A third of all goods are manufactured in China

So who would dare to go to war with China? It would be a shot in the West’s own knee. War with China would mean the introduction of numerous sanctions/lockdowns and, as a result:
① enormous inflation in the West (caused by shortages of goods);
② enormous unemployment in China (caused by the closure of many factories due to a lack of orders from the West);
③ an enormous strengthening of Russia and Iran through direct, massive arms supplies from China;
④ Emergence of new frontlines (possibly: Strait of Hormuz, the Baltic States, Taiwan, North Korea, islands in the South China Sea);
⑤ Conversion of the world economies to war production;
⑥ Social unrest;
⑦ Rise of the South American countries that would serve as “reservoirs”.

Who would dare? Perhaps Trump, as it is reported that he is keen on war against Iran. Beijing, however, proudly sides with the Persians and condemns Israel’s latest attacks. And rightly so, as they violate international rules. This could easily lead to a clash between the world powers.

Perhaps Trump wants war to cause hyperinflation, to weaken the dollar, to cure American companies of the sin of outsourcing and to bring all production back to America? Yes, and Europe would also become totally weak this way… Two birds with one stone. And he probably wouldn’t care that thousands of young Americans would die in the process, just as Zelenskyy and Putin don’t care that their youth are dying senselessly.

Rules for thee but not for me

On June 13 2025, Israel carried out air strikes against targets inside Iran. Tel Aviv has thus arbitrarily administered punishment to Tehran for allegedly developing Iran’s capabilities of constructing a nuclear bomb. A few remarks.

① There are politicians and journalists, political analysts and other pundits who condemn the Russian intervention in Ukraine, which began in 2022, and in the same breath they justify the military action performed by Israel. Both Moscow and Tel Aviv claim they were compelled to carry out strikes against Ukraine and Iran respectively because the said countries posed an existential threat to Russia and Israel respectively. Ukraine wanted to join anti-Russian NATO and possibly acquire nukes, while Iran sought to manufacture nuclear weapons with the intention of wiping Israel out of the surface of the earth.

Why is Israel justified in its action while Russia is not? Notice that Ukraine borders on Russia, while Iran is divided from Israel by Iraq, Syria and Jordan.

② Tel Aviv stands on guard not to let any of the Middle East countries to have nuclear weapons while Israel itself has an arsenal of such weapons.

Why should one country have nuclear weapons while any other be prohibited from possessing them? What is the moral or rational explanation? It might be that those who have weapons of mass destruction are likely to say that they are angelic warriors who are not likely to use them or to use them without justification while the other countries are the bad guys who certainly would use them without justification. Yes, such is the narrative, but then it does not require much stretch of imagination to realize that the so-called bad guys think along precisely the same lines with this difference, however, that they regard themselves as angelic warriors and others as villains.

What if South Korea wanted to acquire nuclear weapons? Reason? Because North Korea has them. Reason enough. We may rest assured the United States would have nothing against, so much so that South Korea might also be employed as an ally against China, allegedly America’s life-threatening rival. Why, the United States might not have anything against Japan acquiring nuclear weapons. Again, Japan might be used against China and – who knows – against Russia.

What if Tehran were rabidly anti-Russian? Would then Iran not be allowed to have nuclear weapons? If the idea of Ukraine possessing such weaponry was seriously considered at a time, then certainly an anti-Russian Iran would be given free rein in this respect.

③ Are American attempts at bringing international peace worth anything? President Donald Trump is helpless in brokering peace both in Ukraine and in the Middle East. The question arises whether the American leader is simply incompetent or… or whether these peace initiatives are only make believe. If the United States is a superpower, why cannot Washington project its political leverage on Ukraine and Israel? If a superpower cannot control much smaller states, then something must be the matter. What? It might be that Washington does not serve American interests. Is such a thought substantiated? Of course, it is. One only needs to look at the European leaders and their entirely anti-European policies whether it is the ethnic replacement or green economy or the anti-moral agenda.

④ What is the credibility of the American president? The Israelis have decapitated some of Iran’s military and civilian management precisely while talks were held between Washington and Tehran. It is obvious President Donald Trump must have known about the preparations for the attack. If by any chance he did not because he would have been against and the American powers that be desperately wanted to hit Iran, then his reliability as an American leader is even worse: why talk to a president who does not control his own country, his own agencies and his own underlings?

⑤ Iran lashed out, and lashed out successfully. Israel was hailed with missiles and the famed Iron Dome that was supposed to protect the country’s territory proved to be quite penetrable. Now Tel Aviv might request missiles and anti-aircraft systems from the United States to make up for the depleted stocks of their own missiles. What will then remain for Ukraine? Certainly Israel rather than Ukraine is Washington’s priority.

⑥ Will the United States army be drawn into war against Iran? That might mean splitting American military and other resources between the Middle East, Ukraine and China. Is that not too much even for a superpower, especially a superpower with domestic problems caused by – some say – thirty million unregistered aliens who flooded the country during the Biden administration and earlier? A civil war or a wave of terrorist attacks at home, an involvement in Ukraine, a military engagement in the Middle East, and muscle flexing in Washington’s dealings with the Middle Kingdom – is that not a huge overreach?

Whichever way you look at the events, one thing should strike you immediately: one attack is justified while another is not. Rules for thee but not for me.

Pearl Harbor 2?

The Western European elites along with the American democrats were just overjoyed! Ukrainians carried out Operation Spider’s Web and hit targets deep inside Russia, thousands of kilometers away from Ukraine, by means of drones that were smuggled into the Federation and remotely controlled. Damage was inflicted on industrial objects in places located in the Murmansk and Irkutsk regions. The former is close to the northern parts of Finland, the latter is as far east as Mongolia! Quite an exploit on the part of the Ukrainians. Surely, they will have been aided by the Western intelligence or else they would never ever have been able to precisely locate the targets, some of which were military aircraft.

Though the action is a feat – rumour has it it took one and a half years to prepare it – its political and military impact is questionable. The assault seems to be orchestrated with yet another round of Istanbul talks. Why? Did Kiev want to disrupt the negotiations or merely gain a better position at the negotiating table? The Western journalists and politicians were just beside themselves with joy; some began comparing the event to Pearl Harbor, a Japanese attack on the American navy on 7 December 1941. The comparison shows the general stupidity of the people running the media and being in charge of the Western countries. Their historical knowledge is certainly as small as to be deplorable, but even in this case they should have reflected for a second or so. If they had reflected, they would have immediately remembered that within a few months of Pearl Harbour Americans successfully retaliated at the Battle of Midway, and within a few years of Pearl Harbor Japan was on its knees. Are those journalists and politicians aware of this sequence of events? Is there among them at least one man like Admiral Yamamoto, who after the Pearl Harbour attack said: We have awakened a sleeping giant?

What did the planners of this operation think they could achieve? Did they hope to compel Russia to give in? Did they really? Maybe they thought the Russian nation would be scared out of their wits and beg Putin to put an end to the war and ask for peace terms? If they thought so then, again, they have a very poor knowledge of even recent history. It was during the Second World War that the Americans and the British mercilessly and ruthlessly carpet bombed German cities and… and they only strengthened German resistance and caused the Germans to rally around their leaders. The same is true of Russians, the some has always been and will always be true of any nation.

In this attack, Ukrainians claim to have destroyed a number of bombers. Russians own up they lost a few aircraft. As usual the numbers differ: the attacker overrates, the attacked underrates the hits. Be it as it may, the number is not important. Not only because the number of lost aircraft is not likely to change the course of the hostilities, but first of all because the loss of the airplanes translates into a loss of something far more significant. For why were the Russian bombers successfully hit? Because they stood on tarmac, without any type of cover. Why did they stand on tarmac for all to see from outer space? Was it because the Russians were too self-confident or because they were incompetent? Neither. The aircraft stood on tarmac because it was agreed between the United States of America and the Russian Federation (New START, 2011) that military airplanes capable of carrying nukes are to be visible to the other party of the agreement through satellite monitoring as a kind of reassurance that no surreptitious attack was being prepared or was under way. It seems that the West has compromised this part of the said agreement only to spite Russia. Now, the Russians might as well start concealing their strategic aircraft. How will that benefit the West?

As could be expected, the attacks strengthened the willingness of the Russians to punish Ukrainians and especially to punish the West. President Vladimir Putin is under enormous domestic pressure to retaliate. Russian patriots call for launching an Oreshnik missile at London, as everybody knows that the British are the enablers of the attack. Putin is being compared by the Western media and politicians as being another Hitler, yet, he shows a lot of restraint. Imagine another leader of the Russian Federation and his response to such an attack… If it is true that a few days earlier Ukrainians were close to pulling off a drone attack on a helicopter with the Russian president and if that attack had been successful, then a retaliation for both events might follow, turning the local hostilities into another world war. Who wants such a course of events?

How can Ukraine gain by it? How can Europe gain from it? Imagine a full-scale war in Western Europe. Will all those Moroccans and Afghans, Algerians and Kenyans fight for France and Germany, the United Kingdom and Sweden against Russia? Please… Already, they live in separate societies and regularly go on the rampage in the Western cities. They will never ever identify with their adopted countries. After all, they haven’t come to France and Germany, the United Kingdom and Sweden to experience war and deprivation. To the contrary, as we are told they have escaped from their countries because of war and deprivation. Do the likes of Starmer, Macron and Merz understand it? Fat chance of that!

Europe is on a crusade. Europe is fighting the Crimean War Number Two (the first one took place between 1853-1856). Europe, seeing the oncoming disaster, is throwing temper tantrums, like a teenager. Let us pull off something to show that we matter! Yet, again, if the journalists and politicians knew just a bit of history they would remember the charge of the Light Brigade – a spectacular debacle of a British unit during the Crimean War. And they might remember the crusade led by Emperor Napoleon and how it ended, or the crusade led by Führer Hitler, and how that one ended. In both cases the invading troops were multinational, in both cases they had initial success and in both cases the crusade was miserably lost.

Operation Barbarossa (attack on the Soviet Union) and Operation Typhoon (Battle of Moscow) would eventually come to a grinding stop, while the counteroffensive blows known as Operation Uranium (encirclement of the German troops at Stalingrad) and Operation Bagration (pushing the Germans back to the Vistula line) broke the back of the invaders. What do Europeans and Ukrainians expect might happen now?

Isn’t it all childish? Ukrainians hit targets as far as Mongolia, and yet they cannot avoid losing 20% of their territory… Ukrainians have destroyed several Russian aircraft, and a bridge and what not, and yet their population has been halved while their infrastructure has been put mostly out of order. It’s like giving your enemy a sting, and receiving a knockout in return. Pities. Pathetic. Fatuous.

Trump’s Problems

Yes, it’s what we first associate with Trump’s policies: Tariffs. Now someone dared to question them and it was the US Court of International Trade (CIT). On 29 May, this court ruled that most of the global tariffs imposed by Trump were illegal because he had overstepped his authority. It said Trump had improperly invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and therefore the court claims that trade deficits are not an emergency that justifies the president’s unilateral actions. Naturally, the administration scoffed at this decision and stated that it will lodge an appeal. This means that the case may ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

However, it appears that the long-term impact of the CIT decision will be limited as the US government has the tools to continue its tariff policy. Trump can apply alternative legal bases and increase pressure on industry tariffs that are not subject to the above-mentioned regulation. Therefore, key tariffs on major trading partners such as the EU, China or Japan are likely to remain in place even if the Supreme Court does not overturn the CIT decision.

What is perhaps even more important in the US is a series of legal changes that have just come into force. It’s “One, Big Beautiful Bill,” a law aimed at cutting taxes, stopping immigration, securing borders, promoting energy policy and cutting spending on certain social programmes. Trump called it “perhaps the most significant legislation in the history of the country.” Not everyone has such a positive attitude towards it. Suffice it to say, this bill was passed by the House of Representatives by a mere one vote (215 to 214).

On the one hand, the US could save USD 1.6 trillion thanks to the law by cancelling a range of expenditure. Spending on the green transition or gender transition, for example, would no longer be sponsored. On the other hand, the law increases the federal debt ceiling, defence spending and requires other new spending. There are also numerous tax benefits, including the elimination of tip and overtime taxes, benefits for cars made in the US and a 15% tax cut for families earning less than $80,000 a year. It is calculated that the law will result in 80% of households paying lower taxes in 2026, which should be an incentive to stimulate the economy. Yes, it’s true, but the national debt of USD 36.2 trillion will increase by around USD 3.8 trillion over the next decade – according to the US Congressional Budget Office.

Elon Musk expressed his disappointment with the law, saying it undermines his efforts to reduce government spending. His ways with Trump parted, Musk had to go and Trump repeated the mistakes of his first term when he too often made “purges” in the staff around him.

Trump: a leader blinded by his administration

“I’m not happy with what Putin is doing, he’s killing a lot of people and I don’t know what the hell happened to Putin, I’ve known him for a long time I’ve always got along with him, but he is sending rockets into cities and he’s killing people, and I don’t like it at all, ok? We’re in the middle of talking and he’s shooting rockets into Kiev and other cities. I don’t like it at all. […] I don’t like what Putin is doing, he’s killing people. And something happened to this guy and I don’t like it,” [emphasis added] said President Donald Trump as he was taking questions from reporters on the tarmac in Morristown, New Jersey, on 14th May. Within several seconds the American president repeated the word killing three times and gave vent to his anger, gracing it with the interjection what the hell.

A highly emotional speech. Words and phrases that do not become a politician, especially a politician of that caliber. You may like them or not (the chances are you don’t), but neither Russia’s President Vladimir Putin nor Russia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov have ever let themselves blurt words loaded with so much negative emotion and level them at any of the Western politicians. That says a lot about the quality of diplomacy on either side of the dividing line.

As is known, Americans are conducting talks with Russians over the war in Ukraine, and President Donald Trump has spoken more than twice over the phone with President Vladimir Putin. With this in mind, what purpose did the words spoken by the American president serve? Did he want to make his Russian counterpart be more disposed to talks and concessions? What the hell – to use Trump’s vocabulary – did the American president think he would attain in his dealings with the Russian president, almost yelling that his interlocutor appears to be a madman – “what the hell happened to Putin” – and a killer – “he’s killing people”?

One possible explanation is that President Donald Trump did not particularly mean what he said, but, acting under pressure from the media controlled for the most part by the Democratic Party and wishing to appear tough he simply wanted to make a show of anger. That might be so. Still, as said above, the Russian side does not behave remotely like that.

Be it as it may, the president’s temper tantrum is one thing: the same event exposed something of larger gravity. After Donald Trump had finished with this public show of anger and displeasure aimed at Vladimir Putin, a journalist revealed to him that “a Russian commander reportedly said Putin was almost caught in the middle of a drone attack from Ukraine.” Watching the footage of the event, one can clearly see that President Donald Trump was taken by surprise. He managed to mumble something along the lines of “I haven’t heard that,” then came up with an explanation of Putin’s behaviour, saying that “maybe that would be a reason” [behind Russia’s attacks on Ukraine in the middle of the peace talks], and added, somewhat confused, “I don’t know. I’ve not heard that.”

It transpires that a journalist had heard about a drone assassination attempt on the Russian president, but the American president had not! Where did the journalist have that information from? Did the CIA know about it? If it did not, then the agency is good for nothing. If it did, then why was the president not briefed about it? If the American president was not briefed about an assassination attempt on his Russian counterpart, was it intentional on the part of the agency? If it was, then it means that the administration is working against Donald Trump just as it did during his first term. The question remains how large a part of the administration is sabotaging the American president’s decisions and which part of it is providing the head of state with misinformation or which part of the it withdraws information from him entirely or partly. If such are the circumstances, then Donald Trump is going to fail during his second term as president precisely as he failed during his first term. If he desires to make a difference and be remembered by momentous decisions that he managed to execute, he’d better muster enough courage and determination to purge the government agencies without regard for anything and anybody, or else he will go under.

One can wonder what the thoughts of the Americans presidents were after this short encounter with the journalists and after he had learnt that he had not been informed properly about the current events. What inferences did President Donald Trump draw from all this? The government agencies – especially those gathering intel – are eyes and ears of any leader. Deprived of proper sight and hearing, a leader is doomed to failure. It is not the first time that President Donald Trump says things which reveal that his perception of reality is distorted, and it is distorted by the agencies that should keep the president in the picture. We all remember the number of casualties that Donald Trump announced some time ago: he appeared to believe that there were much more Russians dead and wounded than Ukrainians. It somehow did not bother the president to challenge such data on grounds of reality: if Russians are suffering to a much greater extent, why then Ukrainians cannot push them back? Why then Ukrainians are retreating? Why then Russians are unwilling to bring the hostilities to an end as soon as possible? Does Donald Trump not have proper mental faculties?

A leader of a superpower who acts on misinformation or lack of information (information which is otherwise available to a simple journalist) is at best pathetically ineffective, and at worst – downright dangerous.

French Rafale aircraft got killed at the hands of their Chinese counterparts (just as German Leopards and American Abrams got crushed at the hands of Russian drones)

Of course we are making reference to the recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India. A skirmish or even a battle as it supposedly involved more than 100 planes with five of the Indian aircraft being downed (Islamabad’s claim) or none of them being down (Delhi’s claim).

Pakistan and India have not been on friendly terms for decades now. Be it the disputed region of Kashmir or the support that Islamabad lends to insurgents who cause trouble in India, there are intermittent clashes and skirmishes now and again. Some are minor, some are major. An attack launched by insurgents or terrorists (the name depends on the point of view) from Pakistan’s territory into Indian territory on 22 April this year left some 26 casualties. Delhi felt compelled to retaliate, at least symbolically, at least not to lose face before its own population, not to mention the rest of the world. So, on May 6/7 lots of aircraft were sent to hit 9 targets in Pakistan (5 of them in Kashmir). Islamabad did not intend to let itself be ridden roughshod and scrambled its air forces to punish the intruder. From the ensuing skirmish or battle the Pakistani air forces are said to have emerged victorious, which of course is denied by Delhi.

Up to now the event is one of the many that have occurred between Pakistan and India, and – of course – more are to be expected in the foreseeable future. What was special about the outburst of conflict this time was the fact – or speculations – or suppositions which made the headlines that Pakistani aircraft made in China successfully clashed with the Indian aircraft made in France. The aerial duels were fought between China-made J-10 (Chengdu) and the French-made Rafale, Mirage (and also Russian-made SU-30 and MiG 29). One Rafale and one Mirage are said to have been downed, which is now confirmed, now dismissed by the world media. Obviously, truth is not to be had in the nearest future, but still the event rings some interesting alarm bells.

One, Chinese aircraft made a successful debut in a military conflict. Even if their success is disputed or downplayed, their presence attracted the attention of military experts.

Two, the French aircraft manufacturer may have received a dent to its prestige. Again, even if the news are doubtful and challenged, current and prospective customers might have second thoughts.

Third, the news about downing at least one Rafale and one Mirage might be dismissed, but the fate of the German Leopards and American Abrams in Ukraine – the two tanks that were reputed to be crème de la crème – might support suspicions that Rafale aircraft are not as good as they are advertised, either.

Four, China shows its strength not only in economy but also in its military capacity. The reader will have remembered about the Chinese cosmonauts (or astronauts) orbiting the earth and working on the Chinese space station, a fact not properly emphasized by the media. The Western consumer of information, upon being asked about space exploration, will most likely associate it with Americans and Russians, barely the Chinese. And yet…

Five, technological prowess of the Chinese aircraft only proves that China’s industry and engineering is as advanced as their Western counterparts if not better. Washington’s trade war against China is a sign of America acting in panic mode: the Hill has belatedly realized that the Asian dragon is on America’s heels, poised to move in for the kill.

Six, the world is split between the West and the Rest (BRICS and the “non-aligned” to use the political term from the latter part of the previous century). This Rest might stop purchasing military equipment from the West and begin to opt for the Chinese offer in this respect. Why, if the J-10 aircraft matches the capabilities of the French Rafale or Mirage, and is at least twice as cheap ($40-60 million against $100-120 million), then why overpay? To make the choice of the provider easier, countries around the world must also take into consideration that buying American or generally Western military equipment comes with a tag of the piece of equipment being or not being allowed to be used for particular purposes. So, Pakistan could have used American F-16s against India in the conflict referred to above… only that it could not, because the sale contract stipulated that these aircraft were not to be used by Islamabad against India without American prior permission. Beijing does not attach such restrictions to its military products.

The whole event may be denounced as Pakistani or even Chinese propaganda, which it might be. Yet, it is the small changes that accumulate over time and bring about a breakthrough, a colossal change. Fifty years back no one thought China would challenge the United States: today the United States feels seriously threatened. Chinese automobiles, Chinese cell phones, Chinese this, Chinese that are all flooding the world market. High time for the Chinese military equipment to do the same. The outsourcing once initiated and practiced for decades in with United States along with the de-industrialization propagated in the European Union hugely contribute to the change of the global balance of power. While the West is obsessively preoccupied with ethnic replacement, (anti-)racism, culture cancel, and rainbow sexuality, the Middle Kingdom is going about its business of becoming the world’s superpower. Also militarily.

We’ll Hunt You Down!

Just as the United States is known for its export product – the dollar – so the European Union is known for its domestic product – loads of decrees and decisions and directives. Every year, every month, every week tons of texts are composed and made public in almost 30 languages, with each text being as long as possible. No need to even make a supposition whether those texts are read by anybody save for those unfortunate individuals who are tasked with writing them and translating them into the many tongues. (Maybe those individuals are not all that unfortunate: they are paid well, after all, for the scribbling.)

The European Union badly wants to change not only the Old Continent, but also the whole world, setting moral and political standards, also through the documents that it produces. The reader conversant with history and with Emperor Joseph II of Austria in particular will have recalled that a similar phenomenon took place during his reign of 1780-1790: the said emperor would spend hours every day at his desk with the purpose of mending and repairing his kingdoms, and with the purpose of making his subjects happier and happier. He produced decrees and laws and directives the way the EU has been doing for more than a decade and he genuinely thought he was doing something grandiose.

Among the documents that Brussels bureaucrats have produced is Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (as if, carving up Yugoslavia and tearing Kosovo from Serbia the EU bothered about the integrity of states as a principle, but never mind). We are not going to survey all the measures that the document announces save for one: it provides a list of Russian citizens who are targeted for punishment because they “support the regime” and “threaten the territorial integrity” of Ukraine. This list has been since reviewed and duly expanded by way of Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/1738 of 24 June 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. We get a blacklist or a kill list in either document. The targeted individuals are given by first name and surname, followed by such data (if available to the authors of the list) as the date of birth, place of birth, nationality, professional or administrative position, passport number, and even tax identification number – all tabulated. One column states the reason why an individual is recognized as the enemy of humanity, or at least the enemy of the European Union. Who does the blacklist include?

Well, speakers of local parliaments, chairmen of councils, heads of institutions or committees or agencies, ministers and deputy ministers, owners and (majority or controlling) shareholders of companies, and judges of military and other courts. Among them we can also find TV presenters, bloggers, actresses and singers! They are all the enemies of humanity and peace, and especially enemies of Ukraine, supporters of the Russian regime and Russian aggression, and the like.

Talking about singers: the list is graced by no less a person than Polina Sergeevna Gagarina (Полина Сергеевна Гагарина), one of the most popular artists, a participant in the 2015 Eurovision, where she came second in the Grand Final. (Those were the times when Russian artists and sportsmen could still perform in Europe and were even awarded prizes. Hard to believe from today’s perspective, isn’t it?). Her many hits include Я тебя не прощу никогда (I’ll Never Forgive You), Спектакль окончен (The Play Is Over), Драмы больше нет (Drama Is Over), Обезоружена (Disarmed), Смотри (Have a Look), Небо в глазах (Sky in Your Eyes), and many many others. They are not presented to the European public although Europe is constantly bragging about diversity and inclusivity, but – again – never mind this digression. You cannot present a Putin-supporter, or can you?

What are Polina Gagarina’s unforgivable sins? Let us look up the information placed against her name in the kill list. We read that Polina Gagarina “regularly performs in the framework of State propaganda events, for example to celebrate the illegal annexation of four Ukrainian regions or the anniversary of the annexation of Crimea. She thus supports actions which undermine the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Since the beginning of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, Polina Gagarina has been able to generate significant revenue through her frequent participation in state-sponsored propaganda events and programmes. She therefore benefits from the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine.” Wow! Probably according to the EU commissioners a Russian citizen should oppose the Russian authorities if an external power (like the EU) says so. Probably according to the EU commissioners a Russian citizen ought to think precisely the same as the EU commissioners when it comes to politics and morals or else. Probably according to the EU commissioners Polina Gagarina ought to sing in Ukraine against her own country, to spite her own authorities. Her loyalty should be to the EU rather than to her government.

At this juncture one may begin to wonder whether Polina Gagarina and indeed all the men and women from the blacklist are aware that they are the enemies of humanity, and – assuming they know – whether they care.

The EU commissioners in the good tradition of their Bolshevik predecessors administer punishment to the enemies of progress and light. Within the meaning of the paragraphs of the mentioned decisions the member states shall refuse the individuals from the hit list entry into or transfer through their territories and shall freeze their funds and economic resources (obviously if they have any in the EU). Hey, Europeans! Do you know that you are expected not to listen to songs performed by Polina Gagarina? You probably don’t listen to her anyway, but just in case you might be tempted to check the titles given above: you’d better not. If you do, you’ll be supporting the forces of darkness and damaging the cause of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and Ukraine’s sovereignty.