Why Iran Holds Out Much Longer Compared to Venezuela and How the US can Win This War

 

We began 2026 with a rather groundbreaking announcement. The US raided Venezuelan capital defeated presidential guards and kidnapped its leader, Nicolas Maduro. After the successful victory the US demanded that Venezuela comply with the US demands on how to run a country or else. Only after a few days of complains and demands for Maduro's release, Venezuela accepted its fate and begun complying with the US directives. 

It was a resounding victory. So, resounding that the US immediately planned to deal with its other adversary in a similar fashion. At the end of February, it begun bombing Iran. However, after the initial success and killing of several key leaders, the Iran campaign stalled and by now global economy starting to feel the problem.

So, what went wrong? Why Iran continues to defy Americans when Venezuela folded near immediately? 

To begin with an analysis of Venezuela. Venezuela is both typical Latin and typical American country. That is why American analysts and intelligence figured them right and devised the plan that worked. 

Lefty causes are popular in Latin America and in Americas in general. In a typical Americas fashion Venezuela was flashy and visible about its leftism and opposition to the US. They invited Russians to Caracas, became friends with everyone who hated the US and supported various anti-American causes

Behind that flashy bravado however was a rather soft underbelly. They made no real preparations for an actual fight with the US. That allowed Americans to easily get them. 

Typical for Americas Venezuela relies entirely on maritime shipping and has no alternative supply routes. After the US blocked their ports, it was only a matter of time before they would fold. Kidnapping of Maduro was just a grand finale of the battle that was already won when the US established a blockade.

In the end of the day "socialist" allies of Venezuela could do nothing but watch as the country easily falls to the US plans.

It's important to note however that it's not that Russia did not want to help Venezuela or did not care what happened to it. Russia would have wanted to help but it could not. Russia simply does not have the naval capacity to challenge the US blockade. As much as Russia wanted to, there was nothing it could do. 

Simple geographic fact of existence of Atlantic Ocean prevents Russia from supplying Venezuela by rail, Russian preferred mode of shipping.

No land connection and weak navy makes it impossible for Russia to do anything about it.

Now we will look at Iran. Iran is not in Americas, and their mentality is quite different from those who live in the new world. Unlike say Venezuelans, Iranians are subtle and more concerned about security and self-preservation. 

Immediately after the Revolution Iranian government have been planning for revolution prevention measures. IRGC, Basij and such are all products of such measures. So are atomic weapons program. Possibly only regional proxies are purely ambitions, but they too could be considered a defence measure, someone Iran can rely on in times of war.

This level of preparation is very different from Venezuela, that only talked big but hardly invested in any allies or proxy networks. Back in the days they used to have Evo Morales in Bolivia, but a simple election removed him from power and Bolivia was no longer on Venezuelan side. An Americas thing. Evo was a free ally for Chaves, he did not spend a dime acquiring him, but that also meant it was just as easy to lose him.

Iranians are not like that; they support proxy networks that are independent of elections. They finance these proxies and through that make them dependent on Iranian government. Regardless of whether Houthis, Hamas or Hizballah like Iran or not, they cannot just ditch them as without Iran they will have no money to continue their operations and even existence. Thus, they will not desert Ayatollahs regime in Tehran.

I am not saying all that to claim that Iran is somehow too tough to be defeated, far from it. However, difference in mentality and approach to life making a victory over Iranian regime a lot more complicated compared to how it was with Venezuela.

Now for a real trump card that actually keeps Iranians in this fight, Russia. I mentioned earlier that Russia could not help Venezuela even if it wanted to. In case of Iran Russia actually can help. Unlike Venezuela, a naval blockade will not stop Russia from aiding Iran as they can ship weapons overland. 

One might look at the map and notice that Iran and Russia do not share the border. How can Russia still ship anything to Iran overland? The answer is through Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. 

Kazakhstan is one of Russia's closest allies. Unlike Venezuela, they do not wear it on a sleeve for all to see, but when Russia needs something, they can readily get it from Kazakhs. Both countries are autocratic and have no freedom or press or free elections, making them both vary of American interventions for the purpose of spreading democracy or popular protests to that end.

Thus, shipping weapons using Kazakh freight rail is a no issue at all. Russian ministers could just call Kazakh minister of transport, and he will easily purge domestic freight schedule to make way for Russian arms shipments to Iran. 

Its more or less the same with Turkmenistan as well. To being with Kazakh and Turkmen rail networks were originally built by USSR when the two were Soviet republics. All these rail links are still fully operational. 

China is linked up by rail with all of them too.

Thus, despite the American naval blockade, Iranians get all the weapons and other supply they need to continue their fight by rail though Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. They are also able to use this network to ship its oil and gas to buyers such as China and keep revenue flowing. 

However, there is one more final service Russia provides that keeps Iranian regime in the fight. That is an asylum guarantee. 

Even before the war with the US was a thing, members of Iranian regime were concerned that a revolution may topple them, and they will have to flee the country. Unlike the Shah before them, they will not be able to settle in the US as unlike Shah they are hostile to Americans. They needed an alternative safe heaven and Russia have provided it.

A Russian safe heaven is not just something Iranians will only think as a last resort when Americans will be at the gate. That is how Venezuelans or people in Americas think. That is why this eluded the US analysts, when they made decision to start a war. That is why Iranian war dragged out for so long.

A guarantee of Russian asylum is what influences everyday policy decisions in Tehran. The regime cracked down on protesters because they knew they could always flee to Russia and be safe there even if they completely alienate their own population.

That very same guarantee is what keeps Iranian regime in the fight. Even if the US invades of bombs Iran into stone age, the regime members who led to that with their stubbornness will not have to suffer from any of that. They have Russia to accommodate them.

That very same guarantee gives Russia a leverage over the Iran too. Unlike Venezuelans, Iranian regime fears their own people and do not trust them to treat them well in the event of regime change. Thus, when choosing between safety of Moscow and mercy of their own people, they will pick Moscow. That allows Moscow to dictate policy in Tehran.

Russia benefits from high oil prices and more wars in general. For Russia it will be beneficial to trap the US in some never-ending quagmire war. Not only it will keep oil prices up and Russian revenues with them, but it will also distract the world from its own war in Ukraine. Not to mention to pull a fast one on the US. 

Russia is bewildered by American role in the world and would like to make American wars as hard on the Washington DC as possible in order to deter them from starting another war to overthrow another Russia friendly tyrant somewhere in North Korea or Turkmenistan.

If the price of creating a trap for the US is complete destruction of Iran as a country, then it's a price Kremin is willing to pay. Kremlin loyal members of IRGC are certainly willing to deliver it. They will not suffer the consequences. Their families and children are already in Moscow, picking curtains for the mansions Russia already provided for them. When this all is over, leaders of IRGC will join their families in Moscow as the US, Shah and Iranian diaspora would be left with rebuilding Iran after the mess the old regime left behind.

Because of the above, Iranian regime have still not capitulated to the US demands and continues to resist. Certainly, some members of the regime, who did not get a cozy deal from Kremlin, would want to make a deal, but they are completely overruled by those who did. 

Because it's mostly the IRGC leaders who made this deal, a peace in Iran is impossible until the entire organisation is destroyed. A more moderate members of Iranian regime are unable to make deal with the US also because IRGC threatens to kill them if they do. Finally, IRGC has their own structures and supplies and would likely be able to continue the fight even if a president or Shah in Tehran will make a deal. Russia may be able to supply them even if new Iranian government will outlaw them completely.

All of the above makes the Iranian war much more complicated compared to Venezuelan interventions. That does not mean that Iran cannot be won. A smart revised strategy will be able to make a difference needed to topple the IRGC grip on power. 

Rail links from Iran to Turkmenistan, and possibly other countries, has to be destroyed. All IRGC bases have to be levelled with the ground too. All leaders of all IRGC and linked structures have to be purged, assassinated or otherwise removed. If possible, their families in Moscow too should be targeted. That will make them doubt they made a good deal with Kremlin. Possibly more. 

Intelligence sources from NATO and other US friendly country should be consulted to confirm the details and make a more comprehensive list of targets. 

These measures will finally allow the US to tip the scales and break the spine of the Iranian regime and destroy their ability to resist the US in future. Unlike Venezuela, they cannot be just decapitated, but the structures that keep them in the fight can be precisely identified and then surgically targeted to remove those who would rather destroy Iran than let the US win. The US should do just that.

Iranian situation is more complex than that of Venezuela, but it's not hopeless. The US has a path to victory and should use it to win this one for the free world and American glory.

How to Solve Romanian - Moldovan Unification

After Moldova became independent from USSR most people there thought it will be as temporary as last time. Eventually they will reunite with Romania like they did when they declared independence during the collapse of Russian Empire in 1918.

Despite expectations reunification did not happen. Gradually mood in Chisinau shifted towards maintaining independence. Moldova replaced shared with Romania anthem with uniquely own and at one point even renamed shared language into Moldovan, the latter was later reversed.

Idea of reunification never died however and ever since Romania have joined EU and NATO keeps gaining more and more ground. People on both sides of border want it, many politicians agree but more in theory than in practice. So far reunification seems as far as ever.

The biggest obstacle to unification is often considered to be Russia. Certainly, Russian national interests are against such a move, but Russia also is far away and currently has enough on its plate with war in Ukraine, Palace scandal and many other issues. Russia certainly will not be happy to see former Soviet republic to reunite with Romania, but will it stop it? Russia might as well limit itself to strongly worded condemnation and leave it at that even if could do something about it. 

More so, even if Russia really wanted to stop it, right now there is nothing it can actually do. Ukraine stands in the way of any military action in the region. Russia cannot use its navy for a naval invasion and moving troops through Ukraine is clearly impossible. Russia simply cannot stop reunification.

Does that mean there is nothing more to fear and the path for unity is clear. Far from it.

One issue unionist often overlook is interests of local elites. They typically label people Voronin and Zinaida Greceanîi as merely Moscow puppets who do Kremlin bidding. That will be an oversimplification. Surely interests of these people are often converge with that of Kremin but they actually have independent and much more ulterior motives to pursue them.

Local Chisinau elites have but a simple ulterior motive to oppose reunification. Retaining their power and influence. In an independent Moldova they are members of parliament, ministers and other important officials. In reunified Romania they will be nobody with no jobs and no future. Bucharest has its own elites who will not want to make room for a Chisinau crowd. 

Even if Bucharest will think of some arrangements, like places in Romanian major parties, that will still make this people dependent on good will of local elites, that may disappear eventually as children of Bucharest elites will grow up and some vacancies will be needed to give them a cozy jobs, who do you think will be purged first.

In fact, situation is worse for pro-Romanian parties than it is for pro-Russian ones. Pro-Russian politicians would be able to reinvent themselves as Russian minority interest party in Bucharest and have an iron vote to keep them in parliament, similar to what UDMR is. Pro-Romanian parties have no such opportunities as most people will likely desert them for Romanian parties. 

Thus, as much as an ordinary Romanian walking streets of Chisinau and most other Moldovan cities wants to be reunited with his Romanian brothers. People who sit in cabinets of power in that very same capital has a different opinion.

Sure, Bucharest can blame Moscow for making it this complicated.

Yes, during USSR times CPSU deliberately cultivated these Sovietised and Russophone elites to be the ruling class of USSR. Yes, these people are now standing in the way of reforms and prosperity of the countries they ended up being placed by Soviet regime. They are the problem, but they will not just disappear because one says so. A clever solution is needed to actually get the out of the way.

If you look at it from their perspective, they too have no easy way out. They cannot go back to Russia as Russia has no place for them and consider them Moldovan. Moldovans on the other hand consider them Russians and want them out of their country. Thus, maintaining this weird balancing act is the only option they have. Appease local population to prevent uprising, keep relationships with both Russia and EU to keep themselves in power.

Is it hopeless then? Not really. There is a clever solution that can break the impasse.

The solution lies in a Liechtenstein. Liechtenstein is a microstate in Europe that is ruled by a sovereign prince. Technically it's just one of the leftover states from Holy Roman Empire times. That however does not explain why it survived when former HRE states were absorbed into either Germany or Austria. The reason for that is the fact that Liechtenstein is ruled by powerful and influential courtiers of Habsburg Austrian Emperors. Liechtenstein was left behind so that these people will retain their power and influence even if the state they used so serve no longer exist: Austrian monarchy was overthrown and it became a republic. Yet old Imperial Austrian court have not disappeared completely, it was left behind in tiny Liechtenstein.

Liechtenstein example can serve as a solution to Moldovan question. A tiny microstate can be created for Chisinau elites while the rest of the country can then be reunited with Romania. It can be Principality of Orhei, centered around that town, for example, or in some other place.

This will solve most of the Chisinau elite's problems. A small state like that will be a lot more stable than whole of Moldova. With a small population it is much easier to keep standards of living high enough and people content. Such small state will not be swayed by public opinions, pushing it towards EU or Romania. Being so small no major players like Russia or Romania will care to control it. That will make governing it much easier than governing in Chisinau. 

Despite being small, a state can still enjoy full sovereignty and international recognition. This the elites will feel safe there. A deal with Romania and Ukraine to that end can ensure that all international legal formalities will be followed on, and state will enjoy no less rights and recognition as Liechtenstein. The new state can be legal successor of current Moldova.

A surprising Liechtenstein solution can solve the Moldova problems and allow Romanians on both sides of Prut River to finally be reunited in NATO and EU. Hopefully the people in charge will read my blog and implement this solution.

Parallels between Soda and Geopolitics of 19t and 20th Centuries

There is a saying that history repeats twice, ones as tragedy and then again as farce. Things like Cod War are sometimes seen as a parody of sorts on the much bigger and more important Cold War. Here is how sodas ended up imitating politics. Colours reversed but otherwise a point.

Coca-Cola - USA and 1st world - The original recipe that won the world. Iconic logo and design mostly unchanged since 19th century, ingredients however have evolved rather dramatically. Undisputed leader that stayed on top since inception to present day despite strong challenge from Pepsi

Pepsi - Soviet Bloc - Was created from the start to beat Coke and become No 1 soda producer. Mirrored Coca-Cola lineup one to one with rival offers. Waged costly Cola Wars against Coke, spending billions on ads and celebrity endorsements. In the end Pepsi lost but managed to carve out 2nd place in the big 2. Later went through long soul searching and various redesigns of logo and identity in hope of getting more popular. One consistent feature of design, Pepsi globe, mirrors globe on USSR and Comintern logos.

3rd party coke - 3rd world - Many small alternatives to the big two. Different logos, mostly same taste but cheaper ingredients and worse quality. Most are almost completely unknown to boarder public and have only regional presence. Some try to claim some niche or local identity, other simply presented themselves as cheaper alternatives to Coke. Most identities are based on not being in the big 2, just like any 3rd world dictator who claims to be independent of big superpowers.

Dr Pepper - EU - Actually has a different flavor from the three above. Has its own dedicated fans who praise it as the best. "Intellectual beverage for initiated." Despite that remains far behind in popularity compared to big 2 and limited reach. Shares burgundy color of brand logo with EU Passports.

Schweppes - British Empire - Actual inventor of soda (i.e. carbonated (flavored) drink) as well as that of carbonation process that gives soda its bubbles. Has gazillions of very unique and different flavours, most of which are liked by 3 people something. After long independent run Schweppes is now part of Dr Pepper's Empire and continues to be available to few of its fans.

Surprisingly accurate, it's almost a conspiracy theory. Just like that, global geopolitics are explained with simple soda comparison. So next time when someone suggests replacing Capitalism with Marxism, remember that it's as different as Pepsi is from Coke, which also has plenty of fans who say they taste different. I myself can assure you that Coke tastes better than Pepsi, but I also like Dr Pepper or Cherry Coke.

Why UK Succeeded in Colonising India While Others Failed

 

There was a curious series of videos on Youtube that raised this interesting question, that I placed in the title of this article. UK was neither the strongest colonial power in the area, nor was it the first to discover India. India was rules by powerful Mughal Empire, that was not an easy target for colonialists to dismantle. Yet in the end UK succeeded while then much stronger French and early discoverer Portuguese failed. The series of videos I mentioned above did a good job of chronicling how British take over happened, but it did not answer the ultimate question of why that happened? Here I will answer that question for you.

To begin with a Mughal Empire. Modern Western sources like to praise this state as both very powerful and very enlightened even by modern standards. Powerful is simple, they had more soldiers, more and often better weapons, more money and more everything compared to any coloniser in the area. Enlightened needs clarification. Mughal rules were very educated: versed in many languages as well as in culture science and technology. Westerners who visited their court, were impressed with its level of culture and sophistication. As rulers they supported religions tolerance and multiculturalism. They patronised arts and build many famous Indian landmarks such as Taj Mahal, that is probably the most famous Indian structure in the Western World. So how could such wonderful people lose their country to colonisers?

The answer to that does not lie in some evil western weapons or such, but rather in the problems within Mughal Empire itself. To begin with I had to point out the obvious, Mughals were not of Indian origin. Just like many others before and after them, they were descendants of foreign invaders who conquered their empire with force and later made India their home. For those who came after the conquest was complete that fact might be unobvious, after all Mughals are born in India and rule from Delhi in India, however for locals that was not so. 

Mughals like other conquerors were Muslims, they preached religious tolerance but that was due to the fact that most of their country was Hindu, and they had to somehow coexist with it. For a European both Islam and Hindu equally foreign but for Indians Hindu is a local native faith and Islam is the faith brough in by conquerors from the West: Iran is west of India even if its east of Europe. Officially Mughals preached religions co-existence, but in order to advance in society one likely had better chances if they were Muslim or converted to Islam. That certainly did not sit well with Hindu majority.

Finally Mughal court used Parsi as its official language. Parsi is Iranian language, no one in India speaks it natively. Yet Mughals insisted that their subjects have to learn their language to speak to them rather than the other way around. It was not just language either, Mughal rulers liked Persian art, architecture and other such things. Taj Mahal too was built in Persian, rather than Indian style, a fact likely missed by many tourists who visit it every year.

All in all, Indians did not feel like Mughals were one of their own but rather saw them as foreigners who occupy their land and rule it as they see fit. 

That provoked an uprising. A Maratha Confederation/Empire was an attempt by Hindus to drive the Mughals out. At first, they were successful and nearly took over the country. Then the founder and the original ruler died and things went downhill. A succession war broke out between several contenders for the throne. That war gradually completely destroyed Marathas. There was always another princeling, wanting to take the throne and common Maratha solders kept killing each other for their ambitions. They would have completely destroyed themselves with this fratricidal war, unless they figured a way out. That way out was East India Company.

Relationship between Marathas and EIC begun way back. Maratha founders likely convinced them to lend them weapons, promising to pay back when they won. That later never came and when Maratha infighting begun, in leu of paying with money, different pretenders gave EIC right to tax people in areas they conquered. With taxing came administrative burdens too. Gradually Marathas pawned all their land to EIC.

Maratha solders defected to EIC too as EIC could pay them stable salaries and did not require them to keep killing each other. It may be called British Raj but most of the personnel especially military was local. Indian Sepoys and Nepalese Gurkhas were not only the military of British colonial rule but also important component of all British forces. They saw service in many British wars outside of India.

EIC did not just taxed land, they figured they could improve things by running more tea and cotton plantation, textile factories and then sell all that produce to Europe for money. That was the solution everyone wanted and liked. Europeans liked their newfound tea and preferred cotton clothes to those made from local materials. The money this trade made India richer, making this overall a successful business operation. EIC kept expanding its business opening more plantations and textile mills, employing more and more people, gradually this became the biggest business in the area.

EIC eventually capsized under its debts and was dissolved. Even before that many in UK's parliament were saying that scope of EIC operations have long since exceeded the trade in tea that it was created to do. By early 18th century it effectively ran a country much larger than UK itself. After Sepoy Uprising of 1857 EIC was dissolved and UK government took civil control over British India. 

That did not end British rule, it merely changed its administrative structure. Instead of being run by commercial executives, it was ruled but civil servants instead. The second part of the Raj saw creation of various civil institutions and other things, countries typically have. 

So, why the British Raj succeeded while both Marathas and Mughals faded into history. Because it managed to solve various economic and social problems that India had at that time. Fundamentally people preferred it to both Mughals and Marathas. As foreign as British were, they could bring them more prosperity and stability that either Mughals or Marathas could. Aslo British that generally loved India and all things Indian were preferable to Persophilic Mughals of Uzbek origin or local Maratha princelings who cannot pay their solders but expose them to unnecessary dangers.

Societies are complex structures. The more complex they get, the stranger are solutions, that are needed to fix their problem. That can apply to modern times as well. For example, one might find it strange why Western world is so obsessed with Japan and all things Japanese. Chinese would particularly be baffled by the fact that Japanese, whom they see as inferior to them in every possible way, are for some reason loved so much by the West and Chinese themselves are not. The answer to this problem once again lies in unique problems of Western society, Western family and Western women, that Western men seek solution to these problems in Japan and Thailand. 

That is also why we need Universal Basic Income to fix the economy.

Truth about 90s in Russia

I do criticize how KGB regime depicts 90s, its dishonest and misleading. However, a lot of time have passed since 90s. A new generation, who have not experienced it, have grown up and know nothing about it but what Putin's liars tell them to. So, I decided to write a separate article about actual realities of 90s, not tarred and marred by Kremlin's propaganda.

To begin with, elephant of the room, bandits. Yes, bandits did exist in 90s and occasionally they killed people, mostly each other, but sometimes other people too. Murder is a big news, unlike someone importing computers or TVs, so stories about bandits circulated around and got exacerbated. Listening to them know one might imagine it was like Fist of North Star or something, it was not. For most people life was peaceful, and all the scary stuff was only on TV.

Even among bandits not all were equally outrageous, some did wild things, but majority tried to not attract undue attention to themselves. Use common sense here, if you are breaking laws then undue attention will do you no good, police and public will be after you and before long you will either be killed or in prison. Most bandits did not do anything wild; they just rode their Mercs and BMW to settle disputes with other bandits and kept quiet. Mind you only some of these disputes resulted in shootouts and someone dying. 1% of people who did most outrageous stuff got remembered and their deeds retold over and over. The remaining 99% were all but forgotten. Those who really went wild were either idiots who died soon after, or some people with government connections, like police undercover, military or KGB, someone who really had nothing to fear. Now those very same KGB people claim they ended the "banditism" of "wild 90s".

Mind you, murders did not end when KGB took over, they just changed targets, instead of bandits killing each other now the regime kills wonderful people like Nemtsov, Politkovskaya, Navalny and many others. People who could actually improve Russia, unlike KGB-an dwarf and his henchmen who only drag it down back in Soviet monk-like ascetic misery. KGB killed some, other fled and Russia lost is best people. At least during 90s its people few would miss, who killed each other, and afterwards it the best and brightest who are destroyed by KBG regime. Also joining mafia, they knew what could happen to them, victims of KGB did not have the same choice, they are purely innocent victims.

Now to the real heroes of the 90s, the businessmen. They by far outnumber the bandits. For every one bandit there were hundreds of businessmen, big and small. Together they rebuild ruins of USSR into a modern country. They imported awesome foreign goods, TVs, computers, mobiles, clothes, music, movies and more. Together they transformed drab post-Soviet reality into something classy comfortable and stylish.

Businessmen of 90s are the only reason Russia is not as backward and dilapidated as Cuba or North Korea, Upper Volta with nukes. Without them there would be no computers, phones or internet. Russia would be a stone age country. 

In fact, without businessmen of 90s there would not even be food to eat or clothes to wear. All Soviet era production was not enough to actually feed or cloth the population. The monk-like austerity nuts in Soviet Gosplan thought people can survive with one pair of trousers per year and on a starvation diet. For normal people that was not enough but Soviet state refused to do anything about it. It was not until businessmen of 90s could import foreign goods, that people could finally have access to good food and clothes.

Businessmen of 90s did all that while fighting against ridiculous outdated Soviet era regulations as well as useless government bureaucrats who not only did nothing to help but actively interfere to extort bribes and generally be a nuisance. These guys were real chads of business, unlike modern Western small businesses who cry "help government" when they could not afford even paying their employees their salaries and government then think of something, like importing migrants or unpaid apprenticeships to keep these losers solvent.

While there were jokes about "Novyi Russki" with kitsch looks and low intelligence, most told by businessmen themselves. This was far from what an average businessman was. Most were classy people with awesome sense of style and fashion. They build themselves truly marvelous homes with cool design, state of art appliances and more. Sure, few got to see it as most businessmen were secretive and kept their prosperity under wraps, only inviting people from fellow business circles. You cannot blame them for being so secretive, Russian people are naturally envious and fuelled by Commie hysteria about "bandits robbing people" would not hesitate to steal or just vandalise out of spite.

Finally common people. Unlike commie and KGB propaganda tells you, people did not struggle or were robbed, at least not all of them. Employees of government owned factories and other people paid by government like doctors, teachers, military and police were in trouble, but that was only because government bureaucrats were not paying them their salaries or not increasing these salaries with inflation, essentially government fault. Government nonetheless blamed it on nefarious mythical "bandits" while in reality bureaucrats were simply pocketing salaries of common people and using them to buy themselves Mercs and other luxuries. 

Government paid sector, betrayed by government they trusted, ended up blaming bandits for their misfortunes, because commies like Zyuganov told them its bandits. In reality it was government who robbed them in the first place.

People who worked in trade, retail and other sectors paid by other people or employed by businessmen of 90s did well, not as well as their bosses but much better that people in these sectors did under Soviet rule. USSR used to shit on retail and trade professions and called them second class compared to factory workers or teachers. 90s got this reversed, USSR era government darlings were now in shit and people who sell stuff were new cool. 

Government paid sector did not took it well. That is why there were so many communist protests, all waving red flags and blaming Yeltsin for everything. Part of it was not even that government fucked them, but that people government always told them were lesser and less deserving than they are somehow ended up owning more and living better than the "good Soviets" who did everything government told them was right and end up poor and unpaid anyway. 

Yet when election came Yeltsin won and not because it was rigged, but because people who sell food, clothes and every other consumer good imaginable voted for Yeltsin to keep Zyuganov and his commies out.

Finally, freedom. During 90s, TV was the most awesome it ever was in Russia. No censorship from government allowed many awesome shows to flourish on TV. Some were critical of government or system, but most were original, creative and genuinely entertaining to watch. Newspapers and other media too were allowed anything they wanted. 

All that gradually came to an end after Putin seize power, now government destroyed all creativity and imagination. Only retarded sycophants who lick KGB's ass are allowed on TV and no one interesting have been on TV since 1999.

Freedom of speech took a fall too, now insane KGB regime jails people for saying obvious common-sense things. The regime completely lost sanity and common sense.    

Finally, relationships with the west. Nowadays it might be hard for some to believe that Americans and Western Europeans were very friendly to Russia back then, but it was true. They all just decided to forgive and forget years of Cold War, and all helped Russia to recover from collapse of USSR. They actually hoped and believed that Russia can be their friend in emerging world.

All these hopes were betrayed when Putin took over and started his purges. Even then they sometimes hoped that increasing rift can be mended somehow and they could be friends again. Now that looks silly considering war in Ukraine and Kremlin rhetoric about mythical Nazis.

This time around common people might end up suffering consequences for all the aggression and evil, Kremlin did and continue doing. 

So, this is how real 90s really were. Not how Kremlin told you they were, covered with thick coat of tar and bile, but how they really were. A few KGB agents disguised as bandits did all the nasty stuff and everyone else was trying to live and make things better. Some even managed to.

Some more information here and pictures too. Guess which one my relatives were connected to.

How Humanity Went from Bows to Gunpowder Weapons

 

Common story about bows and guns goes as follows: in ancient times people used bows and swords, then guns were invented and we switched to a newer better weapon, case closed. Actual story is more nuanced. When guns first appeared, archers did not like them at all and did not switch. In limited capacity bows continued to be used even into 19th century: Russia employed Kalmyk arches in its army but did not train native soldiers in archery. Yet guns did prevail in the end. So, what did actually happen, is gun really better than bow or is it something else.

Bow

To begin with, let's look at the bow. It looks like a very simple weapon with just two parts, plus ammunition. What tricks could this thing possibly hide? Here appearance is misleading as bow is not as simple as it looks. The trick is in bowstring, in its tightness to be precise. How tight the bow string should be? 

Here there are two mutually exclusive answers. On one had bowstring should be just tight enough so that a person could easily pull it. What will be the point of bow with a bowstring that is too tight for a person to use it? Simple enough? Not so much actually. A bowstring that is too lax will not be able to propel the arrow with significant enough force to actually penetrate the body of an enemy, much less their armour.

What is the solution then: make bow string as tight as possible so that it will pack a serious enough punch and actually kill its target? However again a bowstring this tight and strong will be hard to pull even for the strongest of men, making such bow near unusable. Catch 22 situation.

The problem with the bow is the fact that strength and speed with which bow can propel an arrow is determined by the tightness of the bow string. Make it flexible enough for every person to use and you will get a pea shooter that will not kill anyone. Move in the opposite the direction and make it tight enough to pack serious punch and hardly anyone could use it. What is the solution to such a strange and unobvious at first glance dilemma?

During Middle Ages the best arches were people who grew up using bows. Mongols used their bows for hunting and every Mongol learned how to use is since early ages and used it continuously. Years of constant practice made them accustomed to powerful recoils of their bows and by adulthood they could use a very powerful bows with little effort. Abovementioned Kalmyk archers used both Mongolian bows and tactics and were descendants of Mongols too, it was good enough to survive into 19th century.

Across the continent, in distant Wales, Welsh/English Longbowman did fundamentally same thing as Mongols. There is huge difference in materials, size and construction methods between Welsh Longbow and Mongol Composite bow, but one thing both have in common is the fact that in order to master it, one has to start training at early age, and it takes years to master it. Welsh stated training at age of 7 in order to be able to fight as longbowman by the age of maturity.

That was is, English and Mongols had good arches with superior bows, who could and did make history. Meanwhile everyone else plainly sucked at using bows and their archers were irrelevant as they could not kill anything with their smaller weaker but easier to use bows.

Even for English and Mongols however not all was sunshine and roses. Long training and complex secrets behind making bows made longbowmen impossible to replace. Should the battle go bad and archers will be decimated by the enemy, commanders could not just recruit more man and train them to use bows. They had to wait decade or two until new generation of archers will come of age. If you ever wondered why 100 Years' War would occasionally be interrupted for couple of decades only to resume later, now you know. Too many archers died and English took a pause waiting for their replacements to come of age. To call this not ideal from military perspective would be an understatement.

To make matters worse, their rarity and exclusivity gave archers significant leverage over King. King needed them and could not easily replace them. Archers used this fact to extract various privileges from the crown. In Medieval England, privileges of yeomen (legal term for longbowman) were second only to knights and by extension lords (read more of it here), they were a special caste, rarer and more important than pandas nowadays. But there was nothing kings could do about it, or is it?

Crossbow

Italians figured out how to solve the bow problem with the power of engineering. Why train forever and use frail human strength to pull impossibly strong bow string when you can build a machine to do it for you. That is how they made crossbow.

Modern idea of a crossbow, that you occasionally see in movies, is that of essentially a bow-pistol that shoots bold rather than bullet. Medieval crossbows, especially most powerful and effective ones, were nothing like that. They were huge and cumbersome machines, with metal rope bow string and a prod. To cock it the crossbowman used a special device called cranequin or windlass, that looked like pedals for a bicycle. There were simpler designs too, but they were also less powerful. More info here. 

The best Genovese crossbow set, that also included protective pavise, was both very effective but also very costly. It also required work of a skilled weapon maker, who understood complex physics and more. That was not something that was available in every country at that time. Thus, good deadly crossbowmen were also limited a few localities in northern Italy and everyone else had to do with much weaker crossbows.

Guns

There is a saying that rifle made everyone equal. After reading the following passage, you will understand why.

Modern guns have magazines with many bullets (cartridges), some can fire automatic or at least semi-automatic. Early Medieval Guns were nothing like that, they were but a plain tube with hardly any parts at all. They required pouring powder down the barrel and then push bullet down the same barrel, using metal rod. To fire one had to ignite powder using burning cord, called match, by pushing it through a small hole in the barrel. After firing one had to clean the barrel before reloading again. To make matters worse they were inaccurate and unreliable, frequently injuring the shooter. To say seasoned longbowmen and crossbowmen were not impressed would be an understatement. The gun was worse than their weapons in every possible way. It was not a boomstick but dumbstick.

If guns were so bad, then why did they managed to replace superior bows and crossbows? The answer is cost and simplicity. Gun was much easier and cheaper to manufacture than a crossbow. Arquebus did not require complex gunsmithing and expertise, the Genovese crossbow did. One makes arquebuses not only cheap but also many. Even a simple smith without much gun making knowledge and experience could put the tube together.

Using it was much easier than both longbow and even crossbow. Powder propelled the bullet, making strength, or lack of, of the user irrelevant. That made it much more accessible. Now everyone could train to be a shooter in very short time. That made replacing lost soldier much easier. Decade long pauses in wars became thing of the past. Now kings could recruit and train as many arquebusiers as they needed. Not only that but anyone could actually become proficient with the gun at any age.

Conclusion

Guns replaces bows not because they were better weapons, but because they were cheaper and easier to use. Guns made everyone equal: with guns anyone could be deadly on the battlefield. With swords and bows, the outcome of battle was almost always a foregone conclusion in favour of better trained and equipped. Guns managed to shatter this status quo, giving underdogs a fighting chance. War become cheaper and more accessible. More and more people would become soldiers. That increased casualties too. However, war stopped being a thing for upper classes only, with commoners had little choice but to accept whatever the outcome was. Now common people could fight for their interests with guns in hand.

Bows and crossbows or people proficient with them did not disappear overnight, however. At first, they became elite units in the new army, later they became royal bodyguards and eventually ceremonial guards. Yeoman of the Guard, as name suggest, were once longbowmen. They still exist a be it no longer use longbows.

This is how we went from bows and swords to guns. One can notice parallels between this and AI for example. Even if AI is not better than real programmers, the fact that every idiot and their dog could use it, unlike actually writing code that requires years of education, will make AI widespread and it will gradually replace many other more specific roles.

How Ukraine Can and Should Reshape Borders and Future of Eastern Europe

Ukraine should stop clinging to old Soviet era borders and begin shaping not only new frontiers but also new life and future for all post-Soviet space. Ukraine's performance in its war with Russia created a unique opportunity for Ukraine to stop being a small state threatened by its large neighbor and instead become one of the powers who shape geopolitics rather than shaped by them. 

However, to achieve it Ukraine has to play its cards right to secure support of key players and then use it to enact the change we all can benefit from. To do that Ukraine should stop thinking in terms and categories of small powers and start thinking big, like a superpower carving the world with other fellow superpowers. However, doing that is not as simple as it sounds. Great powers act and play by their own complex rules and Ukraine has to learn these rules to be able to play the big game in the big league. If it manages to do that, it can become a regional power in charge of Eastern Europe. I will explain the rules after a little bit of context.

Currently many in Ukraine and Europe are puzzled by the fact that Trump seamlessly openly supports Russia and Europeans clearly do not do enough to fight off Russia. Why a democratic power like the US will side with an autocratic Russia that openly shits on everything democratic free world holds dear? That does not make sense. 

History does repeats itself and around 200 years ago Nicolas I of Russia was just as puzzled over the fact that UK, France and future Italy sided with Ottoman Empire and now fighting against Russia in Crimea? Was not Turk a great bane of Europe and Christendom that threatened existence of both for several centuries? Did not Ottomans besieged and nearly destroyed Vienna twice, requiring grand Christian coalition to finally be driven away? If so why when Russia went on to finally put an end to this now weakened beast, everyone sided with them over their fellow Christian Russians? Even Austria who suffered from Turk so much tacitly supported the coalition. That seamlessly did not make any sense.

Nonetheless there were reasons. UK recently secured control over Egypt and started building Suez Canal. Sudden collapse of the Ottomans would have put these plans in jeopardy. In fact, a sudden collapse of such a large country will create loss of chaos. New warlords will spring up all around former Ottoman territory, threatening British trade and links with India, Southeast Asia and Australia. Russian plans for Ottomans never accounted for the Suez or shipping problem, that was just too far away from Russian borders for Nicolas I to care about. However, shipping was important for UK and that is why UK said no, and when Nicolas I ignored that, Brits landed in force in Crimea to put an end to Russian adventure with force. France and future Italy tagged along as they too benefitted from trade. Austria stayed out due to close links and alliance with Russia but was broadly against Russian plans. Nicolas, I felt betrayed, just Ukrainians feel betrayed by Trump's actions.

200 years forward to nowadays, much the same situation plays out in modern war in Ukraine. Russia now plays role of dying Ottoman empire (I wrote about it in separate article), Ukraine plays Russian role from 200 years ago and the US plays role of the Brits.

Just like Ottomans were useful for Brits, Russia is also useful for Americans. After all Putin is called this way because he was 'put in' power by people in Washington, just so you know who is the puppet. Russia plays one crucial role for the US: it blocks hungry Chinese dragon from lush pastures of Siberia. Resource starved and overpopulated China could really benefit from seizing all or part of Russian Siberia. That will allow China to become so strong it will easily be able to eclipse the US as preeminent world superpower. That is not something Washington will allow for obvious reasons. They will readily sacrifice other geopolitical issues for this one, keeping China down is Washington's No 1 priority. Ukraine, just like Nicolas I before them, certainly did not thought of it that far, for them Siberia is but far and unimportant. Nonetheless for the US keeping China down is more important that helping the Ukraine. For them if Ukraine falls its no big deal, but if Russia collapses, then its a disaster. That is why they, while not abandoning Ukraine completely as that will look bad publicly, hold Ukraine's hand to make sure Russia does not collapse somehow.

Europe is a lot more cordial towards Ukraine. At the very least they care for Ukraine to not be just absorbed into Russia. For EU Ukraine is needed as potential new EU member as well as barrier against Russia. They do not want Ukrainian government in Kyiv to fall or become a Moscow's puppet. That hold American hand. At the same time Europe does not care if Ukraine returns its occupied territories. If anything, Europe would prefer if Ukraine was smaller, not bigger. Smaller states are easier to integrate and easier to deal with in various European institutions. Eastern parts of Ukraine are both anti-EU and very corrupt. Brussels hates Kernsograd (Kharkiv) about as much Russian chauvinists hate Bandershadt (Lviv). They certainly think Ukraine is better off without it or any other pro-Russian parts. Last thing EU wants is another pro-Russian Yanukovych winning power in Kyiv and tearing down EU agreements. The most certain way of preventing it is removal of pro-Russian parts of the country from the country. When Bismarck advocated small Germany, he had this idea in mind.

So, does that mean there is nothing Ukraine can do? Of course, no. The solution can be pried out of the very same Russian history. Alexander II replayed the same Crimean war against Ottomans, this time achieving many of Russian objectives. He achieved it not through the martial proneness but through clever diplomatic maneuvering. Instead of going guns blazing he cut deals with various powers, promising lands to some, favors for others. Gradually he got most of the key players to his side and only then launched a second war to take from the Ottomans what he had agreed on with his partners. Unlike Nicolas I, Alexander II plan was not a reckless offensive with no regard for consequences, but a carefully planned demolition, where everyone had something to gain and important things were preserved. They agreed to expand and empower, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece while also created a brand-new state, Bulgaria. Austria got Bosnia and Russia itself large area around Kars. UK again interfered, demanding some changes, but that too was negotiated out and most changes stood. Alexander II clearly understood what key players wanted and delivered them just that while at the same time not forgetting to cut himself the biggest piece of that pie and a few secret pieces too while at it.

Ukraine has two key players to placate, US and the EU. Understanding their interests and catering to them is key to Ukraine's success in this war. US interests are simple, keep China out of Siberia, to that end Russia should at the very least survive as a state with functional army and economy, it does not mean it needs the same borders, just that it needs to survive and be a barrier to Chinese expansion. That is why various punitive measures against Russia are not welcomed by the US as that will weaken Russia against Chinese threat. Alternative to that can be in convincing the US to take control of Russian Siberia directly and either annex it into the US or occupy it.

EU is a lot more nuanced but it's the EU's interests that by far hold the greatest potential for Ukraine. EU always coveted Russian lands as future members of the EU. However, with current Kremlin regime Russian ascension to EU looks near impossible. Nonetheless EU likely will be interested in creation of new independent states from parts of Russian territory as these states could then be democratised and integrated into EU. Ukraine can be the spearhead in this process, creating new EU friendly states and in process cultivating and empowering pro-Ukrainian elites there while at it. My proposal for Don Republic in Don River Basin is just that kind of state, it can be like a pilot program to try out the idea. Various problematic areas of Ukraine that will be hard to rid of corruption and pro-Russian sentiment could be divested into this new state. Kharkiv can serve as its capital. If all else fails, it will serve as a useful buffer state between Ukraine and Russia. There is also Suwalki gap and Russian Kaliningrad oblast, that is a clear thorn in EU side. 

Finally, the biggest problem to the EU is Alyaksandr Lukashenka who shits on EU values and plagues them with migrants and all sort of other problems while hiding behind Russian back to avoid retaliation. It's almost certain that EU wants Lukashenka gone and Ukraine can easily achieve that. Belarus army is completely defenseless, and public is discontent with his dictatorial rule. With endorsement of the EU and Tsikhanovskaya, Ukraine can easily roll into Minsk and replace the Last Dictator of Europe with a Ukraine friendly government.

Fundamentally Ukraine has the best cards, its Ukrainian troops doing the fighting and thus Ukraine got to be the biggest shaper of Eastern European future. The problem is that Ukraine does not use its cards right, instead of offering solutions that other players can get behind and help to implement, Ukraine insist on returning to status quo of 1991 borders that does not satisfy anyone. Ukraine should think like great power and realise that two friendly puppet states on its borders is more valuable than a few eastern provinces and act accordingly. 

Right now, Ukraine needs to stop trying to bring back Crimea and Donbas and instead draft a plan of carving out Russian land and bring it to Europeans for considerations. It will be vise to prob first to see if EU is interested in carving a new state out of Russia or regime change in Belarus. If all goes well, Ukraine will get real assistance, and war will be over in days. Then state building could begin. 

Finally, Ukraine will be a lot safer with buffer states separating it from Russia, than with vague and opaque security guarantees that the US might not act on.

Just like that Ukraine can turn the stagnating exhausting war from a quagmire into an opportunity for solutions and greatness, the only requirement that officials in Kyiv should start looking at things outside of the box and they will notice plenty of solutions.