland proper and Ukraine proper. The year 1943 was especially cruel: it is 11 July of that year, when in Huta Pieniacka /HOO-tah pyen-YAHTZ-kah/ in Volhynia the bloodiest massacre took place, and it is this particular date that was selected as the remembrance day for the whole series of events that are collectively known as the Volhynia Massacre.

The Polish nation was, thus, ethnically cleansed twice: by the Soviets (of which the majority were Russians, but also Ukrainians and Jews) and by the Ukrainians. The two iconic names and dates are Katyn (1940) and Volhynia (1943), with both being just symbols of series of extermination operations. In the period between 1945 and 1989, when socialist Poland was an ally of the Soviet Union (which means of Russia and Ukraine, the two largest Soviet republics) the Katyn Massacres were officially recognized as a German or Western anti-Soviet propaganda, while the Volhynia massacres were recognized as such. Why? Whence this difference in attitude? Simply, the image of the Soviet Union, the communist paradise for all humanity, could not be stained, while that of Ukrainian nationalists could. You see, it was not the Ukrainian communists who murdered the poles: it was Ukrainian nationalists. As a result, in post-war Poland films were made and books published about Ukrainian cruelty, though all this was significantly limited, not to be impolite towards Ukrainian communist comrades. The Volhynia events only received full coverage in the media, the popular culture (movies, books) and the universities after 1989. The Western-like freedom of speech, you know. Do I sound sarcastic? Yes, because I mean to.

The moment Ukraine found itself at war with Russia, Ukraine became Poland’s most important and friendly ally. As such, Ukraine could not be reminded of its past and so the Polish authorities duly began to suppress or limit or discourage anything that might keep the memory of Ukrainian atrocities alive in the Polish mind. Such policy began even years before the eruption of the conflict between Kiev and Moscow. Warsaw’s political instincts have always been anti-Russian, which meant that the Polish authorities – by the way: of all political petty persuasions – naturally looked to Kiev as allies against Moscow. The memory of the Volhynia Massacre became as inconvenient to the non-communist Polish authorities as the memory of the Katyn Massacre was inconvenient to the communist Polish authorities. While – as mentioned above – a number of monuments were erected to commemorate Katyn after the period of socialist Poland, few have been put up to commemorate Volhynia, and even these few that have been put up received no or little government blessing. Isn’t it Orwellian!

It is on the initiative of a small local community that a monument to the Volhynia Massacre has been erected and is going to be unveiled this July in south-eastern Poland. Take a very close look at it, and bear in mind that he Polish baby on a Ukrainian pitchfork that you will see in the centre of the monument is no artistic figurative vision. You see, the Soviets, or Russians if you will, were much more humane at Katyn: they would shoot their victims at the back of the head. Ukrainians would thrust pitchforks into the bodies of their victims, they would crucify them and burn them alive; they would not refrain from cutting open pregnant women’s wombs. Russians made an apology for the Katyn Massacre, Ukrainians made none for the Volhynia Massacre, and still the former are Poland’s mortal enemies while the latter are Poland’s dear friends.

Fragment of the monument commemorating the Volhynia Massacre to be unveiled on 14 July 2024 in Domostaw, south-eastern Poland, on the local community’s initiative. Watch the two-minute video footage of the monument.

The Netherlands and Germany between inflation and recession

For public finances to be healthy, the economy must be sick

The fiscal conservatism of Germany and the Netherlands clearly limits the growth potential of both countries. The 45% of economists and think tanks active in the AIECE research network consider the current monetary policy in the eurozone to be too restrictive, while only 25% consider it to be correct. In particular, the respondents pointed to the governments of Germany and the Netherlands as those that are only insufficiently supporting their economies. The budget deficit of these two countries will amount to 1.6% of GDP this year for the former and 2% of GDP for the latter. By way of comparison, the figure for Italy is expected to be 4.4% and for France 5.3%. At the same time, many countries are struggling with much higher inflation than those between the Rhine and Oder, for example. It’s like between an anvil and a hammer: either you spend less money on stimulating businesses, leading to a slowdown in the economy and ultimately to recession in the country (Germany, Netherlands), or you increase public debt and the budget deficit through excessive spending, pumping money into the economy, which brings inflation with it (Italy, France).

In 2023, it paid off to pursue an expansionary fiscal policy that avoided a recession. In terms of GDP, higher government spending in Italy and France replaced falling demand, leading to positive growth rates. Countries that cooled their fiscal policy achieved lower growth rates and in some cases paid for this with a recession (see the Netherlands, where GDP fell by 0.3% year-on-year according to the latest figures). Denmark stands out from this pattern, as it achieved growth of almost 2% despite its restrictive fiscal policy. However, it is worth noting that economic growth was boosted by the huge success of Novo Nordisk, the manufacturer of weight loss drugs. Without the pharmaceutical industry, GDP would probably only have grown slightly.

At the same time, it should be noted that the higher inflation in countries with a more expansive fiscal policy is due to the fact that government spending has had to react to cost shocks. For example, countries that are more susceptible to supply shocks due to a higher share of food and energy in the basket of goods have taken more comprehensive and longer-lasting shielding measures for ordinary consumers. However, the reversal of these measures is slow, which is also slowing down the disinflation process.

A new threat to inflation is the escalation of wage demands in the major EU economies. Figures from the European Central Bank (ECB) indicate that growth in collectively agreed wages was stable at just under 3% in the fourth quarter. At the same time, these figures are published with a considerable time lag and show a rather outdated picture that ignores the ongoing negotiations between employers and employees. A completely different picture emerges from the internet search data, where questions about pay rises are reaching historic highs in almost all major EU economies. For example, Dutch internet users are now twice as likely to search for terms relating to pay rises than in 2016-2019, i.e. before the pandemic. In such an environment, rapid disinflation is highly unlikely.

Quelle: Google Trends | Gehaltserhöhung = salary increase, Lohnerhöhung = wage increase, Loonsverhoging = wage increase, Salarisverhoging = salary increase, Augmenter = Increase, Aumento = increase

To summarize, the impact of fiscal policy in 2023 has proven to be quite intuitive and textbook, although it is worth noting that the consequences of some fiscal tools will also show up over a longer period than just a few quarters (e.g. investment, education spending, etc.). Countries that pursued expansionary fiscal policies had to accept higher inflation but managed to avoid recession, while governments that focused on central bank support had to accept recession/weaker growth but achieved lower inflation rates at the end of the year.

The political vacuum in France and the Netherlands

To what extent is Marine Le Pen a sincere right-wing, nationalist politician, and to what extent is she simply a conformist who, in her quest for power, step by step, is betraying her ideals? After all, she has long supported the programs of left-wing parties that promote gay marriage, she has begun to acknowledge the leading role of the EU, etc. She has long since abandoned or changed her most radical demands, including the demand for deportation of immigrants. And just because she is still associated with yesterday’s hard line, she promoted young Jordan Bardella; consequently, he became the new face of the National Rally/Rassemblement National movement and a candidate in the elections. The rift between their statements is immediately noticeable: when Le Pen advocates, for example, a reduction in military support for Ukraine, Bardella says that the country must not be overrun by Russia.

Betrayal of one’s own ideals comes at a high cost, as today’s events – July 08, 2024 – attest: the party of the left-turning Le Pen fared much worse than expected in the second round of elections. Bardelli’s new National Front will not come to power, but it may benefit in the long run, since the real goal is the presidency. Now the old/new Front will not be burdened with the cost of holding office and will be able to say for two years that its political opponents defied the will of the French people and “stole” the victory from the right.

What will the Rassemblement National do about the immigration problem if it ever really takes power? Perhaps it will limit itself to deporting foreign criminals (there are estimated to be tens of thousands of them), but it will never prohibit people with dual passports from holding important positions, for example, in diplomacy. That would require constitutional changes and a long march through the institutions, for which the party is far too weak. Polls among the French show that they favor limited migration in Europe and are rather negative about immigrants from outside the continent. Le Pen and her team could capitalize on this sentiment to finally stem the tide of immigration. The hope for such a future appears clearly distant today….

In France, as in the Netherlands, it is the left-liberal media that shapes minds, and these media do not tolerate any other views, and while they talk about tolerance, they prefer to stifle the entire right-wing scene, and – of course – its notorious leader. Gefira, too, has had problems publishing some of her texts in the Netherlands because of her honesty and views. The lying press, as the Germans call it, is a major obstacle in the path of the Rassemblement National to real power. People in France, the Netherlands and Germany blindly believe the media, which are believed to be of high quality, which thus function as leaders of the people. Sad, but true.

The situation in the Netherlands resembles that in France. Gert Wilders also had to find a replacement – someone to represent him in the government – and soften his views: otherwise there would have been no four-party coalition (PVV, VVD, NSC and BBB). The policy of the new government has been formulated a “manifesto” under the title “Hope, courage and pride.” Pathetic slogans like those of Macron. Mock change is the order of the day. Almost nothing is left of the right-wing ideals: the green revolution is still being promoted, taxes are being cut, labor rights are being strengthened, new housing is being built. Housing, of course, for new immigrants, whose influx is to be limited (which promise is this?). Gert Wilders no longer wants to separate the Netherlands from the EU; he just wants to “change the union from within.” That’s why he and his coalition will fail in the next elections, just like Le Pen, because in politics, only courage and consistency count. Those who do not understand this lose. The courage expressed in the manifesto of the new Dutch government is a lie. The new government will be as inept as Mark Rutte’s previous one. 14 years in power and what? What has been realized from the leftist ideals? Mr. Rutte, what do you say, for example, about the issue of women’s equality? The countries with the lowest percentage of women in leadership positions are Cyprus (21%), Luxembourg (22%) and… the Netherlands (26%). Period.

The US economy ahead of the elections

The biggest surprise on the financial markets this year is that inflation is continuing. While investors had hoped not long ago for 4 interest rate cuts by the Fed this year, there are now only 3, and with a significant delay. This underpins the thesis we have often expressed that central banks do not fully understand the dynamics of the current inflation. The indicators suggest that parts of the economy, such as real estate and the automotive sector, are struggling with high interest rates, while other sectors, such as the defense industry, the semiconductor industry, the AI industry and the manufacture of anti-obesity drugs, are experiencing a boom. So, after the pandemic, due to new IT technologies and the war in Ukraine, a two-speed economy has emerged, where monetary policy is more difficult, as supporting the weak parts of the economy can go hand in hand with persistent inflation, which is more costly for companies.

Investors try to glean from the Fed’s statements the level of future interest rates (i.e. how much the money – the loans – will cost businesses in the future). It is often the case that the worse the situation in the economy is, the higher share prices rise as investors hope that in response to weak economic data, the Fed will cut interest rates to stimulate the economy. Just yesterday (July 3, 2024) we had an example of this: the ISM index for the service sector collapsed and – excluding the Covid-19 pandemic – fell to its lowest level in almost 15 years. And Wall Street hit record highs in response.

So investors believe this two-speed economy will continue to work. Meanwhile, fiscal spending in the US is unsustainable in the long term and current government bond yields are increasing government spending related to debt, taking away funds for citizen welfare and infrastructure. The US government has to deal with the risk of an economic slowdown or risk letting inflation run high for longer. So the scenario is: whether Democrats or Republicans win, they will have to increase spending (read: inflation), which will cause the Fed to perhaps raise interest rates even higher.

Investors need to understand that the real killer for stocks is recession, not inflation. Yes, I know that the examples, such as the behavior of the stock markets in Turkey or Argentina, clearly show that high inflation need not be a particular problem for equities in the long term. But one day the moment will come: even large companies will not be able to generate higher profits in the face of expensive loans, high taxes and wages. On that day, it will no longer be worth putting money into shares. Even in the USA.

Upgrading of Russia’s economic outlook

“Russia’s economy will expand much more rapidly this year than previously expected (…) Gross domestic product is forecast to rise 2.6 per cent this year, more than double the pace the IMF predicted (…) The Russian upgrade, by 1.5 percentage points, is the largest for any economy featured in an update to the fund’s World Economic Outlook.” That’s what Financial Times has to say.

“Russia is expected to grow faster than all advanced economies this year,” announces CNBC and continues that “Russia is expected to grow 3.2% in 2024, the IMF said in its latest World Economic Outlook published Tuesday, exceeding the forecast growth rates for the world’s advanced economies, including the U.S.” The growth forecasts for other countries are: the U.S. (2.7%), the U.K. (0.5%), Germany (0.2%) and France (0.7%), as we can read in the same source.

Also the BBC informs us that “Russia [is] to grow faster than all advanced economies” and refers its readers to an IMF report:

Oops… So many sanctions (is it sixteen thousand by now?), so much anti-Russian propaganda, the freezing of Russian financial assets, and all for nothing! Yet, the collective West – its leaders – should have known better. When did ever sanctions had their expected effect? In recent history it was North Korea, Iran and Cuba to name just a few which were severely sanctioned for years and despite those efforts to break their leaders or populations they remain politically defiant. Drawing on examples from more remote history: Napoleon Bonaparte imposed a continental blockade of the British Isles and it, too, was to no avail. The whole continent against one isolated country and the country continued to scheme against Napoleonic France and eventually brought about Napoleon’s downfall.

Notice that it is the Western media and Western agencies that speak about flourishing Russian economy. No propaganda on the part of the Kremlin, you see. The West feels itself compelled to reveal such data, data that prove how ineffective the West’s sanctions are, data that undermine the West’s policies. What are they going to do now? Impose a further two or five thousand sanctions? But then I suppose they have run out of the items they can put on the sanction list… Besides, in the face of Russia’s developing close economic ties with most of the world – be it the BRICS group or otherwise – and in the face of Russia’s self-sufficiency in terms of resources and Russia’s growing autarky, any new sanctions will fail miserably. They will effect one thing, though: they will strengthen Russian resolve to defy the West and to rely on and develop self-sufficiency even more.

The Western leaders must really be uneducated. It was during World War Two that Americans and the British used to bomb German towns and cities on a more or less regular basis, razing them with the ground. The allies pinned their hopes on the calculation that the German people, the common people, being exposed to enormous suffering, would eventually lose faith in the victorious outcome of the war and would rebel against the authorities. As we know nothing remotely resembling a loss of morale or willingness to resist the allies occurred. Rather, quite the contrary was true. The people were united behind their leaders even if some of them did not hold those leaders in high esteem. Does anyone learn anything from the past? Does anyone study past events?

With all the natural resources in their territory, with a well-developed industry and millions of educated people, Russia can really develop an autarkic economy. If additionally the country can rely on the help from China, India, Iran, Brasilia, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, then all the sanctions in the world are doomed. Why impose them then?

To save face. The Western world is in a position similar to that that the American Democratic Party finds itself in: once the party has rolled out Joe Biden, it feels compelled to stick to this candidate for president, even though it is clear that he is a sorry sight to see. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Relevance of century-old observations

“The Germans long before …14 sought to destroy the unity of the Russian tribe forged in hard struggle. For this purpose they supported and boosted in the south of Russia a movement that set itself the goal of separation of its nine provinces from Russia, under the name of Ukraine. The aspiration to tear away from Russia the Little Russian branch of the Russian people has not been abandoned to this day. XY and his companions, the former protégés of the Germans, who began the dismemberment of Russia, continue to carry out their evil deed of creating an independent “Ukrainian state” and fighting against the revival of the United Russia (Единая Россия).”

Sounds familiar? This remark was made more than a hundred years ago by General Anton Denikin, one of the four most recognizable leaders of the anti-Bolshevik Russia during the civil war of 1917-1921. The other three were Alexander Kolchak, Nikolai Yudenich and Pyotr Wrangel. General Anton Denikin fought for a few years in the south of the former Russian Empire against the Red Army, but after some initial successes, he was forced to leave his fatherland. It was at that time that the West was very much interested in disrupting Russia. The two revolutions – the first one, often referred to as the bourgeois revolution, took place in February and the second one, the Bolshevik revolution, took place in October 1917 – were sparked off with the support and blessing of the Western powers. The British had a hand in dethroning the tsar in February 1917, the Germans substantially supported the Bolshevik party in October 1917: the leaders of the coup d’état that was to take place in October were transported in a sealed train from Switzerland across Imperial Germany to Sweden, from where they made their way to Petrograd (that’s how in 1914 the German-sounding Saint-Petersburg was renamed after Russia began the hostilities against Germany). Americans, too, chipped in. While Vladimir Lenin enjoyed German protection, travelling across Germany, Leon Trotsky, having spent a couple of years in New York with his family and two sons, was financed to cross the Atlantic and be on time in Petrograd to disrupt the Russian state. It was not only the financial and political support that helped the revolutionaries of all persuasions to bring about the collapse of the empire: national or ethnic resentment was also exploited, with the Germans advancing the idea of a Ukrainian nation as separate from Russians.

There were a number of Ukrainian leaders at that time, with Symon Petliura being one of the most recognizable. He was backed by the Germans, he was later backed by the reborn Polish state. The Polish troops together with some of his Ukrainian units advanced towards Kiev and even occupied it for a week or two in 1920. Quite a Maidan, was it not, even if short-lived? These are the events that General Anton Denikin referred to in the text at the opening of this article. The full date the part of which we intentionally deleted was 1914, while the letters XY stand for no less a person than Symon Petliura.

In 2014 we saw a kind of historical repeat. The Western powers made themselves felt in Ukraine, but especially in Kiev, and caused the legitimate president to flee the country. Also, a crawling civil war commenced in the Donbass, while Russia in response to all these events reclaimed the Crimean Peninsula, all of which led to the war that broke out eight years later. Today Anton Denikin might write something like this:

“The collective West long before 2014 sought to destroy the unity of the Russian tribe forged in hard struggle. For this purpose they supported and boosted in the Ukraine a movement that set itself the goal of antagonizing Ukrainians and Russians. The aspiration to tear away from Russia the Little Russian branch of the Russian people has not been abandoned to this day. Volodymyr Zelensky, Yulia Tymoshenko, Leonid Kravchuk, Petro Poroshenko, Vitalii Klichko (you name them) and their companions, the protégés of the West, who began the dismemberment of the Soviet Union, continue to carry out their evil deed of creating an independent “Ukrainian state” and fighting against the revival of the United Russia (Единая Россия).”

by the way, the phrase United Russia (Единая Россия) that Anton Denikin employed overlaps one to one with the name of the “Putin” party, which holds power in this largest post-Soviet republic.

This time, too, it is the United States, Germany and Great Britain along with Poland that are busy playing Ukrainians off against Russians. This time, too, they have found present-day Petliuras ready to serve them. Today, too, war is being waged, and today, like yesterday, it looks like Ukraine is on the losing end. So it goes. Will we be witnesses to yet another historical repeat in… 2114/2124?

During World War Two, after the Germans had attacked the Soviet Union, they approached General Denikin, who lived at that time in France, with a proposal of backing the Third Reich against the Bolsheviks. Anton Denikin was very much opposed to the Bolshevik rule in Russia, which is putting it mildly. Yet, he did not for a moment think it right to ally himself with the enemies of Russia, even Red Russia. Anton Denikin flatly refused and warned those Russians – and especially Ukrainians – who were willing to serve the Third Reich against the Bolsheviks. Anton Denikin tried to convince them that they were going to be miserable tools at the hands of the Germans, to be discarded the moment they were not needed.

It is said that the civil war in the Soviet Union did not end in 1922 – when Denikin, Wrangel and Yudenich were forced out of Russia, while Kolchak was taken prisoner and put against the wall – because the civil war in the form of resentment and a deep division running through Soviet society festered. It only ended when the Soviet Union was attacked by Germany. It was only then that the overwhelming majority of Soviet citizens of whatever political persuasion rallied around the Soviet leaders to defend Russia. Has not the same been happening since 2022 in Russia? Even those Russians who did not hold Vladimir Putin in high regard changed course and rallied around him. War and especially the resultant hardships were supposed to turn the people against the Kremlin: as it is, the opposite is true. Sure, there are some who have betrayed their country – there were some also during World War Two, like General Vlasov – but the majority have expressed their unwavering support for the leadership. Does anyone learn anything from the past? Does anyone study the past?