Joseph de Maistre envisaged the fall of the EU long before its inception

Last time we analysed why the European Union must collapse. We arrived at the conclusion that the European Union must collapse because it was born in the sick head of Henri de Saint-Simon. You will have remembered that the same person came with the idea of socialism and you will have remembered that we pointed to the fact that socialism has collapsed across the globe. Then you will have remembered that the same person – Henri de Saint-Simone – was also the author of the idea of uniting the European countries into one body politic. Now, if you have invented something that has not worked, that has spectacularly failed, then why should the other thing invented by the same author work? That was the basic question that we put at that time in that text. We should at least be on our guard.

This text will point to yet another reason why the European Union must necessarily collapse. In this text, too, what we are going to discuss is not something new by any means, but something that was said more than 200 years ago by yet another political thinker. His name was Joseph de Maistre. Who was Joseph de Maistre?

Well, Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) was a diplomat who served in the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia. Though he was born on the Island of Sardinia, he had mixed – French and Italian – origin. His native tongue was French, not Italian. He was well educated, well read, and he mingled in the circles of the educated people, the upper classes, the aristocracy. At first, he supported the French Revolution, but it was for a very short time. The moment he saw what the revolutionists did, as soon as he learned about all the cruelty, about all the destruction, about all the havoc that the revolution played with France, he changed course. He began to fervently defend conservative ideas. In this respect he wrote in the philosophical spirit of the Irish-English political thinker Edmund Burke.

Joseph de Maistre wrote extensively and drew not only on books, but also on experience. He also acted as a senator in the Kingdom of the Piedmont-Sardinia and for many years (1803-1817) he was Ambassador to St Petersburg, to Tsar Alexander I. It was there, in the northern Russian capital, that he wrote a famous treatise in the form of a dialogue in which he discussed important societal, religious, philosophical, and political themes. One of the things that was most striking about this text was Joseph de Maistre’s defence of the death penalty. Joseph de Maistre defended the capital punishment and argued that without the capital punishment society was doomed. What he wrote, of course, stands to reason. You cannot abolish the capital punishment completely in the sense that you cannot prevent one human being from killing another human being. Once we admit this simple fact of life, then the following picture presents itself before our eyes: if the government, the state, the sovereign – whoever holds the reins of power – renounces the death penalty, and if the death penalty cannot be eliminated because – as we said above – one human being can always kill another human being, then the highest authority belongs to that person or that group or that organization that can administer and will administer the death penalty. If it is not the government, then – by necessity – it will be gangs, the mafia, common criminals, and so on, and so forth.

Now, it is not true as contemporary intellectuals maintain that people do not fear the death penalty. Rather, the truth is that the death penalty is the penalty that is most feared by everyone and anyone everywhere and at any time in history. Thus, if people fear the death penalty automatically they fear those who administer this penalty. If it is not the government who administers the death penalty but gangs, the mafia, organized crime or just anybody, then the common citizen will be obedient to the said gangs or the mafia or just anybody who will not refrain from killing him. The common citizen will not fear the impotent government or the courts or the police.

That is why Joseph de Maistre in his famous book entitled The Saint Petersburg Dialogues, (1821), praised very much the executioner. According to Joseph de Maistre the executioner had a very important, an almost religious function to perform. The executioner may not be liked by the people, and yet he is a necessary constituent of any healthy society. Because people are not rational, nor are they good of nature, as the French Enlightenment philosophers tended to think; rather, people need to be controlled by fear of being punished, and – as we said above – what people fear most is the capital punishment. Without this punishment, Joseph de Maistre wrote, society will be thrown into chaos, while all the societal bonds will be severed.

Consider what is happening in the western world represented by the European Union, where the capital punishment has been abolished long ago. Individuals who engage in criminal activities and are caught by the police are put on trial and sent to prison. What expects them in prison? A severe punishment? Torture? Boring life? Lack of medical care? None of the above. We all have heard or read about hundreds of cases of murderers or serial killers who have been sent to prison where they are taken good care of, where they can lead a good life, playing computer games, watching television, hitting the gym and enjoying all the other human rights. How unjust that is, just think of it! A law abiding has been killed, maimed (had his face permanently distorted by acid!), and the perpetrator is put into something that is legally known as a prison, but resembles a four or five-star hotel! Feel the emotions of the victim of the crime and those of the perpetrator!

Common European citizens are aware of all this. Common citizens fear the gangs and the criminals and do not fear the law enforcing officers. Faced with a dilemma to cooperate with the police or to be obedient to the gangs, they really have no choice. What is even worse, common law-abiding citizens know that the criminals do not fear the police. Worse! Common European citizens are aware that it is the police officers who fear the criminals, the gangs, and the mafia. And why do the police officers fear the criminals? First, because the criminals can kill the police officers without facing the death penalty. Second, because if a policeman shoots a criminal dead, it is the policeman who is put on trial and very often sent to prison while the criminal’s family is awarded lavish compensation.

As you can see, in today’s Western world represented by the European Union everything has been put upside down and turned inside out. The perpetrators are awarded with hotels, while the victims are killed through the application of the capital punishment administered by… the perpetrators. It really is ridiculous: the European countries claim that they have abolished the death penalty, and yet the capital punishment is administered again and again, here and there… To be accurate, we are facing a ban on the death penalty carried out by the legal powers, but there is – because there cannot be – a total abolition of this punishment. If it is not the legal state authority that administers the capital punishment, then it is the criminal underworld. If, consequently, the reins of power are held by the criminal underworld, then society is torn between gangs and the legal powers, while governments only make believe that they rule.

Of course the collapse of European society, its descent into chaos, as Joseph de Maistre envisaged it, will have a temporary character. Governments will become weaker and weaker, while gangs will become stronger and stronger, and eventually gangs will create new societal structures and replace legal governments. Once they take over power they will surely administer the capital punishment.

And you know what? Generations will pass and again the cycle will repeat itself. More and more intellectuals, the do-gooders and other Samaritans will again dig up the idea of abolishing the capital punishment, arguing that it is inhumane, arguing that it is barbaric. When such people come to power, they will again abolish the capital punishment and the story will repeat itself.

Because you must know that the European Union is not the first political entity that has abolished the capital punishment. The death penalty has been abolished now and again in different corners of the world, and even – hard to believe! – even by the Bolsheviks in Soviet Russia. Yes, there was such – even if short-long lived – period in the history of the Soviet Union. Somehow they soon saw that without the capital punishment society tended to be unruly. All forms of government learn it, sooner or later, or… are replaced by those who understand what Joseph de Maistre wrote about.

The Italian historical sample

Where is Italy and where is Russia?

Worlds apart.

If you glance at the map of present-day Europe, you’ll see a number of countries separating Italy from Russia. They include (travelling from Italy to Russia) Austria, Slovakia, and Ukraine or (taking a more northerly route) Austria, Czechia, Poland, and Belarus, or (taking a more southerly route) Slovenia, Hungary, and Ukraine. Quite a journey. What bone to pick can Italy and Russia have? What cause of conflict could there ever have been between Rome and Moscow?

And yet, within less than a century and a half, Italian troops fought against Russian troops, and there were many Italian casualties, many corpses covering Russian soil, and many cripples coming back to Italy.

Italy has sent its troops against Russia three times. First, during the time of Napoleonic wars. Some readers may tend to think that when Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Russia (1812), he led the French troops alone. No. He led almost the whole of Europe against the tsar, and those troops included lots of Italians. The men accustomed to Italy’s warm climate suffered frostbite and death somewhere between Moscow and Smolensk.

Then came the Crimean War of 1853-1856. It was the second time that Italy (to be precise, the Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont) sent its troops against Russia. That was how the Italians most likely wanted to liberate their country from… well, from what?

Then came the war of the Third Reich against the Soviet Union of 1941-1945. It was the third time that Italy sent its troops against Russia to support Germany. Again, Italian troopers experienced frostbite and death, far away on the Volga.

Three consecutive times Italians (or rather their governments) let Italian blood flow copiously far, far away from their home country for God knows what purpose.

Since Napoleon and Hitler lost the war to Russians, neither could Italians gain anything from their participation in them. While the Crimean War was successful for the Anglo-French coalition, Italians as their allies, could gain something from it. Italy’s international stance somewhat increased. Also, Italy’s alliance with France led to a later Franco-Italian war against Austria (1859), the country that stood in the way of Italian unification. Ok, that was a gain, but still the question rankles the mind: why fight against Russia when Austria happens to be your opponent?

Strange are the intricacies of history, are they not?

Italy’s historical experience shows that twice the blood sacrifice was made in vain, once it brought some dividend: the unification of Italy brought about by the victorious war of the Franco-Italian coalition against Austria, the main hindrance to the said unification. France’s help was earned by Italy’s participation in the Crimean War, where France had its vested interests.

What hopes of gain do the European countries cherish while getting involved (again and again across the recent centuries) in the conflict against Russia? What “Austria” do they have in their crosshairs? Whose alliance and consequently whose political and military aid do they want to earn?

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 rapacious elites destroy their own countries

It is sad but it is true: the elites or the ruling classes are hellbent on destroying their nations and their states. They are doing it in a variety of ways but they are doing it without a shadow of a doubt. They feel themselves deracinated from their respective nations and as a result they are spinning ideas of being citizens of the world where there are no nations, no races, no religions, and no cultures. Since the members of these elites are rich and influential, they can afford to live in nice and pleasant palaces or hotels, they can afford to travel the world and always have a lodging in a luxurious hotel, be it Nairobi or Karachi, where they are taken very good care of by the servicemen and servicewomen of all skin colours who necessarily speak English and smile all the time in the presence of the affluent travellers.

If a healthy elite could be compared to the head while the elite’s nation – to the rest of the body, then the depraved elites could be compared to the head that is cut off from the rest of the body. And that’s the problem. The head connected to its body feels the body’s pains and ailments acutely and acts on them appropriately. The head that is disconnected from its body feels absolutely nothing. The body may be suffering and ailing, and still the head does not respond to it. It’s even worse: a disconnected elite will tend to experiment with the body submitting it to any and all tests irrespective of whether those tests or experiments are painful, damaging or simply unpleasant.

The Western elites – the Western heads – came upon the ideas of applying to their bodies (nations) ethnic replacement, green economy, and rainbow sexuality. They are really intent on imposing those ‘values’ and they seem to be looking from afar how the experiment is developing. The lower classes are complaining? Let them. They can do nothing about what is being done to them. They are viewed as laboratory mice or laboratory rats. Does an experimenter care what the mice or the rats are feeling while being examined or tested? The British, French, German, Swedish and other guinea-pigs do not like the reality created by their elites, but then they are no more than guinea-pigs. No amount of resistance seems to matter to the experimenters.

That Eastern elites – while following everything that is propagated by their Western counterparts and their Western gurus – provide a kind of added value to this mix: they exploit their nations – their mice and rats – and export most of the money to the banks run by their Western colleagues or they invest that money in property and other goods in the countries run by their Western colleagues. They purchase palaces and yachts, they purchase expensive automobiles or invest in the shares issued by Western entrepreneurs or the bonds of the Western governments. We all remember Russian oligarchs who have invested in… the British football clubs. Why couldn’t they invest in the Russian football teams?

Why? They had amassed fortunes in their countries, exploiting (stealing from) their own nations – their co-citizens – so why couldn’t they give some of that money back to that same country, their own co-citizens?

Both kinds of of rapacious and disconnected elites are in for a rude awakening. The head cannot live disconnected from the body for a long time. It will, therefore, sooner or later, be replaced.

War is a blessing while people are like grass

The war in Ukraine is dragging on. The end is nowhere in sight. It is dragging on and soon it will be entering its fourth year. Reason suggests that Russia with its demographic and industrial potential could put the hostilities to a rapid end. Nothing of the sort is happening. Reason suggests that Ukraine should lay down its arms since there is no way it can regain lost territories, not to speak of winning over its much stronger neighbour. Nothing of the sort is happening. Reason also suggests that the West should work towards ending the hostilities because if Ukraine’s defeat eventually comes, the EU will be politically worse off. Nothing of the sort is happening. Why?

Russia. Russia has been benefiting from the war effort just like the United States benefited from the First World War and the Second World War: at that time American economy was boosted, and so is Russia’s economy today. Russia is benefiting from the war also in terms of its society rallying around the head of the state. Precisely as it was the case with the United States in both world wars, so it is now in the case of Russia: it is not directly affected by the hostilities it. Yes, Russian soldiers are dying or are wounded, but Russian soil and Russian civilians remain for all practical purposes unscathed.

The European Union. The European Union is in decline. A decline caused by its deviant green ideology, by the indiscriminate acceptance of the influx of foreigners, and lastly by its economic problems brought about by the renunciation of cheap Russian gas. The welfare state is becoming overburdened, the governments and heads of state are increasingly unpopular while national and right-wing parties are on the political rise. Not infrequently people take to the streets and show their disdain for their leaders. The European dream is shattered. What then are the EU managers trying to do the save the day? Yes, they are trying to find a scapegoat for all the negative phenomena. This scapegoat is Russia. A very convenient scapegoat. All economic problems can now be blamed on the aggressor from the east, all shortages and shortcomings – on the ‘Mongols’ looming large on the eastern horizon. Europeans ought only to understand what is at stake, and rally round the EU commissioners in a joint attempt to defend the Garden against the Jungle.

The United States. The United States has used the war in Ukraine not only to weaken Russia, but also to subjugate Europe. Yes, Washington knows that Russia will eventually win, but in the process it will lose some of the people, and it will be kept busy, letting Washington more leeway elsewhere in the world. Europe has been conveniently rendered economically impotent, which is another gain for Americans. A competitor has been removed. The competitor’s reliance on Russian energy sources has been significantly lowered. Washington is cherishing high hopes that some of Europe’s industries and businesses will relocate to the United States, which will further deindustrialize the Old Continent and re-industrialize America.

What is the attitude of the three mentioned players to Ukrainians?

Russia. Russia recognizes in Ukrainians brothers by ethnicity. That is one of the reasons why Russian troops steer clear of destroying civilian objects and objects of cultural heritage. Concurrently, Russian troops are fighting hard culling the Banderite-type troops. This alone will render Ukraine less hostile to Russia. Also, the Russian army is destroying Ukraine’s military, thus making it no match to the Russian Federation in the nearest future. The destruction of the civilian infrastructure will make it barely possible for Ukraine to be accepted as a member of the European Union.

The European Union. The European Union couldn’t care less about Ukrainian life though, sure enough, the EU managers say they do. Ukrainian lives are pawns on the geopolitical chessboard and are willingly sacrificed on the altar of combating Russia. And what a paradox! The EU commissioners are gladly embracing ‘refugees’ from Africa and Asia who allegedly escape from war while they would gladly see all Ukrainian able-bodied men drafted into the Ukrainian army and sent to the front! The European Union accepts males from the Third World: why would it rather not accept all Ukrainian men who want to be drafted? True, Europeans are not as yet rounding Ukrainian men up in their cities and sending them back home, but such ideas have emerged now and again, here and there.

The United States. The United States views Ukraine precisely as Europe does: after all it was Zbigniew Brzezinski, the American politician and political thinker, who famously framed the globe as a chessboard. That’s precisely how the big players think about nations and countries: nations are chessmen while their territories are black and white squares of the chessboard. Accordingly, you sacrifice a chessman or you let go of a square as the case may be. The United States is one player, Russia or China is the other. Anything between them is – as we have already said – chessmen and chessboard squares. That’s all there is to it.

That’s also precisely how the managers of the world view the common people and their countries. The European elites may be whipping up war hysteria, but they themselves will not handle rifles or lie in trenches. Far be it from them! Whatever they want to impose on the common man and woman, they themselves prefer not to be affected by. Immigrants by the million for the common European to live with on a daily basis, but the commissioners live in places where they do not need to bother about strangers. Is it any different with war? No. Consider Ukraine’s President Zelensky. How has he experienced the three years of hostilities? He’s been travelling the world over, has been warmly received everywhere, and has given hundreds of interviews and made hundreds speeches, issuing hundreds of statements. How about the members of the Ukrainian government, of Ukraine’s parliament, how about higher officers? Pretty much the same story.

It has always been so throughout human history. Napoleon Bonaparte had half a million soldiers killed, frozen, or maimed in Russian steppes, but he himself made sure to be able to escape from the enemy and the frost in a comfortable coach, wrapped in warm furs. Adolf Hitler and his entourage? After the Red Army had crossed the Oder and was approaching Berlin, he and his ministers and generals must have realized that the end was inevitable and that the end was just round the corner. Some of them must have already taken the decision to commit suicide, and yet in order to prolong their lives by mere three-four months they did not stop the war. Rather, they sent new waves of troops – teenagers and the elderly – and added hundreds of thousands if not millions deaths to the huge overall toll.

For the managers of the world affairs, war is a game, a game that thrills them because it is a game played in reality. It is not a computer game. Augustus II the Strong (1670-1733), Elector of Saxony and King of Poland conspired with Tsar Peter I of Russia to attack Sweden in the latter’s possession on the Baltic. The war, which began in 1700 and lasted till 1721, soon after its outbreak turned to be a catastrophe for Saxony and partly for Russia. Augustus was forced to draft new and new men to either defend his country or help his Russian ally. When someone pointed to him that so many men had died and so many more were about to die, he shrugged his shoulders and merely replied: people are like grass. The more you trample it, the more abundantly it will regrow.

You’ll have to kill me to make Slovakia go to war against Russia!

Slovakia is one of the smallest member-states of the European Union. It used to be part of Czechoslovakia. In 1993, Slovakia separated from Czechia and became an independent republic, which was a political dream that had been pursued for the whole of the 20th century by the majority of Slovak political activists and intellectuals. The separation of Slovakia and Czechia went peacefully and smoothly, quite unlike the dissolution of the former republics of the former Yugoslavia. (By the way, Slovakia – the former constituent part of Czechoslovakia – is not to be confused with Slovenia, also an EU member-state – the former constituent part of Yugoslavia. Both countries are Slavic nations, whose names derive from the Slavic word meaning word, hence the similarity in their denominations.)

Slovakia is one of the smallest countries of the European Union, but despite its small size both in terms of area (slightly smaller than Croatia but slightly larger than Denmark or the Netherlands) and population (roughly as populous as Norway or Ireland), it stands out as an entity that is courageously pursuing its own interests rather than being submissive to the dicates from Brussels. In this respect Slovakia resembles Hungary. Quite recently, Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico (pronounced: FEE-tsaw, not FEE-kaw) dared to visit Moscow and Beijing, which was a gauntlet thrown down for Brussels to take up. Slovakia’s prime minister’s policy making which is free from external influence and pressure – quite like the policy making on the part of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán – is proof that even a relatively insignificant country can follow its own path rather than that imposed on it by external forces. In other words, it takes a leader, a statesman, a brave individual, a man of strong convictions and principles to run a country in accordance with the country’s best interests. What are those interests?

One of them is not to be involved in military hostilities. That’s precisely one of the prerogatives of Robert Fico’s political platform. Slovakia’s prime minister laid down his principles of good governance while giving a speech occasioned by the anniversary of the Slovak National Uprising, August 29–October 29, 1944, that broke out against the Germans who had been controlling and occupying the country for a few years. Robert Fico spoke to a large audience where a couple of elderly combatants – participants of the uprising – were present. He spoke against the backdrop of an impressive monument commemorating the historic events. In his speech, the prime minister intertwined the past with the presence. He vividly depicted the atrocities of war and contrasted them with the present-day reckless talks among the present-day European politicians who are discussing the possibility of war (with Russia) as if it were a computer game that you can start and end at will, sitting in a comfortable place. In an attempt to get across the horrors of war and the unspoken suffering, Robert Fico mentioned the assassination on his own person. Not to appear as a hero or a victim of the event. No. Slovakia’s prime minister said something along the following lines: I was hit by the bullets and was speedily helicoptered to a hospital where I was taken good care of and could survive. Imagine now, Robert Fico continued, that you get hit here, in this field, in this low temperature. There is no chopper going to pick you up. You are lucky enough if a stretcher-bearer or a medical orderly is close by and tends to your wound superficially. That’s it. Your chances of survival are small. That’s what war is all about. Robert Fico mentioned American President Roosevelt, who famously remarked that some of the more bellicose senators or representatives should have a shell exploding in their backyard to make them realize what war really is all about.

Slovakia’s prime minister mentioned the morally reprehensible demolition of the monuments to the Red Army soldiers who liberated Slovakia at the end of the Second World War. There ought to be no dehumanization of other nations, other peoples, he said. His attempts at bringing about reconciliation or at least mutual understanding between Russia and Europe were met with hostility in the West. Sweden’s prime minister revealed to Robert Fico that Slovak Social Democrats might be excluded from the cooperation of European social democratic parties because of Fico’s visit to Moscow and Beijing. When Slovakia became a member-state of the European Union in 2004, said the Slovak prime minister, the Union seemed to be a peaceful organization. Sadly, it is no longer so. War is the order of the day in Brussels. But if anybody wants to draw Slovakia into war, he will have to replace Slovakia’s prime minister because – Robert Fico said – so long as he remains Slovakia’s prime minister, Slovakia will not let itself be drawn into a military conflict.

Did Robert Fico invite yet another assassination attempt on his life?

Ribbentrop-Molotov (1939) occurred in the wake of Chamberlain-Hitler (1938)

Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a speech during one of the sessions of the Valdai International Discussion Club (September 29 – October 2). That’s already a traditon: Vladimir Putin is habitually invited to to sessions of the Club, and this year was no exception. The speech was was followed by about two hours of questions from the journalists and the president’s answers. In both parts of his presence at Valdai, the Russian President laid down Russia’s point of view, Russia’s expectations, and Russia’s intentions.

[1] The world should be rid of military blocs. They have no purpose. Or – if there needs to be a military bloc – let it be one big military bloc – like NATO – but inclusive of all countries. Russia twice attempted to become a member of the Atlantic alliance: in 1954 (the being a part of the Soviet Union), and then in 2000. In either case Russia’s proposals have been turned down. Why? President Putin recounted his 2000 meeting with President Clinton and his suggestion concerning Russia’s NATO membership. The American president was willing to accept the proposal in the morning, only to turn it down later in the day, saying that the time was not right yet. Why? When would the time be right? asked Russia’s president.

[2] In anti-Russian narrative the West is glaringly biased in its actions and unfair in its propaganda. Take the historical policy, said the president. Much fuss is about the so-called Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of 1939. As a result of this pact signed by foreign ministers of respectively the Third Reich and the Soviet Union Poland was dismembered in the following weeks. Yet, the West glosses over the preceding Munich Agreement of 1938 between the British and French prime ministers Chamberlain and Daladier on the one hand and the rulers of Italy and Germany – Mussolini and Hitler – on the other within the framework of which Czechoslovakia was dismembered within the following weeks. Why do Western propagandists lay emphasis on the former and ignore the latter?

[3] Similarly, if Russia is a paper tiger, as President Donald Trump famously said, and this paper tiger – that is Russia – is successfully fighting in Ukraine against NATO, then what NATO is? asked Vladimir Putin to the amusement of the audience.

[4] Though the war in Ukraine is waged and the collective West appears to be bellicose towards Russia, nonetheless the United States keeps importing Russian uranium for American nuclear power plants, and Russia appears to be America’s second largest provider of this resource. This Russo-American deal should continue, said the Russian president, because it serves the interests of both partners, but why then can’t Western Europe purchase Russian gas? Why does the United States demand that China and India stop purchasing Russian gas and oil? Obviously, the old rule of quod licet Iovi, not licet bovi applies here.

[5] The West is deteriorating, losing its identity, having problems with immigrants and others. So, rather than being focused on Russia, the West ought to deal with its internal problems. The loss of cultural identity has brought about a new phenomenon: an ever larger stream of people from the West is arriving in Russia to settle. One of the most striking examples is the case of Michael Gloss, son of a deputy director of the CIA, who arrived in Russia and voluntarily joined the Russian armed forces to fight against Ukraine. He was accepted, trained and sent to the front where he was killed. He was killed by a Ukrainian drone, while being wounded and trying to help his Russian mate. The Russian authorities granted him an order for bravery and requested Steve Witkoff – President Trump’s special enboy to Moscow – to hand it over to his family. Michael Gloss fought for Russia as he viewed Russia as a guard of traditional values that are shrinking in the West. They are shrinking so rapidly and have shrunk so much that even those Russian intellectuals – said Vladimir Putin – who have always dreamt about the West as paradise, as a model for Russia, as the Garden of Eden, began to say that the Europe that they have loved so much is no more.

[6] The Russian President revealed Ukrainian losses: in September 2025 alone Ukraine had 44.700 casualties of which 50% were irretrievable. During the same time Kiev could send to the front 18.000 of those drafted and 14.000 from hospitals as replacements, which means that the Ukrainian Army was short of 11.000 troops. The Russian President also said that between January and August of the current year as many as 150.000 Ukrainian soldiers deserted the ranks. Some surrendered willingly to the Russian troops, although that was a hard task on their part because they were often killed by drones operated by mercenaries who do not care about Ukrainian lives.

[7] Vladimir Putin said that Russia along with China and India and others do not want to dethrone the dollar: the fact that Russia, China and India and other countries are beginning to use other currencies in their trade is a simple result of the West’s financial policy that leaves Russia, and China, and others no other way as to bypass the dollar.

[8] President Vladimir Putin praised President Donald Trump and said, indeed, that he believed that the war would not have broken out had Donald Trump been the American president; and, yes – said the president – Donald Trump is a man who has the ability to listen to his interlocutor, to hear him out, and grasp his point of view.

[9] Unfortunately, just as once it was the Soviet Union that would impose its ideology on other countries, now this attitude has been adopted by the United States in Washington’s attempt to homogenize the world and create it in America’s image.

[10] At a point during the questions-and-answers part, Vladimir Putin confessed to being an ardent reader of poetry, especially Alexander Pushkin. From a volume of his poetry the Russian president read out loud a larger fragment of the poem that Pushkin entitled The Anniversary of (the Battle of) Borodino (Бородинская годовщина). The text refers to the age-long dream of the West to subjugate Russia. The poem was composed in 1831 and occasioned by the 1830-31 Polish anti-Russian uprising, which had the political and moral backing of the West. The message that the Russian president wanted to put across was that the strife between the West and Russia is of very long standing.