Thursday, November 20, 2025

On 28 Point Peace Plan

Recently there was a leak about secret peace plan to end War in Ukraine. Different News agencies report different points and terms, so it is hard to judge how reasonable it is. Some claims are clearly absurd, but others are closer to meaningful.

I will analyse the one from ABC article

1. Nothing wrong

2. What kind of non-aggression agreement and what it will contain. Russian promises to not attack in future are not enough. There should be something that physically prevents Russia from attacking.

3. Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Moldova and Azerbaijan all will want to join NATO. I do not see how it is feasible to not expand NATO. With no protection Russia can simply invade them and install puppet governments there. If not NATO, a separate security arrangement has to be agreed in advance. Again, a promise from Russia is not enough.

4. Nothing wrong here. It seems like a pr-opportunity for Russia that we can allow.

5. Security guarantees have to be agreed in advance, not at some time later. They have to include a guaranteed international retaliation against potential future aggression against Ukraine by Russia or any other power.

6. Considering that AFU were smaller than 600 000 before war begun, they can come to this number. Some of those currently fighting will be demobilised and become reserve. Of course, this number should exclude paramilitary National Guard battalions and reservists.

7. If it is about optics and Russia wants Ukraine not in NATO on paper even if Ukraine still gets Article 5 like security, then it is OK, but it's not OK if Russia wants to keep Ukraine without any security at all and open to subsequent Russian invasion. 

Wording should be like: "In case of Russian, Belarussian or any other foreign invasion into territory of Ukraine, the guarantor states are obliged to declare war on the aggressor, assist Ukraine in defending itself and repeal the invader from its territory (borders of the defendable territory will be decided by this agreement)."

8. Without NATO troops, who will provide security and monitor demilitarised zone?

9. Are European jets in Poland supposed to protect Ukraine or for any other reason?

10. What safeguards there are against false flag operations? It is rather inconceivable that Ukraine will attack Russia, but it can be used by Russia to create a casus bello to invade Ukraine again. Russia already claimed Ukraine attacked it in this war so it's not too much of a stretch Kremlin will claim so again in a future invasion.

11. All good

12. All good

13. OK I guess

14. OK

15. The whole peace agreement or just point 14. If whole agreement, then it can be exploited by Russia to interpret the agreement to detriment of Ukraine. The US, EU, Ukraine and Russia should interpret terms of agreement in quadruple format.

16. Nothing wrong with that, but it will not be enough as security guarantee.

17. OK

18. Ukraine already has no nuclear weapons, why it's on the list? UK and France, an offer Ukraine a nuclear umbrella. 

19. Good

20.1 European law on minorities is not the same as Belarussian system where Russian predominates, and Belarussian effectively banned. It will not make Russian second official language. Nonetheless Ukraine can provide Russophones the same rights as France offer Bretons and their language, but certainly not the same rights Belarus offers to Russophones. Same for Hungarians to keep Orban happy. In actuality Ukraine already ratified the charter.

20.2 Orthodox Church of Ukraine is the predominant and official church of Ukraine. There are no restrictions on orthodox worship, but Russian orthodox Church have compromised itself as Russian spy agency and cannot function in Ukraine unimpeded and without surveillance from SBU.

20.3 It has to be clarified that UPA or Stepan Bandera were not Nazi. Azov Regiment is also not Nazi organisation. Ban should not apply to them or organisations like them.

21. There has to be a demilitarised zone between two armies, guarded by either NATO or UN troops. UN troops should also control parts of Donetsk Oblast that currently controlled by Ukraine. Ukraine should be given enough time (1 year) to establish another defensive position behind these lines before relinquishing control of fortress belt.

22. Same as point 10

23. Dnipro, not Dniepr

24. Good

25. There are laws on that, but I think they will fall withing 100 days since the end of war. 100 days will count from definitive end of all hostilities.

26. Putin wants to avoid Hague; I guess we have to concede it.

27. Who else will be on consul? We need to make sure consul will not be misused by Russians to misinterpret the agreement in Russia's favor.

28. OK. However, Ukraine needs to make sure that ceasefire is observed and not violated by Russia for at least a month before removing martial law and calling the election.

Tuesday, November 18, 2025

World Should Prepare for Post-Russia World

 

Back in the days I wrote articles on how better reorganise Russia into several different nations. These were party theoretical, partly rough plans for long-term future. I assumed that while collapse of Russia is inevitable, it will happen in more distant future of next 75-100 years, much like it did for Ottomans.

However Russian continued war in Ukraine made me re-think that assumption. If after all this time Russian leadership still thinks they can win, they are downright delusional. Russia starting war in 2022 could have been explained by variety of factors: imperialistic opportunism, distraction from internal problems, elimination of demographics hostile to Putin's rule and so on. However, any of these reasons would eventually lead to Kremlin either settling on some ceasefire or let war die down like they did with original war in Donbas where no agreement was implemented but fighting gradually fizzled out.

The fact that despite all that Russia continues fighting shows something else. That Russian leadership is delusional. They lost touch with reality and either grew to either believe their own lies or someone who believed these lies all along took real power in Moscow and now steers it towards full on confrontation. Such actions clearly contradict reality. Russia is weak and it will only grow weaker as time goes. It cannot win against EU or NATO. Thus, those who insist on continued fighting are either foreign agents (of Poland or China most likely) that want to destroy Russia from within or delusional local idiots who think that Russia is still a superpower capable of winning or projecting power. It is also possible to assume that Poland deliberately helped Russia's own delusional idiots to take power and start this war.


Regardless, if its work of Poles or local idiots, Russia is currently controlled by delusional people who are completely out of touch with reality. The very fact that something like this is possible in current Russia is a danger to the entire world. These delusional idiots are currently on course to completely destroy Russia from within, leaving an empty shell of a nation. 

If war continued, drained down Russia will be ripe for China to overtake by stealth. Chinese been crossing their norther border into Russia for some time now, thanks to Putin's war, that will only intensify as now Russia has shortage of people and will need Chinese to take jobs vacated by conscripted locals. 

Needless to say, that Chinese takeover is not something that will benefit the world. If China gets whole or most of Russia it will become too powerful to deal with. Thus, West has to pre-empt Chinese takeover by interfering in Russia, directly taking parts of the country and splitting the rest into viable smaller nation states that will have no capacity to wage war. 

Doing nothing poses other risks too. For example, Russia has nukes, corruption possibly destroyed them, but there is a chance they are still operational or can be tinkered with to work somehow. Since current Russian leadership is delusional, they may use these nukes when backed into a corner. One of Putin's famous quotes was about cornered rat.


As things stand now, Russian leadership is on course to completely exhaust its male population in the grinder of its war in Ukraine. After that collapse of Russian state will not just be inevitable, it will also become an imminent rather than long term prospect. 

Thus, world has to prepare itself for this outcome and think of the ways to reorganise former-Russia into something viable and fitting modern times. Articles I wrote over the course of several years can be very helpful in deciding how to re-shape Russia. Maps like these are curious but they do not take local realities into due consideration. 

Modern European Russia has to be split into smaller units, around 10 to 15 million people each as in this size they will have easier time joining the EU and NATO. Logistics and rivers also have to be taken into consideration. Geographic features have to be taken into consideration too to make sure defence is easy and invasions or aggression is hard. Don basin should be in a different country from Volga basin and generally rivers should be divided in a way to avoid any single nation from hogging up all the key logistical routes and exploiting others for access to these things.

In contrast Siberia should be divided into larger units as these areas are sparsely populated and too small of a nation will not be able to defend itself or even effectively control its territory. Americans should annex East Siberia and Far east directly into the US and develop it Alaska style. West Siberia can survive as its own state and will be very rich thanks to oil and gas exports. It should be a successor to modern Russia but should not called Russia. Lena River can be a border between American Siberia and Independent Siberia.

Russian current subdivisions should not be used uncritically in determining new borders. For example, Ural Mountains make for a good natural border and thus should be border between new states rather than have a state stretching all along this long mountain range.

Pragmatic side of Russian elites can be enticed into supporting this plan with promises to give them control of the Independent Siberian state. Hydrocarbons from this state will only enhance their opulent lifestyle as they will no longer have to support the rest of Russia with the money they make. Patriotic elites will have to be eliminated.

 

Suicidal actions of current Russian government leaves world no choice but to prepare for near term Russian collapse. To prevent parts of collapsing Russian state from falling into Chiense hands, West should plan for the collapse and be ready to act when time comes. Bribe elites with lucrative Siberian state, split European Russia into manageable for Euro integration medium size states, finally annex far eastern parts directly into the United States. That way we can ensure the orderly transition and stability for years to come all while PRC and CCP get nothing, or just token concessions. 

Saturday, November 15, 2025

Why Italian and German Unification Succeeded but Slavic One Did Not

 

Nice video about why Italian and German unifications have succeeded but Slavic ones did not. He started well but then went into mysterious Slavic soul that is different from Western One.

I can explain it simpler. Germany and Italy were united by an arguably best and most developed of states of their cultural sphere. 

Savoy-Sardinia-Peidmont had the most advanced and develop economy and technology of all Italian states. Other Italian states, even large like Two Sicilies clearly lagged behind in these things. They were also the only one who were ruled by native dynasty and not cadets of either Habsburgs or Bourbons. Thus, joining Savoyards meant sharing these advances. On the other hand, Savoyards were willing to share their wealth and development with the rest of Italy in exchange for unification. It was an exchange where each side gets something out of it, thus both sides were at least satisfied with it. 

Nowadays it's the north that complains about this deal rather than south. People who united Italy feel they do not want to share their wealth with the rest anymore.

In Germany Prussia was clearly the pre-eminent military power. It was also the most industrialised of all German states. Other states could see it as both protector and benefactor who could actually offer them something in exchange of their sovereignty. Prussia first won traders with Zollverein that abolish customs controls between German states. Then ordinary locals. Finally, leaders of the German states had to be placated with complex federal arrangements that will keep their privileges and crowns on their heads, just take some of their powers away. Crowns were later removed, and territories reorganised but that only came later.

Fundamentally in both Germany and Italy the most developed, advanced and powerful state was willing to share these things with poorer and weaker states in exchange for unification. Small guys actually benefited from these unions.



In the Slavic states it was the other way around. Both Russia and Serbia maybe the most numerous population wise, but also the poorest and most backward of all the states they tried to unite under their lead.

That meant that only the leaders benefited from the union. More developed western states such as Poland, Ukraine, Croatia and Slovenia not only did not get anything, but wealth they managed to create was taken away by their unifiers to be distributed elsewhere. Neither Russia nor Serbia could actually give their fellow Slavs anything, standards of living in both of these states were far below their neighbors. 

Despite not being able to offer anything, both Russia and Serbia took plenty from its wealthier neighbors. It made more develop Slavs feel they are just being plundered by their dirt-poor neighbors. Needless to say, other states did not want to be net donors to the union who not only gets nothing in return but does not even get a say over anything. The more develop western Slav state was, the more it loathed control by their greedy useless deadbeat eastern neighbor.

To make matters worse both Russia and Serbia were autocracies due to their past in Golden Horde and Ottoman Empire. These countries governed in top-down manner by means of intimidation of population, copied from their former oppressors. A mode of government average Westerner will consider tyranny and oppression as it is closer to a military occupation administration than a native government. In contrast Western Slavs had European style responsible governance with elected consuls, debates, discussions and so on. Being deprived of this responsible government by their autocratic neighbors did not bode well with these people.

Needless to say, this one-sided union where only unifier benefits and everyone else only loses was not in the interest of the smaller states. Everyone, but dominant ethnicity saw it as downright oppression, tyranny and shameless plunder. Needless to say, that they shook off their oppressors at the first opportunity and never looked back.



That does not mean that Slavs cannot be unified. Recently European Union attracted many Slavic nations. Just like with Prussia and Savoyards, EU can actually offer Slavs something in exchange for the unification. That something is European responsible government and higher standards of living. That is not something either Russia or Serbia has. That is why pan-Slavism is dead and European Federalism is the future.

Thursday, November 13, 2025

Pro-Culture vs Counterculture

People often talk about cultures. These are often basis for personal identities, that keep people distinct from one another, create basis for different nations around the world and so on. There is also plenty of talk of subcultures, small colourful things that allow people withing any given country to distinguish themselves from their peers without necessary going against main culture.

What gets rarely mentioned and almost always negatively is a counterculture. It often viewed as dangerous, violent and undesirable. However far not every counterculture is violent or about violence. I wrote one other article about this topic but now think it was not enough to cover this phenomenon sufficiently.


To begin with I need to set a definition. In this and my other articles, counterculture is an inversion of the country's official culture. Inversion like the inverted colours of the flags in the picture above. Why it is so I will explain further below.

To begin with I have to outline how official culture is formed. Sure, one might say it develops organically overtime as a reflection of people of any given land and such. However, reality is that government plays much greater role in shaping this culture than most willing to give it credit for. Of course, more often than not it does it in a subtle way to avoid making people suspicious. Government can promote and encourage certain trends and developments while discouraging others. Why do so? Simple, to better shape society to a form desired by elites. Traits elites find desirable are claimed to be part of national character and culture meanwhile traits they do not like are called un-Australian or un-<insert country name here>

Different governments find different traits desirable or not. Sometimes it's just minor matters of aesthetics but other times these differences are much more substantial, producing cultural antagonism between different governments and their societies. 

Most recently war in Ukraine can be explained with such cultural differences between Europe and Russia. More and more people in Ukraine and other post-Soviet states embracing European liberal democratic culture and that makes Russian elites fearful of losing their power to the common people. Europeans, who deliver their power from people, do not fear that and mock antagonism of Russian elites. Russian elites fear the same end suffered by Charles I and Louis XVI frantically try to figure out how stop democracy from beheading them as well. They and I have no doubt that they are guilty of the same crimes, these two monarchs were beheaded for. Just like them, they try to avoid being judged for these crimes. I personally want to see their heads roll.


However back to culture. There is a physical concept that any force produces an equal amount of counterforce. If we apply it to culture, we can say that any official and promoted culture will create equal amount of counterculture. Why does that happen? Because not everyone can relate to traits and values, official culture acclaims and promotes. Some bound to find these to be downright wrong and wish for a different alternative values and principles. Gradually these alternative countervalues will produce a counterculture to match.

The stronger and in a more ham-fisted way government tries to shovel its official culture down people's throat, the stronger the resistance to it will grow, eventually resulting in stronger and more cohesive counterculture. Generally western liberal democracies handle this much more subtle and skillfully than dictatorships. Thus, western countercultures typically remain weak, scattered and undeveloped. Only truly lunatic people embrace them. 

In contrast many dictatorships that overuse censorship and coerce people into official culture using police and threat of prison often end up with strong and cohesive countercultures with their own symbols, ethics, values and more. Sometimes these countercultures could even pull off a revolution and overthrow the regime. Clearly dictatorships are shooting themselves in a foot there, but they do not see it this way.


Just like cultures differ from one another, countercultures also differ from one another. Russian counterculture will hardly have anything in common with a British counterculture. In fact, most countercultures tend to think of themselves as having more in common with official cultures of one or another foreign country. Western leftists idealise "Socialist" countries, rather erroneously thinking they are the same as their countercultural views. Russian and other eastern countercultures idealise Western democracies instead for much of the same reasons. Once again there are differences between Russian counterculture and official cultures of most Western countries, but these are less apparent than between Western socialism and actually communism.


As I mentioned before counterculture is an inversion of any given country's original culture. Its traits are opposite of the tenants of the official culture, traits official culture labels as flaws and wrongs, becoming virtues of counterculture. It's much like psychological trauma that pushes a person towards the polar opposite of things that hurt them. 

For example, when it comes to picking one's girlfriends and wives, men tend to choose someone who resembles their mother. However, if they had conflicts with their mother and associated psychological trauma, they will instead look for a girlfriend who is unlike their mother in every way imaginable, the more different the better. They will think they will not repeat the same mistake so they will not choose a person that shares any similarities with their mother.

In the same way, counterculture treats anything that resembles their official culture with wary and disdain. Western leftists equate social democracy with fascism because some commie once said so, eastern anti-communists think anything with word socialism in it will mean Gulags and Pol Pot style purges.

On the other hand, counterculture can justify a lot of traits typically considered bad. Most official cultures wanted to cultivate one or another form of virtue. Some of these virtues could end up being seen negatively by counterculture that will instead value a corresponding vice. Western countercultures tend to indulge in social disturbance, property destruction as well as blaming West and capitalism for every problem out there, no matter how unrelated. Russian countercultures tend to approve tax avoidance and downright stealing from the state as well as calling state and government in itself evil.

Reasons for these behaviors lie in certain aspects of the official cultures of any said countries. For example, in the West there is strong emphasis on rationality, skills and abilities. Common good is praised but not at expense of self-interest. Facts matter more than emotions and emotions are sometimes mocked altogether. Thus, counterculture embraces these things instead, going all "my feelings do not care about your facts", as well as embracing the benefit of majority ethos of socialism. Finally western respect for property and value of material things lead towards counterculture just wantonly destroying these things for no particular reason other than just to show how they do not care for material things.


As for some real-life examples, then for example in Russia official culture emphasize so called statism: devotion and service to the state. State is object of near religious worship and people should deny themselves anything if it is for the common good, benefit of the state and the county. Calling the country "motherland" is all to further instill this sense of devotion and reverence to it. 

A certain Soviet era propaganda character, called Pavlik Morozov, emphasize Russian government's official ethos. Pavlik's grandpa hid a portion of harvest from the government officials, Pavlik learned of it and reported that to government officials who arrested and shot the grandpa, confiscated hidden grain and gave Pavlik a medal for service to the motherland. Government message is clear: be like Pavlik Morozov, report any crime even if it's your relatives or against your own best interests, be loyal to the state and society first and foremost, treasure government medals and decorations. People like Pavlik grandpa are selfish, endanger common good and the motherland with their selfish actions and thus deserve contempt and punishment. People like Pavlik Morozov adorned many propaganda posters all across USSR, all emphasising how important and honorable it is to sacrifice for motherland. 

Russian counterculture instead emphasizes not being as Pavlik Morozov in every possible way. Hide wealth from government to prevent them from confiscating it. Never report anyone to officials, no matter what they do. Steal from government because all they have was stolen from people like Pavlik's grandpa. Ignore state and common good and get rich and then retire in Rio de Janeiro (or similar tropical paradise place) like Ostap Bender wanted to. Pavlik Morozov and Ostap Bender became two antagonising characters of Soviet culture and counterculture. Bender is downright swindler and crook with hardly any redeeming qualities, but people love him regardless because he is polar opposite of hated Pavlik Morozov.

Western people will hardly call Bender a hero, self-interest may be Western value, but fraud and stealing are not. To top it up Bender has rather unpleasant personality and does not hesitate to swindle even his associates and run for it. They will not endorse Pavlik Morozov but will hardly praise Bender just because he is not Morozov.

Ostap Bender is just one example of such counterculture idol, not everyone is inspired by him, but I am pretty sure that almost every Russian Oligarch was inspired by him and likely employed his methods to get what they own.

Another countercultural icon of Russia is Victor Tsoi and Kino band. Their melancholic songs about personal concerns and reflections about world and life around them, still attract huge crowds long after the person himself died in car accident, allegedly orchestrated by KGB. Government wishes people would move on already, but public stubbornly graffities "Tsoi lives" on walls of apartment blocks and other areas, imitating Soviet slogan: "Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin will live". 


I doubt it is possible for me to find characters that held similar impact on western culture or counterculture. Some might call John Galt from Atlas Shrugged or Ayn Rand herself as Western analogue of Pavlik Morozov because Western leftists are so hell bent on hating them. However official culture does not promote them in any way, so they are hardly poster children of the system. Real life self-made businessman like Elon Musk or Warren Buffett probably fit this role better. There are also war heroes and presidents and more. Prometheus from Greek myth or Jesus is possibly Western analogue of counterculture hero. Western lefties tend to believe that western prosperity needs to be stolen and shared with the rest of the world, just like Prometheus stole Fire of Gods and gave it to people. Lefties relieve Prometheus life by voting to increase migration or advocating black people's rights and then endure right wing backlash. All that will mostly apply to the United States as Australia and Europe are rather different in that regard.

One might want to mention Ned Kelly or Eureka Stockade as a counterculture hero, but Ned Kelly does not polarise society as other examples here do. There is a dichotomy between wowsers and larrikins as well as between Tories and Laborites, but I do not think there are characters that archetype each of these groups. We in Australia go easy on propaganda and ideals; instead, we surf, drink and barbeque food instead.


Also, I would like to mention that it's not necessary only a single counterculture for every given official culture. In any given country there could be several different countercultures with different opinions about each other, they can see themselves as complimentary but different or even oppose each other even more than official culture. 

If we compare cultures to atomic structure, then official culture or cultures are like protons forming the core or monolith of the state and giving it positive charge, subcultures are like neutrons, also hanging around the core but with no charge, just atomic mass, finally countercultures are elections, negatively charged and revolving around the core at a distance and hoping to escape to another atom.

Negativity towards official culture does make one think that things are better elsewhere where culture is different. However, cultures of the idealised foreign countries are almost never the exact match to the counterculture of another countries. That said they are still closer to the countercultures of the said counties than their own official cultures are. 

Thus, countercultural people on average are more inclined towards individuality, solitude and negativity. In general, countercultural people exhibit electron like behavior. Unlike official culture people or subcultures who like to band together like protons and neutrons in atomic core, countercultural people keep their distance from people around them as they float at the distance and thinking of switching from one core for another.

Just like in atomic physics some atoms are more inclined to lose their electrons while certain other atoms instead gain them. Smaller atoms with just one of two electrons on outer layer often lose these electrons to atoms with many electrons on outer layer. It works the same way with cultures. Monocultural and autocratic societies with few countercultures tend to lose its countercultural members to the multicultural societies with many subcultures and countercultures. I forgot how it's called in atomic physics but in human societies it's called brain drain.


Finally, about flags. Since counterculture is inversion of any given county's official culture, it would be natural to use national flag of inverted colours as a counterculture flag of any given nation. For example, this is inverted flag of Russia and this one is of Australia. There are more in the picture above. As I mentioned in another one of my articles that Bahamas are likely the most un-Russian country in the world. True to this idea inverted flag of Russia or Australia has broadly the same colours as flag of Bahamas. So are most other nations inverted flags as white inverts to black, red into turquoise and finally blue into yellow. 

Black stands for defiance, turquoise for tropical paradise sea and yellow for sand on the beach of such tropical paradise. That is possibly something most countercultures could agree on. All these values, principles and sacrifices are pointless (unless they exist to protect this tropical paradise lifestyle, like EU liberal democratic values do), what matters is 5-star resort living in a tropical paradise. I call it 5-star-resortism, the only ideology that touches my soul. 

To that end we can adopt flag of Bahamas as international counterculture flag. Flag of people who do not give a fuck about your feelings and values, will not sacrifice for your stupid shit and in it only for themselves and their tropical paradise living.

Sunday, October 26, 2025

How Open Pit Mining Changed the World

 

Back in the days I liked to watch a Russian TV show called Chto, Gde, Kogda where a group of very erudite people would answer not so trivial questions about various global trivia. Despite their erudition I doubt they will be able to explain how the process, depicted in the picture above, caused both rule of Margaret Thatcher in UK, collapse of USSR and war in Donbas. In fact, they might even struggle to name the process, much less explain its far-reaching implications. Their knowledge is more of cultural rather economic kind.


Now the correct answer. The process above is called Strip Mining and the machine doing it is Bucket Wheel Excavator. The experimental prototypes appeared in early 20th century but really took off around 1970. There are more technicalities a professional miner will be able to point out but for the purpose of this article they are not important. 

These technological and other developments revolutionised mining. If before a lot of people had to work together in small pits or underground shafts to painstakingly collect a few pieces of coal every day, then with BWE a small crew can easily extract tons upon tons of coal every day. Coal, that was very hard and sometimes dangerous to mine, suddenly became cheap easy and abundant.



However new methods of mining did have a certain negative effect. Just like any other technological breakthrough, it did make obsolete the methods that were used before. In this case old mines, using more traditional methods of mining, became unable to compete with new much more productive and cheaper ones.

Already in 1973 government of UK considered closing some of their mines. The miner's strike did put an end to this plan, and miners even got a pay rise. However, that made traditional mining even more unprofitable than it was before. Combined salaries of miners were much higher than the price Coal Board could get for the coal they could mine. That was not sustainable. As time went it only got worse.

Eventually government struck back. Charismatic Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher first convinced the public the cuts were necessary and then went after mines. She closed the already unprofitable ones and promised to gradually close the rest as they gradually deplete. Miners fought back with strikes and protests, but this time government was prepared. They stockpiled coal in advance, and this time had access to significant amounts of imported coal. 

Fundamentally miners lost precisely because their mining was no longer as essential to economy as it once was. Early 1900s of peak coal when without its mines and miners UK would just stop were long gone. Now miners and their mines were history, a different kind of mines that used heavy machinery like BWE were now making more than enough coal to heat not just UK but the world, cheap and easy.



Now to the second part of the question. Why it collapsed USSR. BWE sure is big but not big enough to destroy the superpower armed with nuclear weapons, right? Turned out BWE could and did destroy a superpower armed with nuclear weapons.

Unlike UK, where Thatcher government could alter laws and close mines, Soviet system had workers protections enshrined on nearly constitutional level. That gave workers unparallel job security that USSR liked to brag about both to its public and abroad, never failing to mention how Soviet worker cannot be fired on a whim of some greedy capitalist boss. In times of economic stability and absence of dramatic technological changes it worked well, but when technological change required that some industries be completely re-imagined, it was an unacceptable impediment. 

Since Soviet Socialist ethos prevented them from just firing workers, they decided to fight the economy instead. Ever since early 80s successive governments tried variety of measures to improve productivity and stave off economic collapse and bankruptcy. One year they will toughen measures, institute strict accountability and tell people work harder or else? When that did not work, they will try the other way and instead allow private enterprise. A year later Gorbachev will go on a global charm offensive to get loans to democratise USSR and prop up the economy while at it.

Despite best efforts, Gorbachev policy experiments have not managed to beat the economy. Late 80s were characterised by shortages of food and other basic goods. Finally, USSR itself collapsed in 1991. Economy won. All that showed that if a country will not adapt to an economic change, it will be swept away by an economic storm even if it's a superpower armed with nuclear weapons.



The final question. How that relates to a War in Donbas. Simple, the people do not get the economy. Even in relatively economically savvy UK, if you ask anyone from a mining town why mines closed. they will squarely blame it on Thatcher. Most will say it her sheer malice and evil nature that make her close mines, hurt workers and steal children's milk from schools. Even complex in depth explanation by YouTube pundits often cite neoconservative conspiracy to enrich the rich by robbing the poor. Hadly anyone will quote Bill Clinton's famous "it's the economy stupid".

That should be no surprise than their colleagues in Ukrainian Donbas also do not blame the economy for their troubles. If an average erudite from Chto Gde Kogda will not be able to get that one, what can one expect from a miner that goes down the dusty shaft every working day. Not the most conductive environment for intellectual development.

Back during Soviet times miners would blame Gorbachev and Soviet government. Most actually supported Ukraine's independence for that simple reason, thinking it will make mining great again. However, after independence they would soon start blaming new government in Kyiv that old underground shaft mines do not pay as much as they used to during 70s. Eventually this sentiment gave rise to Soviet nostalgia and pro-Russian irredentism. Miners forgot how they thought separating from USSR will solve the mining problem, now they thought re-uniting with Russia will solve it instead.

Hawks in Russia, overrepresented both in government and among the general population compared to other countries, saw it as a call for action. To "liberate" the miners from government in Kyiv. Concerns for Russian language, culture, EU, NATO and other things further added to the casus belli. In actuality Ukraine was and still is very reasonable in phasing in use of Ukrainian language instead of Russian one. It natural that every country would expect its residents and citizens to be able to communicate in its national language. Even that however offended Russian hawks as they see Russian language and its continued usage as some sort of unalienable right of Russophones of post-Soviet states. 

Russian government made things worse by either deliberately exacerbating or downright inventing obstacles Russian speakers face in Ukraine, giving hawks more reasons to call for action. At first, they simply wanted cheap distraction from domestic problems for Russian public. However, the lies they told eventually grew so large, it became impossible to not act on them. After certain point refusing to do so would either mean Putin is too weak or cowardly to do anything. Admitting that all Russian TV has told them about Ukraine was a lie (which it was), including life footage of abuse that was staged or fabricated, was not good either as that will make people question other things Putin and Russian TV ever claimed or showed. 

A war ensued and as of writing this text the end it nowhere in sight.



However, while war is often seen as univocally bad thing, there is one silver lining that can actually produce something good from all that destruction. It will open Donbas area to a more modern methods of mining.

Most of Donbas mining was in underground shafts. These take very little space on the surface, so mining towns were built all around mines. The density of build-up makes it impossible to convert the area into open pit or strip-mining area, where heavy machinery will fit and be able to work, without destroying the mining towns themselves.

Now that war brought destruction in the area and Russia literary levelled several towns like Bakhmut with the ground, that surface mining could become feasible. 

If Ukraine will begin shelling the annexed areas controlled by Russia the same way Russia shelled Bakhmut, soon the entire area will be rubble. War will give convenient excuse to do this to this area. Most of the population has already fled and a lot of housing is already damaged beyond repair. There is no reason to not finish the job.

Profits from surface mining will be able to bring prosperity to Ukraine and fix the damage war has done to it. At the same time there are hardly any downsides left as most towns are already damaged beyond repair and most people have fled. So, it's time to make lemonade out of proverbial lemons that life gives sometimes. The country will be richer from it.

Friday, October 24, 2025

Socialism is Dead and We Should Move On

 

Socialism is dead. As someone who looks at things objectively and does not hesitate to point out issues of both right and left, I have to say it straight and clear. Socialism is dead, it will never recover and it's time to move on.

In this article I do not mean Social Democracy that is practiced in Scandinavia and generally across the Europe. Neither do I mean new left like Podemos or Syriza. They do have a future. New ideas such as Social Liberalism and Social Libertarianism together with UBI have future as well.

However actual orthodox Marxist Socialism that wants to cease means of production is fully and truly dead. Nationalising means of production did not work then and has even less chances of succeeding now.


The reason why Socialism is dead is the fact that nationalizing means of production does not solve the inherent problems of capitalist system. It just replaces one ruling class with another one, who are no less cruel and condescending towards working people than those capitalists they replace.

George Orwell illustrated it well in his Animal Farm book. The pigs who led the revolution gradually became even more spoiled and exploitative than the farmer they expelled. Real life communists went the same way. They wear blue collar worker's uniform to look like one of the masses, but in reality, lead a more spoiled life than kings they replaced. Look and Kim Jong Un or Fidel Castro and see if for yourself.


Even when first socialist congress was convened in the middle of 19th century, many cautioned against this very outcome. What was the reaction of the congress: to expel the critics, labelling them naysayers and press on.

Several splits on, the more radical socialists managed to seize power in dysfunctional and backward Russian Empire. They finally got their go and what did it showed. The fact that critics were right. The new ruling class replaced capitalists and now exploiting workers like never before. Even some very fervent supporters of revolution like Trotsky and Mayakovski were pointing that out. What did communist party did about, it? Once again expelled the naysayers and pretended that there is no problem.


What happened in USSR afterwards? Did they tried to address the issues and fix the system. No, far from it. Instead, they doubled down on repression. 

Anyone critical of the system in any way was silenced and repressed. Zealotry and unwavering faith in the system became the modus operandi of the party. Competence, ability, science, skills and other useful abilities that could actually move country forward were ignored and sidelined in favor of blind faith that Lenin and the party know what they are doing and unflagging desire to carry their will forward. 

Even leaders who wanted to improve life of common people were removed in favor of brain-dead dogmatic zealots. Khruschev fell because he had ideas and wanted to make things better. He was replaced with Brezhnev who just parroted the slogans and pretended that everything is sunshine when it clearly was not.


How was life for an ordinary worker. Much worse than in "exploitative, rotten capitalism." Leaders' desire to stick it to Americans and the West bled the country dry. USSR had half of GDP of the United States, yet leaders wanted an army bigger than American one and be first in space as well. They also spend lavishly on various communist guerrillas across the globe to win the Cold War. 

Average worker had to foot the bill. Every rouble spends to help Africa is rouble not spend on quality of life. Average Soviet and Eastern Block citizen had much less wealth than average Westerner NATO member. Apartments were small, cars where exotic luxury and so were electronics. Even food and clothes were scarce, the planners of planned economy somehow calculated that person needs only a pair of socks and pair of trousers a year and produced no more. putting all surplus money in tanks, rockets and African dictators like Mugabe.


Meanwhile across the iron curtain Americans and Europeans learned from their mistakes and fixed the issues that their system had. They started spending to improve quality of life of common man. FDR introduced New Deal policy, Social Democracy was implementing welfare state across Europe. Post WWII era became time of unprecedented prosperity and comfort for average joe.

What USSR did to match that? Nothing. Instead, it double down on propaganda and tried to claim moral high ground. They had no quality of life, so instead they pushed ethics, claiming that spending of Africa and space is more moral than on yachts and mansions. Did average worker who had to work more and eat less to make it happened cared for Africa. Not at all. However self-righteous party bosses decided for him anyway. They chose to beat America, matching American achievements move by move.

Gradually USSR mirrored everything Americans had. Americans flew a man into space; USSR has to to. US build 5000 nukes; USSR has to build 6000 to top that. Americans won 40 Olympic medals; USSR has to win 50 and so on. Even organisations such as Boy Scouts and YMCA were copied. Society scouts were called Young Pioneers and instead of Young Christian Men Association there was Committee of Lenin's Youth (ComSoMol). Even that scarf around neck was the same, just of different colour. The church was of course the party itself, huge sprawling juggernaut that controlled it all.

Eventually conflict started too like Cola Wars between Coke and Pepsi, labels are different, but content is largely the same, just of different colour. Joke that capitalism is exploitation of a man by a man and socialism is the other way around very aptly described it.

Final nail in the coffin was delivered by crazy dictators such as Pol Pot and Kim Jong Un. No matter how much socialists will claim "it was not real socialism" the public will forever associate socialism with Pol Pot's brutality, North Korea Craziness and Cuba's poverty. There is just no way to whitewash any of that.


It all ended in late 80s when people grew so tired of sacrificing their wellbeing for the ego of party bosses, they just rebelled against the system, and it was no more.

Almost 40 years have passed since then. Did communists learn something from all that? Nothing at all. All communists and orthodox socialists do is wallow in nostalgia, tout few achievements and fervently deny all shortcomings no matter how small.

Capitalism won because it could learn from its own mistakes, identify its shortcomings and offer solutions that work. Communism lost because it cannot do the same critical analysis of its own system shortcomings.


That does not mean that left in general is dead. New left, born in the current system and offering solutions to the current problems still able to be popular. Podemos and Syriza win elections and form governments. Broadly left Pirate Parties do the same.

New left has future, but its bogged down by the old left. Old communists eventually made their way into Podemos ranks and destroyed the party from within. Now people no longer trust Podemos, and it could not win anything. Syriza and Pirates are smarter because they refuse to do the same and keep communists at arm length.

Pirates can win election, Syriza can win elections, but old orthodox Marxist Socialist cannot. So, it's long overdue Marxists finally get down from their high horse, admit critics were right, put their red flag into museum and rally behind the black and/or purple one instead. Then under leadership of sceptics and critics we can actually create a better world for us all.


Communism and Socialism is dead, and the sooner left realised it the better. Then we can finally work on a new and better system that will actually solve the problems.

Thursday, October 23, 2025

Australia Should Replace $5 Note With A Coin and Withdraw 5c and 10c Coins

 

Ever since Queen Elizabeth II has died, there was an issue of replacing her image on $5 note with something else. A progressive crowd want aboriginal motive while those not so found of Aboriginals resist this idea.

What both sides overlook however is the fact that inflation made value of $5 note much lower than it once was. Nowadays you can buy a lot less with $5 note compared to what you could buy with $2 note when it was withdrawn and replaced with $2 coin. 

Australian mint already makes commemorative $5 coins. They are pretty, bimetallic or coloured with various fancy features. Instead of reinventing the $5 bill it will be much easier and practical to make one of the commemorative designs a permanent coin. It will save country a lot of money in the long run as coins are much more durable than notes, even plastic notes.


Also, while at it we should also withdraw 5c and 10c coins. By now their value have deprecated so much, they hardly even make change for anything. Minting them is waste of money. They are nothing more than deadweight that often just casually gets dropped on the floor and ignored by people. Yet these worthless coins cost money and effort to actually mint.

At the same time the other coins can be reimagined as well. 50c coin can be made smaller and thinner. Meanwhile a 20c coin should be re-imagined as 25c and lowest denomination available. It should also be made smaller and thinner. Prices even in grocery stores are in increments of 25c, so it will be practical and reflect reality. 

On 28 Point Peace Plan

Recently there was a leak about secret peace plan to end War in Ukraine. Different News agencies report different points and terms, so it is...