Discrepant Exegeses

It was not executed in broad daylight – rather, in the dead of night – but still it was disrespectful as disrespectful can be. A head of state of a sovereign nation was abducted as if he were a criminal. Handcuffs were put on his hands, he was blindfolded and transported – together with his wife – from his own country to the United States. What a show! For all to see. For all leaders to take notice. For all top politicians to be on their guard. That happened on January 3. We all know it, the whole world knows it – the whole world observed it with bated breath.

A head of a relatively large country was captured like he was a street ruffian. Apart from his personal security detail that attempted to put up a fight there was no resistance in the true sense of the word. American aircraft hovered over Caracas the way they might hover over their own turf. There were casualties to be sure but no appreciable resistance of the country as such. Pundits draw conclusions that Nicolás Maduro’s closest associates – generals, ministers – had betrayed him, had let themselves be bribed, and abandoned him in the critical moment. Word has it that only Cuban bodyguards stood up for Nicolás Maduro, as a result of which some of them were killed.

The warrant for the action? The drug trafficking into the United States that allegedly had been sponsored by Caracas and the president himself. Sure enough that is the declared objective, not the genuine one. We’ll talk about the genuine objective later in the text. Here let us make an assumption that it was drug trafficking that triggered the US action, and that Nicolás Maduro really sponsored it. If that were the case then a couple of questions arise.

For at least four years during the Biden administration the American southern border was not merely porous: it was wide open for all to come. Arrivals from South America were flocking across the border and they were not even vetted! Sure enough, drug traffickers may have been among them. Why should Venezuela be punished for that? The drugs are distributed in American cities – does anybody forces the purchase of them at gun point? Last but not least, why are the American police not effective enough? Why must the American army step in? If particular countries were to be blamed for particular sorts of crime that is perpetrated on American soil, then the US army should be intervening around the globe twenty-four seven. But then, if you do not want to have drug traffickers, why have borders open wide for all to cross them?

The event of January 3rd compels one to draw a comparison between the intervention of the US Army in Venezuela and the intervention of the armed forces of the Russian Federation in Ukraine. How alike they are and at the same time how different! Americans claim that Venezuela posed a security threat to the United States; Russia claims that Ukraine posed a security threat to the Russian Federation. Washington says it is protecting its citizens from drug trafficking cartels; Russia maintains it is protecting its citizens from Banderite fascist ideology and the military bases complete with ballistic missiles to be installed in Ukraine once Kiev joins NATO. Washington feels threatened by a country that is three-four thousand kilometers away from America’s coastline; Russia feels threatened by a neighbouring country, a country that is adjacent to Russia, a country that is not separated from the Russian Federation by a body of sea as the United States is separated from Venezuela.

Knowing all this full well, America’s allies go out of their way to either support politically the United States or keep their mouths shut; contrarily, they are beside themselves with outrage when it comes to the Russian intervention in Ukraine. Caracas had diplomatic and economic ties with China and Russia – America’s rivals, but Kiev had ties with the United States and was planning to join NATO, a military alliance which is openly hostile to Russia. These are mirror events and yet they are adjudicated entirely differently. Why?

The United States has executed an action of decapitation which is just yet another one in the long string of such actions. Think about Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Serbia’s Slobodan Milošević, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, and many others. Leaders of sovereign states are put on trial (Slobodan Milošević, Nicolás Maduro) or killed (Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milošević) or chased away (Bashar al-Assad). Do you still remember the repulsive repugnant disgusting sickening abhorrent enunciation of one Hillary Clinton as she said – commenting on Gaddafi’s death and paraphrasing Julius Caesar – We came, we saw, he died! – and laughed heartily at that? Imagine Vladimir Putin saying something along these lines, commenting on the death of, say, Volodymyr Zelenskyy… What a howl would be raised in the the ‘free’ world! A statement like that would be interpreted as ultimate evidence of Putin’s wickedness.

Might is right, that’s all there is to it. So, America intervened in Venezuela because it saw it fit. All the justification that is being rolled out is either easily refutable or laughable. Isn’t it ridiculous to hear that the world’s dominant superpower needs to abduct the head of a small country located thousands of miles away across the sea because the superpower feels insecure? Isn’t it laughable to hear that the Russian Federation has no legitimate grounds for intervening in a neighbouring country that is about to join a military alliance which is openly hostile to Russia? And yet, millions of people do not seem to see it.

Now the genuine reasons for the American intervention in Venezuela. Venezuela holds the largest oil reserves than any other country, including Saudi Arabia. Venezuela also has other valuable resources. Control over them will provide the United States with enormous economic and – what follows – political leverage. We should not lose the sight of the fact that Saudi Arabia has not prolonged the agreement it once signed with Washington to only sell its oil for American dollars. That in itself is dangerous for the United States. It was the petrodollars that safeguarded American might and American development. All countries and any country wishing to buy oil – and they all need oil for a variety of purposes – needed to first have dollars. Dollars are issued by the United States, so ultimately all the world’s nations needed to directly or indirectly either sell to the United States their goods and services or borrow from the United States. Americans were growing rich by simply… printing dollars or transferring electronic impulses from their bank account to the bank account of a country which was in need of dollars.

The capture of the head of state and the installment of someone who might be willing to comply with American wishes is also a strike dealt against China. China has been spreading its tentacles to Africa and… South America. Beijing has been replacing European colonial powers on the Dark Continent and attempting to dislodge American influence from the Western hemisphere. Americans suddenly remembered the 1823 Monroe’s doctrine, which stated that both American continents are the sphere of influence of the United States alone. No one should dare to set foot anywhere south of the American border. The Chinese have financed the construction of the Port of Chancay in Peru as a part of the Belt and Road Initiative. Its task is to enable the exports to China from South American countries and imports from China to South America. The Middle Kingdom is setting foot where it should not dare, according to the Monroe doctrine.

With this intervention Americans have set yet another example – a warning sign – a mafioso-like manifestation what awaits those leaders who will not comply…

Be it as it may, what strikes the eye is pure hubris, the kind of hubris that has always been present throughout history and always will be. In 1939, the Third Reich and the Soviet Union signed a pact to divide Poland. That pact has been branded by the European Union as a conspiracy against peace; the leaders of the contracting states – Hitler and Stalin – were labeled warmongers who paved the way for the outbreak of the Second World War. Now almost a whole year earlier another pact had been signed, a pact between Germany, Italy, France and the United Kingdom, a pact that paved the way for the partitioning of Czechoslovakia. This pact – signed by Hitler, Mussolini, Daladier and Chamberlain – in Munich has not been branded by the European Union as outrageous, although it, too, led straight to the outbreak of the Second World War. You see? Very similar events, very different interpretations. Much the same is true of the current interventions in Venezuela and Ukraine: American intervention is regarded as the right one, Russian intervention as abominable. History is full of events mirroring each other and receiving discrepant exegeses.

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

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

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

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

Shots in the foot

The world has for ever been looking up to the West, to Western science, culture and what not. It has always been a dream of Third World people to travel to France or the United Kingdom, to Germany or the United States, just to be there for a moment or – still better – to work there or to study there. When towards the 19th century Japan began to modernizing, Japan’s authorities sent delegates to Germany to study German law and German administration. Why? Because Japanese reforms were to be grounded in German experience, in German solutions. When the Chinese adopted the communist ideology, they adopted it from the West, where it was born, although mainly via the Soviet Union. Vietnam uses the Latin script which was imposed on the nation by the French colonizers and remained in use because it was estimated to be good. India still recognizes the English language as one of the official languages of the country.

Much the same can be said about Africa. African governments, constitutions and social or administrative solutions are modelled on European solutions, while the country of Liberia (settled by liberated American blacks) is an African copy of the United States. Throughout Africa – European languages are spoken hand in hand with the local tongues.

All of this, the whole spiritual and moral capital that the West had throughout the world has been squandered and gambled away. The Western know-it-alls – graduates of the Ivy League, graduates of the Sorbonne, Oxford and Cambridge – in their unbounded self-pride and their bottomless feeling of superiority that whispered into their ears that the West would always be a dominant player began to dig their own grave or shoot themselves in the foot. In a word: the Western smart alecs have brought about the collapse of their own civilization. How did they do it? We’ll list some of the actions but not in any particular order.

First, in their passionate hatred they put a lot of effort into destroying the Soviet Union. They hated the Soviet communist ideology (which, as said above, originated in the West), and they were scared of the Soviet might. Not wishing, however, to take losses themselves, the West was looking around for a country that could be used as a battering ram against Moscow. They found it: China. Though the Middle Kingdom was as communist as the Soviet Union (if not even more communist), Beijing let itself be used by Americans to align itself against Moscow. This step was facilitated by the stupidity of the Russian leadership whose members rather than ingratiating themselves to China preferred to show the Chinese communists their inferior place in the global communist hierarchy. The Chinese comrades caught hold of the opportunity that presented itself to them and began to surf the American wave of support.

As if that was not enough, Washington, or rather the rich elites who are always in pursuit of enriching themselves, came up with an idea of dividing the world into three economic zones, with the West being the ruling head, Africa and Russia being assigned the role of suppliers of natural resources, and Asia being turned into a world’s factory. The men and women from the Ivy League and from the Sorbonne, Oxford and Cambridge dreamt about controlling and shaping the minds of the whole of humanity. Africa’s human resources were estimated as too unskilled and too uneducated to be tasked with manufacturing, but the African continent was known for its natural resources. The Asians on the one hand were known for their diligence and work stamina, so they were naturally selected as providers of labour. A nice global division, was it not? Something like the social division that we observe in ant or bee communities.

Acting on this idea the Western elites began to shift production from the West to Asia, especially to China. The word outsourcing was coined and made hugely popular. Why pay Americans or Western Europeans for their labour if the Chinese, the Vietnamese and others can do the same for a much smaller remuneration? The greed that took the better of the Western elites blinded them to a few simple facts. One is that outsourcing meant providing China with technology and teaching China’s labour valuable skills. Concurrently, outsourcing meant depriving the West of its manufacturing potential along with depriving the West’s people of income. The American products made in China could not easily be sold in the United States because Americans would not have much money. Outsourcing enriched the American or generally Western elites in the short term, and strengthened China economically in the long term. As soon as the economic development in China had translated into China’s rising military might, while the growing welfare had secured the firm position of the Communist Party of China among the billion of the Chinese people, an outcry could be heard on the Potomac! China is America’s arch enemy! Why?

It was the United States that created a powerful China, was it not? True, China is developing rapidly, but is it threatening the United States? It looks like Washington is threatened not by a country’s military strength but rather by a country’s economic growth. Well, if that is so, the proponents of the free market i.e. the whole West ought to put more and more effort into outperforming China on the economic level. Why is China perceived as a military threat? Does the Middle Kingdom have a record of conquest? China is bordered by tiny Vietnam and Korea: do these nations feel threatened by the Chinese dragon? Why should America feel threatened? If Washington assumes that China’s economic might will translate into China’s military might – a substantiated assumption – then why did the American elites contribute so much to turning the Middle Kingdom into an economic power? Was it that greed – profit, to use a more elegant word – switched off their reasoning? Was it a shot in their foot?

Second, Washington’s acts of alienating concurrently China and Russia (and Iran, and – recently – India) have necessarily pushed those countries into each other’s embrace. Moscow and Beijing as well as Beijing and Moscow on the one hand and Tehran and Delhi on the other are coming politically and economically closer not so much because they are in love with each other, but because they have been left with no other choice. Again, was such a development of events hard to predict? The United States had its hand in the 1989 Tienanmen Square riots and in the 1999-2009 Second Chechen War, in either case trying to weaken respectively China and Russia from within. Does that alone not make Beijing and Moscow want to cooperate and support each other? At first there was the idea on the part of Washington to use China against the Soviet Union; then there was the idea to use Russia against China. It seems that the United States have overplayed its hand in either case. If Washington wanted to pit Moscow against Beijing, it shouldn’t have schemed in Ukraine to tear this country away from Russia’s zone of interest. Another shot in the foot?

Third, the de-industrialization. We have mentioned outsourcing. We need to add to it the intentional process that has been going on in Western Europe within the framework of which Europeans have deprived themselves of much of their industry. Factories and power plants, internal-combustion engines and growth in general have come to be perceived as detrimental to the environment, hence to the planet. All these activities have been limited or stopped. With the war in Ukraine Europe has also cut itself off from cheap Russian gas. Now amid the war hysteria and the plans to militarize the Old Continent a simple question arises: does Europe have the industry and cheap resources with which to re-militarize itself? Was the green economy not yet another shot in the West’s foot?

Europe wants war, and Europe wants war badly. Yet, Europeans have unlearnt patriotism. Europeans have unlearnt patriotism because their authorities have wanted them to unlearn it. Germans and the French, the Italians and the Spaniards were supposed to drop their national identities and replace them with European if not cosmopolitan identities. Why should they now feel an willingness to fight? It is even worse: Europe has been intentionally flooded with total foreigners from Africa and Asia. Are these foreigners going to fight against Russia? Is that the reason why they left their own countries? Have they come to Europe to fight for it? Who can ever believe that?

The armed forces cannot be assigned all the money Europeans might want to spend on the military: there are millions and millions of immigrants, and rising, and the incomers need constant social support, social welfare. Go try withdrawing some of that support from them and you will have Paris and London, Brussels and Hamburg go up in flames!

Fourth, the dollar. It was an ingenious trick played by the United States of America at the end of the Second World War that Washington managed to impose the dollar on the rest of the world as a reserve currency or currency of international trade. The dollar began to be sought after, the dollar began to be accumulated by the treasuries of almost all countries around the globe. This alone meant that the United States could burden the other nations with its own debt and with its own inflation. Ingenious as this sleight of hand may have been, it carried its undesirable effects. If America provides the currency for the whole world, then America must print this currency for the whole world. Since the whole world stands in need of the dollar, the only ultimate way to acquire it is to sell goods and services to the United States. If the United States can have all the goods and services from around the world by simply issuing the dollar, America is naturally tempted not to manufacture much itself. The United States becomes a country whose main product on offer is its currency, is its dollar. To put it bluntly, America’s main export product are paper banknotes or electronic impulses in computers or servers! America ceases to really develop, America becomes like a rich individual who having millions at his disposal has absolutely no incentive to work, to create, to develop. Doesn’t it remind one of the once powerful Spanish Empire? The Spanish Empire fell under the weight of gold that had been brought from South America. Blessing at first, gold turned to be the final nail to the Spanish coffin. The case with the dollar is similar: blessing at first, but a final curse.

So much so that the West’s reckless steps precipitate the working of the curse: the freezing of the Russian financial deposits has become a wake-up call to the rest of the world. Assets in the dollar or, indeed, any Western currency can be lost at the drop of a hat. Hence the idea, then the urge that was born in the wide world toward de-dollarization. It is not that China or Russia, Iran or Saudi Arabia would necessarily like to get rid of the dollar. No. Rather, they see no other way out. Who in his right senses will continue to keep his money on an account in a bank that can freeze the money whenever it pleases? Thus, the dollar policy has proved to be yet another shot in the foot. If the West loses the war in Ukraine, which is highly likely, the West might as well start digging its own grave.

America has no chance in the Arctic

The conflict between Israel and Hamas is good for Russia. When the Israeli army began its operation in the Gaza Strip and the Houthis began attacking container ships in the Persian Gulf in retaliation, shipments through the Russian Northeast Passage increased rapidly. No wonder: the route is 30% shorter than the one through the Suez Canal, free of terrorists and Somali pirates (who have something to say in the case of the other alternative route – around Africa).

The ice is melting and Russia, having the largest fleet of icebreakers, is modernizing the ports in Murmansk and Sabetta and is expanding old military bases built during times of the Soviet Union in the north. Experts believe that the Arctic Ocean will probably be ice-free by the 2040 summer season due to climate change. Moscow estimates that 44% of the Arctic shelf is under its control, and the oil and gas reserves there are estimated to be worth around 20 trillion dollars. The Arctic has huge energy reserves of global importance. According to the US Geological Survey, around 30% of the world’s natural gas reserves and 13% oil fields (90 billion barrels) lie beyond the Arctic Circle. However, there are technical and financial problems with their production. The extraction of deposits in difficult polar conditions requires modern technologies and enormous investments, which Russia is still often unable to afford.

And this is where the Chinese friends come to the rescue, for whom the Northeast Passage (NSR) is a plan B for the New Silk Road: the Chinese are financing LNG projects, developing cooperation in the construction of satellites to monitor ice density, participating in the modernization of ports and the construction of transhipment terminals. Examples include the participation of CNPC, the largest Chinese oil and gas trading company, and the Chinese Silk Road Fund in the Yamal LNG project, as well as the announced investment in Arctic LNG 2. In the fall of 2024, the Chinese Coast Guard announced its first patrol in the waters of the Arctic Ocean, and the operation was carried out in cooperation with the Russian Coast Guard. Chinese shipping companies and logistics firms are increasingly operating transits via the NSR; specific liner projects (container shipping) and joint ventures with Russian players (e.g. Rosatom cooperation) emerged in 2023-2024.

Meanwhile, America is letting go of its opportunities in the north, is barely expanding its fleet of icebreakers, no new bases are being built and Donald Trump is on a collision course with Canada, the most important partner when it comes to the alternative northern passage through Canadian waters. Period.

Afghanistan

When Joe Biden initiated the chaotic withdrawal of the US army, he may not have been in his right mind. Kabul witnessed Dantesque scenes at its airport while 70,000 Afghan US army personnel who could not be evacuated, and 7 billion dollars worth of military equipment was handed over to the Taliban. That alone merits the name of treason, or at least – disgrace. Still, Joe remained politically unscathed and continued to hold office.

Now Trump says the airfield in Bagram should be recaptured. Why? Because the Taliban should be combated again? Not at all. It’s about big geopolitical plans.

The simple answer is that the airfield is only an hour’s drive from the Chinese factories that manufacture nuclear weapons.

In a broader context, it is also about raw materials. The withdrawal of the USA has opened up space for China, which although not officially recognizing the Taliban government, is conducting intensive economic negotiations with it. Afghanistan has huge reserves of copper, lithium, cobalt, gold, uranium and rare earths – estimated to be worth up to 3 trillion dollars. It is precisely these raw materials that are crucial for the production of batteries, electronics and the development of green energy technology, which is exactly what China needs. One of the Middle Kingdom’s biggest projects in Afghanistan is Mes Aynak – a huge copper mine. But that’s not all. Afghanistan could be a land corridor connecting China with Iran, the Middle East and Europe. That’s why China is investing in roads, railroads and the energy sector there as part of the New Silk Road.

The Taliban are not stupid either and invest in their own country. The most blatant example of this is a huge Taliban project – the Kosh Tepa Canal. Its aim is to transform desert land into fertile agricultural land by diverting water from the Amu Darya River. It is an investment of enormous economic, but also political importance – it shows that the Taliban want to build a state despite the lack of international recognition.

A possible US intervention in Afghanistan would be met with a reaction from China and escalate tensions between Washington and Beijing, which could end in new tariffs and trade wars. China is already limiting the export of rare earths from its own country, for example, which is perhaps why Trump is looking to other countries.

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.

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.