Europe used to be divided into many feuding kingdoms, duchies and republics. Europe used to be like that almost all of the time. The kingdoms and duchies and republics would wage wars and play havoc with each other’s property and population. Yet, at the same time, in the modern era that began with the first geographical discoveries, it was these warring European countries separately that started to explore the world outside the Old Continent, establish colonies and subdue almost the whole rest of the globe. It was not only France, England (later the United Kingdom) or Spain that took possession of vast territories in the Americas, Africa and Asia; it was also such small countries as Portugal, the Netherlands, and Belgium. They each acquired overseas territories that were many times larger than the home country of the conquerors. The people of the colonial countries spilled over to the colonies, populating them and developing there economy along with advancing some degree of education. The European colonial countries did not stop warring with one another during the time of subduing the other continents: conversely, they clashed militarily not only on the Old Continent, but also in the new territories, which sometimes led to the change in ownership but never ever weakened the colonial European states. True, the American dependent territories became independent of the United Kingdom, Portugal and Spain, but they continued to expand and exist just as their former European overlords.

Today all those European countries are united because their managers claim that unity translates into strength. Now, where is this strength? Europeans have long withdrawn from Africa and Asia as colonial powers and have stopped populating those continents. Conversely, Europeans are being colonized by people from Africa and Asia. Today, former colonial powers have heads of states from the Third World while their indigenous populations live in constant fear of the arrivals whose constant influx is unstoppable. Non-Europeans transform parts of the European countries where they have settled and no one in his right senses can say that this transformation is for the better. When Europeans settled in the Third World countries, the transformations were for the better without a shadow of a doubt. Think of all the technology, infrastructure, agriculture, medicine, literacy and, and, and. Of course, the transformation did not benefit all the indigenous inhabitants at once, but then it was a time that also most Europeans did not enjoy all those benefits to the full on the Old Continent.

Let us come back to the titular question: where is this strength of a united Europe especially as compared to the previous centuries? Before the Second World War the United Kingdom alone controlled the whole of India (at that time that term referred to the combined territories of present-day Pakistan, India and Bangladesh), not to mention a quarter or so of Africa. Today the United Kingdom has a Hindu prime minister while the UK’s capital has a Pakistani mayor. Belgium used to control a huge chunk of Africa known as the Kongo: today, though Belgium’s capital is concurrently the capital of the European Union, Belgium is an insignificant country on the international arena while one third of its capital is populated by Muslims who turn their boroughs into extraterritorial areas. France used to control a third or so of Africa and the whole of Indochina; today, the indigenous French people live in fear of the aliens from France’s former colonies and are exposed to repeated tsunamis of street violence complete with shop window smashing and car torching. Yet, Europe is united. It has become united to be strong and influential. At least that’s what is said. It has turned out, that it has become united only to fall easier prey to whoever pleases to grab for it. The agreeableness of Europeans, their welcoming culture and readiness to apologize for all real and made-up crimes of their predecessors of whom an average European has no idea exposes them to predators and parasites.

The phrase, United we stand, divided we fall (attributed to Aesop), has been misinterpreted. It only works for natural unions like those uniting people of the same ethnicity. Beyond that its application is maladaptive because it is in struggle and fierce rivalry that we grow stronger (or perish, as the case may be). A union or alliance of forces is as debilitating as shared ownership in that in either case no one cares about the whole and everyone expects the other participant (ally, co-owner) to do the brunt of the job. We know this famous saying: what belongs to everybody, belongs to no one. The same may be said about unions: they are a kind of shared possession of strength and resources and decision-making and what not: manifestly and demonstrably ineffective. Rivalling nations reflect the economic forces on the free market: they cause products to be better and better and at the same time cheaper and cheaper. A monopoly brings about stagnation, lack of incentives and ultimately death. Which is what we are seeing in the Western world. Unless you want to tell me that France or Great Britain or Spain or Belgium are now – acting in unison – more powerful than they used to be a hundred years back when they each acted on its their own, which goes counter to historical fact invoked above.

Many people, too many people, either because of the propaganda that they have been exposed to or because they are consciously exposing themselves to the propaganda keep believing that Ukraine is capable of winning the current war with Russia. It is sort of strange. If you are one of them, all you need to do is to assess – quite cursorily! – the two adversaries. The whole relevant knowledge is at your fingertips. Just consult your Wikipedia and look up

1 the population size,

2 the area size,

of the belligerents and then look at maps to see how Ukrainian territory is wedged into that of Russia, which renders its easternmost troops encircled at the kick-off. Now, what would you expect? Why would you listen to the many experts?

By way of comparison, look at the map of the two hostile countries in 1938: Germany and Czechoslovakia, and notice the encirclement of the latter: 

The Partition of Czechoslovakia: Every Day, YouTube

Also by way of comparison, look at the map of the two belligerent countries of September 1939: Germany and Poland, and – again – notice the encirclement of the latter: 

WW2 – Germany vs Poland, 1939, YouTube

Now compare it with the location of Russia and Ukraine A.D. 2023, and – again – notice the encirclement of the latter: 

Would that observation alone not be enough?

In case it would not, then compare the human potential. In 1938/1939 the German Reich after it had incorporated Austria had 80 million inhabitants as opposed to 15 million in Czechoslovakia in 1938, and 36 million in Poland in 1939. Today’s Russia has a population of almost 150 million whereas Ukraine – hm… – an estimated 36 million, but due to massive emigration probably the number is far lower.

Let us reiterate the question: first, what effort does it take to find out these data; and, second, does it take a rocket science engineer’s knowledge to be able to foresee the outcome of the struggle?

Notice also that we haven’t compared the economic potential of the belligerent countries nor have we taken into consideration the existence of national minorities. Both facets resemble again their counterparts as they existed between Germany on the other hand and Czechoslovakia or Poland in 1938/39 on the other. Just as Czechoslovakia and Poland had hostile German ethnic minorities in their territories (especially Czechoslovakia with its 3 million Germans), so does Ukraine’s population comprise millions of citizens who either identify as Russians or speak Russian as their mother tongue and as a result are not willing to sacrifice their lives in this war.

Take Crimea for that matter. Crimea was to Ukraine just like the Sudetenland was to prewar Czechoslovakia: in either case the two mentioned territories were predominantly populated by ethnic minorities that naturally wished to be joined to their brothers and sisters across the state border.

What about the economic potential? Again, it does not take a genius to realize how much Russia is more advanced in this respect than Ukraine. Just one telling observation: Ukrainians who leave Ukraine in search of employment leave their country not only for the West but also – in droves – for… Russia. Can we say that we have a reversed phenomenon?

All the information and knowledge adduced above is readily available to anyone. As already said, it is at anyone’s fingertips. It is virtually a few clicks away. Why then listen to the mendacious experts rather than do your own short and simple research? What does it cost you the look up maps similar to those that we are presenting here? What does it cost you to look up information on the population numbers?

And a more interesting question: What makes you believe the unbelievable, the impossible, the unlikely? Look, when you are about to watch a match, a race, a contest between a world champion and a player, a team of a very low ranking, you do not expect a miracle, or do you?

Why support the hostilities knowing full well that hundreds of thousands of people on both sides but especially Ukrainians get killed and mutilated? People in the West keep saying that human life is oh so important, invaluable. Why then throw – consciously! – thousands of lives into a meat grinder?

But I hear you say: it’s different because the whole world (nay, only the whole Western world) is helping Ukraine! If you think so, then, again, look back for precedents. The West did not support Czechoslovakia in 1938, so the country laid down its arms and surrendered. The world (the Western world) supported Poland to the point of declaring war on Germany, so the country put up a fight. The result? During the ensuing five years of war, of occupation, of guerrilla warfare Poland was bulldozed and its population – decimated. Postwar Poland counted 24 million inhabitants as opposed to the 36! million prior to war. Towns, the industry, the infrastructure were all ravaged and devastated. Warsaw looked like Hiroshima, while Prague – like war had never happened. Ukraine is in for pretty much the same what Poland was in 1039-1945. Still, the powers that be insist that the war continue. Why? Obviously, it is not Ukraine’s political sovereignty, territorial integrity or social welfare that matter. Ukraine is being used as a battering ram against Russia. That’s all there is to it.

It was an event waiting to happen. On August 15, in the small town of Velikiye Luki, Russia (fewer than 100.000 inhabitants; north-west of Smolensk, south-east of Pskov, east of the state border between Latvia and Lithuania, on the latitude running close to Copenhagen, and the longitude running through Kiev) there took place a ceremony of unveiling a huge monument to Joseph Stalin. No, the event was not state-sponsored. It was a grass-roots initiative. A small event. One is tempted to disregard such events. Yet, the event speaks volumes. After years of denigrating Stalin, an increasing number of common Russians, not necessarily former communists or members of left-leaning parties or other leftist political organizations (if you will watch the footage of the event in YouTube, you will also spot representatives of the orthodox clergy i.e. individuals whose priestly predecessors had a hard time living under Comrade Stalin) are having second thoughts about Stalin and that period of the history of Russia in particular and the Soviet Union in general. What is remarkable, it is the young people across Russia who, despite being propagandized to believe in the exact opposite, are beginning to positively evaluate the role of Joseph Stalin. Why is that so?

First, the propaganda that was launched and carried out for three decades rode over Joseph Stalin and his followers, supporters or sympathizers roughshod. It resonated positively during the initial years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the existence of the Russian federation, but – as we all know – enough is enough. If you only find fault with a personage, you raise suspicions regarding the veracity of your evaluation. Even least intellectually capable people begin to challenge the narrative that paints everything black.

Second, the present-day position of Russia and that of the Soviet Union, especially under Joseph Stalin, speak for themselves. When Joseph Stalin held the reigns of power, no one in the West dared to drag Russia or the Soviet Union through the mire. The opposite was true. Though the socialist or communist (take your pick) Soviet Union was an ideological opponent – not to say enemy – of the capitalist West, it was partly feared, partly admired, while the Soviet Union’s leader was for a time referred to by a pet name of Uncle Joe. 

Young Russians may not be knowledgeable about much, but anyone can connect the dots made by crude facts. A look at the map tells a lot: the borders of the Soviet Union and those of Russia; the sphere of the political influence of the Soviet Union and that of Russia; the achievements of the Soviet Union – think of the conquest of space, the successful rivalry with the United States in military matters, and many other things – and those of Russia.

What else? The Soviet Union of especially the first three or four decades of its existence was perceived as an ungodly political entity, a horror of horrors, where religion was suppressed, where personal liberties were mocked and where the individual was a cog in the big machinery of the collective. Private property of means of production was constitutionally forbidden. People living in the Soviet Union and later in the so-called communist countries that became the Soviet Union’s satellites envied people in the Western countries their freedom of speech, of travel, of association and of religious faith. They envied them their affluence and economic freedom of doing whatever business they felt like doing.

Decades have passed and the masks of the Western democracies have been dropped. What do the ex-Soviet now Russian or Belorussian people can see in the same(?) West? Moral decay (end of the traditional family, self-pride of sexual perverts in the streets), racial riots, ethnic replacement, pervasive presence of censorship in the media, dead Christian churches and the rising cult of satanism, cancel culture and the veneration – not to say worship – of the planet earth along with its climate. These are not the achievements of the Western world that people in the east were once so envious of: these are the things that are to them repugnant, repellent, upsetting or outrageous, as the case may be. The Soviet people did not go the churches and yet they lived their lives in line with the Christian morality: divorce was rare, homosexuals were unheard of, while the family was stable with the traditional role models for the two (no myriads of) sexes. There were no racial riots in the Soviet Union (recall that the Union comprised Asian republics that had been once conquered by tsarist Russia, the fact that might have been exploited for settling the bills and demanding compensation!). There was no planet worship but rather people – to quote loosely from the Bible – subdued the earth and tried to have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moved on the earth. There was no Greta Thunberg, an insolent teenage girl, preaching to docile ministers and even more docile managers; there was no carbon tax! Rather, people wanted to attain big things: fly in the space, build a dam, win gold at the Olympics, compose a musical or literary work of art.

Yes, during the reign of Joseph Stalin hundreds of thousands if not millions of people were brutally killed or imprisoned or had their careers broken. Yet, history shows that consecutive generations tend to disregard the hardships and only appreciate the achievements. Think of the many people who are fascinated with Napoleon Bonaparte: they do not give two hoots about the suffering of the millions of people that resulted from the many wars that this emperor waged. Think about Genghis Khan: he is Mongolia’s national hero honoured by a huge equestrian statue and a mausoleum. Does anybody care about the hundreds of thousands lives that his conquests ruined? To present-day Mongolians it is only important that also they once had a leader that the whole world feared.

If you decide to watch the footage of the ceremony of the unveiling of the monument to Joseph Stalin in Velikiye Luki, you might notice some posters with the portrait of the Soviet leader and legend that reads: Stalin didn’t die, he dissolved into the future. What can the West offer as a counterbalance? Cancel culture? The destruction of the monuments commemorating its past? 

Ghengis Khan