Tory-Putin Alliace

It was somewhat surprising to me why some right wing is so supportive of Putin. The 'love for authoritarianism' that many news pundits claimed, sounded grossly incorrect to me.

However recently I figured out why right wing tend to go easy on Putin:

The money.

Right wingers want cheap labor to work their numerous jobs. However, labor laws and such force them to pay a living wage to citizens as well as people with legal right to work. People without legal right to work however can be exploited and forced to work for much less money. I outlined how it works in a separate article a while back.

However, what can possibly cause so many people without legal rights to flood the western world.

The answer is war. Russian invasion in Ukraine caused a lot of people to flee Ukraine. Many ended up in the Western Countries. There are Russian intermediaries already waited for them with offers of 'help'. Refugees who know nothing of the countries they ended up in would gladly take on help of some people who will organize everything and will even help them find work in the new place. 

Work will not pay much, but people from Ukraine would not even know how much is the minimal wage in Australia is. The fact that in Australia rates are set by hour and in post-Soviet states it is monthly instead. 

So technically they will not even lie to refugees when they will tell them that minimal wage is $20. They will not clarify that is it per hour and will even promise to get them a 'whooping' $300 or $500 if they are generous. Per month of course.

Of course, these very same organizers will then resell the labor of these people to businesses in Western countries for a lot more than that, pocketing the difference. However, it will still be less than actual legal minimum wage so businesses will gladly take the offer.

More self-conscious and wicked will even try to stop any aid to Ukraine so that Putin's war will produce even more refugees for the illegal labor machine.

On Leadership and Why Men are dying out in Russia

A response to this. However, it also covers many other issues.

Nishizumi Miho is sympathetic leader of course. She is the kind of person a group of men can elect as their leader.

Different Leadership for Different Genders

Guys in general want to make sure 'the leadership' will look after their interests and needs. That is why public companies have boards of directors and government has parliament or other assembly.

There is another theory of leadership, that is of 'strong leadership', but that is how girls choose their leaders.

That is why countries where females are majority of population, such as Russia and Belarus, are ruled by authoritarian dictators.

Countries where men are a majority ruled by democratic governments instead.

Women do not get democracy and men do not get autocracy.

How different style of leadership affects different genders.

That is why women in democratic countries go nuts, think men are weak and fap to Putin's shirtless photos. Sometimes they marry black or some foreign people because they think foreigners are not as weak as locals are.

On the other hand, men in authoritarian countries cannot put up with dictatorial bullshit. They either pack their bags and emigrate to democratic countries or become alcoholics and drink themselves to death. After all, no man can put up with Putin's rule, unless he is completely wasted.

That makes gender imbalance in places like Russia and Belarus even worse and eventually will lead to a complete collapse of such societies.

Sparta with its 'strength and warrior ethos' that praise strength and despised weakness collapsed on its own head and completely died out. Now Russia and Belarus set to repeat this history.

Life Expectancy

To add to the problem Russia and Belarus has the biggest difference in life expectancy between men and women compare to all other nation in the world. Men just do not survive in that toxic place long enough. Use this table and sort it by gender gap and you will see.

Russia just does not care for their men at all. Because when the government uses riot police to beat you instead of listening to your problems and does what you think should be done, that shows that they do not care for you.

Thus, it only makes sense to move to a country that does care.

By extension Russian women on average also do not know how to care for men.

On the US and the UK Foreign Policy

The US desire to solve world problems often compensated by their lack of understanding of how to achieve that.

The UK ability and understanding of world problems is compensated by their unwillingness to actually solve them.

This leads to various unfortunate impasse where things could not progress towards the desirable outcome. 

For example, the US Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Hamid Karzai and his Northern Alliance simply tricked the US. He acted like he wants to fix Afghanistan but in reality, he was abusing the US support. Karzai and his cronies abused their power for personal enrichment and mistreated people of Afghanistan. Northern Alliance mismanagement eventually made people turn back to Taliban.

American thinking that there are good and bad guys led to this mistake. They fought to defeat the bad guys by helping out other guys, who turned out to be bad in their own way, in fact even worse than those whom their replaced. 'The worse guys' took the US for a ride and mismanaged the Afghanistan on the US watch.

Not every time worse guys win, however.

There are also times when selfishness leads to good outcomes. 

For example, greedy and selfish Spanish conquistadors who wanted to enslave locals and exploit resources of the New World, ended up destroying savage Aztec civilization that literary killed human beings in gruesome rituals as sacrifices to their gods, because they believed the world will end if they fail to appease their gods with these murders. Thanks to selfish Spanish, Mexicans no longer kill their people in ritual sacrifices.

Though what is better and what is worse is relative. Individual judgement 

Greek and Balkan Ukraine

In my series of articles about Ukraine I talked how Russia settled Ukrainian Southeast with people during 19th century. However, I did not specify what people did they brought there.

Russia in 19th century used Orthodox Christianity as a unifying rallying point for people inside and outside the country. The sponsored many Orthodox people's uprisings against the Ottoman Empire and directly aided some of the rebels. Especially Greeks and Serbs.

Not all of these succeeded and many former rebels needed a safe haven afterwards. Russia was more than willing to resettle them in what is not Southeast Ukraine.

Of course, they intermixed with Ukrainians from further north as well as Russians form other part of Russia as well as other ethnicities from then parts of Russian Empire.

Because of that many people in the area have Greek, Serbian or Bulgarian heritage. In fact, many cities there are named in Greek manner with Greek names with 'pol' at the end. A reference to Greek word 'Polis' that means city. Sevastopol, Mariupol, Melitopol, Nikopol, Tiraspol.

During soviet times however, the knowledge of these people's ancestry became lost and now not even they themselves remember where their ancestors came to settle these lands.

That is also a reason why they feel no particular loyalty to either Ukraine or Russia. In fact, most loyalties in the Southeast lay with their cities. Likely a heritage to the Greek City-State system.

More on Expansive Nature of Humanity: Yonger and Older Civilizations

New Technology

However, it often takes more advanced technology to be able to explore and exploit previously inaccessible or colonizable lands.

Spanish and Portuguese could only discover new world when they learned how to build sturdy enough ships to sail the open ocean. Roman era galleys and medieval ships were only good for Mediterranean and inland sea, they could not traverse the ocean. Open ocean higher than sea waves would have just capsized any galley.

This of course produce the situation where new civilizations on the frontier are more technologically advanced than those older civilizations in the formally prosperous areas.

It is like children and younger people are much more capable and comfortable using modern technology while older people are often struggled to adopt to the technological change.

Some older civilizations are as resistant to adopting new ways as some older people who cling to 'the way they always did things'. Other do try to keep up, but they could hardly get as proficient in it as newer civilizations.

Yonger and Older Civilizations

In the same lieu interactions between newer and younger civilizations such as the US or the EU and older ones such as Russia, China, Iran or even Latin America are like those between younger and older people.

Both think they know better; both think the other one is not getting it.

Young Civilizations

The US and the EU are confident that their technology is better and should be embraced throughout the world. Then think that people around them are backward and has to be educated in the better way to live. On human level it is like: 'we should teach boomers how to use Snapchat'. 

They are not incorrect in that per se. Their way is indeed better and more advanced that what was there before them.

However, they often act on assumption that they are civilization and, on its way, to educate the primitives. This of course a misunderstanding at best. It could as well be taken as an insult by these older civilizations. 

Old Civilizations

In contrast older civilizations often stuck in the nostalgia for their past, or some other form of trying to get back the glory days. 

In their defense they, indeed were better off back then. As I explained in my previous article, that was due to them still not exhausting all resources that was available to them. 

That is why Russia and China are as dismissive of the US and EU as they are. They stuck in memories of their glory days that were back before the US or EU were not even a thing. That sound just like human: "I was doing whatnot before you were even born." The old civilizations do think this way at times. 

They refuse to face their current reality that by now they are nothing, but senile old men on their deathbed. Russia recently went on to recreate 19th century uniforms for its ceremonial guards. That is just like nostalgia by the times when 'Beatles were cool'.

How Older Civilization Behave

However old civilization at times could have better understanding of things both past and present.

They too were young once. They too once had some technology that was very advanced and revolutionary for the times. Ottoman Bombards and organization of their Janissaries were cutting age for the 1444 when they took Constantinople. By 18th century however they were nothing that relics of no practical use.

They too used these technologies to become great and conquer vast empires. By 1550s something Ottomans conquered pretty much everything that was worth conquering back in the days.

Then after the golden age they started to decline. In 18th century they lost wars and territories to Austria and Russia with weapons that were cutting age for that century. They used British goodwill to keep themselves alive in 19th century and finally came to an end when Mustafa Kemal went on to create modern Turkey on the territory, formerly occupied by the Ottomans.

Russia too had great cutting age army by the end of 18th century when they conquered Poland-Lithuania and significant parts of the Ottoman Empire. 

Thus, they normally would have a much better understanding of younger civilizations than the other way around. They could see their former selves in these new civilizations.

Most however are not as willing to share their wisdom with the young civilizations, like Obi Wan Kenobi did for Luke Skywalker.

Because of that these older civilizations can often trick younger ones to support their ageing selves. Ottomans for example managed to extract a lot of help from British and Germans in their dying days.

Older civilizations often harbor ill will towards the younger civilizations. They envy the youth and vigor these possess. They understand that they could never be like this anymore as aging is a one-way process. They also fear that these newer civilizations will eventually replace them.

Surely there could be better examples of the old civilizations, but most of the time civilization aging is a very ugly sight to behold. I for one cannot readily named any graceful aging of a civilization.

Impossibility for a Civilization to Become Young Again.

Just as old person could not simply have their youth back, older civilizations cannot simply modernize and be young again.

They however could not learn and adapt the tricks and ways of these younger civilizations. That would be just like suddenly turning 30 again after being 70. Sure, some of them do attempt such feats every now and then. Communism and USSR for example was an attempt to reinvigorate old Russia that ultimately did not succeeded.

The reason who older civilizations cannot modernize is always the same, however. Vested interests and influential people end up preventing any change. Because change will mean they will lose their influence or will have to share power with some new elites. 

Thus, vested interests' groups always oversee degradation and collapse of their civilizations, because they will rather see their countries rot around them as they squeeze last juices out of them, then see any real change if that means someone else will wield power in what they deem 'their state'.

Emigration from Old Civilization to Yonger Ones

Because of that smarter young people often choose to emigrate from aging civilizations to still young ones. They do not want to toil for vested interests while getting nothing in return.

In turn vested interests, knowing they have nothing to offer to these young people, begin cultivating stupidity, in order to create 'useful idiots' who will 'sacrifice' for their country. Of course, these sacrifices will do nothing but feed vested interests' insatiable greed. 

However, they often do prolong the suffering of the aging country and prevent change that will actually benefit younger people in there.

Back in 19th century people immigrated to Russia, now they emigrate out of it.

Back in the 17th-18th people would immigrate into Spanish colonies of what is now Latin America. Now Latins emigrate to the US and other places.

This an emigration is an inevitable reaction to aging of the civilization. The place ran its time and could no longer provide for its children.

On the other hand, younger civilizations have both means and resources to provide for these people. They can take care of them. Thus, it is only reasonable for them to attract talents from aging civilizations.

Death and Potential Rebirth of Civilization

Fundamentally civilization can die on its own without being conquered by anything. Such conquests can only happen against completely collapsed and decaying state.

Barbarians did not conquer prosperous Rome in its golden age. Painting made in later days are deceptively misleading of the reality. 

Barbarians conquered rotting remnants of that once glorious but by 5th century, rotten to the core civilization. Rome of 5th century most likely literary starved, was in constant civil war and was besieged by plethora of problems.

Emperor Honorius literary feed pigeons from his throne as some senile old man would do from a park bench nowadays. Hardly anyone lamented when Odoacer and Lombards replaced this kind of governance. In fact, the Lombards would have to work out how to fix this broken country before they could enjoy anything civilizational Rome had.

Eventually, after long and chaotic Dark Ages where different conquerors would conquer former Roman lands from each other, medieval Europe emerged from that transformation. Charlemagne could finally offer the system that would satisfy the populace in the former Western parts of Rome. 

Many of his predecessors were unable to create a government that will last. Possibly the way they government did not created loyalties and satisfy the people. Lombards, Visigoth and Vandals eventually lost power to someone else. 

After all people are selfish beings and would not support the system that does not benefit them in some way.

Out of more recent examples Mustafa Kemal first created his appropriately named Yong Turks association to fix decaying Ottoman Empire. They eventually set up their separate government in Ankara that existed in parallel to Ottoman one in Constantinople at a time.

Mustafa Kemal and his Young Turk Army fought both foreign armies as well as those still loyal to the Ottoman government. When Yong Turks won and took Constantinople, they disestablished Ottoman government and dissolve all its institution. The Ottoman Sultan and possibly many of his officials went into exile and died there, they had no place in the Turkey Kemal just created.

Eventually Kemal created new and modern Republic of Turkey. It can be considered a beginning of new second Turkish civilization. New state has none of the institutions of the original Ottoman state. It is like a young son of an old dead father. It has lineage of the dad, but none of his memories and knowledge. New Turkey is its own independent entity in all regards. It retains next to nothing of what was once staples of Ottoman system.

Yet there is one other way of building new civilizations. European Union. EU did manage to create a new way forward for the old Europe. In a way it's a modern incantation of Habsburg monarchy, that managed to balance the interests of various polities east of Holy Roman Empire as well as those in it.

Eventually more and more European states opted to join. By now it is rather clear that EU is the future of Europe. Like a magnet or a black hole its sucks in more and more nations in its system.

Its success lies in offering prospect of prosperity of people of Europe together with offering a say in politics to the business and political elites of various European nations. 

Thus, it offers an interesting alternative of the future and rebirth for aging civilizations, that nations and people actually join willingly. A rare example of such event as most civilizations collapses against the will of their elites.

Expansive Nature of Humanity

If there is one cycle of human development that keeps repeating itself on and on and on, it is a development to the extinction of all available resources. This is always followed with relocation to yet untouched areas with lesser but still sufficient enough resources. 

Be that Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians, who once had the flourishing civilization, but now live in a desert. Areas of modern Egypt and Iraq were not always deserts. Back in the days they were the only civilizations surrounded by wilderness all around them.

However eventually they exhausted almost all of their numerous resources and went into decline. Areas around them however began their development and grows when the ancients began to decline.

This repeated itself in much better documented modern era as well. When Columbus just discovered the Americas. Spain and Portugal went on to explore, settle and exploit the richest and most prosperous parts of the continent: some islands of the Caribbean, Spanish Main and Brasil. They did not want to settle the mainland US or Canada, as these areas were not as lucrative as those further south.

However eventually Spanish and Portuguese exploited all the resources in the south in what is now known as Latin America. The area reached its peak and began to decline. Only then areas of modern US and Canada begun to be settled.

Nowadays we see US and Canada as high-income prosperous modern economy while at the same time consider Latin America backward and undeveloped 3rd world area. However, this is misunderstanding of the reality.

Latin America is not backward, it simply outlived its prime and now slowly, but steadily declining. Just like Egypt and Mesopotamia too eventually went into a slow but steady decline.

Roman Empire was like that too. It was in its zenith during the Augustus around 0AD, then it begun its decline and basically died of natural causes by 476AD.

That is also the same with other ancient civilizations such as Chinese, Indian or may be even African. It affects more modern politics as well, for example Byzantine, Ottoman, Polish-Lithuanian, Russian or Spanish Colonial. They are struggling to survive their old age rather than lagging behind in development.

There might have been once a civilization even more fancy and glorious where nowadays lies unlivable Sahara Desert. However, it died completely without living even a trace of its existence.

However what humanity needs new frontiers with new and fresh resources to colonize and exploit. Without it the humanity will implode.

Without new frontiers humanity will need to invent a new technology that will allow as to maintain the increasing population.

If such technology cannot be found, we need to drastically cut the population growth.

Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Most Other Current Religions are Outdated

Back 2000 years ago Christianity was modern and helped to overcome many outdated superstitious sentiments that existed throughout the Roman World. 

For Pagan people, who used to sacrifice animals and sometimes humans to their pagan gods, Christianity was a way out of their bloody superstitious times into more enlightened future.

Medieval Christianity founded Universities and encouraged learning and sciences.

Nowadays however Christianity became the polar opposite of that. Modern Christianity clings to past glories and fail to address challenges faced by modern world. If anything, it makes these challenges worse.

Instead of embracing science and development, it clings to the reverence of the past and prevents humanity from reaching its full potential.

Instead of encouraging science and technology, modern Christianity has drowned in debate about ethics. It glorifies martyrdom and misery instead of trying to eliminate misery and lead society into more advanced way of living.

When Nietzsche said that 'god is dead', he meant that religion as it became in 19th century, became useless and ineffective in handling challenges of the society.

Both I and Nietzsche agree that we need a new god. New religion for the modern days. I even wrote an article on this religion of the future.

How to Divide Belarus

 

Theoretically Belarus is not too large and has decent borders overall. However, that impression might be misleading.

Overall Belarussian cities seem to cluster in three different areas. 

One is North-East, close to border with Russia. I already suggested in the article about Russia that these areas together with Russian Smolensk should form its own nation. In fact, Russian Civil War era BNR claimed Smolensk as part of their country.

Another one is along the southern border with Ukraine. I mentioned in my series of articles about Ukraine that UNR used to claim these areas as their own. I think they should be transferred to Ukraine.

Finally, there is final cluster on the border with Lithuania. It includes capital Minsk as well as Hrodna.

Hrodna area is the only one in the country that has an overall Belarussian Language majority. Therefore, it can become a basis for a Belarussian state. Sure, such state will be much smaller than current Belarus, but it will be able to have Belarussian as both de-jure and de-facto language. These areas tend to vote for nationalistic candidates.

Alternatively, this area can be given to Lithuania.

Finally, city of Minsk itself. It can be made into its own City-State. Urban Belarussians are much more developed compared to countryside. They are almost like two different countries. Alternatively, it can either join Hrodna-Belarus or Ukraine.

Gomel too can be made into its own City-State instead of joining Ukraine.

Smaller cities in close vicinity of Minsk and Gomel can also be made part of their respective City-States.

Why Divide Belarus

There are two reasons to divide Belarus:

One is to remove The Last Dictator of Europe, Lukashenka from power. Recently Lukashenka completely lost it and now flooding Europe with refugees from middle east. 

However, Lukashenka is popular in the countryside as well as in the north-east of the country. Because of these areas he manages to stay in power despite being despised by young residents of Minsk.

Of course, this division might end up making Lukashenka a dictator of Smolensk-Vitebsk Republic, but it is still better than having him in Minsk.

Belarussian Language

Another reason it to create more appropriate polities. Including the one for Belarussian Language speakers.

Russophone population dominate most spheres of life and Belarussian language is further and further sidelined by Lukashenka regime. 

There are few Belarussian language areas here and there but overall, the country is mostly Russophone.

Some maps are even more radical about current linguistic situation in Belarus.

Out of divided Belarus, only Belarus-Hrodna Republic needs to have Belarussian as official language.

That will put Russophone at ease too. They will stop clinging to Russophone dictators in fear that Belarussian language candidate will remove Russian language as the official one.

How to better divide Russia into Several Independent States

In my previous article about Veishnoria I covered this idea partially. However, in a broader sense Russia is a huge amalgamation of various territories that have little in common with each other. Even areas that are ethnically Russian have little in common with each other: autocratic Muscovy, that was a tributary of Mongol Golden Horde, have nothing in common with Novgorodian Republic, that was member of the German Hanseatic League and was part of the German system. A map from that era clearly shows that:

Thus, in order to fix Russia we need to separate a former territory of the Novgorodian Republic into an independent nation.

Historical Principalities

Novgorod Republic is of course the first and most important candidate for independence. Back in the days they used to control all the areas in the north as well. West of Uran Mountains that is. Pskov Republic was independent of them, but I think in modern times they will do well as one north Russian Nation. Their capital can be in either Novgorod itself or in Sankt Peterburg as it is the biggest city in this area.

Tver, Ryazan and Smolensk principalities deserve independence as well. Though Muscovy should keep Nizhniy-Novgorod as it was founded by them after all.

Tver and Smolensk should probably stay small roughly 1-2 oblast nations. They were prevented from expanding further east by Muscovy who controlled Vladimir, Suzdal and areas further north-east inland all the way to Perm. Coastal areas were controlled by Novgorod instead.

Alternatively, Tver can unite with Novgorod Republic and Smolensk with new states, carved out of Belarus.

Belarussian Polatsk, Vitebsk and Mohylov will make a good joint nation together with Smolensk.

Ryazan however should have a dominion over several oblasts south of Moscow. However, these areas should exclude anything in Don River area or in Volga area south of Kazan. 

This area is closest to Ukraine and some land redistribution across the current Russia-Ukraine border would be desirable to achieve optimal outcomes. I think southern oblast, including Voronezh and Kursk should unite with Sloboda Ukraine into one 'border' Sloboda Ukraine Republic.

North of that but south of Moscow oblast should become a Ryazan State/Republic. Muscovy should keep Kaluga and Bryansk, but Ryazan should get Tula and Oryol.

Yaroslavl, Kostroma and Vologda can have a joint state together. It can control all of European Russia hinterland all the way and including Archangelsk. Ivanovo however should stay with Muscovy.

Murmansk and Karelia should stay part of Novgorod Republic, however. There are not that many Karelians left to warrant its own state for just them.

Other Areas of European Russia

Greater Tatarstan centered in Kazan should also become independent. Muscovy fought a lot of wars against them, until they finally conquered them. I think they can have a joint nation together with Bashkortostan and Chuvashia if there is no animosity between Tatars, Bashkirs and Chuvash. 

Areas south of Kazan and Tatars should become its own nation, centered in Volgograd and should also include Samara, Astrachan and even Ufa. Astrachan used to be its own khanate back in the days, but nowadays there are not many Tatars left in the area to warrant a separate state for them.

Similarly, areas around Don River should be its own nation, it can be called Kuban and should also include all of Russian Black Sea coast as well as Krasnodar Krai. This state should also unite with Donbas from Ukraine into one state or have a redistribution between Donbas and Kuban States as I mentioned in a separate article on Ukraine.

North Caucasus too was separate from. However, Russia leaving that area might destabilize it. However perhaps UN troops can keep peace there. Nowadays this area has lots of republics with dashed names. Back in the days this area used to be divided differently from how it is now, but I am not an expert on Caucasus to propose meaningful borders there. Perhaps Turkey can help draw borders and keep peace there.

Finally Great Perm in the North-East corner deserve a comeback as well. Udmurtia, Kirov and Komi Republic can also be part of this state.

Siberia

However, the most important issue here is that current Russian state and its elites live off oil and gas exports. These resources are located in Siberia. Because of that they neglect the rest of the country. Sometimes this country tries to start an insurgency and replace them by force with someone who will do something for them.

Because of that current Russian state should move its capital to Siberia and continue to govern Eastern Russia just as they do nowadays.

Yekaterinburg will make for a nice capital for this new Russia.

The rest of Siberian Russia, east of Ural Mountains should stay with this state. Sure, there are some ethnic republics in Siberia as well, but many are not heavily populated, despite having vast territories.

This state should be a legal successor of the current Russia.

In addition to that they should get area around Orenburg. Some border readjustment with Tatarstan will be needed to make borders viable. Alternatively, Orenburg can become its own nation.

The US and Denmark Should Divide Greenland

Recently the US again offered to buy Greenland from Denmark. Unfortunately, Denmark refused.

That is not good because island is too large for Denmark to control militarily all on its own. Because of that countries such as China and Russia might use parts of if secretly. Terrorists of various kind might make it their base of operation as well. That can potentially endanger the entire world.

However, Denmark's opinion is understandable as well. They found it first and put some effort into colonizing and establishing settlements on it. Aside from that Denmark suspects that there could be plenty of natural resources underneath the island and do not want to sell it to America for cheap, just to find out that there is oil or gold underneath the glaciers. 

That is what happened to Alaska after all, Russia sold it to the US for cheap as Russians did not find anything but otters there. Otters alone are not valuable enough to warrant a bigger price. However shortly after purchase Americans found gold and oil there. Some in Russia felt that the deal was unfair. Denmark too possibly suspects that Americans found some resources on the island and now want to buy it to not pay Danes any royalties for exploiting these resources.

However, the island is big, and the US and Denmark can simply agree to divide it among themselves. Danes can keep their settlement on southern part of the island. The US can take the northern half.

Alternatively, Denmark can sell the entire island but with special clause that entitles them to a share of profit from all the resources, Americans will manage to find on the island.

Final option would be for the EU to take over the island as the first directly administered EU territory. That way security of the island will we responsibility of all EU member states.

Best US Presidents.

George Washington mostly got his presidency as a reward for being a general in Revolutionary War. There were little issues back then and little disagreements between different social groups, even earlier parties have not formed yet. So, it is hard to say how he would fare in more challenging environment.

I would say both Roosevelts as well as Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush (senior).

Without Teddy Roosevelt we would live in a world controlled by Trusts, who will rack up the prices on everything because they know you cannot buy goods they sell elsewhere.

Without FDR well will still be in Great Depression.

Without Lyndon Johnson we will have world of crime, poverty and misery.

Without Carter-Reagan-Bush trio we would still be in Cold War and half of the world if not more would live like North Korea, because those idiots in CPSU of USSR think everyone should live this way. I do not want CPSU tell me how to live.

Moldova

I will continue my Post Soviet Border Issues Series with Moldova.

Moldova is possibly the worst example of Soviet-era border rearrangement. In its current borders, the country is completely inviable. It is the poorest country in Europe and overly dependent on remittances from abroad. 

Ethnic minorities within country current borders prevent the government from controlling even whatever territory is still available for them.

History

That abysmal state of affairs was not the case in the past. Here is the map of 18th century Moldova.

When Moldova established itself as a Principality, it had nice and viable borders. Separated from Hungary by Carpathian Mountains and from Steppe nomads by Nistra (Dnistro) River, Moldova did not need to worry about security. Princes of Moldova ruled the little country on both banks of Pruth River from their capital Jassy and had much less to worry about, that their southern Romanian brothers in Wallachia.

That changed in the early 19th century when Russia came and annexed Bessarabia (east bank of Pruth River). Moldova was left with around 1/3 of its original territory. Eventually rump Moldova agreed to unite with Wallachia and form Romania.

Then after the Russian Revolution, the part of Moldova that was annexed by Russia, declared itself independent. That independence did not last as Romanians came and arranged for unification of this eastern Moldova with Romania as well. Both parts of Moldova were reunited as part of Romania.

However, then WWII happened, and USSR used this opportunity to demand Bessarabia back from Romania. Romania had little choice but to comply.

It was then when the USSR altered Moldova's borders to create the current mess, we are in.

USSR took away Bessarabia's access to the Black Sea but cutting off the coastal areas and giving them to Ukraine as Ismail Oblasts (nowadays part of the Odesa Oblast).

It also took away Bessarabia northern most area and turned it into Chernivtsi Oblast of Ukraine.

To 'compensate' Moldova, USSR gave it a sliver of land east of Nistra River with city of Tiraspol. Tiraspol was an important Russian military base. Tiraspol was not so much a compensation, so much a guard to watch that Moldova would not secede from the USSR again. To make matters worse USSR placed important power plants in Tiraspol to make Moldova as dependent on this city as they possibly could.

When USSR collapsed and Moldova seceded from the USSR, Tiraspol proclaimed itself independent from Moldova. Ever since Tiraspol based self-proclaimed Transnistria hosts Russian military bases and prevents Moldova from functioning as self-sustainable nation. It also prevents them from reintegrating with Romania like they did after Russian Revolution.

Map of all the partitions can be found here.

Solutions

Unification of Moldova with Romania will actually be a desirable outcome for the region. Sure, Romania has its issues, but they are nothing compared to what Moldova has to deal with.

That will allow people of Moldova to benefit from membership in European Union and be part of a functional self-sustainable nation, with whom their share a language and culture.

There were in such union during the interwar era, and it was a relatively successful period for them.

Borders

That leaves an issue of Transnistria. Theoretically Transnistria can be swapped back for the former Ismail Oblast of Ukraine. 

The area of former Ismail Oblast is heavily neglected by Ukraine due to its geographic isolation. Ethnically Ismail oblasts has mixed population with a lot of ethnic minorities, such as Bulgarians.

Transnistria is also geographically isolated from Moldova. Culturally and ethnically, it is a lot less Romanian than the areas west of Nistra. around 3/4 of Moldovan are ethnic Romanians, while only 1/3 of Transnistria is. Transnistria has equal number of ethnic Ukrainians in its borders which can make its integration into Ukraine easier.

Thus, I would recommend swapping Transnistria for part or all of the former Ismail Oblast. Such land swat will make both countries much more stable and governable and make quality of life in both areas much better.

In contrast I would suggest keeping Chernivtsi Oblast in Ukraine. It is mostly ethnically Ukrainian and would only destabilize Moldova further if added to it. Some minor land swaps in the area mostly in favor of Ukraine to allow it to build a hydro power plant will be beneficial as part of a broader land swap.

Such land swap will make things better for both independent Moldova as well as for reunited with Romania Moldova.

For Ukraine neither area is of great importance on their own. However, it will simplify the borders and will make guarding and patrolling them much easier. It will free up soldiers and borders guards for other duties.

I hope that politicians on both sides will agree with that.

How and Why Rome Collapced

People speculate a lot about how and why Roman Empire collapsed. A lot of it is far from truth as there are a lot of misconceptions about how Rome even functioned to begin with.

The idea that flourishing and prosperous civilization, that looked the same as during Augustus Golden Age, was conquered and pillaged by barbarians, who brought about dark age could not be further from truth.

In reality a Rome divided itself by zero long before its official end date. By the 5th century Rome was a completely dysfunctional society, that simply fell apart on its own. Similar how the USSR or Afghan government recently collapsed.

What really happened

It was not that people of Rome could not defend themselves from barbarians, it was that they were not even willing to. By the 5th century people were so fed up with abuses of power, perpetrated by the emperors, privileged classes and they own military, that they could not be bothered to protect these parasites from the barbarians. They simply stood idly and watched barbarians killing the rich and stealing their stuff. Some likely even joined the barbarians in looting.

Same how Pashtuns joined the Taliban against the abusive former Northern Alliance rulers. 

Sure, Rome relied on barbarian mercenaries, but that alone would not have exposed it to collapse.

On fundamental lever it was emperors who neglected their own informal social contract obligation to the people. As emperors ignored the people, people in turn left the emperors to their fate and did nothing to fend them and system that works only for them from barbarians.

All that sounds very close to social issues we face in post Financial Crisis of 2008 world. Because of that this article should be regarded as a warning to the elites of our times. 

However how did it come to that. Why did it happen. To tell that we need to get much further back in history of Rome.

Republican Rome

After a brief period of monarchy, Rome expelled its Kings and become a republic. Republican Rome was the one that actually build its empire and turned small city on Tiber River into a huge center of a global superpower.

Rome could achieve that only because it was a republic. Roman republic provided a political system that could reward its citizens enough to work for expanding Roman influence and conquer the world.

During the republic times Roman institutions could reward its citizens for participating and contributing to society.

Republic also provided for a more equal society. People trusted a system, in which they had a say and stake. A system that did not fail to reward them for their efforts and participation.

It was this Republican Rome and Republican system that allowed Rome to reach its zenith.

It the end of Republic era Rome already controlled all the key provinces, that made it into an example of the civilization so many people look fondly at even nowadays.

Then things changed.

Early Empire - Principate

After a brief period when Julius Ceasar attempted to rule like a dictator or a king, Rome entered so called principate period.

Ceasar was killed by Senators precisely because he ignored republican ethos and tried to rule as a dictator. Society did not take it kindly and killed him for that.

While killing Ceasar did not restored the Republic future Emperors understood that they had to make compromises with society in order to keep their lives and their power.

Thus, principate period begun. 

Augustus fleshed out its principles, that were mostly followed by his successors all the way to the Crisis of the 3rd century.

Rather than ruling as King or Emperor and universally acknowledged by the rest of the society as such, Augustus opted for more clandestine approach: he opted to respect Roman Republican institutions publicly, while discreetly controlling them de facto.

Augustus created a system of systematically rigging all Roman elections so that his loyalists would occupy all the public offices of Rome, giving him de facto full control over the government. For broader unaware of reality public, Rome continued to function as a Republic. Only those inside the system knew how things really worked, but they were a minority.

Boarder publics were unaware of the real power, Roman Emperors wielded. In public eyes Emperors were nothing more than a charitable citizen who liked to sponsor various public feasts and gladiator games on coliseum.

They did not use term Emperor to refer to them either. This term was invented by historians in order to describe the power and importance, these people had. Term Emperor or Imperator comes from the word 'imperium' which means power or authority. It was originally used the describe and enumerate the powers, different public offices had attached to them. Thus, Emperor simply means a man with power. It can more accurately be translated as a Strongman rather than a regnal title, more prestigious than a King, it came to mean much later.

During principate period Emperors used their vast wealth to placate public with feasts and entertainment (famous or infamous 'Bread and Circuses' approach). Public was too distracted to see their Republican institutions being gutted and being turned into nothing but a facade for tyranny. By the time of the Crisis of the 3rd century, there was nothing left that could actually function as a Republic again. 

Overall quality of life was not too bad, especially during the Augustus rule. Level of wealth and quality of life was probably highest during the early Emperors of the Principate period.

While this period indeed saw some expansion of Roman borders, these were only minor token conquests and did not add much to Rome power and glory.

Crisis of the 3rd Century

Then came Crisis of the 3rd Century. A succession despite between different generals escalated into a civil war.

This suddenly exposed to the citizens of Rome the reality of what they country has become. A military dictatorship.

Suddenly military leaders with nothing more than troops behind their back became openly control life in Rome.

After the initial shock, citizens of Rome done what they have done to Ceasar, assassinated several of these Emperors. This time it was not Senators but an actual angry mob of citizens of Rome. Inhabitants of the city were accustomed to republican form of government; they would not accept Rome turning into a dictatorship. 

Early Emperors always meticulously respected the Republic at least on the surface to not offend republican ethos of Romans and live in the city itself. 

As Principate collapsed, City of Rome suddenly became unsafe for the emperors. All future Emperors avoiding showing up in the city of Rome itself.

However, that did not bring the Republic back. This time it did not even brought the appearance of the Republic back.

New Emperors simply governed from outside of City of Rome itself. They were so called barracks Emperors. They were too afraid to show themselves in the city of Rome itself as angry mob would have killed them. However, by that time they could reasonably control the rest of the Empire from outside of the city of Rome itself.

In Roman Republic republican institutions only extended to people in the City of Rome itself. The so-called Empire (areas north of Rubicon and generally outside Italy itself) was always governed as military dictatorship. Romans were always stingy with their citizenship rights and did not extend it to conquered people.

Eventually Constantine would simply build a new capital for the Empire, that became known Constantinople. Emperors would govern from Constantinople even when Empire was unified. When Empire was divided, Western Emperors would govern from Meliorarum (Milan) or Ravenna.

The Decline

Crisis of the 3rd Century did not bring the Republic back. In fact, Rome simply existed on its own, surrounded by the Empire, ruled from Constantinople or Milan.

Because of that the Empire lived in a constant low intensity civil war. Death of the Emperor will always trigger a succession between his key subordinate generals. Sometimes one of them will emerge victorious and rule over unified Empire for his lifetime. Sometimes each of these generals will simply hold out to their part of the Empire and Empire will remain divided for prolonged periods of time.

Not always it will be divided in two, but over time division in two simply became most stable reality. Emperors of the West had not power to conquer East. Emperors of the East had not desire to conquer West as that is too far away from their power base in Constantinople.

A much better positioned and very well defendable Constantinople allowed Empire in the East to survive until Middle Ages.

Much more vulnerable Milan and Ravenna could not last that long.

The Fall

Since collapse of principate eliminated all forms legitimizing power, popular generals would often try to claim power by force alone. That allowed them to rule the Empire minus Rome, but that eventually destroyed all that made the Rome what it is and allowed them to conquer the Empire.

Early Emperors such as Ceasar would share the spoils with his soldiers and even broader Roman society. That allowed them to buy and keep loyalty of both army and the city. Later Emperor was either unwilling or unable to do the same. Without getting anything out of it, Romans got increasingly disillusioned and indifferent to the fate of the country.

Because of that Emperors had to rely more and more on the barbarian mercenaries to prop their power. However eventually these barbarians simply replaced Emperors and started rule directly.

Italy became divided into small city states and barbarian squabbled for control over the western provinces of former Rome.

Odoacer, that 'destroyed' Western Roman Empire and ruled Italy, did so from Ravenna, just like the emperors before him. Lombards too had they had their capital in the north, in Pavia close to Milan. Neither of them ruled city of Rome itself.

As first they acknowledge Emperor in Constantinople, but over time started to ignore him as well.

Justinian temporarily reconquered city of Rome itself in 6th century but lost it shortly after. From there on Papal States of the Catholic Church ruled over the City of Rome and surrounding areas. City state republics once again became a norm for Italy. 

Extra: Italian City States

During Roman times Italian City States also function autonomously but had military agreements with Rome. They were basically their own nations under protectorate of Rome. They run their domestic affairs independently during the whole Roman era, but paid Rome for security.

After Rome fell, they had to pay someone else to provide them with security. Some had to create their own militaries.

How Americans Won Revolutionary War

I thought about this a while ago and reached this conclusion as to why and how the US won the Revolutionary war.

Many speculate about how impactful French assistance was, but no one seems to talk about another aspect of the war. Hessian and other German mercenaries.

Early in the war they managed to score fast and effective victories and occupied pretty much all the important cities of the US. The colonists could not drive them out.

It could have been British victory but then an interesting thing likely happened.

First mercenaries simply stalled the war, because the longer war goes on, the longer British will have to pay them for their services.

However, then they came up with something even more ingenious:

The mercenaries simply defected to the US.

Mercenaries and colonists together easily defeated the British and UK had no choice but to make peace with the US, recognizing its independence.

Why did they defect?

In fact, there was plenty of reasons for Hessians and other mercenaries to defect.

They all come from poor Holy Roman Empire (modern Germany) princely states. States that make their money by offering their militaries as mercenaries to bigger countries such as UK and France.

People who join their militaries, likely have no better options.

That was still an era before strong nationalistic sentiments or national identities, so mercenaries unlikely to have any loyalties to their princely states. 

Thus, if they stay loyal to their princely states, they will likely simply return to their impoverished lives back in Germany.

Not a very enticing prospect.

What the US Likely Offered them

On the other hand, if they defect, they can not only make a good life in the US, but also immediately become something in the new nation.

After all the US needs good military and former Hessian Mercenaries will make for a good core of this military. It is likely they not only kept, but all increased their ranks by defecting.

The US could easily offer them much higher levels of prosperity compared to their former principalities.

They could easily become a landowner, a thing that was likely impossible for them in Germany as it was overpopulated even back then. The US could easily offer them free land in exchange for defection and likely did offered them just that.

All in all, it was likely a very enticing deal, that most of mercenaries were more than willing to take. Thus, good deals are what moves and changes the societies. Not morals and loyalties.

How Napoleon was Defeated

Strategy was to not fight the French, but to lure them deep into Russia and let them all starve there to their death. Because why fight when you can just sit there and wait until their die on their own.

However, Emperor Alexander I, courtiers and civilians did not understand the strategy and complained that Russian army refuses to fight. To placate them Kutuzov gave them the fight and that was Borodino.

However, Kutuzov and command did not care to win the actual battle, they only cared that army survives as an organized cohesive unit to fight another day. After all they will need the army to later occupy France, when French troops will all die out and road to Paris will be open.

Napoleon only realized that this was the plan when he was chilling down in the burned down Moscow. But it was too late for him then. Winter was coming, his army was starving and there was no where to get food in Russia. Kutuzov even burned the entire Moscow down just to make sure Napoleon and French will not find any food there.

It was like a medieval castle warfare, where they do not really fight but simply wait until someone will run out of food and die of starvation. Then the reminder will be the winner and take the empty settlement. That is why 100 Years War took so long for example.

The Conspiracy we Live In

Now with this Article it finally got clear to me what was wrong with Australia ever since the Financial Crisis of 2008. as well as why it started reminding me of Russia a lot more than when I just arrived.

The article however leaves a benefit of doubt as to whether Dutton have mismanaged the borders due to incompetence or done this intentionally. Article does hint heavily to the latter.

However, it misses the final answer. As to 'why do it?' in the first place. I will answer it here.

The answer is money of course.

How that Works

The migrants exploited by criminal gangs, can be paid a lot less than Aussie workers or migrants with legal status. Since their official legal status does not allows them to work, then they have work without any form of formal legal agreement. 

Minimum wage only applies to people with formal legal employment. Because of that businesses will not employ Aussies or people with legal immigration status, as that will mean they will have to pay them a proper wage and do all the legal paperwork as well.

Since provisions of Labor Law do not apply to the illegal migrant workers, their employers can pay them significantly less, if anything at all. They can also treat them a lot worse, knowing full well that illegal migrants cannot apply to Aussie courts for justice. 

How it Originated in Russia

I heard that this practice was already widely widespread in Russia in 2000s and possibly in 90s as well. Such workers in Russia typically come from Central Asian countries and called with a German borrowed word 'gastarbeiter'. 

However back in 2000s Russia was the only country run by the mafia and the rest of the world was different. It is very sad to see that these practices spread out from there to the rest of the world, to Australia.

Why it spread to Australia.

Perhaps Financial Crisis of the 2008 was the catalyst of spreading it out of Russia. Driven by the desire to save money, some businesses have adopted it. Thus, becoming more competitive than those who did not. Other either had to follow suit or get bankrupt.

I guess it is only fitting that people like Dutton and other Tories are behind the spread of this scheme in Australia. In a way you can even say that they lived to their 'Tory' moniker, that means something like bandit in Gaelic Irish.

Who benefits from it?

Aside from criminal gangs who run it, no one in particular benefits from this state of affairs. Perhaps such gangs disguise themselves as some form of employment services.

Some dodgy business owners possibly take advantage of this scheme consciously, but many are possibly unwilling enablers of this practice.

Illegal cheap labor the crime gangs bring it, take away jobs from Assies and legal migrants such as me.

Poorly paid exploited workers have no reason and possibly no training to do a proper job. That can endanger customers as well.

Cheaper labor not always result in cheaper prices as shown by current cost of living crisis.

Implications

Thanks to the illegal migrant workers, both local Aussies as well as legal migrants cannot get any work in Australia. No business will hire a person whom he has to pay a minimum wage plus other entitlements such as Super, if he can hire an illegal migrant for much less money.

Because of that unemployment is high and people on the dole do not have any hope of finding work at all.

Unless things change it will remain so in the foreseeable future.

However, I personally would prefer replacing illegal workers with automation and then going the UBI way.

Hope for the Future

Now that Labor is in power, they should use this scandal to advance their political fortunes. If people will understand the whole gravity of the conspiracy, the Tories have created, they will finally turn away.

from them and started voting Labor again. We will have a long Labor government era.

Then the country will finally be able to emerge from the Great Recession and start rebuilding itself.

So hopefully we will finally see this:

What are the Questions?

Moebius from Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain, is not the most likable character, but I will quote him on this one:

If Jesus is the answer, then what is the question for this answer?

I feel that people who write graffiti or hand out religious brochures are but pawns of some kind of Moebius level schemer. I can even guess the reasons.

How to Make European Union Better

I recently got this interesting idea on how to improve European Union. They should split bigger countries into several smaller ones. Or at the very least split their voting power into smaller units.

Currently European politics are often controlled by the interests of the bigger members of the EU, particularly Germany and France, to the lesser extend also Italy, Spain and Poland. Thus makes EU decision making unduly controlled by the interests of the big 5. 

Smaller states often feel like their opinions do not matter too much and take more passive role in the union, voting on issues but not offering any initiatives.

Because of that EU government in Brussels function not as a truly federal government like that of the US for example, but more like a mediator between Germany, France and other powerful actors who together have near veto power over EU decisions.

All that prevents EU from evolving into a real federal union.

One possible solution will be to split bigger EU countries into smaller ones. 

There are already independent movements in places like Catalonia in Spain. An independent Catalonia would make a near perfect member of the EU, it will look after its local interests at home, while generally will be very supportive of increased EU power and competence.

From Spain Catalonia can be joined by Valencia, Balearic Islands, Andalusia and Leon-Galicia.

However more countries like that can be established from bigger nations of the EU. For example, Bavaria can become an independent EU nation, making Germany smaller but at the same time creating alternative German nation in the EU.

Of course, when it comes to Germany, we should avoid divisions that mirror former east west divide, as that will only rekindle scars left by cold war. 

However, there are many better ways to divide Germany into several viable countries. Linguistically.  culturally and historically Germany is divided into north lower costal flat lands, mountainous south and intermediate middle part. 

For example, North coastal areas can become Greater Saxony, that will include all lander with Saxony in its name as well as all lander north of them: Schleswig-Holstein, Brandeburg, Mecklenburg as well as free cities of Hamburg, Bremen and Berlin. Bavaria and Baden-Wurttemberg can unite into one south German State, they can however continue as two independent states. The reminder can be called Rheinland-Germany. 

Theoretically another state can be created in the valley of Main River if we take Franconia away from Bavaria and merge it with parts of Hesse and parts of Thuringia. Rheinland-Palatinate and Saar can be split between this Greater Franconia and Rhineland-Germany. We can also demerge Baden from Wurttemberg and add it to Greater Franconia. Then Wurttemberg can merge with Bavaria into Bavaria-Wurttemberg.

Also, Greater Saxony, mentioned above, can be divide by Elbe River into northern and southern parts. Alternatively, Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern together can form a Baltic-Germany. 

France too can have its southern regions split into two new nations. South-West from Brittany to Spanish border can become Aquitaine with capital in Bordeaux. This region of France is underdeveloped and deserve more attention only its own country could give. Southeast from Toulouse to Nice will be Occitanie. It can go north as far as Lyon. This area is its own big agglomeration. Brittanny and Corsica too can be made independent.

Italy can be divided into Lombardy in the north of the mountains in the Po valley, all areas north and including Emilia-Romagna should be part of this state. Middle Part can become Rome-Tuscany. South can become Merridione, term they themselves use. Merridione will include Napples and all that is south of it. Sicily and Sardinia can become independent as well.

Silesia and Pomerania can become independent from Poland. They make for natural geographic regions and have long history as well as separate local identity. Silesia was part of Bohemian Crown for a very long time.

Finally, Transylvania can become independent from Romania. It has strong Hungarian minority and geographically isolated from the rest of Romania.

There could be further refinement for this plan.

Continue Later.