Merz versus Merkel and Scholz?

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

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

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

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

2 million draft dodgers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond the present

Europe has crossed the point of no return when you think about its ethnic structure. The proportion of people from the other continents may not be very high – it might be ten, fifteen percent – but that’s not the point. The point is that, first and foremost, these ten or fifteen percent are very often virile young men who are willing to put up a fight and assert themselves, while the indigenous Europeans are middle-aged or older, very often childless, pacified, and with no other ambition than to have fun and a good relaxing time. Second, the newcomers form their own communities and have effectively appropriated swaths of France, Great Britain, Germany or Sweden, where the indigenous inhabitants are – to put it mildly – not welcome. Third, the arrivals are neither assimilated nor integrated; rather, they are more and more hostile toward the host nations. Fourth, the host nation has a guilt complex that makes it surrender its property and rights to the people from the other continents. In the future, France, Great Britain, Germany or Sweden may still bear the same names, but they are going to be intrinsically different, will be known as France, Great Britain, Germany or Sweden only in name.

Think about the medieval Holy Roman Empire: it was referred to as Roman and yet it had very little to do with ancient Romans apart from the Latin language that was still used in administration, in written form only, and apart from a few legal terms. The Holy Roman Empire was created and run by the Germanic tribes. Hence in historical texts this political entity is often known by its fuller name: the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

There is a difference between the change that occurred in the early Middle Ages and the change that is taking place now. In late antiquity and the early Middle Ages the ancient Romans were gradually being replaced by the Germanic tribes who were genetically related to the Romans: they were white, Indo-European. At first glance you could not tell the difference. At present we are facing something other than this: the settlers from outside Europe are entirely different. They are not Indo-Europeans, their languages are a long distance away from the Indo-European languages, their faiths, their customs, their heritage, their biology… all of this is a far cra from what Europe used to be. Present-day actors from France or Germany, the United Kingdom or Sweden can impersonate ancient Romans without having to have their skin whitened. The Asian and especially African ethnic replacements of the indigenous peoples of Great Britain, France, Germany or Sweden physically do not resemble the host nations. In a not too distant future we can imagine the future African or Asian actors trying to impersonate the historical figures from the European past. They will have to make a huge effort to make themselves look like the Europeans. That’s a measure of the immense transformation that we are facing.

Yes, there were many ethnic replacements throughout history, also in Europe. But in Europe, one European ethnic group replaced or displaced or absorbed the other European ethnic group. The difference between the two groups that were on a collision course was reducible to language. All other features – faith, skin colour, general customs or heritage – were the same or almost the some (Catholic-Protestant-Orthodox), which made it easily possible for one ethnic group to dissolve itself in the other, dominant group. Thus, the Germans settling in Silesia, south-western part of the then Polish Kingdom and today’s Poland, made the indigenous Slavs become Germans with ease and without violence. Once the indigenous Slavs had given up on their language and adopted German as their mother tongue, they became Germans for good, and they were indistinguishable from the German Germans. The same was true of the German settlement in medieval Prussia (today’s north-eastern Poland), where the conquered people were over time germanized (while, accidentally, the country’s name of the conquered was adopted by the conquerors as their own name).

The same is true of the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish who – since they were white and Christian and since they had adopted English as their mother tongue – could seamlessly become British. For all practical terms, to the outside world, they were simply English because… they spoke the English language and there was no other way than language of knowing which ethnicity the representatives of the Scottish or Welsh or Irish nations were. Such is not the case with all the Algerians, Nigerians, Somalians, Pakistanis or Indians. Even if they speak English, French, German or Swedish as native speakers they will remain distinct at first glance when it comes to looks, and they will remain distinct when it comes to their faith and customs. The white sections of the British, French, German or Swedish societies will stand out visibly in many respects which will create racial and ethnic tension and will possibly lead to the emergence of a caste society, something we have in India. The caste system in India was precisely the result of the Aryan settlement among the indigenous peoples on the Indian subcontinent. First, the racial – ethnic – religious – cultural gap was too large to be bridged; second, the particular ethnic groups naturally wanted to preserve their identity, their separateness, they naturally wanted to live among their own kind.

That’s what Europe is in for. And what a paradox! Precisely at the time when the European political class desired to design a nationless European society, by their policy of importing millions of aliens the same political class is contributing to creating a Europe that is going to be even more fragmented than ever before in its history. The dream of creating a universal European who is of mixed race, believes in nature and speaks English is doomed to be shattered. India is a prime example, as are very many other regions of the world.

Now it is official: Europe may not be European. Soon.

What has been stated over decades by many an observer in France and the United Kingdom, in Germany and the Netherlands, in Sweden and in Belgium, what has been denied and dismissed by the powers that be, eventually has been authoritatively and officially recognized and identified as the problem of utmost importance. It has been recognized and identified by no less an authority than the United States of America in the latest document on National Security Strategy drafted November and made known in early December this year.

The document that does an about-face in all American policies constitutes also a scathing attack on the policies that have been pursued for a couple of decades in the European Union. The documents states in no uncertain terms that “should present trends continue” [i.e. continued mass immigration] “the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less.” We have it in plain language. Precisely the same as what the so-called conspiracy theorists or far-right activists (as they have always been derogatorily labelled in the mainstream media) have been pointing for decades. We have in plain language what has been branded as racism, as xenophobia, as Islamophobia. Eventually, Washington itself has arrived at the same conclusion: Europe will cease to be European with all attendant problems. Because the replacement of one population with another, one culture with another, one religion (even of nominal) with another, one race with another translates into a substantial change of epic dimensions. Nigerian or Somali citizens of Germany and Sweden, Afghan or Pakistani inhabitants of France and Great Britain are not going to simply be an exotic version of the indigenous populations. Nigerian or Somali immigrants, Afghan or Pakistani settlers are importing to Europe and grafting on the European trunk Nigeria and Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, period, which the National Security Strategy document openly states, saying that after such a change “it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies” [so much so that] “[M]any of these nations are currently doubling down on their present path.”

Washington’s fear of losing reliable political, economic and military partners is couched in diplomatic, soft language, yet the message is as plain as day: in 20 years certain European countries may not have “economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies” due to massive, uncontrolled immigration. It is a bombshell. In the same document, Europe’s transatlantic partner makes its wishes clear: “We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence.” Will these words have been heard by the European political class?

Of course they won’t. Europe’s political class will make an even stronger commitment to all the policies it has pursued for the last decades – be it globalism, ecologism, immigration, regulations relating to climate-change, rainbow sexuality, cutting itself off from cheap Russian gas and oil – because Europe’s political class has turned its political principles into a religion and themselves – into that religion’s most ardent followers. Europe’s political class is following in the footsteps of their grand predecessors: Jacobins and Bolsheviks. They will rather guillotine or court-martial those among themselves who would rather correct Europe’s course than give up on anything that they hold so dear. Such is the collective psyche of any movement – be it religious or political – such are the laws of social behaviour. An ideology is like an avalanche: once it gathers momentum, no one and nothing can stop it. It must run its course until it spends its energy in a vale of tears, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Such was the case with the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks mentioned above: they had to run their political course until they wreaked havoc on their nations and until… there emerged a strong man (Bonaparte, Stalin) who managed to put a stop to the political, cultural, moral and economic insanity.

One may wonder whether the United States will avoid Europe’s fate because American demographics are not very much different from Europe’s. The years of the rule of the democrats meant that the American border was not merely porous or opened: there was no border at all. It is estimated that also in the United States the white population will pretty soon become a minority. If the United States and Europe join hands in this rush towards oblivion, then neither Russia nor China need to do anything about those two bastions of democracy and progress but wait. Twenty or so years is not such a long time.

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.

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.