Interview with Russian General - A War in Ukraine Satire

 

"Why do you believe there are nazis in Ukraine?" - Asks a journalist one of Russian generals.

This is very simple; they have weapons, and these weapons have ammunition in them. We just sent another suicidal attack wave at them to make sure, and they all got shot. There is no mistake that they have weapons and ammunition for these weapons. That is what gives away that they are Nazis. Since there is no way actual Ukrainians will have any weapons, much less any ammunition in them, the only logical conclusion is that these are not Ukrainians but Nazis in disguise.

We did a few false flag operations in certain locations I cannot talk about, because it's a military secret, so we know a false flag operation when we see it. We do not just blindly trust anything, because smart people always doubt everything. Just look at their level of organisation, discipline, combat ability. They kill wave after wave of suicidal charges without even breaking a sweat. It's just like it was on the Eastern Front during WWII. There is no mistake about it. No one but Nazis could fight that good.

Ukrainians are our brothers, and we know them better than anyone. They are lazy, greedy and selfish. The moment they get anything they could sell for profit; they will do it in a flash. They would sell all their weapons to African warlords, like Robert Kony and then spend all that money on Maldives holidays and Maybach Mercedeses. We in Russia do it too, but we will not sell more than 70%, maximum 80%, of all weapons. If we sell any more the world will stop seeing us as a serious superpower, so we envy Ukrainians who can sell it all. Finally, when Ukrainians will run out of money, they will go to EU to beg for some more, then to us if EU will not give them any. Remember how Yanukovych did it just in 2013. That is Ukrainians for you.

But these people we are fighting are nothing like that. They fight back with tenacity and resilience. Even civilians oppose us, armed civilians of Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts drove out entire armies out in little more than 40 days. Can you believe Ukrainians could do something like that. Of course not, they must be something else entirely. That is why it's important for us to defeat them and then interrogate them until they confess what they did to actual Ukrainians.

Feeling that there is no way to break through such a conspiracy theory wall of delusion, journalist askes another question. - "Suppose there are Nazis in Ukraine, why Russia had to get involved?" - Asked the journalist.

Ukrainians are brothers to Russians so we just cannot leave their country like that. We had to interfere. 

In fact, both of our brotherly people are stupid in their own way. Just yesterday the youngest brother, Belarus, sold me enough potatoes to feed entire Russia. Today they come and say they has nothing to eat. Turns out they forgot to leave any potatoes for himself, so we had to help him with his potatoes.

As an older sibling, Russians have to look after our two idiot younger brothers. They will starve and lose their countries to Nazis without us. - Concluded general.

"Could it be that Ukrainians are simply much smarter and more resourceful that what you perceive them to be" - Asks the journalist? 

"Of course, not" - Replies the general. 

"Are you sure?" - Asks journalist.

"I am 100% sure of that." - Replies general.

There is one other thing we want to know. Who are these Nazis who replaced Ukrainians after Euromaidan coup. Where they came from before they took over Ukraine. EU and NATO all play dumb and pretend they were Ukrainians all along, but we know better, there is no way someone so orderly and capable could be a Ukrainian. They are hiding something.

The whole 8 years since Euromaidan we pondered over the above question until we finally found the answer. They are killer robots from the future, like in Terminator movies. That EU and NATO somehow got their hands on such advanced technology and now use it against Russia. 

Just look at their advanced self-targeting weapons and drones that can fire such weapons and then go back to base. These are not things human technology is capable of. We do not have anything like that and there is no technology our spies could not steal from Americans... I mean our brilliant scientists could not invent entirely on our own. I we do not have it, then it's not humanly possible. There are no mistake they are killer robots from the future.

There is also alternative theory. That Germans invented a German Europa Virus that infects people and turns them into Germans. EU somehow managed to infect them all. They also infect protesters in Minsk and Moscow...

Jean Claude Junker suddenly appears out nowhere and manically laughs. "So, you have finally figured it out. However, it's too late, German Europa Virus already infected all Ukrainians and turned them into Germans. The Ukraine as you remember it is no more."

Russian general exclaims: "see I was right, and you did not believe me"

"That is not all. Soon the virus will infect the entire Russia, Belarus and other former Soviet States. There is nothing you can do to stop it. Soon the entire continent will be as orderly and prosperous as Germany" adds Junker.

"No, no, no" - replies shocked Russian general - "anything but that."

"Why so negative. You too enjoy German Maybach Mercedes cars. Aren't you already infected?" - Replies Junker

"That is different, What Russian does not like German cars and German quality." - replies Russian General - "More importantly why are you going to sell these Germans cars if all Russians will turn into Germans. Germans earn a lot of money but spend none of it and then buy a house."

"It's a stereotype. Only those from Baden-Wurttemberg do that." Replied Junker. Russian general scoffed at this rebuke, but Junker continued to insist until everyone left.

Yet general's words left an impression on Junker. Not enough to stop the spread of virus but still enough to give him sleepless nights every so often. Where would money for German and EU prosperity will come from if they run out of Russians to buy Mercedeses? It has become like a rhetorical question Thinking about it made Junker feel like a classical philosopher. To simply say that future generations will figure something out was too whimsical, un-German even. There had to be the answer, but no matter how much Junker thought, he could not figure it out. Face of that Russian general haunted him day and night, always asking the same question. The question that was killing Junker from the inside.

Then Saudis came and said they like Mercedes because of Lewis Hamilton and will buy as many as Germany can produce. I am no Dostoyevsky to drag this on entire novel length.

Social Libertarian Manifesto

 

In various political discussions I often identify as Social Libertarian. Libertarianism is often misused and confusing term that often means vastly different things depend on who is using it. That breeds undue confusion and misinformation. Because of that I decided to write a summary for my political views and call it a Social Libertarian Manifesto.

Preamble

To begin with a little bit of history. Back when liberalism was originally created, the western world was a class-based society. Status, inherited from one's parents determined one's wealth and place in society. Children of nobility enjoyed privileged existence at expense of everyone else. Actual privileges vary between countries but very often nobility owned all land in the nation, were tax except and even had special privileged laws and courts just for them. Police could arrest a commoner but not a nobleman, only fellow noblemen could judge another nobleman. The majority of common people, had to pay, rent to nobility, tax to the state and were treated as inferiors in law, in court and in social situations. Such an unfair and unjust society. As we are now it's hard to believe all that was the case mere 250 years ago and, in some places, even less than that.

Back then Liberalism aimed to fight against all that. Liberalism aimed to bring people equality and freedom, abolish unfair class system and special laws based on social status. It both succeeded and failed at the same time. Liberalism did succeed in changing the laws and abolishing any legal inequalities. Nowadays we have equality before law and nobility special privileges were relegated to history books (mostly). 

On the other hand, liberalism created a new different kind of social stratification, based on wealth instead of legal status. Marx called them bourgeoisie and proletariat. Rich (bourgeoisie) had enough money and knowledge to create new businesses and shape the world as we know it. Poor (proletariat) did not have enough money or knowledge and thus were relegated to working for the rich.

All in all, liberalism failed to achieve its original objectives of creating equal and fair world for everyone. Rich and poor replaced lords and commons, but fundamentally society was just as divided into two tiers of people as it was before. Technically new division is not based on heredity, but in practice most wealth is inherited rather than created from scratch. Nobility too was once conditional to military service but gradually became just a set of inherited privileges. See the pattern here.

What liberalism initially meant to be, before it gradually fused with its original enemy and formed conservative liberalism or liberal conservatism. An alliance made in hell. Conservatism embraced certain aspects of liberalism to stay relevant and electable meanwhile liberalism lost its soul and became shell of its former self, touting token achievements while failing to notice glaring problems. So much so that Socialism came to supplant its place as champion of the people. However, Socialism has different rather illiberal ethos and far from a successor to the dreams and aspirations of freedom loving people.

Social Libertarianism is a resurrection of the original classical principles of liberalism. Social Libertarianism is neither Socialist nor it is Conservative in its principles. It's an adaptation of liberal principles to the realities of life as well as to the realities of 21st century socio-economic environment. An ideology to achieve real freedom, equality and justice. To that end Social Libertarianism embraces those policies and ideas that are conductive to achieving its objectives while opposing those that are contrary to its aims.

Three Main Pillars

There are many aspects of economic and social policy that require sound policy for the nation to be successful and prosperous. Listing them all here will certainly take too much, time. So, I will skip those areas where I will not advocate for major changes and will focus on the three main pillars of Social Libertarianism:

1. Equality not Equity
2. No Rent Seeking
3. Selective Competitive Natalism

These three major policies that dramatically depart from what is currently practiced around the world will allow Social Libertarianism to transform society into one suitable for 21st century and will ensure continued growth and prosperity. In this article I will go in detail on each of them.

Equality not Equity

For quite some time now it was fashionable to hail equity as the right way to. Left leaning people like to select certain groups they believe deserve more help than the others. They justify it by various reasons, some of which are dubious at best and downright incorrect at worst.

In pursuit of equity people often advocate things such as gender and race quotas, affirmative action and other fundamentally unequal and unfair measures.

There are several reasons why equity is bad.

To begin with, who gets to decide who deserves more and who does not. To begin with there are no objective criteria who is more or less deserving, it's all a matter of individual opinion. What one considers a deserving case; the other will dismiss as nonsense. Arguments over who deserves and who does not will often devolve into each group advocating for their own cause while dismissing everyone else claims as nonsense. 

Many claims that certain groups are more disenfranchised that others and thus deserve more help are incorrect. Take for example the often-repeated claim that women are routinely paid less than men, that is based on flawed data and does not hold against impartial scrutiny. 

To make matters worse these principles can be applied arbitrary by the people in charge. Corrupt officers in charge of distribution of welfare will give all the stuff to their relatives, friends as well as people who bribed them while denying any aid to everyone else, claiming they do not qualify the criteria.

Second problem is that equity, or needs based distribution, breeds abuse from the users. If you get more help if you have more needs, then it's only natural to increase your needs to qualify for more help. Some will feign disability to quality for disability support; others will have more children just to receive more child support payments. 

This is fundamentally a destructive trend as it does encourage people do worse and be rewarded for it. In the long run it will produce a nation of losers who try to fail and get help instead of trying to succeed. That is detrimental to the long-term prosperity of the nation.

Historically USSR used equity and in end it was one of the things that led to its downfall. Due to how Soviet welfare rules worked, people would marry and have a kid only to jump the housing queue as families with children were first in line for free social housing and were entitled to a bigger accommodation too. Overtime these people overwhelmed the housing system and made homes ever harder to get. Eventually the entire USSR fell under the weight of ever-increasing social obligations.

Some may say it encourages birth rates, but on closer inspection one can notice the glaring problem. People who only had kids to get a free apartment will not make good parents. They will think of children as of investment of sorts and will only provide them with minimal care, just to make sure they do not die, and state will not take the apartment back. These unloved children will likely grow up with all sorts of childhood traumas that will impede their future prospects. Most will likely live off the welfare or worse.

UBI and Welfare Equality

Instead of equity or needs based welfare, we should have a welfare that is equal for everyone. UBI is the best example of such welfare. That is why we need UBI. It is a plain a simple flat and equal frothingly lump sum money for every citizen of the country, no foreigners unless they are naturalised and became citizens.

Advantages of UBI over the traditional welfare are many. Since its paid for everyone, it does not need complex bureaucracy to determine if one is eligible or not. That will save time and money wasted on paperwork and people who process it, allowing more money to go to people's pockets.

Since its paid to everyone regardless of their needs, there is no welfare trap. All you earn elsewhere is extra money for you, meanwhile in traditional welfare any side income reduces your welfare, sometimes making you worse off than just being on the dole.

Unlike traditional welfare, UBI does not disincentivise efforts to advance yourself. In that way it is the only welfare system that is in line with classical liberal values. Welfare that preserves meritocratic ethic of classical liberalism, rather than erodes it like needs-based system. 

UBI is like dividends in a joint-stock company. Just like company pays dividends to its investors, the state should pay UBI to its citizens. You can call it a citizen's dividend. It's both fair and in like with best practices of capitalism. 

That is why it should be one of the core pillars of Social Libertarianism.

Why UBI is Essential for Capitalism's Survival

Some more radically right Libertarians will question necessity of UBI or welfare in general, arguing things such as "free stuff is wrong and immoral" or "there are no such things as free sandwich". Such views are shortsighted at best and dangerous at worst. Absence of welfare will always eventually lead to the thing Libertarians hate and fear most, communism.

Welfare is essential because majority of people are poor. They have neither knowledge, nor ability, nor money needed to create business or succeed in life. Their parents were either equally poor and could not teach them how to create a business or had some ideological problems. 

Thus, people like that are forever doomed to be the underclass who live off either wage paid by business owners or welfare paid by the state, depend on which is bigger. It is pointless to talk to them about tax, as tax is what their bosses pay, not them. All they care is who can give them more money directly.

Businesspeople like to talk about competitiveness in business, they should apply the same logic to politics. Since we live in a democracy and these people do have a vote, different parties have to compete to get this vote. If left offers them welfare and best right can offer is calling them moochers and saying free stuff is immoral, it's not hard to guess they will choose left over right. All the right will get for its overly principal approach to welfare will be Gulag or a bullet through the head.

Historical examples confirm that. During Russian Civil War, the Whites also called people to oppose Bolsheviks because communism is immoral. You can see for yourself just how far it got them. If libertarianism does not want to repeat failure of the White Army, it should start being competitive and embrace UBI.

Finally, UBI is the thing that gives people one of the most valuable to a capitalist ethos thing, the opportunity. For centuries the US used to brand itself as land of opportunity. Chance to make it big and reach the American Dream is part of social contract that the US and its economic system offer to its people. 

However, everything cost money and without money people will have no real opportunity to get anywhere in life. Thus, UBI is necessary to make that opportunity promise true. Even when one is completely broke, the UBI can give them another chance. So long as they are alive there will be more money to try again for as long as they can. The very fact it is there will push them to try again and again.

Without UBI there is no such opportunities. All is lost and a person is literary cornered with no way out. Wise people say to never corner people or animals. Because when they are cornered and have nothing to lose, they can do radical things that are outside of law, like robing people. They can even do things like going columbine and mass shooting everyone. UBI will prevent such things from happening. Because do you want to risk someone who lost it all in casino to attempt to club you to death with a stick to take your wallet to pay for a meal?

With UBI, the right will finally have an alternative welfare system to the left's socialist needs-based system. Such welfare will give liberalism the competitive edge to not only survive in 21st century but to also defeat socialism for good. "UBI is easier simple and puts more money in your pocket than stinky bureaucratic socialist needs-based welfare." That sound like an election winning slogan.

Just like in business world, where having a stake in the company makes one interested in its success, having a stake in the nation and the system will make people interested in preservation of the system that feeds them. Without UBI they will instead be likely to support the system change as well as enemies of the system and the nation. When they have nothing to lose, they will not do anything to stop the enemy from taking your wealth and heads.

No Rent Seeking

This is a seamlessly small but actually very important issue, that got only more important recently. After Financial Crisis of 2008 rent became a very pressing issue that could wreak the entire society if not handled timely and properly.

Broadly speaking people who only collect rent off their lucrative properties and do not do any other work are essentially no less of a parasite as those who live off social security. In fact, they are even worse, as those who live on welfare are poorest members of society, while many of those who live off rent are one of the wealthiest people in the world.

Rent seeking breaks the very essence of capitalist ethos. How one can believe that hard work and business skill can get you to the top, when the wealthiest people are rent seekers who got all their wealth from owning a lucrative property or shares portfolio and often did not work a single day in their lives. Just looking at people like this make people support the most radical socialist ideas like "eating the rich".

Even when you look at history you can easily notice that affluent rent seeker class always lead towards communist revolution. Countries as different as late Russian Empire and South Vietnam had only this single trait in common. Both eventually fell to a communist revolution.

Back in 19th century capitalist themselves despised the aristocratic class precisely because the latter did not do anything but collect rent of their numerous properties and from that alone lead a more affluent life that even most successful business could afford. It is a real shame to see modern capitalism devolving into essentially the same thing, it used to despise just two centuries ago.

How to Avoid Rent Seeking

As to actual measures that would prevent rent seeking, then it is up to the sound government policy. We already have a model in a Copyright Law. Creators of new content get legal rights on their creations but only for a limited time. After that the copyright ceases and the intellectual property becomes public domain.

The same principle should be applied to housing and land. Once the new home or apartment block is built. the construction company will have a lime limited ownership right for the property they have built. That will allow them to recoup the expenses as well as make profit. However, after the time limit elapses, the property should revert to government ownership. Government can then use the property as a social housing to solve the homelessness problem.

This system will incentivise the developers to build more and more to maximise their profits. In contrast the current system encourages people to cling to the most lucrative land plots as their very location brings more money than any new development could possibly make. Needless to say, that former is better than latter for pretty much every member of society, with exception of owners of these most lucrative plots themselves.

People who buy the property as their primary residence will be entitled to it until their death, but if they already have a residence and wish to use it as investment property the same time limit will apply to them and their property will revert to the state after that time.

I think a fair duration of the property title is 30 years, but I can consider making it shorter or longer if there such adjustments would incentivise more intense construction better.

Industrial buildings and offices can be excepted, but this exception is waved if they are used as housing instead.

A more conservative people might say that this erodes property rights. To that I would like to add that in the world of ever-growing population, the Distributism ideal where everyone can own a property is no longer achievable. Renting is unavoidable reality for modern people and it's only going to increase. 

Because of that we have to make renting both humane and right, or public will turn towards socialism.

Better Renting Rules

Currently renting feels like being a second-class citizen. Landlords and REAs exploit their power over tenants. Tenants could not fight back as that moving properties is both costly and time consuming. Thus, landlords and REAs get away with increasingly worse treatment of tenants. By now tenancy have become worse than feudal medieval villeinage. It's not a service where tenants pay money for the service provided for them, but a slave like bondage to their landlords and their agents.

To avoid this, rights of tenancy should be near equated with outright ownership. To avoid pro-landlord bias, tenancies should be managed by government agencies who can absorb all the problems with so called bad tenants and so on and provide the investor with steady return for their investment. After all this is what people who invest into property want, a return on investment. This system will help to ensure that better and cheaper than cherry picking obedient exploitable tenants, then forcing them to keep the investment property clean.

From tenant perspective this is much better than what they currently have to deal with. Instead of having to apply in many places, hoping that this REAs or landlords will finally approve the application, they will be able to just get the property and move in. No unreasonable demands from REAs during the tenancy, the infamous routine inspections inquisitions will definitely make renting much more appealing and livable.

I wrote several articles in the past about details of this arrangement. The only difference with them is that while investors will lose control over their rental properties, they will still be able to retain their financial benefits in a form of constant income stream from the property.

Selective Competitive Natalism

At first, I wanted to all this tenet anti-natalism but then decided that this will be inaccurate. My aim is not to depopulate the earth of humans altogether, but to bring population levels to a more sustainable level. 

While doing that we can also aim for a secondary objective. Improving quality of population by encouraging better people to pass on their genes to next generations and preventing worse ones from breeding altogether.

History of Family Policy

First a little bit of history. During 19th and 20th centuries humanity experienced historically unprecedented growth of its numbers. Medical revolution and induction of vaccines is often credited for that outcome. That however overlooks the real reasons behind this growth.

The real reasons for growth were economical. Pre-automation factories required large workforce to man the equipment. That fact made population growths economically viable and beneficial, since the more people the state has, the more factories it can afford to build and man and the more factories one has, the more weapons and other things one has. So, more people meant more growth and more everything in general. More people better became an axiom. The entire world re-adjusted itself around the factory and population growth. I wrote a separate article about it so I will not go in detail about it here.

In addition to factory there was another thing that benefited from ever increasing population, that is colonialism. Colonial nations such as the US, Australia and Canada were able to vastly expand their frontiers and settle the entirety of their continents with the population surplus, produced by medical revolution.

However, things have. Development of computers and automation allowed to create nearly completely automated factories that no longer required large workforce. The US and even Australia eventually ran out of free land, suitable for settlement. At the turn of the century further population grows was no longer needed.

That led to multitude of social and economic changes in society. They called it transition towards service economy, but service economy is fundamentally unsustainable and not needed. It's just a way to phase people out, much like horses were phased out when motorcars became available.

Because of historical reasons, outlined above, we currently have legacy pro-natalist policy and legislation that encourages people to have as many children as possible. Child support payments are paid for every child one has, encouraging people to have more babies to get more money. Public attitude towards mothers and parents are generally positive as well. That drive some people to have children to win approval of people around them. Various child friendly services aim to make parenting as effortless and rewarding as possible.

All that however leads to overbreeding where people have more children that they could pay for and more children that economy could possibly employ. That is unsustainable and fundamentally detrimental to society. All these surplus children will have to be cared for using taxpayers' money. 

While in the past that was reasonable due to economic benefits of higher population, in our modern times it's completely unreasonable to expect the rest of society to pay and support the unsustainable desire for breeding of few select individuals with many children.

To that end a radical policy change in area of child support and family matters is needed to meet challenges of modern times.

New Policy

To meet challenges of times new policy needs to balance need to procreation with economic realities. It also has to take in consideration the fact that people are biologically programmed to have children, so barring them from doing it altogether will likely push them to have children illegally.

On the other hand, government should make it clear, that it's up to people to pay for their desire to procreate and pass on their genes to the next generation. These are your kids with your genes, not other people's genes, so you cannot expect others to pay for them. "Your genes, your pay." Because of that government and public will no longer pay for their kids so if they want any, they should work for it. It is also up to parents, not the public or the state, to support these children financially as well as to recompensate the society for increasing total population count. If parents renege on their obligations to their children, there will be consequences like prison times and/or forced sterilisation.

As for the actual policy then, when each child is conceived and parents want to keep the baby instead of doing an abortion, a sum of money is paid to the state. The sum is a Social Security Contribution and is needed because the kid might need to rely on welfare state sometime in future. It will also pay for a hospital stay during the childbirth. For the first kid, it's a token sum of couple of thousand dollars. but for each consecutive child, the sum will grow further and further, putting a soft limit on how many children one can afford.

Furthermore, once the kid is born, an Upbringing Account will be created for them. Upbringing Account will function broadly the same as Superannuation. After the initial opening deposit of $10,000 (subject to indexation), parents will be expected to regularly transfer fraction of their salary to this account, similar to salary sacrifice towards their superannuation account. Second and more children will require double or triple the sacrifice across several accounts for each individual child. If their salary is too low to afford such contribution, then government may bar them from having additional children. 

The child will get partial access to this account once they reach age of maturity and will be able to use this money to pay their tuition fees in university as well as regular everyday living allowance. Other essential expenses such as car, driving licence and various fees could also be covered. That will make sure that all children will have means to support themselves in the adulthood.

Contribution towards the Upbringing Account could be larger than minimum amount but could not be smaller. If a parent loses their job and could not afford the same level of contribution, contribution towards Upbringing Account will be taken from their superannuation. That will make sure their children will not go without. People who work part time should look for a full-time work before having any children, if someone is not paid enough, they should take extra hours and so on. 

Those who cannot afford Upbringing Account contributions should either refrain or from having children altogether or defer it until their financial situation improves. That does not completely preclude them from having children as they can still find a better paying job to afford the payments and therefore should defer having children until they have secured such a job. Opportunity is always there for those who want it.

Those who do not wish to pay will not be allowed to have children altogether.

Finally, if a child dies either before or after they reach age of majority, the money will not be returned to the parents. The money also could not be reused towards their other siblings. That will make sure that parents will not deliberately kill their less loved children so that more money will go towards their favorite ones. The money could be used towards their funeral expenses, and the rest will be claimed by the state.

The Results

The policy will limit population growth and will make sure that every child has enough money to afford them a decent start in life. There will be no longer abandon kids with no money and no one to support them. Such children are at risk of becoming criminals or a burden on welfare state. Selective Natalism will dramatically reduce such occurrences.

The policy will also prevent irresponsible parents from having children that will later become burden on their community, broader society and the state. It will also safeguard children if their parents will get disillusioned with them and cut all their support early in their lives. It will ensure that parents either live to their legal responsibilities to their children or face consequences.

There is one other significant benefit from Selective Natalism, that is the overall improvement of the quality of population and their abilities.

Disincentivise poor and unsuccessful people from breeding will ensure that better genes are passed on to the next generation, and worse ones do not. More intelligent, smart, educated and productive members of society will be able to afford more children and this their superior genes will pass on to next generation. On the other hand, poor people will not be able to procreate, thus reducing the poverty rates and burden on society. 

A single mother who lives off child support for her many children can only this lifestyle to teach her offsprings. Thus, one generation on you will have double or triple welfare dependent people. That is something this policy will prevent from happening by removing insensitive for single mothers to breed. Even if some of children of such mothers will wish to lead and different life, lack of money for education and other necessities will prevent them from getting far in life. Children who do not get enough financial support from their parents do not do well in life.

On the other hand, rich and successful people will be able to have many children, passing on their successful genes and teaching their children how to succeed in life. This will increase the number of successful people in society and improve overall wellbeing and quality of life. The money they will contribute to Upbringings Account will further ensure that these children will have all they need to succeed in life.

A few exceptionally talented people with abilities in science and technology could even get special insensitive to make sure they have more children and multiply their savant genes.

Overall Selective Natalism will not only ensures that population levels reduce to sustainable levels but will also dramatically improve the quality of population and their abilities, by preventing poor and unsuccessful people from breeding.

Conclusion

Three Pillars of Social Libertarianism are the tools for successful, prosperous, happy and self-fulfilling society, that fits economic and social realities of 21st century. These three policies will ensure the future will be glorious and worth living for. 

There are currently no feasible alternatives to these policies. With Socialism and broader left being perpetually mentally stuck in early 20th century and right wing instead crave return to early 19th century, it is very unlikely that traditional left or right could possibly produce a better policy. Thus, is boils down to this or collapse and fall in irrelevance.

Our society should act fast to implement these policies to ensure that society is ready for fully automated future that awaits us very soon.

How Dictatorships Work and How Dictators Survive in Office

 

Many of the brutal dictatorial regimes that existed throughout the years, came to be associated with their leaders. Big names like Adolf Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot are tied to Nazism, Great Purges and Khmer Rouge rule in Cambodia. Because of that many people erroneously think that every one of these regimes were projects of a sole brutal leader and everyone else is where mere assistants, either enchanted or intimidated into serving the leader. 

This leads towards people thinking that all you need to do to end a brutal dictatorship is to assassinate its leader and everyone will live happily thereafter. While an interesting plot for a movie, the real life works quite different from this overly simplistic understanding of how dictatorship works. In most cases assassinating the strongman will not only fail to end the regime, it also likely to make things even worse in the short term.

Regardless of whether a leader first took his power and build his governing team afterwards, like Putin, or already had an established party of loyal followers when they took the power, like Hitler, they are by far not the worst members of their respective regimes. The real purists and believers, who often have most power, typically stand one or two steps behind the throne, far enough to not be targeted, but close enough to "advise" the leader or to step up to keep things under control if something happens. I will analyse each of these regimes separately to explain why. 

Sure, there is an off chance that the leader is also a lynchpin that hold the regime together. They were more in common in the past, Ivan IV the Terrible or Blackbeard are arguably the last of these types of rulers who ruled by intimidating court around them. Though Ivan the Terrible also had Maluta Skuratov to do that for him. It barely worked even then. Nowadays however, such arrangements are ultimately unstable and prone to collapse. You will never find it in any country of any level of significance, only in few peripheral African states where lack of any interest in their land prevented a more organised regime from displacing the current subpar one.

I will begin with Adolf Hitler. He was leader of NSDAP almost since the party inception and led it through pretty much every important event in its history. He wrote his autobiography, Mein Kampf, as an account of personalist struggle against the system, one man versus all the enemies combined, sounds heroic, isn't it? Nazi system was also infamous for its Fuhrer Princip that insisted absolute subordination to the leaders. Does not all that prove the idea that all the threads lead towards the man at the very top, the Fuhrer himself?

Turns out not so much. Sure, Hitler was the leader almost since the beginning, but the reason he was made leader in the first place was the fact that his speeches managed to attract the most approval of the general public. Public speaking is both a skill and an art, some can easily energise the crowd and get them to support your cause, others stumble to put words together. Hitler's oratorial skills paired with his personal appeal to people made him the perfect face of the party. Other members noticed that and made him a leader for that simple reason. Not because he is the one true Fuhrer, they all will follow all his words to the letter. The one true Fuhrer is merely a public image or a myth the party deliberately cultivated around their leader. 

It is a smart strategy that any party or political movement will be wise to imitate. A true devout and uncompromising believer at the helm will repel the more moderate sections of society and party will forever remain a niche phenomenon with but a handful adherents. In contrast a charismatic worldly leader with broad appeal and ability to attract the undecided, will attract many more followers and will much more likely to propel the party into power. As Malcom Turnbull said, power is won in the center. Once a broadly appealing leader brought the party into power, the more radical members can take control of individual governmental departments and pursue their agenda from there.

Particularly in NSDAP it worked as follows. The real power behind the throne was the SS and its Reihs Fuhrer SS, Heinrich Himmler. SS stands for Schults Staffel or Hall Security, an un-descript name that hid the true importance this organisation had. 

SS was essentially a state within the state that control both political and criminal police (infamous Gestapo and Cripo). They also run all the concentration camps and even had a private army called Waffen-SS with several elite divisions, like Das Reich and Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler as well as divisions consistent of foreigners, sympathetic to the Nazi cause.

At first this strange combination of agencies under the control of the SS makes no sense at all. What criminal police has to do with foreign volunteers. However, it will make sense if you think of it as a measure to ensure the survival of the regime in the event of Hitler assassination or a military coup to remove him and Nazis from power. Cripo and Gestapo can go after the conspirators while Waffen-SS can be called for if military will bring their own divisions to support their bid for power. 

SS came to be this way, when NSDAP took power, there was a surge of interest by various members of the Weimar elites to join the party. However, their reason to join was not because they suddenly seen the light of NSDAP vision and decided to contribute to the cause, but simply because they did not want to lose the power and influence, they had. The original members of the NSDAP liked to call these new members "beefsteak Nazis". As useful as they were, however, it was important to separate these new members from true believers in the cause. That is why Allgemeine-SS came to be, an inner party for true believers in the cause. The key agencies under the SS would be staffed with such core believers to ensure loyalty to the cause and to prevent the coup.

Because of that, as much as some wished to remove Hitler from power, the smarter of them would surely realise that Hitler's death will not result in regime or policy change. Himmer and the SS will be able to remove anyone they dislike from power and replace them with someone who will continue the Nazi policies. If anything, assassination of Hitler would only make things worse as it will provoke the hornets' nest of the SS, fill it with vengeance and make them go after the conspirators until all of them are dead.

However, what if the person without any party comes to power and becomes a dictator. Sure, it all should hinge on them and if they are removed from power, dictatorship will end, right? There are even some historical examples of that, like death of Franko in Spain lead towards democratic transition.

Again no. Franko is partially an exception as he originally was supported by monarchists who wished for restoration of monarchy and Franko promised them just that to win their support during the Civil War. Once in power, he made himself a regent for a temporarily missing King. Eventually he appointed son of the previous king as his designated successor but said he could only take power once he learned how to govern. After Franko's death monarchy was restored. Democratisation came later and only with personalist approval of the new King, that kept military and other conservative Spainards if not happy, but content.

As a general rule that does not work either. The reason for that is the simple fact that if a dictator has someone in their inner cycle, who is more charismatic, popular and likable than they are, it will be far too easy for such a person to eventually organise a coup and take power. Even if they themselves are not very coup prone, the court (elites) around them will organise the coup themselves and then give power to this person.

Because of that, smart dictators always surround themselves with people who are more brutal, uncompromising and stupid than themselves. It's a simple matter of survival and self-preservation. The court will not plot a coup if every potential replacement is a magnetite worse than the current leader. Foreign special forces will not assassinate them for exact the same reason.

A good example of that will be Putin in modern Russia. Since war in Ukraine has begun, many called for his assassination or a coup, but this have not materialised. The reason for that is that all the people close to the throne are both more radical and more uncompromising than Putin himself. As much as one wish to see someone who will end the war to take Putin's place, when you look at actual people around him, such prospects seem unlikely.

To begin with there is Dmitri Medvedev. He already been President between 2008 and 2012 and then Prime Minister from 2012 to 2020 so he has all the experience one could possibly wish for and theoretically could have built, himself a power base of those who want alternative to Putin. He did not build anything, however. Nowadays he spends his time tweeting nuclear threats to the West, clearly indicating that things will only get worse if he will be in charge again. He is either a very good team player who cleverly props Putin up or a very stupid man who drags his own chances at leadership into the ground.

There is also current Prime Minister, Michail Mishustin, who, per Russian constitution, will officially succeed Putin as acting President in case of latter's resignation or death. Early elections will be called within 3 months of Putin's death, but until then and sometime before new President's inauguration, Mishustin will be in charge. 

Big and bulky, dull but intimidating looking man, Mishustin is a former tax collection boss, Russian analogue of head of IRS. In his time there he was famous for figuring out ways to squeeze more money from businesses that ever before. Mishustin has zero reasons to be liked by anyone, and I doubt anyone in Russia would be happy to see him replacing Putin as president.

Some also named Igor Sechin as potential successor, but there is nothing that would indicate that he will be any less militaristic than Putin. If anything, he looks much more of a hardliner than bad-Vlad.

Just like that the idea that Putin can be replaced with someone who will end the war, crashes against the reality when you start looking at actual people who are in any position to replace him. 

Sure, there could be someone further away from the throne, but they are too far to actually make it to the throne in case of vacancy. The further person away from the throne, the more extensive will be the changes they will make to the existing hierarchy and pecking order. Everyone will much rather be surrounded by loyalists they could trust instead of the people who were close to the previous leader. Because of that the further the person away from power, the less likely the court will consider them as a viable replacement for the current ruler. That is just common sense as a survival strategy for the court members, that is doubly important in a country that murdered so many politicians like Navalny, Nemtsov or Politkovskaya.

Fundamentally Putin's system is not that different from the one of the Nazis. In both cases the leader is mostly a public face of the system and the real power, or the guardians stand couple of steps behind the throne. In both cases should something happen to the leader, it will not lead to regime change or even policy change, instead a swarm of angry inner cycle people will go after the perpetrators and will likely kill them in retaliation. 

Both NSDAP and Putin's regime have an opaque and obscure inner cycle that de facto runs the state. In case of NSDAP many were early members and founders of the party, in case of Putin most of his inner cycle were his friends and associates from way before he became President. Now some these people hold some key positions withing the official government or key corporations like Gasprom or Rosneft, while others stay hidden in shadows pretending to be average unconcerned citizens, but secretly monitor situation for the regime while also ready to replace more visible members if something happens to them. 

Russia too has several obscurely named agencies like federal guardian service (FSO), that are actually among the most powerful people in the system simply because they serve as bodyguards for visible VIPs like Putin. The looks of Putin himself have changed over time and that does not look like ageing. Possibly there is no any real Putin at all and Putin is just a symbol of the system, played by variety of body doubles over time. There possibly was some original Putin at some time, but it could also be that he was always fake and entirely fictional from the very beginning.  

All that however does not mean that systems cannot be dismantled and elites that have stranglehold on power cannot be removed. It's just that one had to go deeper than just the leader. One has to analyse the system, find its key pillars and members and then hit them all simultaneously. If done right, the system will not be able to respond timely and will lose grip on power.

However, for every puppet master who pulls the strings of public figures from the shadows, there could be someone even more hidden who pulls theirs and even one above that one as well. I am not saying that something like Zionist conspiracy, Masoning Lodges or Bavarian Illuminati control the world, I am merely saying that it is much safer to pull strings from the shadows, because then your enemies will do not know who to go after and if they take your puppets down, you can find replacement ones.

Dictatorships and some other political systems are not as simple as public imagines them to be. There is more behind the throne that initially meets the eye. Before going after the throne, make sure you know of all the hidden pillars that prop it.

Historical Reasons Why Russia, China and Iran have Eurasian Mafia Style Governance

 

During recent summit of SCO as well as following Chinese military parade, several anti-western countries, like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, declared their mutual opposition to Western world order. They cited various vague reasons for their stance, accusing the US and The West of hegemony they intend to oppose. 

If that was true, then countries such as India for example would be inclined to join them. India was present on SCO summit but left before the military parade, unwilling to get themselves entangled into the whole anti-Western plotting of Russia and China.

Nonetheless the block featured countries that at first glance have nothing in common with each other. Can you name a single thing that someone like Iran has in common with China for example?

However, the countries that oppose collective West, has one peculiar trait that not only unites them but also profoundly affect how they are governed even so many hundreds of years after it ended. That trait is the fact that all of them were once part of biggest empires in human history, the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan and his successors.

When people think of Mongol Empire, they often think of a legendary conqueror Genghis Khan, who much like Alexander the Great, conquered a lot but hardly left anything lasting. Someone who flashed through the world like a shooting star, leaving a large trail of epic conquest and destruction, but ultimately disappearing in history without much trace left. That is not true even of Alexander the Great, as two of his Diadochi (deputy commanders) managed to create lasting dynasties in Egypt and Persia, that lasted hundreds of years. 

Mongolian empire maybe broke into pieces rather fast, but Mongols stayed in charge for hundreds of years, shaping the entire generations of people they have conquered. Not only that but model of governance they employed continues to be used in the countries formally ruled by them even today.

Mongols were steppe nomads who knew how fight or live in the steppes but knew little of life of sedentary people they have conquered. However, the people they conquered were typically much wealthy than them and Mongols wanted that wealth for themselves. To get that wealth they used the only thing they knew how to use, violence, coercion and intimidation. 

Thus, Mongols not so much governed, so much plundered the people they have conquered. When firmly in charge, they institutionalised the plunder. Instead of them coming down in force, killing, stealing and burning everything down, they demanded the conquered people to gather a hefty tribute and deliver it to them themselves in exchange for sparing them of killing and burning everything down. The kind of deal you can expect from an armed robber, give them a wallet to avoid catching bullet in the head. Mafia's protection racket also comes in mind. All three work fundamentally the same way.

However, what choice one had? If you do not pay them off, they will simply take if from your cold dead hands. Mongols made it a point to brutally massacre those who refuse to pay to make example to the rest of what happens if you dare to oppose them.

Fight them off? Mongols had composite bow that allowed them to shoot from horseback. Pair that with the tactic of constantly moving around and shooting and you have a foe that is impossible to defeat for most of contemporary armies. Against melee cavalry they can always keep their distance, while firing as they move. It's even easier against melee infantry. Against ranged infantry they could trample them with their horses. The only thing that could stop them was a stone castle, as they could easily burn the wooden one down. Tactics of English Longbowmen, like digging trenches and using wooden spikes and other obstacles to keep cavalry away from them, could also work.

Flee somewhere else? Where to? Most people Mongols have conquered lived on land that was vastly better than everything around them. China is great fertile plains with large rivers that produce more rice than any areas around it. Compare that with nigh barren steppes of Mongolia, where not even grass grows in sufficient quantities to feed a few horses, making Mongols constantly move from place to place. Iran and Central Asia used to profit from the routes of the Silk Road that went through their areas. Even rather modest European Russia still had plenty of land and not too many people to compete for control of it. 

For most people conquered by Mongols, there was no alternative to paying the tribute. As Mongol rule lasted hundreds of years, this tributary system gradually got engrained into the psyche of people who lived under Mongol rule. Even when Mongol rule ended, the new native rules often ruled with the same ruthlessness and plundered their subjects just like Mongols before them.

As for limits of Mongol reach, then while Mongols raided and pillaged as far as Poland, but neither Poland nor Lithuania paid Mongols tribute. Mongol encroachment on Europe was ultimately stopped by Lithuanians somewhere around modern Ukraine and Belarus. Several battles between the two gradually settled a division of Rurikid principalities between the two powers, thought a few border areas, like Smolensk, will remain constantly contested between the two. Lithuania got all of what is now Belarus and northern and western Ukraine. Golden Horde however retained control over lands further east, mostly in modern Russia or south in Crimea and surrounding steppes.

The division was never fully agreed upon, not acknowledged by either side. Both Lithuanians and Mongols seek to take more land and would occasionally re-contest the frontiers. Eventually Muscovy (that later evolved into modern Russia) took former Golden Horde's role of contesting the frontiers against Lithuania. From Lithuanian perspective Muscovy thus was a successor of Golden Horde.

Modern Ukraine and Russia continue to contest this frontier even as I write these lines for my blog.

The frontier however was more than just a border between two neighbors; it was a civilizational divide. Lithuania was Catholic and heavily influenced by European system and European ideas of governance and life in general. Sure, Lithuanians fought against Livonian and Teutonic knights as well, but they were ultimately Europeans. European laws, such as Magdeburg rights, applied throughout the Lithuanian lands.

Golden Horde was different. It originated in Mongolia just north of China, The Horde govern itself and conquered people differently. Horde ruled through fear and extracted tribute from the conquered people. There were no rights and no democracy, there were only obligations to pay tribute and risk of death if you displease the Khan in any way.

Mongolian tribute system, called Mongol Yoke by historians took root in Eastern Principalities and controlled them for several hundred years. Western Principalities like Kingdom of Ruthenia (Galicia-Volhynia) did occasionally paid Mongols tribute, but irregularly mostly seeking to free themselves of Mongol Yoke. In the east however it became an ever-present way of life. Principalities of Rostov-Suzdal-Vladimir, Ryazan-Murom and Tver would be subjects to this system for several centuries.

To play different Rurikid princes against each other, Mongols instituted so called Yarlyk of the Great Prince, where Khan would appoint one of them to be superior to other princes. The appointed Great Prince will have right and obligation to collect tribute from other princes on behalf of the Mongols and later pass it to the Khan. Most of the time, yarlyk of the Great Prince will be given to Princes of Moscow.

Official history traces Moscow (or Muscovy) as a branch principality of the Rostov-Suzdal-Vladimir principality. It was a typical arrangement for Rurikids or elsewhere in Europe. When a prince has several sons, the oldest will get the capital and most of the lands, but his younger brothers will get parts of the principality, centered on second, third and so on biggest city. Moscow was given to the youngest son of Yuri Dolgoruky, whose oldest son got then capital Vladimir (on Klyazma to not confuse it with Volodymir-Volynsky). This branch of Rurikids had many capitals, as they both had many children and needed to provide each with their own capital as well as poor judgement on what would make a good place for a capital. The so-called Golden Ring is a collection of all places they used as their capitals at one point in time.

Compared to other early cities of Rurikid era, Moscow was founded rather late. Early on Moscow was but a tiny wooden fort with no more than 1000 inhabitants. However, its fortunes changed dramatically with advent of Mongol Yoke. For some reasons, Mongols favored Moscow over other principalities and almost always gave them yarlyk to rule over other Rurikid principalities. Only once Muscovy Princes briefly lost it to Princes of Tver, but recovered it over several years time.

Thanks to Mongols Moscow thrived. They likely embezzled some of the tribute they collected for the Khans, allowing them to get richer and richer, as other principalities were getting poorer and poorer. Eventually Muscovy started to grow by buying out lands from other Rurikid Princes. Eventually that left other Princes with not much more, but their capitals surrounded by Muscovy on all sides.

Muscovy did eventually take a stand against the Khans of the Golden Horde. By that time Horde was too weak and constantly plagued by infighting between children of Khans on who gets to be the next ruler. The ultimate end of Mongol Yoke only came after the Grand Stand on Ugra River, more than 250 years after the initial Mongol invasion. There was also a Battle of Kulikovo Field 100 years prior, but Moscow victory there was short lived, as their original ally, they helped to instal as Khan, Tokhtamysh, came to after Moscow, after he consolidated his power in the Horde, and reinstituted the tribute after he took and plundered the city.

Official Russian history celebrates this date, but for other Rurikid Princes, and even other splinter states of the Horde, such as Kazan Khanate, that was hardly a good thing. Very soon after liberation from Golden Horde and sometimes even before that, newly unleashed Muscovy came after them. Unlike the Mongols, Moscow wanted not just tribute, but the entirety of their remaining territories together with their ruling titles and crown jewels. Other principalities under Mongol Yoke, weakened by exploitative tribute, could not offer much resistance and were soon conquered by Moscow. 

Moscovy's treatment of fellow Russians were so brutal, many of them would wonder if it was better under Mongols, who at least kept them safe if they paid tribute. Moscovy's self-declared re-unification of Russian lands was no less brutal than original Mongolian conquest.

Once again only Lithuania could stand against Moscow, just as they did against Mongols in the past. Muscovy found itself fighting Lithuanians back and forth over Smolensk, Kursk and other then border towns. Lithuanian union with Poland further strengthened them, making division between Muscovy and Europe near permanent for many years. 

Many years late Moscow would partition Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth with Prussia and Austria. Russia will laud it as completing re-unification of Russian lands, but people who lived in the Commonwealth will not see it this way. 

Modern war in Ukraine is an echo from these times: Moscow wants to think that common Rurikid past entitles them control over Ukraine and Belarus. However Ukrainian past in Polish Lithuanian commonwealth as well as brief semi-independence during Hetmanate Era weight much stronger on distinct Ukrainian identity.

Back to the original statement with which I begun this article. Russian governance in modern times is essentially transformation of original Mongolian one. Mongolian system of tribute collection gradually evolved into a system of undercover corruption, used in modern Russia, and very likely also China and Iran. 

The system is a large hierarchical pyramid of power, where more senior officials demand constant payoffs from their subordinates while themselves paying off their own superiors. Just like back in the days Khans used to demand tribute from Great Prince who in turn collected from other princes, who had to collect from their population. Of how mafia runs protection racket.

The system continuous existence is a sticking point of Russia's internal politics, Russia's relationship with its neighbors and with a collective West at large. More educated Russian citizens want it to be gone altogether and replaced with Western liberal democracy and generally Western way of doing things. Eastern Europe, that was plundered by USSR during Cold War era, just like Mongol Khans used to plunder eastern Rurikid principalities, do not want Russia to return and plunder again. Because of that they are hawkish on Russia and willing to make sacrifices to defend themselves and defeat Russia for good if possible. Finally collective West with their liberal democratic system, that gives Russian liberals the inspiration that things can be done better that Mongol way, for the very same reason annoys Russia power pyramid, or vertical how Putin calls it.

These systemic differences are what drives current war in Ukraine, but not only. Pretty much every conflict since WWII was about these systemic differences. Even recent SCO summing and an alliance between China, Russia, Iran and North Korea is also about that. They agreed to fight against continued existence of liberal democracy and in favor of continued neo-Mongolian governance in their countries.

Historically the trend was always in favor of democracy. Because of that Europeans feel optimistic and count years before Russia too will be democratic as well as member of the EU and NATO. Kremlin, Beijing and Iran in contrast feel apprehensive and take every protest like it's a last stand and they will die fighting rather than surrender.

Because of the above, there is no simple resolution to the Ukrainian conflict. Only change of mentality in Kremlin can move things towards peace. I was writing in many of my articles, its reduction of land and moving capital further east that can help Russia stabilise itself and avert democratization at least temporarily. They are doing exact the opposite, hoping to defeat what is impossible to defeat. Ultimate victory of Mongolian way of course impossible, there is only a question of how much damage they will cause before they go down.

Corruption in Russia is the Reason Why People Hate Russia

 

Corruption is one of the most talked about issues in Russia. Most seem to agree that it is bad, activists, government, anti-government (anti-system) opposition and even general public talk about eliminating it and more. Despite all that corruption endures and perpetrates, making it the usual punch bag of nearly any political discourse.

What corruption is or how to eliminate it however varies between who is talking about it. Just like phrase "cost of living" lost any concrete meaning and now used in support of vastly different measures, corruption in Russia is also mean different things to different people, as government too wishes to shift goalposts from systemic change to occasional public lynching of few scapegoats.

In legal terminology there is no offence called corruption. Instead, there are variety of different offences based on what exact form the corruption takes. It can be, bribery, where a person gives someone cash in exchange for a favor they are not entitled to, embezzlement, were official misuses public funds for personal use, extortion where officials use their position of power to demand money from common people, probably more, but I will leave it at that.

The corruption that plagues Russia most is of course extortion, closely followed by embezzlement. At least these are what annoy people most. Extortion is a reverse bribery, where bribe is not offered to official, but instead demanded by them. It's akin to a protection racket where mafia demands money from a shopkeeper to keep the shop safe, often vaguely threatening to destroy it if shop owner refuses. 

In a mafia state such as Russia, its government officials that extort money from shop keepers or citizens. For example, when a public prosecutor opens a criminal case against someone and then asks for a fat stack of cash for it to be closed, threatening to send it to court if victim refuses. In a less corrupt country isolated case like that can often be dealt by complain to higher ups or sometimes by just attending the court and arguing for one's innocence. In Russia however that will not work. Why you ask? It's because in Russia managers and supervisors are corrupt too. 

In Russia director of public prosecution is himself corrupt and demands bribes from his subordinates if they want to keep their jobs, leaving subordinates no choice by to extort money from ordinary businessmen and citizens. It's the same in other government jobs too. There was even a video (I could not find the full video, so I linked the video about that video) where police officer complained about the amount his police boss expected from him, arguing that it's impossible to raise that much no matter how many ordinary citizens he will harass. 

What did government did about it, jailed that officer for corruption and tried to silence the whole affair. Corruption is the de-facto secret real system that exist underneath the nominal system of law enforcement in Russia. According to nominal rules that exist in Russia the officer should be lauded like Fitzgerald for exposing the corruption. However, the de-facto rules use mafia style "law of omerta", and thus per these mafia rules the officer was punished for breaking law of omerta and speaking out about the secretive dealings withing the government structures.

Needless to say, the secret but omnipresent mafia rules, that spread to nearly every aspect of life in Russia is unpopular with many ordinary citizens. People are fed up with fat government officials bleeding them dry of their already meagre salaries. That is the reason why videos about Putin palace, made by Navalny produce so much interest from Russian public. When people see just how opulent the life the highest ranked public officials is, they are filled with anger. People whose position of power allows them to extort bribes, live life that will put Hollywood stars to shame in a country where most people do not have sewage in their homes and have to use outhouse over latrine pit. 

People occasionally do protest and demand systemic change. Such protests are often dispersed by riot police while government TV accuses Americans and "collective West" of inciting the protestors. <irony>Because who could possibly be outraged when public prosecutor demands many months of their salary to close a criminal case against them? Surely, they must be paid by Americans and George Soros to oppose the system that allows such abuses. </irony>

Irony aside, people do not like to be robbed by public officials and if they cannot vote on the ballot for a system change, they vote with their feet and leave Russia for places where that does not happen. Nonetheless not everyone can go and so demand for change hangs over the heads of Russian government officials like a grim reaper. In their nightmares they see Navalny becoming president and instituting a lustration against corrupt officials, which makes them wake up in cold sweat.

Needless to say, those who left Russia are not at all patriotic about their country. Even in Ukraine or Latvia for every pro-Russian Russian there is often more than one pro-European Russian who much prefer European way of life and government that does not extort bribes to Russian language and culture of Russki Mir. That is why Ukraine, that got chance to ditch the Russian mafia style governance for European rule of law, fights so hard to protect their future from Russification. There are other reasons too, but this one is very often overlooked.

That is why Ukrainians will not surrender. Russians in Western countries will not return to Russia. And protests demanding dismantling of mafia system and replacing it with European rule of law will continue in Moscow until that change will happen.

Russia has only its own plundering mafia style governance to blame for that. People do not want to be robbed by corrupt government officials; people want them gone. 

I will write a separate article about historical reasons for mafia governance in Russia and why it's different from Europe, Baltic States and even Ukraine.

For Anti-tax People who Hate Homeless People

To all those wealthy people who are concerned with taxes and think they can spend their money better than the government. Let's face it: you will not get out of your way and use your money to buy a homeless person a house. However homeless people need homes. Without homes they will live in parks, stink, drink, do drugs and pollute common spaces.  You do not like when they do that, don't you? However, you cannot do anything about it, just complain.

Worry no more though as government can solve homeless problem for you and remove all these pesky homeless people from your parks. They can build public housing cheaply and efficiently; it will cost you much more if you try to do that yourself. Yes, tax will increase, but it will still be much less than to pay for a house out of your own pocket. For just a little tax increase there will be no more homeless polluting your parks and you can come back to enjoy your morning strolls like in good old times.

Finally, if you do not vote for more public housing, then homeless themselves will, they can vote too after all. As homelessness ever growing, homeless people will soon be majority. Just imagine what a government of homeless will look like. So, give homeless homes before it's too late.

Russians and Russophilia in Ukraine

 Russians in Ukraine

One of the reasons for Russian invasion of Ukraine was a claim that ethnic Russians are persecuted by government in Kyiv. While ethnic Russians do exist in Ukraine, they are by far a minority, heavily concentrated in Crimea, Donbas, Kharkiv and southern Zaporizhya oblast. 

In the original 1991 (1922) borders Russians were 17% of the population, but if you exclude Crimea and Donbas this number will easily fall into single digits. And if you also exclude Kharkiv and Melitopol area, the number of Russians will drop to miniscule numbers. 

Fate of these border Russian communities can justify a border adjustment, but not a whole country takeover. Most of these areas are already under Russian control.

The rest of the country consists of people who do not see themselves as Russians and do not want to be part of Russia. 

Not only that but some people who identify as Russians or speak Russian language do not want to be part of Russia and would prefer to join EU and NATO instead. I myself grew up in Moscow in Russia, but do not want to live in Russia and much prefer NATO to Russian system.

Russophilia in Ukraine

Another claim Putin likes to make is that Russians and Ukrainians (and Belarussians for that matter) are so called "brother people". This "brother people" is a Soviet propaganda cliche that most people in Ukraine do not believe in. I would argue they did not believe it even in Soviet times, but there was censorship so we cannot know for sure. 

Regardless of if Ukrainians use to believe they are close to Russians or not, nowadays most Ukrainians see themselves as Europeans who are much closer to Poles or Slovaks than to Russians. Ukrainian language also has more in common with Polish than with Russian. Ukrainian culture and way of life is European, not Eurasian or whatever Putin likes to call its anti-democratic and anti0-liberal system they use. Many Russians in Moscow itself do not believe in this Eurasian system and protest to demand real democracy, one cannot expect this Eurasian system will be any more popular further West.

Nowadays Ukrainians see Russia as hostile state that wants to destroy its culture, language, identity and assimilate them into Russia. Not only that, but most Ukrainians now see Russia as a country with strong Turkic and Mongolic influences, that are alien to all Europeans and Ukrainians in particular. Russia's own interpretation of history does not acknowledge Mongolic influence, but as someone who knows history well, I can confirm that these claims are far from groundless.

There some in Ukraine who disagree with the idea that Ukrainians and Russians have little in common. They insist they feel closer to Russia than to Europe, oppose NATO and EU, and view West with hostility - the kind of views that Russia likes to repeat often. However, such Russophiles are a minority of total population. Just like ethnic Russians, Russophiles are heavily concentrated in Crimea and Donbas regions.

Actual Data of pro-Russian Sentiment

However, why speculate on levels of pro-Russian sentiment when we have actual data. Ukraine is not Russia where levels of public support of Alexei Navalny is heavy guarded secret, that Kremin fears more than nuclear war. Ukraine is a democracy and public support for near any issue is public knowledge.

Before Russian 2022 invasion, there was a pro-Russian opposition party that opposed NATO and advocated closer ties to Russia instead. This party was an outlet for those who does not support Ukraine's current course and instead wish to have closer ties to Russia.

As you can easily see from this map, the party's results are heavily varied based on the region. In few eastern areas they easily get more than half of total vote, but in most of the country they do not get more than 5% of the vote. 

Even certain mostly Russophone areas like Dnipro. Kherson, Mykolaiv or Odesa do not actually want to be part of Russia and would much rather join EU and NATO. A sour pill for Russian patriots to swallow, but a lot of Russians hate this Eurasian anti-western Russia Putin has created. That is by far dominant opinion among in Russian diasporas in Western countries.

Even if you look at older results of Yanukovych era Party of Regions, they show broadly the same picture. These results however have to be analysed critically as Party of Regions was not explicitly Russophile and instead advocated regionalism to get more support from areas that felt neglect by Kyiv.

This is the reality of pro-Russian sentiment of Ukraine. A few localities in the east have pro-Russian local majorities while most of the rest of the country sees Russia as enemy instead. 

These pro-Russian localities however produce a very desirable optics for Putin's regime in Moscow, as they play well into Russian narrative of Russians oppressed by mythical Nazis. Not only that but people from these areas are willingly playing their part in Kremlin's spectacle by going to Moscow and asking Putin to interfere against Kyiv on their behalf. 

They call their opponents Nazi, but reality is that their enemy is pretty much the entire 80% of the entire country. If you exclude Crimea and other occupied areas, then it will be more than 90% of the rest of the country. 

Conclusion

This is reality of popular opinion in Ukraine. Majority of Ukrainians hate Russia as an evil incarnate that tries to destroy their country, culture and language. Russia further seeks to deprive them of dignity of live Europe has to offer and replace it with its own abusive Eurasian system that neglect human rights and treats people like shit.

There is but a small minority in the east that looks up to Russia, because they feel attached to Russian culture or fear 'Banderites', NATO, EU and the West.

There are historical reasons for both of these opinions. That is why I advocated for different borders that better reflect the reality of public opinion in many of my past articles.

Nonetheless the new borders will be not a border between "brotherly nations" but a border between bitter enemies that have very little in common with each other. They will be heavily fortified as they will also be borders between the collective West and Putin's Eurasia. 

If we are lucky, we can also get a European Belarus and European Russia for those Russians and Belarussians who do not want to live like a Eurasian. I will cover Eurasia and history of Russia in a separate article.