Russian and Chinese Hybrid War Against Liberal Democracy

 

Recent bout about dangers of criminal migrants and refugees prompt me to write a detailed explanation of this problem. I was writing many times that government do not let in any dangerous or criminal refugees, such dangerous migrants are smuggled into the Western liberal democratic countries illegally. Russia is doing that using its special forces as well as affiliated mafia. They are doing it with one single person: to destroy western world from within.

Why is Russia doing it? Why does it need to destroy the West? What purpose and benefit there is in just wreaking havoc that costs Russia money and does not bring any material or financial gains?

The reason is survival. Russia and mainland Chinese regimes are very unpopular with their own people. They look at the West and see benefits western style liberal democracy brings. Then they look back and their own countries and see just how much worse Putin and Xi authoritarian system is by comparison.

Autocrats in both Moscow and Beijing are threatened by their own people and their increasingly radical and revolutionary mood. They clearly see that if they do nothing, they will one sunny afternoon will just be kicked out like Yanukovych, and his cronies were kicked out of Ukraine. For that they have a personal vendetta against Ukraine. Russian war in Ukraine is fundamentally about that. A revenge for Yanukovych and Euromaidan. Just like Napoleonic wars were revenge of then autocracies for French Revolution and beheading of Louis XVI.

However, destroying Ukraine in itself will not save autocracies in Moscow and Beijing. They know that and seek something that will actually prevent people from overthrowing them.

However, what something like that could be? What can possibly destroy an idea, an abstract concept? For the lack of any better ideas, Moscow and Beijing have settled on if not destroying every single democratic country in the world, then at least damaging and ruining them as much as possible.

Flooding democratic world with fake criminal refugees is but a part of such strategy. Such fakes refugees are there to make life of average Westerner as bad as possible, making Russian and Chinese autocracy better in comparison just because they do not have the same refugee problem.

However, this is not the only method autocratic alliance of Kremin and Beijing use. They use every trick they could possibly think of to damage or at least weaken the West and its prosperity.

Fake news, not just overt propaganda channels like Russia Today or Sputnik but also people Tucker Carson who are paid secretly. Rupert Murdoch may as well be on Kremlin's payroll as well. 

Russia has perfected clandestine methods of transferring money so payments from Kremlin will not appear in official ledgers. Instead, they will be disguised as some investments from anonymous funds or private donations.

Online trolls are another method Russia uses to attack the west; they pretend to be Westerners and spread contrarian radical messages, aimed at radicalising locals against liberal status quo.

Moscow deliberately makes these trolls to advocate illiberal solutions for alleged Western problems. Aim is to make Western societies more bigoted and less liberal and welcoming to migrants. Moscow war is on liberal democracy as well as rule of law. So, in Moscow's eyes every move away from rule of law or liberal society is a victory for Kremlin. 

Moscow wants Western societies to stop being liberal and replace rule of law with autocratic enforcement and abuse of power. If ICE officers will grab foreign looking people on the streets and forcefully repatriate them, it will look similar to how Russian riot police handles anti-Putin protesters. It will eliminate appeal, liberal democracy holds in Russian society, as people will question if government treats them any better if Russia was a democracy.

Final and the most ambitious angle of Russian attacks is directly sponsoring parties that advocate illiberal ideas and policies. Moscow certainly wants to see people like Geert Wielders, Le Pen and Alice Weidel in power as they will destroy all the appeal, Western way of life has among anti-Putin Russians. They will also destroy German economy and reduce French and Germans to a slave labor for building skyscrapers in Moscow.

In view of the above, it's pretty clear that Kremin has a comprehensive strategy for its unconventional hybrid war against Europe, the US and collective West. Moscow sees democracy and liberal way of living in itself as a threat to its existence, existence of its ruling class to be precise. Because of that they are willing to wage a war of utter destruction even if it harms both sides equally. Kremlin thinks all sacrifices are worth it if they can destroy liberal democracy or at least make it unappealing to an average Russian.

Because of Kremlin's extreme agenda, the West should develop a cohesive and decisive response to Kremlin's hybrid war. It should outsmart Putin, expose Kremlin's links to "patriotic" politicians in the West, disrupt its networks of paid client media, prevent these people from receiving money from Moscow, prevent trolls from flooding online spaces with paid messages and more. 

The response to Kremlin hybrid war should also be smart and hybrid. Acting recklessly will instead lead towards playing right into Kremlin's trap. West should stop Putin but not the cost of destroying freedom and democracy that made Western world great and appealing across the world in the first place.

Doing nothing is not an option either. Left unopposed, Le Pen and AfD may eventually take over the governments, and all will be lost.

Hopefully West will be able to prevail against Kremlin's hybrid warfare, and this time end autocratic rule in Russia for good.

Russia Should Negotiate with Europe Directly

 

So far Russia have continuously refused to negotiate with Europe, calling them weak and irrelevant. However, reality of situation on the ground is such that only negotiations between Russia and Europe can end this war and Russia will have to talk to Brussels of they will destroy themselves in Ukrainian meatgrinder. 

Russia certainly dislikes Europeans. They fear EU soft power and hate their meddling in what they perceive as Russian backyard. Moscow certainly does not want to talk to Europe and would like to avoid it at all costs. They clearly perceive that these negotiations will not be easy and they will not be able to get as much as say Trump willing to offer them.

However, there is no alternative to negotiations with Europeans. Fundamentally Russian conflict is not with Ukraine or the United States, but with EU. Thus, to end it, they will have to negotiate with Brussels. 

Trump maybe sympathetic to Russian position, but he has little power to actually do anything. Maximum the US can do is pull the financial support for Ukraine. That will not stop the war however as Europeans are more than willing to pay for weapons for Ukraine as well as send them their own. The US is no USSR and could not send its troops to change government in Kyiv or Brussels, that will destroy the very system on which Americans have built their global power. Anything short of that will not stop the war. Americans do need their European allies to help them against China so they will not screw them over.

Marko Rubio made it clear than the US has not stake in this war, he said it's not our war. Americans do not really understand what the war is about, they find the whole affair utterly pointless, but willing to play a mediator in the conflict. Thus, they listen to Russia but that does not mean they are endorsing Russian point of view. Russians erroneously perceive Steve Witkoff as authority to write peace unliterary. In reality he is more of an advocate for Russian cause, with Keith Kellogg being his counterpart for Ukrainian side. Marko Rubio will then try to mediate peace between the positions of these two people and sides they represent, and it will only be accepted if both sides considered it acceptable. It will not be forced on Europe or Ukraine.

Then there is also an option to negotiate with Ukraine but that does not work either. Moscow sees former Soviet states as its subordinates and only able to talk to them in language of ultimatums rather than negotiate with them as equals. Ukraine understands it all too well and will not be willing talk with someone who does not treat them as equal. There is no point in talking to someone who treats anything you say as nonsense and that is how Russia behaves towards Ukraine. The fact that Putin dared to call Zelenski illegitimate puts final nail in the coffin of direct talks. No matter what is agreed, Russia can later dismiss it as null and void as it was signed by a president they do not recognise. Thus, direct talks between Russia and Ukraine are out of question either.

That only leaves Europe. Starmer, Macron and von den Leyen have managed to build trust with Ukrainian leadership and therefore able to represent their interests in a reasonable manner. Russian counterparts are able to see them as equal enough to actually negotiate rather than dictate conditions. They will consult with Ukraine on details to make sure Kyiv is ok with the terms. 

Europeans certainly will not offer Kremlin a deal as good as Witkoff did, but Witkoff's deal is fundamentally an illusion that will never work. It is Europeans Union that needs Ukraine and other post-soviet states as its members, not Americans. Thus, if Kremlin has a problem with that, they will have to take it to Brussels, not Washington DC.

The US has no interests in Kyiv and thus no stake in conflict. Yes, Americans may take greater role in Ukraine and its minerals if peace deal is approved but that is hypothetical future. The present is conflict between Kremlin and Brussels and only these two sides can solve it. The longer Kremlin will continue to deny this reality, the more soldiers it will lose.

Brussels, Starmer and Macron certainly will be hard to deal with, but they are not the worst among those who have stake in this conflict. Poland and most of former Eastern Bloc is also actively participating in this conflict, backing Ukraine above and beyond their Western counterparts. Poland however is not interested in negotiations with Russia. Poland wants Russia partitioned into several small states that will be dominated by Warsaw. Thus, Kremlin may want to negotiate with Brussels a deal that at least preserves Russia in one piece.

Because of the above the fastest way to end war is direct negotiations between Brussels and Kremlin. If Kremin continues to act through Washington, it will make process much longer and ultimately will not make a final peace deal any better for Kremlin than the one they can get from Brussels. 

Why Peace in Ukraine has to be Framed as an American victory over Russia

 

Russian leaders like Western plots to against Russia as that allow them to rally people around themselves. Kremlin, say they oppose western troops in Ukraine but in reality, something like that is easier to sell to people then a democratic choice of Ukrainian people. 

Russia elites like to see the world in terms of Great Powers and power hierarchies. Big countries carve world between themselves, small ones just powerless watch. 

Russian elites biggest fear is that people from below usurp powers of those above and overthrow them.

Euromaidan is an example of just such situation: common people removed privileged people with authority. To Russia that is unacceptable not from perspective of losing pro-Russian leaders but from perspective that it shows that common people have the power to remove authorities.

Russia would like to instil sense that common people are completely powerless and can do nothing against authorities. Big guys decide, small people just shut up and obey. If Kremlin fails to instil and maintains this idea among people in Moscow, they might try to overthrow Putin.

Ukraine is problem to Kremlin precisely because it is an example of people doing just that, overthrowing authority. To Moscow it would be better if it was a CIA coup. That way they can frame the whole thing not as an expression of popular will but as a game between big players

For Moscow it is much easier to take an L from the US and accept that CIA have outplayed them in Ukraine than accept that small common people just overthrew the government they did not like and replaced it with the one they choose. That is why Moscow keeps spreading these lies about CIA plot. It's the optics they want.

Because of the above, for Moscow a peace deal that favors Ukraine, that is signed bilaterally with Americans is better than a deal, more favorable to Russia, but signed with Ukrainians instead. That way Russia can maintain that even if Russia lost, they are still playing in the big league with the biggest guys out there. This big-league status is what it's all about, not a few provinces and towns in Ukraine. Russia wants its big-league status back.

That is why Russia is so dismissive of both Ukraine and Europeans. Signing anything with them will make Russia look like they are on the same level with these guys, not something Russia wants. Russia wants to be seen equal only to the US and above Europe and Ukraine

Because of that a peace deal that is acceptable to Russia has to look like the US and Russia are carving spheres of influence, and countries like Ukraine are mere pawns who fall one or another way and have no say in the matter.

Such peace deal can favour Ukraine and address some of Kyiv concerns, but it has to be worded as US demands to Russia, not Ukraine demands to Russia. Putin can accept demands from someone bigger but not from someone smaller. Losing to the US will not make him look like a pushover weakling. Losing to Ukraine will.

In soccer parallels if English National Team loses to German or Brazil, people will be upset but they will accept the results without much issue because Germany and Brazil are strong teams and you cannot win against them all the time. In contrast if English National Team loses to Wales, Albania or Andorra, fans will be shocked. How could England lose to someone this weak and small. Some soul searching will definitely follow.

There are no leagues on international level, but on national best teams play premier league and weaker ones are relegated to 2nd, 3rd and so on. Russia is concerned if they are still in Premier Leage or are they are being demoted.

In the same way when it comes to peace in Ukraine, Russia can accept a loss to the US but not to the EU or Ukraine. Peace deal has to be framed as Russian loss to Americans and signed biliteracy between the two. Ukraine and Europe have to be consulted on actual terms of the deal, but in the final text, it has to be worded in a way like the whole thing was written in Washington DC.

Ukraine Should Improve its Propaganda and Claim 'Ukraine's Victory is Inevitable'

 

Recently I read a lot of twitter posts about war in Ukraine. Most of them are by Russian trolls, but there were some Ukrainian too. Russia certainly has advantage in number of trolls that push its narrative under various guises, here like on the battlefield Ukraine cannot match Russian numbers. However, while on battlefield Ukraine could win due to better training and equipment, when it comes to propaganda, Ukrainian one is lagging behind Russian.

To reverse the situation Ukraine needs to improve its quality and character of its message. Ukraine heavily relies on high moral ground. That was good for the beginning of the war. Back them it was important to establish that Ukraine fights for a good cause and supporting it is a right thing to do. That worked well and the world has rallied behind Ukraine.

However, time has passed, war is almost in its 4th year and thinking started to evolve from right vs wrong, to more real politic of who is going to win and does Ukraine have a real chance of winning or not. After initial fervor, some more cynical and practical Europeans and especially Americans now think that if Ukraine is going to lose anyway, then why drag out time and delay the inevitable.

Russian propaganda cleverly adopted towards this mentality and now regularly portrays Russian victory as inevitable. Meanwhile Ukrainian propaganda fails to do the same, still sticking to the narrative they adopted in the beginning of the conflict.

Sure, Ukrainian propaganda portrays Russian military as reprehensible and dysfunctional, but it always falls short of claiming the same bold statement as Russian one. Never once Ukrainian propaganda claimed that Ukrainian victory is inevitable and there is nothing Russian military can do to change this foregone outcome.

Sure, that might sound like a stretch, but there are good arguments to actually back this bold statement. Ukrainian soldiers are much better trained and equipped. Because of that one Ukrainian soldier can easily take down 5 to 10 Russian ones. Casualty rate proves this assessment. Thus, if war continues it is Russia that will run out of soldiers far before Ukraine, making Ukraine's victory indeed inevitable.

Ukraine can further back this claim with news reports that Russia issues its troops rusty and non-functioning guns without ammunition. Guns that do not shoot, do not win wars no matter the numeric advantage. Furthermore, Ukraine should point out that Russian troops do not know how to hold guns or fire them. Russian military lost 1 500 000 soldiers but claims they are 'wining' against the military that lost only 200 000. All that makes Russian victory an impossible frivolous fantasy of Kremlin that should not be taken seriously. To sum all that it's pretty clear that continued war will certainly result in guaranteed Russian defeat and Putin should stop wasting lives of Russian soldiers and withdraw.

Current Ukrainian propaganda does not suit the prolonged war Ukraine currently fighting and should be changed to better affect the global moods. Ukraine should start portraying Ukrainian victory and Russian defeat as inevitable and forgone conclusion.

Why Unions of Culturally Close Nations is Horrible Idea

 

Recently received popularity received the idea that culturally close countries should either stick close to one another or even unite into single country or a union. In Russia idea that Ukrainian and Belarussians are "brotherly" was always popular. That idea justified special treatment of these two countries. Most recently it was used to justify Russian War in Ukraine. Defenders of this idea would explain war not as one between distinct nations, but more of a "family argument." No matter how preposterous that sounds, for defenders of this idea in Russia it somehow makes sense. China too started to use this argument towards Japan and South Korea, arguing that these three East Asian nations should be closer to each other politically and ideologically.

To justify such ideas, various family like terminology is used. Nations are called "brotherly" so that collectively they can be called "family". That way supporters can argue that family must stay together and that outsiders should not mess with internal family relationships. At first glance they sound as innocent and even benign ideas. If countries are close culturally would not, they have easier time to understand each other and get along? Reality's answer to this question is resounding no.

Take for example Yugoslavia. It had all the ingredients of such cultural union: culturally close "Brotherly" nations, single ideology, even single language for 4 out of 6 members of the union. What could have gone wrong? A lot. In fact, so much that wars of dissolution of Yugoslavia were plagued by literal genocide. The two most distinct members with their own languages: North Macedonia and Slovenia seceded easily but it was complete bloodbath between the remaining four. The closest members of the union hated each other more than more distinct ones.

Reasons for this hatred are many, but most of them stem from the very common root that connects them. Because of old grunges that four had against each other, they could not agree who should own what or why. Each side had a score to settle and blame the other one for myriads of different reasons. Long time existing next to each other accumulated lots of issues that one held against the other. Eventually these issues became so many that when Milosevich pushed for reforming Yugoslavia in Serbia's favor it became the last straw and Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia declared independence, Serbia responded with war.

One may counter-argument that these conflicts were due to different religion. For example, Serbs are Orthodox Christians and Croats are Catholics. That may be true, but Slovens are also Catholics like Croats, yet Serbs hardly had any issues with them and let them out of the union without an issue. With Croats Serbs instead fought a long bloody war over who owns what. On the other hand, common religion did not prevent Slovens and Croats from arguing over territorial waters to the point that Slovens even blocked Croatian accession to EU until that issue was resolved.

Finally North Macedonia who could divorce their Yugoslav brothers without an issue or resistance due to having different language and culture, later get involved in conflict with Greece over Macedon heritage as well as Bulgaria over language and identity. Language of Macedonia is closer to Bulgarian that to Serbian and so Bulgarians see it as dialect of Bulgarian rather than independent language. North Macedonians disagree.

From all this real-life experience we can learn that there are two main reasons for conflicts between nations, common borders and common origin. Having something in common does not create harmony and eliminates conflict. Far from it, common things create conflict over who really should own it, how it should be used and so on.

It was the same in the past. For example, 100 years' war between Valois France and Plantagenet England only happened because both kings were related to the late Capetian French king and both claimed to be rightful successor to the throne.

It works the same on individual people's level. People fight lengthy and expensive court battles over inheritance. Relatives end up being much worse enemies than outsiders.

Neighbors too are often worse than someone more distant. During WWII the worst atrocities against Soviet people were committed not by Germans but by their allies, Ustase Croats, Fins and Romanians. Romanians had a grunge on USSR for forcing them to give up Bessarabia (modern Moldova and surrounding areas). After Operation Barbarossa, Germans not only returned Bessarabia to Romania but also gave them gave them territory between Dnisro and Southern Bug, including Odesa. That area saw a much crueller and more oppressive regime compared to Reichscommisariat Ukraine administered by Germans. Anti-western and pro-Russian sentiment still lingers there much stronger than around Kherson further east. Finns lost territory to USSR in brutal Northern War of 1940, in Continuation war as German allies Finns have special reason to take revenge on Soviets for their past invasion. Brutal fights between Partisans and Ustase was a precursor to future Yugoslav dissolution wars.

As you can see common origins and borders create conflicts not unity or ability to cooperate.

Current war in Ukraine is no exception. Russia calls Ukrainians "brothers" but that does not mean Russia will treat Ukraine and its people well. Russians like to joke about Ukrainians and clearly do not see them as equals, but rather as sort of inferior country people that speak funny dialect. That offends Ukrainians greatly and they in turn make fun of Muscovites in a jarring manner, that in turn offends Russians. Add to that Ukrainian grunge over how Russian Empire treated Cossack Hetmanate and you have anger that is waiting to find itself an outlet. Ukraine takes it out on vestiges of Moscow control such as Lenin statues and Russian language while honoring people who stood up to Moscow and whom Moscow considers traitors or Nazis. That in turn offends Russia.

Russia thinks that Americans are behind the war in Ukraine, but in reality, its Ukrainians' own feelings and Moscow own condescending attitude and past insults they carelessly hurled around that led to that. If anything, Americans are by far the most puzzled over the whole issue. For them it's incomprehensible how one can lose million and counting soldiers in a dispute over few statues in cities average Russian will not even find on map. America has its own emotional matters like abortion or gun control that are hard to understand for outsiders but there they are being levelheaded.

Europeans are behind the war too, but not again the ones Moscow thinks are at fault. Germany and most Western Europe tries to dodge the whole issue altogether, France and UK are strongly on Ukraine side, but they keep their cool too. Who really invested completely is Poland, Baltic States, Sweden, Finland and the rest of Eastern Europe. And just cause Orban says pro-Putin things does not mean he does not send Hungarians to fight against Russia, he is just playing cunning here. Unlike Western Europe these guys too have old scores to settle with Russia over past insults and grievances. Partitions of Poland, Prague Spring, Hungarian invasion of 1956, Winter War, Great Northern War. All whom Russia ever offended now piling up against it in some Karmic justice fashion. 

If anything of all countries in the world, Poland is by far most Russia like. Poles themselves will chaff at mere thought of this and claim that they are nothing like these Russian vatnik alcoholics who do insane shit when they drink too much Vodka, then will proceed drinking Vodka to not being like Russians at all and then go on to do wild shit breaking stuff around them. Both are proud, full of themselves and condescending towards other. Both think they make great big brother to smaller people around them. Both once had a great empire they were very proud of, both now will get out of their way to get revenge on those who destroyed it. In case of Russia its Americans and "collective West", for Poles its Russia. All these similarities do not build any unity, only add to the hatred.

It more or less works the same way in Asia as well. Take China, Japan and Korea. Cultural similarities only create conflicts between the big three. China thinks they can count on seniority and size that will make them leader of the three, Japan thinks they have long surpassed China and has to be acknowledged as new leader, Korea just hates them both for always leaving them behind as number 2, they think they work hardest but it's never enough to best either of their peers. Once again past grunges dominate interactions between these countries.

Finally with all that cultural similarities, cultural differences look not as diversity but as a deviation or improper behavior. People are more willing to forgive cultural mistakes to people they consider foreign than to those they consider of the same or similar cultures. That is why in the eyes of Russian chauvinist English is a foreign language, but Ukrainian is only Russian language spoken incorrectly. Needless to say, this attitude does not endear Russian chauvinists to Ukrainians in the slightest.

These differences are not limited to just language. Other traits differ too. Few and in between for an average outsider, they nonetheless could be make or break for the people themselves. In fact, these differences are what caused the polities to break up in the past. Nowadays no one remembers the details, or just simply refuse to talk about it, but still remembers the hatred. 

In the US North and South fight over gun laws, abortions, culture and more. The rest of the world look puzzled, but these things matter a lot to people in the US. Back in the days, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Maine all broke away from Massachusetts bay colony over disagreement on religions rules or how important they should be in society. Issue of European rule of law vs Eastern Autocratic rule splits Russia and Ukraine as well as these and other post-Soviet societies from withing. 

Different Asian countries have different attitudes towards seniority and women. Mainland China and Vietnam practices uncharacteristic to Asia feminism but maintains traditional Chinese seniority. Taiwan and Chinese in Singapore and Malasia maintain traditional role of women. Japan is very lax and flexible on seniority compared to Korea and China, but very strict on male supremacy and women subordination to man at all times. Japan has concept of usurpation of authority from below, but China does not.

West likes Japan more than China since there is no seniority in East Asian sense in the West and a Westerner will think it's ridiculous, unless they are old themselves. On the other hand, submissiveness of Japanese women appeals to a western person as Western women are not submissive but Western man clearly desires a submissive wife.

Successful unions are not built on cultural similarities or common origin. They are built on common economic benefits or common threats. Small or heavily asymmetric unions always collapse due to conflict over power and influence. Large, mix culture unions with relatively equal sized members work much better. Common culture more often than not produce dispute over who plays what role as similar culture countries tend to compete for the same role, sometimes causing conflicts.

Real Root Causes of War

 

Putin likes to talk about nefarious "root causes" of war. Most people wonder what that even means, yet Muscovites never bother to clarify that. This remains something like "he, whose name must not be spoken". Most likely it is something that Europe and the world will condemn as utter nonsense, so Russia avoids talking about it.

Yet there are real root causes, and it's all Russian fault. Back after the USSR collapsed there was clarity in the world. Soviet Marxism-Leninist communism failed, Western Liberal Democracy won, and the future of the world will be structured along the Western Liberal Democratic model. 

I would like to clarify here that it was not Western plot or some CIA action, that took USSR down. Its own Soviet people went to the streets and said enough is enough, we do not want this communism anymore. Even if Reagan managed to push oil prices down to weaken Soviet economy, it was not the root cause of Soviet collapse, the root cause was the fact that people were fed up with ascetic existence, censorship, constant ques and shortages of consumer goods. Soviet system failed to fix these problems that were non-existent in the west and people choose to abandon communism.

Back when I lived in Russia in 90s, Yeltsin was president and Russia followed the Western path towards future and prosperity. There were some who wished to take country back, but majority was in favor of pro-Western path. Putin even won over Primakov in 2000 elections because he was more pro-Western than the latter. If Yavlinsky or Nemtsov succeeded Yeltsin and Russia continued its path towards the West, it would have joined EU and NATO by now. Quality of life would be similar to Polish or even Czech.

Alas the country went astray. It began jailing dissidents, suppress freedom of speech, assassinate political opponents and more. I left Russia and after a while stopped even following news of what is going on there. Australia and the world have their own local challenges, so I had no time for Russia, not patience to look at Putin's autocratic exercises. I still kept my eye on Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia as they were moving towards the democracy and EU. Seeing their progress filled me with joy. In contrast Russia's ever-increasing autocracy was painful to watch so I ignored it.

I assumed that Russian autocracy was merely a cynical power grab by Putin and his cronies. That it will be temporary, like Franco's rule in Spain and once crafty and cunning Vlad will die, democracy will return. However, that might have been an error.

I heard of Dugin before but never took him too seriously. Crazy radicals are nothing new in Russia, there were people as crazy as Limonov, Barkashov (founder of RNE) and more, they have but a few dedicated equally insane followers but not much more. I assumed Dugin is the same, just another madman who maybe believes in his nonsense, but hardly anyone believes in him. If I had to estimate his followers, I would have said 2% max.

However continued war in Ukraine and ever senile statements from members of Kremlin's regime made me rethink this assessment. If they are indeed truly and without reservations embraced the insane ideas of this madman, then there is nothing in common between me and them anymore. 

It's not like Russia does not have liberals who advocate reason, liberty and prosperity: Yabloko, Russia of the Future, Another Russia, PRP-Parnas, Solidarnost all advocated for a better path but were ignored, silenced and murdered. I thought that Putin and his regime silenced them because they are afraid of freedom and democracy that will remove them from power. However, if majority indeed chooses to ignore voices of reason in favor or drivel by a madman Dugin, a madman who will leave them as prey to PRC's imperialist ambitions, then I am not part of their country. 

If Dugin is Russia, then I am not a Russian.

In view of all that, war in Ukraine is not a war to resolve differences between "brotherly nations", but a war to decisively break these relationships. European Ukrainians have nothing in common with Duginist Eurasian Russians or Duginist Eurasian-Ukrainians for that matter. Same how European liberal Veishnorian-Russians have nothing in common with Duginist Eurasian-Russians. Ironic how Dugin, who talked about uniting Russian people, ended up splitting them instead.

In view of the above there nothing more to say or argue. New Cold War has descent on the world. War between OECD and Western System on one side and Quadruple Alliance on the other (PRC, Russia, Iran, North Korea). Ukraine will not surrender and will not lose, considering that rate of causalities favors Ukraine, Russia will run out of men far before Ukraine is. Russian victory is impossible. Russia can either keep sending its Eurasian orks into Ukrainian meatgrinder until every single one of them is dead or agree to a ceasefire and a DMZ in Korean style.

The choice is between Second Iron Curtain and a continued slaughter.

Small rather the Big Business is the Real Villain

 

It was always popular to bash big business. Everyone from unemployed to government bureaucrats and even smaller businesses seem to agree that big business is the problem. Billionaire bashing is favorite pastime of many people around the net and real life alike.

Big biz fights back by calling out envy, particularly targeting min wage workers as the biggest problem.

However, both overlook the real villain, the small business.

At first glance small business does not look like villain. Very ordinary local guy or sometimes family work hard to keep their enterprise afloat. They work longer than many others, wear many hats as they have to be managers, accountants and fulfill various other roles necessary to keep business running. They provide custom tailored service to the local community that reflects local spirit rather than just pump out mass produced stuff, made across the world. What not to like? Thanks to all that all the small businessmen, wear that badge with pride.

That however is but half of the tale. Negatives of small business clearly outweigh the positives. However, before I list the negatives, I will explain one fundamental reason, why small business is unviable in principle, economics of scale.

Reality is that economies of scale work against small business. One can eternally rant on how multinational corporations push their soulless produce, or how Le Corbusier homes lack character, but they have one clear unsurmountable advantage, the price. Mass production is infinitely cheaper than small custom or handmade stuff. For the price of one t-shirt in boutique store, one can buy around 10 t-shirts in a mass production store. Groceries are always cheaper in large nation-wide chain stores compare to privately run corner stores. The same for any other goods from bread and potato chips to even homes. Say all you like about Le Corbusier design, but for the price of one single home in traditional style you can have the entire suburb build with Le Corbusier methods.

Sure, in times of affluence and prosperity one can indulge themselves and splurge extra for some niche product from a boutique store that only they and their three friends find appealing and everyone else thinks it's stupid. During such affluent times it can be profitable and reasonable to run a small business, specialising on something nieche or extra luxurious. 

However, when times are rough, austerity runs rampart and no one has enough money, paying extra is not only unwise, but also downright stupid. We live in austerity world since Financial Crisis of 2008, everyone is short on money. No one can afford to splurge anymore. So, did we phase out small businesses and their unnecessary wasteful operations? No, far from it, small businesses are still everywhere. Their owners wear their status with pride and call themselves backbone of the society, despite being essentially dependent on government propping them up at expense of everyone else.

Defenders of private enterprise here would likely say: "people should have freedom to do what they want, including starting and running a small business if they wish to. Government should not just ban them from doing so; it would be totalitarian" Such an argument would be reasonable if small businesses were indeed run personal ability without being propped by the rest of the society: If such small businesses were indeed run profitable entirely through their own effort and were able to make profit and pay its employees, the salaries they are entitled to, taxes and so on. If the conditions set in the previous sentence were met, I would not have opposed small businesses. However, the reality is that vast majority of such small businesses do not meet this condition.

Without government propping small businesses with variety of measures, most will not be able to survive at all. 

Most will not even be able to open, as no true private profit minded bank will ever give money to such an unviable enterprise where upfront costs are large, profits are slim and far from guaranteed. The only reason they even get loans is thanks to government central Bank policy to lend money to such businesses. Yes, the Fed (Federal Reserve), that defenders of private enterprise like to hate so much, is only reason they even exist. Other government policies like creation of employment initiatives (more on them later) or tax insensitive further prop small businesses. 

Logistics is another area where small business depends on others, in this case big business. Large corporations like Linfox or Maersk, that own tanker ships, cargo trains and lorries. They ship products that small business sells in their stores. Without them small businesses will have nothing to sell at all. Only big business has sufficient recourses to ship something from where it is produced to where it sold. The local coffee shop will have no "local" coffee to sell without Maersk shipping it from Peru but Maersk can easily distribute their goods through many other stores. Yet here again people praise small business and not the real heroes who make it happen.

Finally, labor. Small business could offer their employees neither competitive salary, nor good working conditions. People who work for small businesses clearly have it worse that those who work for government or large public companies. Just like their boss they have to wear many hats but unlike him they are not properly compensated for that. At best they get minimum wage, but often not even that as many small businesses underpay their employees either by not properly counting the hours they have work or even downright paying less than legal wage. Small businesses also often employ illegal migrants because no matter how you underpay a local, a migrant from a country that lives for $1 a day is always cheaper. Some businesses like food delivery, reclassify their employees as contractors to avoid paying them legal wage or provide them with their due legal entitlements. 

Also, no matter how hard a small business employee works, their boss will always think they are not working hard enough. Hence a toxic working conditions where boss constantly pushes to do more and more and more. Reality of economics of scale prevents small business from succeeding but those who run these businesses instead blame their employees. 

Despite obviously subpar working conditions and inability to survive in actual free market, small businesses successfully lobbied government to help them hire cheap labor. Government policies such as "work for the dole" and mutual obligations are misused to fill the employee ranks of unprofitable small businesses who will abuse such workers and likely underpay them as well. Here again small businesses only survive thanks to sacrifices of their employees, but instead of being grateful, they bash minimum wage workers non-stop, blaming them for everything.

To sum it all up, without government policy that favours small business, support provided by large businesses as well as sacrifices of their min wage employees, absolute majority of small businesses will not be able to survive and will go belly up (bankrupt) in no time. Despite this obvious fact, instead of being grateful for what they have, most of small business owners never stop reviling government, big business billionaires and min wage workers, blaming them for the problem, they themselves are.

In view of all of the above I see no reason why we continue to prop these arrogant and entitled small business owners. Big businesses like logistics or major grocery stores are essential, without them the society will stop and starve. No one is going to die without a small coffee shop, even more so in current cost of living crisis where their expensive overpriced coffee is simply too expensive for majority of people and only boomers with millions in super would bother splurging for it. It is pretty much certain they are not making profits from what they do. Why continue to waste money to keep the afloat? They hardly create any jobs at all and those they create do not pay adequate salary, leaving people better off on the dole rather than working there. It's unfair for the rest of the society to keep sacrificing for vanity of these small business owners. Sponge Bob cartoon satirised them well enough. Money and resources they use are better spent elsewhere.

Here I would like to clarify that I am not for complete abolition or ban of all forms of small business. Those who are able to make decent profits, pay their employees decent salaries and provide them with decent working conditions do deserve to continue their business. However, those who are unable to achieve these things have to go. People who used to work for them should be transitioned to a perpetual dole. There are also certain situations where small business can really be very useful and valuable for the community it serves. Such small businesses have to continue. 

However far not every small business is like that. A lot of them are more of a hobby pursuit of a cheapskate entitled owner, next to no customers and underpaid and abused employees.

In general, our society has to make peace with and transition to a system where not everyone works and some perpetually live off welfare or UBI. This is simply an economic reality of the level of technological development are currently at. Most work is unprofitable, unduly wastes resources and in summary not worth doing. Instead of continuing wasting resources and time, we should put effort in transitioning to a society where robots work and humans' rule and do things they actually enjoy rather than fill in cashiers in a store where hardly anyone buys anything.