How to Solve Transnistria Problem

Transnistria is a self-proclaimed unrecognised county that exists within internationally recognised borders of Moldova on left bank of Nistra River. Transnistria have long been a thorn in not only Moldova's side but also that of Ukraine and broader Europe. For Europe it's a source of illegal weapons and human trafficking, for Ukraine it is a military threat at Transnistria de-facto authorities are pro-Russian and there are Russian 'peacekeepers' in the area. For Moldova it's a separatist regime that controls significant parts of the country's territory and resources. All three would like to see Transnistrian problem solved but Tiraspol regime has Moscow's support and until recently no one could do anything about it.

However Russian war in Ukraine exposed Russia's weakness. Russia is already at war so it could no longer threaten war in retaliation for any action Chisinau may take in Transnistria. Right now, Transnistria is cut off from any Russian aid by Ukrainian defences. So, if the above-mentioned powers were to act on Transnistria now, there is nothing Moscow would be able to do about it. If anything, Russian war in Ukraine presents a golden opportunity to finally solve Transnistria problem once and for all.

At the same time, this is also a good opportunity to fix hideous post-Soviet borders and make frontiers much more logical and defendable. Ukraine can claim back left back of Nistra (Dnistro) that used to belong to them before USSR annexed Moldova and Moldova can reclaim some of the lands that was ceded to Ukraine as compensation. Border along Nistra River instead of an arbitrary line drawn by Soviet officials will benefit both countries as it will be much easier to control and patrol during peacetime or defend in case of war.

While it is likely, that Transnistrian de-facto authorities in Tiraspol would not just surrender without a fight, they have some troops of their own and would likely fight, but there is a way to play it smart and gradually phase them out. One can use a salami tactic of sorts. Instead of abolishing it in one go, one can shrink Transnistria gradually, rayon by rayon. 

Transnistrian capital is in the south of the separatist region so one can start shrinking it from the north. That way Transnistrian de-facto authorities can still retain their country and government, just with a somewhat reduced territory. They are outnumbered so it's likely that they lose in an armed confrontation. If they fight and lose, Ukraine and Moldova can occupy their entire territory and just put an end to their existence, thus good chances they would agree to withdraw from the north without a fight to keep south.

To begin with Moldova and Ukraine can agree to swap 1 for 1 or 2 for 2 rayons (old pre-reform rayons for Ukraine). These rayons have roughly equivalent population and territory so it will be seen as fair for both sides. There is also the fact that people in northern rayons of Transnistria are predominantly Ukrainian, while those who live in some Ukrainian border towns like Reni are Moldovans, so it will be fair to adjust the border to re-unite these people with countries they identify with. Camenca and Rybnitsa Rayons of Transnistria can be swapped for Reni and Tarutyne or old Bolhrad Rayons of Ukraine. Exact borders can be adjusted to suit local geographic realities.

After governments in Chisinau and Kyiv negotiated, agreed and ratified the territorial swap, Ukrainian side can present Transnistrian de-facto authorities with final document and request they withdraw their troops and officials from agreed upon territories or Ukraine will take them by force. It's important to make it clear where new frontiers will be and why. There are good chances are Tiraspol will comply with this new reality.

While that will not remove Transnistria completely it will reduce its territory and will make it easier to control the border and keep Transnistria in check. It will put Ukraine and Moldova in much better negotiating position than before the swap.

If Tiraspol will remain undeterred in its opposition to Chisinau authority, The initial swap can later be followed by a second one, where Dubasary and Grioriopol Rayons can further be swapped for something like Bolhrad and Izmail or whatever works best. Once again exact borders do not have follow rayon borders exactly, some adjustments to better reflect situation on the ground can and should be made.

After Transnistria is reduced to just its capital and surrounding areas, Moldova and Ukraine will be in much better negotiating position to solve this problem for good. From there Tiraspol authorities could be offered ether temporary Gagauzia like autonomy in Ukraine or Moldova. Alternatively, they could be offered a safe exit and exile.

Final solution can then be followed by final agreement on border between Ukraine and Moldova. Sure, Moldova will likely get back a lot less than what it had before WWII, but land Ukraine got is simply more valuable and Ukraine would not just swap it all back, all for all like before the war. Moldova needs these swaps a lot more than Ukraine does. 

However, it's very realistic for Moldova to be able to get direct access to sea, which will be a huge boost to it in practical terms. 

Moldova and Ukraine can then further agree to swap some of Moldova proper areas north of Balty for more land in the south. In fact, Moldova can even trade Belty itself, people there vote for pro-Russian parties, and many identify as either Ukrainians or Russians, as non-Moldovans. 

Ideally, we would want a border to follow Nistra River at least in the south. However, this plan is flexible so even if most ambitious targets could not be met, it will still be a meaningful improvement even in partial form.

Just like that, with clever salami tactic a long-standing Transnistria problem can be solved and borders between Ukraine and Moldova improved.

How Superannuation (Super) Works

A few people online claimed that millions in super are just a myth people use to bash boomers. To refute these claims and prove that millions in super are real I will now explain how super works and why even if you personally do not have any, millions in super are not a myth.

Overall superannuation is a simple system. After a person is hired for a full-time job, a super account is created for them in one of super funds. Afterwards every time they are paid salary a certain sum called 'super sacrifice' on a payslip is deposited into their super account. 

If you worked in formal full-time employment for a single employer all your life, and absolute majority of boomers did just that, it is very easy to accumulate millions of dollars in superannuation. The money will become available to spend only after the retirement but in some exceptional cases one can claim some of it early.

Now that we covered the most typical and simple case, I will outline possible complications. If at any time you switched employer, unless you get out of the way to transfer your super to new super fund, chances are your new employer created you a new super account and because of that your super is split between two different accounts likely with two different super funds. Altogether there still should be millions between two of these accounts, just more hassle and paperwork to collect it all. That is you will not have double amount, both of your accounts together will hold as much money as a single account of someone who worked for the same employer.

Of course, the often you switched jobs and employers, the fractured your super is, split between multiple super accounts all across the industry. So, if you went between couple of dozen employers, collecting all your super could easily turn into a sort of pirate treasure hunt or a detective story. A some long defunct pre dot com bubble company where you worked 30 years ago, would have super accounts in long defunct super fund, so it would be a challenge worthy of Sherlock Holmes to track down where your super ended up after all these acquisitions and mergers. And after all that you will also have to get out of your way to prove you actually worked there as records could be missing and such. Multiply that by all the places you worked and tracking super will easily become a full-time job in itself. To make matters worse you are not tracking 20 separate treasures but only a single one, split into multiple parts. For some jobs it will not even be worth it as if you only worked there a few month, you would have but a token amount of super in their particular superfund. Iron rule of super is the longer you worked in the same place the more super you will have, while every employer you had only adds more hassle to tracking all down. A clear loyalty insensitive here.

If you wondered if it could get any worse, then it can. If your job was classified as part-time, casual, or you were employed under a contract instead of employment agreement, or had not formal agreement at all, then you will have no super at all. Yes, it's possible to miss on super altogether. It's an equivalent of pulling a single short straw. This is particularly a problem for young people as well as for those who switched employers after Financial Crisis of 2008 as after crisis companies started to 'save money' by reclassifying their formerly full-time jobs as part-time or casual. I once seen job ad calling their job 'super casual' which in lay term means as much work and commitment as full-time work but without all the benefits a formal full-time employee will be entitled to. Is it a bad deal for an employee, of course it is. It might actually be illegal too, one can even apply for a court hearing on the matter, but it would probably better to consult with ombudsman first. (This is not a legal advice as I have no formal legal qualification).

You also do not get any super if you run your own business. In fact, in this case, it will be up to you to pay super to your employees. This law is the reason why right-wing business owners while about regulations as they would very much prefer to underpay their employees, but laws do not allow for it and courts can order an employer to pay former employees years of underpaid salaries, if violation is exposed.

Finally, if you worked overseas then, for your overseas employment, overseas rules apply. Superannuation is Australian system that applies only withing Australian jurisdiction. Other countries may have similar systems, for example the US has 401k, but in order to claim anything from this system you have deal with their equivalent of super funds and follow their rules. Not all counties have equivalent systems so if does not exist where you worked, tough luck. To make matters worse, if that country suffered from hyperinflation like post-Soviet states in late 80s early 90s, it might turn their equivalent super into mere pennies.

Super is an accumulated amount rather than flat entitlement like say aged pension that is paid for everyone eligible. If you did not accumulate any super when you had the chance, there is nothing you can do now. That said boomers with millions in super still get aged pension on top of their super and that aged pension is higher than unemployed benefits or disability support pension. Very unfair if you ask me.

If you analyse the system, you can notice that under its rules mediocre and loyal clearly have advantage. Someone who stuck with the same employer all their live had an easy retirement with no hassles in claiming their super. Meanwhile someone who chased their dreams, took opportunities and switched careers will have much harder time. Yet worse is someone who took unconventional path of foreign or self-employment, as they got nothing at all.

Because of that this system is also a boon to all sorts of swindlers and con artists. As under such system the least smart and talented have most of the money. Kakistocracy if you like. Such people are easy targets for all sorts of con artists; thus conmen flourish in this era as much as lifetime employees.

Finally, if you wondered if you can still jump on this bandwagon and benefit from this system, the answer is no. Nowadays most companies use all sorts of tricks to avoid paying you super. Thus, no matter how hard you work, you will not have the same luxurious retirement the boomers currently enjoy. Unlike the boomers' time, this is era of smart people, if you are too dumb to make sure your employment agreement entitles you to all the good things, your company will gladly avoid giving any. 

Details on Why Boomers are at Fault

I often criticize boomers for causing all the problems we currently face. However, I recently thought that I did not sufficiently explain just how exactly this happened. So, I figured I will make a separate article to connect all the dots.

To begin with, in CGPGrey's video about Rules for Rules, he mentions that in a democracy government sees people as voting blocks of sorts, sorted based on their common characteristics and interests. Furthermore, a group that sways elections gets all sorts of rewards from the government in exchange for keeping them in power. Boomers, or to be precise boomer retirees who own millions in super and live in luxury retirement homes, is precisely this kind of group that sways elections in our current society. Because they sway elections, government listens and caters to what they want. Because their interests' conflict with that of everyone else, this makes their lives better and better and those of everyone else worse and worse.

Before I continue further, I would like to address the often-heard claims, such as 'but I am boomer and I do not have millions in super and do not live in luxury retirement home'. Why you do exist, you are but an exception that only proves the rule. People like you are by far a minority compared to those retirees who have millions in super. Rules of superannuation work in such a way that leaves possibility that a number of people will miss out on super altogether, more details in separate article. It's likely that you led a rather unusual life that made your experiences unique. You hardly know even a couple of people in a situation just like yourself. Altogether you do not form any kind of voting block at all, much less one that sways election. You can watch that CGPGrey video a little bit further to find out just how much your opinions and concerns matter to government, but I will spoil it here and tell you that it's irrelevant.

With exceptions out of the way lets continue to talk about the majority that together forms that voting block that sways elections and (until short while) held government hostage with their block votes. Boomer retirees with million in super can be found in luxury retirement homes all across Australia in some places density of these retirement homes approaches that of hotels in resort destinations like Hurghada and Antaliya. This fact makes these boomers both an easily identifiable and sizable voting bloc that politicians can easily get in contact, sway to their side and win elections almost on their vote alone. For politicians they are much easier to deal with then more disparate voters with conflicting needs and desires. Such boomer retirees all tend to have similar needs and desires and politicians can easily cater to them by promising them these things and then keep power by keeping this group happy. The fact that boomers are disciplined voters who do not fail to show up at voting booth even if they have to be accompanied by three nurses to get there only further entrenches power this block has.

Now some of you skeptics here might try to say things like 'why can't government just ignore them' and 'there is no way such a group has that big of a sway over the government'. To people like this, I can say that when in 2026 when government finally found enough compassion or backbone to abolish negative gearing despite the fact that it goes against boomer's interests, these boomer retirees all switched to supporting Pauline's Hanson's One Nation that currently polls higher than Labor. Of course, government sudden change of heart comes not from suddenly finding either backbone or compassion (they either had it all along but could not act on it due to guaranteed electoral wipe or never had to begin with), but entirely from doing their numbers. By now retiree voting block shrank enough to only be able to wipe out tory opposition but not to actually propel Pauline Hanson to government. Thus, government feels free to actually govern sensibly without fearing PHON takeover as a result. Just like in above mentioned CGPGrey video (at different time then above link) that become kind of like a bible of this blog by this point, if you act too moral and refuse favours, you will have to compete with other who do not. Colours are reversed though as PHON is orange.

Now that we established why boomer retirees (until short while ago) held so much sway over government we come to the second part of the problem. Why it was the problem that ruined everyone's lives and plagued us for more than a decade. That why interests of boomer retirees go against interests of everyone else in a society. To answer that we need to break down these interests into consistent parts. 

To begin with many of these retirees hold investment properties that finance their retirement. With few exceptions, they are the landlord of those who rent. All these wild problems on rental market with low availability of rental properties, long rental queues of prospective tenants, abhorrent conditions of those properties that are available, ridiculously high rental prices and more are direct result of the fact that landlords hold government hostage, making government unable to reign in rental abuses. Government understands that landlords and agents play dirty but unable to change laws to prevent that and punish the wrongs as that would make boomer landlords vote against them in next elections. Thus, we have society that tells young people who rent to skip meals to afford the pay to make sure boomer retiree who owns the place can afford another luxury cruise.

Second is the fact that boomers are aging and their health is declining. To prop themselves up they need more and more medical care. That includes both nurses who will wait on them in their retirement homes in case of emergency as well as actual doctors and hospitals who will treat them in case of a problem. Doctors and hospitals are not cheap, complex surgeries can cost 6 figures to perform, not to mention salaries of doctors who have enough education to perform such surgeries. Its money that could be spent on other things that benefit someone other than retirees (and disabled people by co-incidence), but due to boomer government capture more and more money is being allocated to medical expenses at expense of every other industry. We could be creating new art, inventing new technology, building robots, flying into space, building enough state of art houses to house all Australians with dignity and more. Instead, we waste all this money to extend life of someone in 24/7 nursery care by another 2 years.  

Second part of second problem are nurses or personnel of retirement homes in general. Hardly anyone would say their dream job is cleaning shit after some dying entitled pricks who think you have it better than they are despite not paying you enough to ever retire at all, much less retire into the same kind luxury they have. Thus, government has to skewer the economy to force more and more people into age care sector. Current problems on job market where finding job are hard, pay is low and working conditions are shitty are all direct result of this skewer. They do not give you job because they hope you will apply for age care instead; they do not give you rise or treat you poorly because they hope you will quit and switch to aged care. That affects even the above-mentioned rental crisis, as government, unable to find enough locals to fill aged care jobs, bring in migrants who put further pressure on rental market. 

Boomers evil grip on power affected even academia of all places. Universities advertise studying nursing of all things. People who could have been scientists and engineers and enhanced our society instead encouraged to waste their lives, caring for someone who is about to die anyway.

As you can see, all spheres of society are suffering as a result of boomers' grip on power and misuse of government in their narrow self-interest. That is why we need break this chokehold or it will gradually choke the whole society to death. 

To that end either number of boomers or their voting power has to be reduced. Limiting voting age to retirement age or at least 75 is a very sensible idea but it will sure rile boomers against it. Something like COVID that can cull their numbers without war or violence is also very desirable and needed.

Here one can once again deflect blame if not towards government, then towards Murdoch media empire. Sure, News Corp has ties with Russian and Chinese powerful figures and possibly advance Chinese and Russian interests through their newspapers. I have long called for AISO to investigate News Corp and arrest key personnel if proven correct. 

However, it would be incorrect to blame Murdoch alone and absolve boomers who read his newspapers of any guilt. They are not naive children who cannot think for themselves and only do what Murdoch tells them. Aside from that they clearly have vested self-interest in all of the situations I have outlined above. Thus, Murdoch might as well only anticipate needs of his readers rather than shapes them. After all people are free to not read his newspapers and just do something else instead. Not only young people, but essentially anyone who is not a retiree have long given up of Murdoch press as unreasonable and extremist. Despite that boomers keep supporting him and his empire.

I said it before, but I will reiterate it again, luxury retirement home boomers are the problem that poisoned out society and to fix it we need to remove their power and influence first. After that we can finally pass long overdue laws that will make society fair and just again. UBI, housing availability, science, research, technology, art, entertainment, you name it will all be available once we remove ever greedy boomers' snout from the budget.

How Ancient Roman Empire Actually Worked

After finishing my previous article about Medieval Feudal Kingdoms with famous Voltaire's joke about Holy Roman Empire I figured I should write a similar article about actual Ancient Roman Empire, that too was neither Roman nor Empire.

People who admire Rome imagine it to be a giant super country that completely surrounded Mediterranean Sea with its vast territories. That however is misleading. While Rome indeed had presence all around the above-mentioned map, it was a lot more tenuous than people would like to think.

Back in Roman times the one and only form of polity in Italy was that of city-state. Sure, there was also Persia and Egypt in the east, but these are too culturally distant to influence Rome until much later and even their power of Persian King of Kings or Egyptian Pharaoh was far from what we would now consider a state. Rome and Ancient Italy either inherited or borrowed this system from Greek city-states, like that of Athens. Some of Italian city-states were founded and inhabitant by Greek colonists, others by native Italians who imitated Greek system. Because of the above, all we know about Roman life, law, government system and such only ever applied to the city of Rome itself. The rest of the 'Empire' functioned completely differently.

The rest of Roman Empire could be subdivided into two distinct parts, neatly divided from each other by famous Rubicon River in modern Emilia-Romagna Province of Italy. South of it were Greco-Italian city states who were in a league with Rome, Romans called them foederati, which meant allies. Foederati effectively paid Rome tribute and in exchange Rome protected them from barbarian raids, that were a common problem back then. In fact, Rome even developed its strong and effective military to protect itself from barbarian raids and was so effective they later started selling it to their neighbors. Aside from being clients of Rome, these southern city-states were effectively independent, they had their own laws, citizenship, government systems, even militaries. Relationship between them and Rome was more akin to diplomatic relationships between modern states or member states of NATO.

Meanwhile north of Rubicon lied Cisalpine Gaul. Later word Gaul got associated from France alone, but back then it effectively meant all northern barbarians. Rome was paid by foederati to protect them from these Gauls. Thus, areas outside of Italy and north of Rubicon were effectively an ungraded and lawless frontier and Rome had even less control there as Americans had over their Midwest during wars with Comanche. Gauls were just as unwilling to negotiate as Comanche, thus Romans only dealt with them with force, Romans never set foot north of Rubicon as civilians, but only as soldiers going for war. Thus, when Ceasar hesitated before crossing Rubicon it was not in a proverbial sense but in much more literal one. North of Rubicon was a lawless frontier where Romans only ever ventured in force as part of their Legions, south of it was area of law and agreements between Romans and foederati and stepping there in force without disarming as per regulations was equivalent of declaring war on whole Roman led alliance.

Thus, a large map of Roman provinces was not a map of the extend of Roman state, as we understand state nowadays, but more of a map of Roman military bases and their areas of responsibility, similar to American military Unified Combatant Commands with their areas of geographic responsibilities. In addition to that it was also a map of whole world as it was known to Romans at the time. At the time of Augustus Romans had only vague idea what was north-east of Rhine or Danube. They explored and mapped these areas much later.

In all these provinces there were native people with their native forms of social organisations that existed in parallel with Roman military bases. Roman relationships with these people varied, sometimes Roman forces played significant role in governing some of these natives, sometimes they would hire natives as axillaries to their own forces, and at yet other times they only defended Roman installations and operations in the area. Ultimately however it was Roman military commanders who dealt with natives in their commands, that Romans called provinces. People who 'governed' provinces were first and foremost military commanders in charge of legions in the area, and administrators only second. Roman Legions were core basis of their authority. It was different from rules-based order south of Rubicon.

In later waning stages of Roman Empire some Emperors would experiment with actually administering of all these provinces, trying to bring them closer to what we understand as provinces in a single country nowadays. They would use experience of Egypt in particular where polity was not limited to a single city-state as Pharaoh and his administration ruled over whole of Egypt with its many cities. Romans would eventually try to implement it across their empire, but the reform did not succeed. If anything, attempt at something like that might even led towards collapse of Roman Empire altogether. A modern equivalent of such a move would be like if the US suddenly announced to the world that independence of all nations are abolished and the US will rule the world by merging its institutions with these of the United Nations structures. Ultimately however Roman provinces never functioned as parts of one common state, as we understand it nowadays.

How Feudal Medieval Kingdom Really Worked

People do have a lot of misconceptions about past and Middle Ages are of course no exception. People often think of a medieval kingdom as being ruled by a single guy who sat on the throne and made all decisions singlehandedly. That could not be further from truth.

To begin with most kings, spend most and sometimes nearly all their time with their army in the field, fighting various wars. King lived not in a palace but in a tent and when not in a tent then in a castle. Castle was not a luxurious palace but first a foremost a defense structure with thick walls that were meant to withstand a siege, battlements to fight off invaders and other such things. Even coronations were held in a cathedral (big church), so a king sitting on a throne was clearly a one-off thing, like marriage celebration.

Kingdoms too were very far from our modern idea of a state. The closest modern equivalent to a kingdom is actually a NATO military alliance, and that is only in best case scenario under a good and charismatic king, who could actually command enough loyalty and rally the lords to fight wars. In worst case scenario a kingdom functioned closer modern UN, that is it had institutions, rules, deliberate assembly and purpose, but most just ignored it. Medieval French infamously joked, calling area around Paris Ile de France (French Island), because even if they ruled all of France in theory, in practice their power was limited to that of Ile de France area.

In my other article about medieval ranks, I explained that Kings simultaneously with their royal title also held lower tier titles of nobility. In this case a County of Paris was the only area King actually ruled over as Count, other areas were ruled by other counts, who, while were vassals under king, held enough substantial power inside their countries to effectively ignore the king most of the time. In fact Capetian dynasty became kings of France after being mere Counts of Paris for some time, but elevation to the rank of King did not increase their power substantially.

Generally, a county was a lot closer to our modern equivalent of a country. Every county was effectively self-sufficient and could easily do on its own. Barony could not do the same as it still needed cities to provide them with tools or crafted items. In fact, some Kingdoms even rose not so much through conquest, even though conquests did happen, but through shared desire of local chiefs, who each ruled over the rough equivalent of a county, to create peace and prevent wars between each other. Even if Kingdoms were often, but not always were created through conquest, chiefs turned counts (or Earls in UK) at the very least saw enough benefit in continuation of the Feudal Kingdom system to not trying to undo the Kingdom as they certainly could undo it. Because of that counts (Earls) held significant power in the Kingdom and were always represented in governing bodies like Estates Generals or Parliament. Not dissimilar to General Assembly of UN or in fact EU. In this regard EU simply recreates the process any average Medieval Kingdom went through during Middle Ages. To be more precise it recreated Old Swiss Confederacy model, but it's a lot closer to a Medieval Kingdom than people realise.

There were more autocratic polities too, but they were minority and were typically much smaller than feudal Kingdoms and often more unstable too. Italian city states often fluctuated between republican government of elected officials and a strongman rule by some mercenary Capitano like Sforza. A famous book by Machiavelli, Il Principe, is essentially about such a rule by a strongman, who was then called Prince, a modern equivalent of this term would be a dictator. A few other places had stable principalities, but these were few in number.

While count and his county were self-sufficient enough to ignore King if it suited them, they were too small to project power on their own. On a ducal level however power projection was certainly possible. Many dukes who could command loyalty of their vassals managed to get far and become famous. William the Conqueror used his ducal power to conquer himself a Kingdom and he was not the only one. Even during War of the Roses Lancasters and Yorks used their ducal power bases and local earls under them to successfully win the throne. Duke of Burgundy managed to get so powerful, he almost took over his original Kingdom, France.

This situation only changed when Middle Ages ended. After War of the Roses ended, Tudors government England in a completely different fashion compared to their predecessors, in fact its only since Tudors that England grew to resemble something we call a state or country nowadays. France was in similar situation after death of Charles the Bold, final de-facto independent Duke of Burgundy. 

Even then however, medieval level separate administration counited in whatever duchess and counties still retained their local rulers. In fact, French kings continued to create new duchies for their second sons, so called appanages. These dukes could no longer ignore authority of king at will, but they still retain their local authority, laws, tax systems and independent jurisdictions. King could impose his will on them if needed, but it was only done occasionally. This system came to a complete end only after French Revolution, that among other things completely abolished separate feudal jurisdictions and made law the same throughout France. 

Thus, Voltaire's joke about Holy Roman Empire is hardly accurate, but not because it does not reflected state of affairs in the Empire, but because it was not all that different in France either. See detailed map of all French counties and dukedoms here.

On Cuban Question

I have never been a supporter of Cuban socialism or Castros. I think the island should democratise and actually become free in reality, not just in communist slogans. However, reading online comments on the matter, made me think that things are not as simple. Regardless of if communism will fall in Havana this time or Castros yet again manage to dodge the bullet, both of these outcomes will lead towards misery and privation, the only difference is who will suffer.

To understand why, we have to look at Cuban past. Under Fulgencio Batista rich flourished and indulged themselves to the maximum. Next to all that poor lived in slums and Cuban police kept them away from all the good stuff, repeating the same capitalist mantra about 'respecting property'. As much as an ideological purist would like to insist they had no right to just take that away, when Castros offered these poor all that shiny property, Batista zealously guarded them from, they of course accepted. Thus, revolution won in Cuba and rich who were too stingy and principled to share, lost it all.

However enough of the past, communism won in many places during 60s and 70s, but most of these have long since switched back, why not Cuba. It's not almost 40 years ago, yet Cuba alone somehow stays communist. Why do Castros continue to endure in Cuba, when elsewhere their ideological brethren long gone.

The reason for that is that anti-communist Cubans have not learned from their mistakes. As much as life under Castros is tough and far from ideal, majority does not want a return to how it was under Fulgencio Batista. Despite that Cuban emigrees in the US insist on the most hardline approach to the problem. They are not trying to win Cuban people to their side, promising anything. Far from it, they are not only blaming Castros, but also ordinary Cuban people for stealing their property. They want a revenge on both, Castros and those who supported them, this common Cubans.

From this stance people could assume the worst. Not only return to Batista levels of inequality, but also repercussions against ordinary people. Descendants will come to reclaim their property and businesses, refuse to employ locals, believing they are lazy and spoiled by years of socialism. Thus, Cuba will flourish but only select few will benefit from this prosperity. Most ordinary Cubans will starve and die on the streets as emigree will neither employ them, nor share their wealth with them. 

What do opponents of Castro do to alleviate these fears? Absolutely nothing. Far from it, due to their self-righteous stance, they only reinforce these fears. It's no wonder, people in Cuba still cling to Castros and the revolution, no matter how shitty things have become. Because Cuban emigrees could still make things much, much worse than that. Now there is just no food and electricity, but under new regime they will lose homes too, because these homes used to belong to someone before revolution and new old regime will kick out current inhabitants to return property to their 'rightful owners', descendants of Cuban immigrants, who were born in Miami and never set foot on the island. After that new old police can beat them up and then jail them, so they will lose their freedom too. And there still be no food or electricity, there will be for Cuban emigrees returning from Miami, but not for locals as that is socialism, light pole is all the electricity that will be left for them.

So, does it mean there is no way forward and Castros yet again managed to survive against all odds? It depends. If the US is willing to be flexible and offer Cubans a better life they would actually want, a solution may be found. I do not mean negotiating with Castros, as they may have Moscow connections and will advance Moscow interests instead of that of Cuban people. The us has to reach out to Cuban people. Sure, you cannot sit with them at the same table, but you can still make public announcements that will reach them in time.

However, a concrete solution is needed to safeguard against the return to Batista times. A mere promise will not suffice; it has to be a solution that cannot be just taken away by new government with or without a coup. What kind of framework could possibly achieve that is something diplomats will have to think of.

At the minimum, Cubans will need something to support them under new system. To that end social security, possibly a UBI is needed to make sure people will not go without under new system. It has to be properly indexed to make sure inflation will not make it worthless.

Furthermore, a question of property has to be addressed too, descendants of those from whom Castros confiscated properties will want them back. However, these properties are currently occupied by local Cubans who would not want to be deprived of their homes based on some old deeds.

A police and justice too have to be addressed somehow. Old hatred and bad blood between Cuban emigrees and locals might lead towards justice system being used to settle old scores and generally to hurt these bastards. Some institutional solutions are needed here as well, a cross-community jury or panel judges possibly.

On the other hand, if the US continues to hold 'lazy socialists' in contempt and promise to rid Cuba of these, not just of Castros, Cuban public will only cling to Castros. From there the US could only take the island by massacring most of its population. Afterwards there will be insurgencies on the island itself as well as refugees to the mainland US from that, this time socialist Cubans instead of capitalist ones.

How Non-ideological People Decide Political System in Every Society

In between two extremes, who each make their decisions based on set of concrete and unchanging values there is a third group that actually swings elections between them.

To explain what I mean I need to talk about differences between ideological and non-ideological people. Ideologically driven people like to imagine their ideologies and political/social/economic system in vacuum and support them based on their principles and theoretically fairness rather than actual outcomes and practical implications. No matter how much their favorite system fails in real world, they will still defend it, blame problems on anything but on the system itself or downright refuse to acknowledge any issues at all. For them outcomes are distant second at best, if not completely irrelevant. All they care for is whether its right or wrong. 

In most extreme cases they would even defend literal unabated extermination, if it is done in accordance with their value system. Both communists and capitalists are equally guilty of this behavior, even though communists had a lot more such incidents to somehow justify due to their many mistakes. However, when capitalism clearly does not work, its supporters just as much will not admit any fault or accept the notion that something must be done about it if that something goes against their principles. Republican party behavior during Great Depression in the US shows us just this. The only reason capitalism ended up not starving millions to death was the fact the US was and is a democracy. Democrat FDR, who came to power and did what needed to be done to fix the problem, no matter how much Republicans and capitalist purists criticized it as immoral and wrong. Under communism however in a similar situation an oppositional party cannot come to power, and millions end up actually starving to death or get exterminated by ideologically faithful ones.

Compared to that, more practical, non-ideological people make their decisions based on outcomes rather than values, if it gives them more money, better quality of life and more freedom, then its better. Its these people who ultimately tip the scales towards one or another party in a democracy. The party that offers these guys more always wins elections. No matter how much supporters of Romney or Killary would blame the other side of politics for voting against their 'star candidate', in reality they lost not because the other side mobilised better, it's because non-ideological people did not felt their 'star candidate' offered them anything of substance and voted for the other guy. Even if they are 'star candidate' in your ideologically covered eyes, they might as well be a dud in someone else's more sober eyes. 

In a non-democratic influence of non-ideological people are weaker as one ideological group hogs all the power and prevents any outsiders from getting anywhere near the high offices. Non-ideological people often leave such societies in favor of democratic ones, because democracy offers non-ideological people better quality of life and more power. However, even in un-democratic society a non-ideological people could still play the same power changing rule, just through the revolution instead of ballot box. When systems fall and revolution succeeds, it's because these non-ideological people backed the revolutionaries.

Thus, no matter what your system is, the non-ideological people are still the kingmakers who decide if your system lives or falls.

How they decide who falls and who does not. Simple, based on outcomes. All places where communist revolution succeeded had capitalism at its worst, full of rent seeking property owners who did nothing but collect money for nothing more than having a piece of paper that said this or that belongs to them. In places where capitalism, despite playing by exactly the same rules, produced dynamic corporations that actually innovate and improve lives around them, communists never made any inroads. 

An ideological purist may say that property rights have to be respected and protected. No matter whether an owner is a dynamic leader like Elon Musk or Sergei Brin, who constantly innovate and build new things people want, or a jet set spoiled socialite who never worked a day. It's hard to make many examples of the latter, as people like that rarely make news) but Athina Onassis is one example. However, there are a good number of rents seeking rich, who spend all their time socialising with other rich people while joking about poor people, who actually had to work to pay them their ever-increasing rent. It's their property and you have no right to any of it, that what ideologically pure capitalist supporter will say.

However, if you remove ideological glasses, you can clearly see that they are not the same. Elon Musk and Sergei Brin are useful and beneficial, while rent seekers are nothing but parasites. Countries that where people like Elon Musk and Sergei Brin achieve success and build things, do not have socialist revolutions no matter how loudly local leftists call for it. Countries where these two were born do not count as these clearly did not gave them opportunities they deserved and thus deserve to languish in misery. Its countries that only have rent seekers, asking for more and more pay for use of resources that belong to them that get these revolutions.