Global Analysis from the European Perspective. Preparing for the world of tomorrow


Ukrainians, please continue dying so that Americans can have good paying jobs

If you wanted to have an audio and visual illustration of the idiom a pack of lies, watch and listen to Undersecretary of state for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland that took place on February 22, 2024 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Taking her words for truth, you get the idea that Ukraine is winning the war, harming Russia enormously while improving its economy. You get the impression that the whole world supports Ukraine and very few irrelevant states are on Russia’s side. You also get the impression that (crushing, as she put it) sanctions imposed on Russia are bringing Moscow to its knees and Russia’s failure is a matter of time. You also learn that the many Ukrainian refugees are impatient to return the their country, which with the aid of the West will soon reform and rebuild. My goodness!

Do you still remember Madeleine Albright? Victoria Nuland resembles her physically and mentally. The same ugly face, the same stout body and the same thirst for blood.

Listening to Nuland’s speech and the following interview with Victoria Nuland, you could also notice her visceral hated of Vladimir Putin. She mentioned his surname almost every other sentence. The more she mentioned the president of Russia’s surname, the more you could see how helpless she felt in her anger. Putin, Putin, Putin, all the time Putin! Victoria Nuland is possessed – obsessed – fixated on Vladimir Putin. Putin has invaded her mind and is there to stay. She will spew out Putin, Putin, Putin even on her death bed. And no wonder. You see, Victoria Nuland thought Ukraine was hers for grabs and now she has found out that all her efforts has come to naught. Poor Victoria… Putin, Putin, Putin – all the time through the speech and the following interview. Putin, Putin, Putin! Victoria Nuland most likely has a doll representing Putin and she regularly pricks it with pins. I just dread to think what vocabulary she uses thinking about her nemesis – Putin – when not standing on ceremony.

Just as a broken clock is right twice a day, so was Victoria Nuland. She said, Most of the aid for Ukraine ended up in the United States, creating good paying jobs. Ukrainians, did you hear? Shed your blood, lose your hands and legs, die in the battlefield so that the Americans can have good paying jobs (and the American oligarchs can enrich themselves)! 

Two deaths so alike and yet so different

It was a few days ago that Alexei Navalny died in a Russian prison. What a gift for the Western world, what a remarkable coincidence! With the fall of Avdiivka and the approaching presidential election in Russia, with the farmer protests that have shaken every other EU country, with the difficulties that the American president has getting yet another approval of by Congress for his financial aid for Ukraine, Alexei Navalny’s death is really a godsend. Of course all the media and commentators have shown themselves to be soothsayers: they all know for certain that Navalny was murdered. By Putin’s henchmen, no need to add. They all know it, the soothsayers that they are, no evidence is required. The consumers of the media, properly preconditioned for years, can only nod their heads in agreement.

In 2000, also in a prison, died Slobodan Milošević, Yugoslavia’s and then Serbia’s president. Nobody ever came up with the idea that he might have been murdered. God forbid! Slobodan Milošević was incarcerated in a democratic European Union, which honours human rights and is averse to deceit, violence, illegal methods of interrogation, injustice and the rest of it. Slobodan Milošević was justly brought to court because – unlike Navalny – he was the bad guy, who was responsible fully or partly as the case may be for no smaller a crime than genocide of Kosovars and Croats. Though Alexei Navalny according to his own words felt intense hatred towards non-Russians in Russia, which was familiar to anyone who only cared to listen to or read his statements, though because of that Alexei Navalny would have been termed as a white supremacist in the West, miraculously his controllers turned a blind eye to his political beliefs.

But then, do we wonder? Everything and anything is used – abused – misused – (choose the appropriate word) – to suit the managers of the world. Serbs needed to be bombed by NATO because they were reported to have murdered a number of Kosovars and Croats; Ukrainians, officially followers of the Stepan Bandera racist and chauvinist ideology need to be unconditionally supported by the collective West, which otherwise is oh so sensitive when other comes to nationalisms, racism, fascism and similar ideolo gies.

Alexei Navalny was a hugely inflated front man if ever there was one. Look up the English Wikipedia article about him and compare with that devoted to Vladimir Putin. Alexei Navalny, a man whose political popularity in Russia never exceeded 5% (five) enjoys a text of 78 PDF A4 pages, whereas Vladimir Putin, a recognized leader with huge popularity – 107. John Kennedy – one of the better known modern-age American presidents – has a mere 55 pages. Even John Paul II, the most popular and widely recognizable pope, is no match for Navalny: the Wiki article about him is 71 pages long.

Do you remember how Slobodan Milošević landed up in jail and how was Alexei Navalny imprisoned? The difference is striking and telling. Let us recall. Under the pressure from the collective West Slobodan Milošević, once he ceased performing the function of president of Serbia, was arrested by his own authorities, his own state and handed over to the Hague to stand trial there. How did Alexei Navalny end up in prison? Let us recall it. He happened to be in Russia where he was oh so unjustly prosecuted and persecuted, and one day he sank into a coma due to a poison administered to him by the notorious KGB (Russian equivalent of the American CIA), or at least that’s the official Western story. Navalny’s wife demanded that her husband be released to Germany for medical treatment and Vladimir Putin, the mad dictator that he is, let him leave Russia, knowing full well that his agents had bungled the operation of poisoning Navalny (obviously he was on the way of surviving) and knowing full well that German doctors – chemists – pharmacists – would find the traces of the substance that was to kill Navalny. Nevertheless the dissenter was released and cured of his poisoning in Germany, and of course German specialists found the traces of poison, didn’t they? Once cured, safe and sound, Alexei Navalny decided to return to Russia to be prosecuted and persecuted by the undemocratic regime. Why for heaven’s sake? To make things even more Hollywood-like, before returning to Russia, Navalny managed to produce a documentary which exposed Putin s a man who stashed away millions in order to build a palace for himself in the Crimea. Only after the film was made public and shown on YouTube did Alexei Navalny go back to Russia. What could he expect there? The really interesting question is: did Alexei Navalny really want to go back or was he made to? Did not the Russian authorities by letting him out of Russia show that they wanted to get rid of him rather than have him imprisoned? What was Navalny promised in return for agreeing to do time in prison? Who promised it?

You see, it was not so, as in Slobodan Milošević’s case, that the Russian government pressurized Germany to release Navalny. No. Navalny appears to have been a pawn in the hands of powerful players who traded his life for political benefits. He seemed to be useless in the West, but very useful inside Russia. A prisoner of conscience! Living evidence of the dictatorial and inhumane Kremlin authorities! That’s the message. That Navalny was sentenced for corruption and other acts of violating the law is not on the radar of the Western media. He was important as a card to be played and sacrificed if need be.

Slobodan Milošević was Serbia’s and formerly Yugoslavia’s patriot; Alexei Navalny was a traitor to Russia. Slobodan Milošević’s death was of course – how otherwise? – of natural causes; Alexei Navalny’s demise was of course – how otherwise? – murder in cold blood. End of story. 

Enter Oleksandr Syrskyi or the latest stage of the Russo-Russian civil war

On February 2024, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, replaced Valerii Zaluzhnyi with Oleksandr Syrskyi as commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian army. Who is General Oleksandr Syrskyi?

He is an ethnic Russian, born in central Russia to Russian parents with Russian relatives the length and breadth of his family. He graduated from a Soviet military academy and swore allegiance as a Soviet military officer to the Soviet Union. It so happened that during the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union Oleksandr Syrskyi served in Ukraine and was faced with a choice: either to relocate to Russia and serve in the Russian army or to stay in Ukraine and serve in the Ukrainian army. As it were, during the Yeltsin era, when Russia was afflicted with all kinds of crises – economic, social, political – its army was also in deep trouble. That explains why though Oleksandr Syrskyi with the aid of his father – a retired Soviet colonel – sought employment in the Russian armed forces he could only be offered a position that was much below his military rank. That made him reconsider. Since the Ukrainian army offered him a higher rank, he made his choice. In furtherance of his career.

Still, his parents and his brother has remained and continue to live in Russia, loyal to their country and President Putin, taking part in the annual Immortal Regiment marches.

Oleksandr Syrskyi was born in the Vladimir Oblast (region, province), some 200 km east of Moscow, in 1965. His paternal grandfather fought throughout the entire Great Patriotic War of 1941-45, and was awarded the medal For Bravery and the Order of the Red Star; his maternal grandfather went to the front as a volunteer and died in an ambush. Syrskyi has a Ukrainian wife and two sons of which one has been living in Australia for years and remains highly critical of his father’s disloyalty towards Russia.

The new commander-in-chief is said not to enjoy popularity in the army. Contrarily, he is nicknamed either a “Russian officer”, or “Soviet general”, or “Bakhmut butcher”. He earned the last of the nicknames after his inefficient command during the fight for Bakhmut, where it is said he did not particularly economize on the soldiers’ blood. Needless to say, Oleksandr Syrskyi needed to learn the Ukrainian language (just as President Zelenskyy) and speaks it with a Russian accent.

No wonder that President Putin describes the ongoing hostilities as civil war. Russians kill Russians just as Spaniards killed Spaniards during the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39, or Americans killed Americans during the War of Secession of 1861-65, or the English killed the English during the times of the English Civil War of 1642-51.

Towards the end of the interview that Tucker Carlson conducted with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin told a short story related to him from the front line in Ukraine. The story was about a Ukrainian unit that was encircled by the Russian troops with no chance of either winning the skirmish or making their way through the encirclement. The Russians proposed surrender to which the encircled Ukrainians replied – in Russian: Russians! never surrender. There you have it. 

The interview of the year

On February 6, 2024, Tucker Carlson, a popular television star, conducted a two-hour interview with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. Here are the main take-aways:

[1] The Russian president firmly believes that Russians and Ukrainians are one and the same nation divided by history. He proved this point by giving Tucker Carlson a brief overlook of the past, commencing with medieval Rus’ and ending at the present day. Russia’s president was well conversant with the history not only of his own country, but also with the history of this region in Europe. This lengthy narration was to set the basis for the explanation of anything that followed during the interview.

In this historical narrative President Putin appears to have tried to drive a wedge between several European countries in that he kept saying that before the Second World War Poland collaborated with Hitler (which is why it took part in dismembering Czechoslovakia), and after World War Two was given formerly German territories as compensation for the territories that it lost to the USSR in the east. It could be read by Germans as an invitation to lay a claim to Polish Western territories (formerly German eastern territories). Four times Germany (Prussia) and Russia (USSR) divided between themselves the territory of the Polish state, annihilating it from political maps. Putin’s verbal assault on Poland will most probably have been triggered by the bellicose attitude of Warsaw against Russia and the fact that – as he said – Poles make up the largest contingent of mercenaries in Ukraine, followed by Americans and Georgians.

Similar gestures were made towards Hungary and Romania: these countries, too, lost small chunks of their territories to the then USSR, to be precise to the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic, and as a result they are still held by Kiev.

[2] Then the Russian president retold the events running up to the current hostilities. These included:

[a] the five waves of NATO expansion;

[b] the support given by the United States to separatist forces in Russia;

[c] the deployment of missiles in eastern Europe allegedly to defend it against Iranian missiles;

[d] the invitation of Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO (Bucharest NATO conference);

[e] the support of the Nazi elements in Ukraine by the Western powers; and

[f] the coup d’état carried out in Kiev in 2014 against President Yanukovych.

[3] Being asked by Carlson whether the conflict could be resolved by way of negotiations, President Putin said that:

[a] Russia has been ready to negotiate since day one; as proof he mentioned the Istanbul talks of March 2022, which were prevented from finalization by Boris Johnson;

[b] President Zelensky issued a ban on negotiations;

[c] it was now the West’s turn to come to resume talks as it was the West thwarted the negotiations.

[4] To the question whether Russia was not about to attack Lithuania or especially Poland, the president answered that such an attack was only possible if Poland launched an attack against Russia.

[5] Being asked whether Russia did not fear China more than the United States, Vladimir Putin said that China and Russia had always known how to cooperate and that China had always been presented by the West as a boogeyman, which, however, did not correspond to reality.

Generally, Russia’s president believes that the West overplayed its hand out of conceit and at present does not really know how to solve the problem. The many sanctions did not have the expected effect: worse, Russia is developing while the dollar’s role as a means of international business is diminishing because of the same sanctions. Vladimir Putin quoted from memory that if a few years earlier 50% of Russia’s transactions were conducted in dollars, it is down to 13% nowadays.

The whole talk ended on a somewhat optimistic note: Russia is ready to talk over Ukraine, but the initiative rests with the West. The West has committed the mistake of drawing Ukraine into the war, the West ought to rectify it. There should be found ways, said the Russian president, how to do it with dignity, meaning: how to save the West’s face. 

A gaping chasm

“A great chasm has been set in place” between the collective West and Russia, a mutually unbridgeable chasm. President Vladimir Putin’s words addressed to Plenary session of the World Russian People’s Council (November 28, 2023) illustrate this chasm exceedingly well. In his speech President Putin said among others what follows:

Russia is fighting in Ukraine “not just for Russia’s freedom but for the freedom of the whole world”, against the dictatorship of one hegemon. In this struggle, Russia is blocking “the way of those who aspired to world domination and exceptionalism.” Most of the world understands it.

Russians make up a “large Russian nation, a triune of Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians.”

Russia is “faced with the daunting task of developing vast areas from the Pacific to the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea.” To this end Russia needs to preserve and increase its population, which is a “goal for the coming decades and even generations ahead. This is the future of the Russian world, the millennium-old, eternal Russia.” This task can only be executed through large families that “become the norm, a way of life for all Russia’s peoples” because the “family is not just the foundation of the state and society, it is a spiritual phenomenon, a source of morality.” This daunting demographic challenge cannot be responded to “solely with money, social benefits, allowances, privileges, or dedicated programmes” because it is a “person’s points of reference in life matter more. Love, trust, and a solid moral foundation are what the family and the birth of a child are built on.” Which is also why

though “the Church is separate from the state […] the Church cannot be separated from society or from people.” Emphasis must be put on the “importance of the participation of representatives of all traditional Russian religions in the education and upbringing of our youth, and […] in the consolidation of spiritual, moral, and family values.”

Russia is a continuity and a total of “Ancient Rus, the Tsardom of Muscovy, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and modern Russia.” 

A great chasm, indeed. Rather than inviting and promoting immigration, the Russian leader calls on his people to “be fruitful and multiply [and] populate the earth abundantly”; rather than promoting patch-work, or single-mother families, or same-sex marriages, the Russian leader encourages the revival of the traditional multi-child family; rather than promoting secularism, the Russian president stresses the importance of religion; rather than promoting cancel culture, Vladimir Putin holds in high regard historical continuity.

Of note are Vladimir Putin’s words heralding and lauding Russia as a freedom fighter for the whole world or at least its majority i.e. the countries that do not make up, roughly, the G7 mutual admiration society. These words are reminiscent of the roles that both the Soviet Union and imperial Russia played while liberating Europe from, respectively, Hitler’s and Napoleon’s yokes. Notable is also the description of Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians as a triune large nation, words that act like a red rag to the Western bull(y).

Indeed, Russia is everything that the collective West is not, the collective West is everything that Russia is not. A deep chasm is gaping, an unbridgeable chasm, such that does not allow either of the opponents to even understand the opposing party. A civilizational rift.


The idea of one civilization for all is inhuman and preposterous

Putin’s Valdai speech of 5th October, 2023

On 5th October, 2023, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin delivered a speech during a conference of the the 20th convention of the International Discussion Club held in Sochi. His words dealt with the ongoing political events and trends, without however naming names or making a reference to Ukraine. Russia’s president made a pronouncement concerning the West’s ideology and Russia’s stance on it or Russia’s response. The speech may be divided into the part criticizing the West and the part that lays down Moscow’s view of the world politics.

Here’s the anti-Western content:

The Western world, the notion that for all intents and purposes amounts to the Anglophere, in the opinion of the Russian leader and most likely of the Russian ruling elites has a track record of always seeking to dominate the globe, of always wanting to run the show by means of imposing on the other countries rules and principles that they are expected to abide by or else those rules and principles are brought to them with a bludgeon.

The West is always in need of an enemy, a foe, a rogue state because an external enemy serves the purpose of explaining to the populace the internal problems, and because an external, formidable enemy rallies the citizens of a country around their leader or leaders.

The West is run by the elites that do not pursue the interests of their nations; rather, in their self-aggrandizement they are ready to risk the welfare of their nations in an attempt to win dominance in this or other point on the globe.

The West defines an enemy as anyone – a state, country, nation, leader, political entity – who does not wish to follow the West’s dictate, who is not submissive enough, who does not acquiesce to being bossed around, who does not sign on to the idea that there is one global central power and global values to be observed. 

President Vladimir Putin then went on to expound the world view represented by the Russian authorities.

First, there is no one civilization engulfing the globe: rather, there are many civilizations, none of them better or worse than the others, and they all deserve to be recognized and respected. Consequently, there are no universal rules to be observed by all humanity, nor can there be a political concept of a global world.

Second, international problems ought not to be solved by a selected group of political dominant entities; nor should they be approached and tackled by all nations: rather, they ought to be discussed and solved by those concerned.

Third, nations should break with this idea imposed by the West of pursuing bloc politics. Nations have their own, individual, separate interests. There are no bloc interests or the so-called bloc interests boil down to being the interests of the bloc’s hegemon.

Fourth. Russia seeks no territorial expansion (that was the only direct reference – although without naming the country – in the speech to the ongoing war in Ukraine); Russia is the largest country on planet earth and for years to come will be busy developing and managing the vast swaths of land in Siberia.

gif loading


category youtube video ...


Nord Stream 2 expects regulators to decide by May whether its contested natural gas pipeline linking Germany to Russia will be able to operate as planned. Already suffering U.S. sanctions, the project led by Gazprom PJSC is pinning its hopes on German regulator Bundesnetzagentur to help it clear hurdles erected by European Union competition authorities. So-called unbundling rules rolled out by the trade bloc last year require the owners of gas and those who deliver it by pipeline or ship to be separate legal entities, even the fuel comes from outside the EU. Source: Bloomberg

The stock closed 16.4 per cent higher at an over seven-year high of Rbs189.7 and lifted the company’s market value to Rbs4.49tn (€61.8bn). That is enough to help it surpass Rosneft and Lukoil, the country’s top two crude producers, to become the second most valuable company on the exchange. Sberbank, the country’s biggest lender remains the biggest with a market capitalisation of Rbs4.92tn. Source: Financial Times

  • Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi, Russia, next week, according to a release from the State Department.
  • Pompeo will meet with Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Tuesday to discuss “the full range of bilateral and multilateral challenges,” the release said.
  • Pompeo is scheduled to arrive in Moscow on Monday with a diplomatic team.


gif loading

Asked about these developments, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang told a press briefing Tuesday that “countries in the Western Hemisphere, including Latin American countries, are all sovereign states,” so “they have the right to determine their own foreign policy and their way to engage in mutually beneficial cooperation with countries of their own choosing.” Source: Newsweek

  • Shortly before an important decision, France is against the planned gas pipeline Nord Stream 2, which advocates Germany.
  • The decision is an amendment to an EU rule that would allow the Commission to take greater action against Nord Stream 2.
  • The project of the Russian energy company Gazprom raises problems in the strained relationship between Moscow and the Europeans, France justifies.

Source: Sued Deutsche Zeitung

Vladimir Putin has said that Russia finds the Kosovo authorities’ decision to create their own army regrettable and sees it as another risk of destabilization of the situation in the Balkans.

“Regrettably, Kosovo’s authorities took a series of provocative steps lately, thus greatly aggravating the situation. In the first place I have in mind their decision of December 14 to form a so-called army in Kosovo,” Putin told a news conference. “It goes without saying that this is a direct violation of the UN resolution, which does not allow for the creation of any paramilitary forces except for the international UN contingent.”

“Such irresponsible steps by Kosovo’s authorities may cause destabilization in the Balkans,” he warned. Source: Tass

gif loading