How Rayon Reform Have Led to War in Ukraine

 

Sometime before Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine passed a land reform that reduced number of second tier subdivisions from 400 something to only 136. It was a long overdue reform that reduced number of bureaucrats and streamlined the government. Other territorial subdivisions too needed similar reforms.

Reform was mostly a success with most common citizen think it was for the best. However, reform left one group unhappy, that is bureaucrats who lost their jobs as a result of the reform. However, what could fired bureaucrats do about it? Turned out they could convince Putin to invade Ukraine in an attempt to restore them. Putin annexed 4 oblasts, restored their rayon boundaries and numbers to their pre-2020 parameters and placed people, fired by Poroshenko and Zelenski, back into their old jobs. 

Ukraine burns from constant Russian shelling; Russia is chaffs under sanctions and broader world suffers from inflation and cost of living crisis. All so that some rayon robber baron boss could get his petty little job back and then use it to extort bribes from citizens. If you put it this way, no one in their sane mind would support such a war, in Russia as well. So, they did what they always do, lied. As of now no one yet figured this rather banal reason that keeps war going.

Some might wonder why Russia would care what happens to petty bureaucrats in Ukraine? That is because Russia is a captured state, and bureaucrats have undue control over it and Putin. Far from being public servants, bureaucrats in Russia see themselves as masters of the state and shamelessly exploit their position of power to parasite off the backs of common citizens.

Citizens do not like that and occasionally protest against it, but bureaucrats use riot police to suppress them, keeping bureaucrats in charge.

Bureaucrats are like a caste who has de-facto special privileges over common citizens. The caste could trace its origins back to Soviet times, so all post-Soviet bureaucrats have good relationship with each other and see themselves as colleagues and part of common socio-economic group. That is why what happens to bureaucrats in Ukraine or Georgia matters to Russian or Belarus bureaucrats. 

What bureaucrats fear most however is when citizens win against bureaucracy, like for example during Ukraine's Euromaidan, Ukraine local government reform or Saakashvili rule in Georgia. That reminds them that their special status and privileges are not eternal and can vanish in a flash if a wrong person takes power. 

Thus, on one hand, bureaucrats double down on domestic oppression to shore up their power at home. On the other hand, they want to reclaim what was once theirs and restore their colleagues to power in post-Soviet states. They believe that restoring bureaucratic order across post-Soviet states could solidify their grip on power at home and make challenging them impossible in future. 

Imagine if the Unites States, public servants, fired by Elon Musk's DOGE will ask China to invade the US to restore them back to their jobs. That is unthinkable, yet in Russia its normal.

Anyhow, if Putin needs to somehow placate these useless bureaucrats, then he can simply carve out 300 or so more rayons across the Russia to employ them. No need to fight wars. Or he can poison them and say Ukraine did it.

What if Joining European Union was Like Graduating from School

Many countries spend decades trying to join EU. Some argue that EU refuses to let them in while EU insist that all depends on them instead. Many more countries joined the EU compared to those who stall. It's much like a class in school where most graduate, but some have to repeat a year, and others keep re-repeating it forever. 

After Spring of Nations and collapse of USSR, a new Eastern Class went on the pass of EU accession. Some struggled like Poland, others aced it but 10 of them (including Poland) graduated without having to repeat any classes and became EU members in 2004. Romania and Bulgaria failed to graduate with their classmates but acceded at the next opportunity after repeating a class only once. Late comer Croatia graduated in 2013. Most of the rest of EU current enlargement agenda already repeating the same class at least 4 time in a row. For all intends and purposes they are students with special needs. At the back of a short bus, as Americans would say.

So, who is currently in the short bus.

Bosnia

One such student is Bosnia who is suffering from tri-polar disorder. Bosnia 1st personality calls itself Bosnia and Herzegovina and wants to join EU. 2nd personality disagrees with both. It calls itself Republica Srbska, insist they are Serbs, should join Serbia and re-create Yugoslavia instead. Finally, 3rd personality calls itself Republic of Herzec Bosnia and says they are part of Croatians instead.

Bosnia talks to itself:

Bosnia 1st personality (Bosnia and Herzegovina): We want to be part of EU

Bosnia 2nd personality (Republica Srbska): No, we do not. They bombed our Kosovo and recognized separatist government there.

Bosnia 3rd personality (Republic of Herzec Bosnia): Can I be part of Croatia instead? Serbs bombed out Croatia. I do not want to be in the same country with that Kosovo obsessed genocidal criminal.

Bosnia 1st personality: We are one country, not three ones. Can you both stop it. Because of two of you we have tripolar disorder and cannot join the EU.

Bosnia 2nd personality: No, we are not one country. I am the same country as Serbia, not you.

Bosnia 3rd personality: I want to be part of Croatia instead. 

Bosnia 2nd personality: Anyhow it's finally my turn to control the body, we are out of here.

Bosnia stands up and leaves the class

Observer: Does that mean they no longer wish to join.

Teacher: Of course not. Bosnia will be back once its 1st or 3rd personality's turn to control the body. We try to work with them during these times and ignore the 2nd personality when it takes control. We are making some progress.

Serbia

Observer: Speaking of Serbia are they also in this special class?

Teacher: Yes, they need safe space as they have many 

Observer: Notes on Serbia says it cannot say phrase "Kosovo is independent country". does it have speech problems?

Serbia yells from its seat: Kosovo is Serbia, NATO bombed us. Ne damo Kosovo, Kosovo. Nase Kosovo.

Teacher: See you triggered it. We leave this question to the end as we currently focus on other areas.

Kosovo

Observer: What about Kosovo, are they also in this class?

Serbia yells again: No because they are part of our country, not their own.

Teacher whispers to observer: They study from home to avoid triggering Serbia.

Albania

Observer: What about this kid with 3 laptops.

Teacher: Did you steal laptops from other students again, Albania?

Albania: No, my friends asked me to look after their laptops.

Teacher: You complained just yesterday that you have no friends in this class as you asked to let Kosovo to trans...

Teacher looks at Serbia and stops short of finishing the sentence.

Albania: They are from my friends from another class, erm another school.

Observer: He seems like nice kid. He looks after so many laptops of his friends. 6 laptops must be very heavy.

Teacher thinks for himself: How did he stole these at the same time, as he was talking to me?

Turkey

Observer: Who is this old guy? Is he some other observer or a carer for one of the students?

Teacher: This is Turkey. They began their studies even before the class that graduated in 2004 were born. Yet they consistently fail to graduate. I do not even know what is going on inside this student's head. For example, when I ask him:

Teacher to Turkey: What have you done to the protesting students?

Turkey: I used riot police to beat and imprison them.

Teacher: What did I told you about free speech and use of riot police?

Turkey: That free speech is EU value and it is against European values to suppress free speech or use riot police against peaceful protesters.

Teacher: They why did you did the opposite?

Turkey: Because I watched Naruto. Sasuke disobeyed Kakashi's instructions and Kakashi approved of that, saying that students who disobey rules may be trash but those who do not help their comrades are worse than trash. So, I thought that countries that violate EU values may be trash but those who do not use police to enforce authority are worse than trash. Thus, I used riot police, because it was right thing to do and I think you will approve of that.

Teacher: Real world does not work this way, Turkey. Warch Naruto Abridged and see for yourself if you have to. Because of your backsliding on democracy and human rights, you not only have to repeat this class but also the one you already finished. You will be pushed one class back.

Georgia

Georgia whispers to Turkey: Things look bleak, aniki. Seems you were wrong with your plan.

Turkey: Do not worry Georgia, I am not wrong. Teacher is simply testing my determination to stick to my Ninja Way in face of adversity. I am sure he secretly approves of my actions and soon will make me an EU leader for all my hard work and efforts. Trust my experience here, I am thinking several steps ahead like a chess player.

Georgia: Wow, you really managed to see it that far. You are so impressive.

Observer: Who is this guy, that talks to Turkey?

Teacher: Georgia, you are not supposed to be here. You together with Ukraine and Moldova have a separate late learner class. You should not hang out with the repeat students' class; you may catch some of their stupidity.

Georgia: Do not worry teacher, Turkey here is sharing his experience with me. With his knowledge I will graduate in no time.

Teacher: That is what I am worried about. Repeat students are here because they do not understand what it takes to graduate. Especially Turkey.

Association Trio (Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova)

Observer: Who is that, Georgia?

Teacher: Georgia together with Moldova and Ukraine is part of our new class, and we have some cautious optimism about them. Back when 2004 class only started, these guys were dismissive of our school. Nowadays however they had seen how far their peers, that graduated in 2004, managed to get in life. They want to imitate their success and signed up for late age education. We have cautious hopes for them even if they are slow to learn.

Observer: Commendable.

Teacher: There is also another secret student in this group, but we do not disclose who it is. They are member of the Eurasian gang, The gang leader, Russia, threatens everyone who attends the school, so they cannot have their identity revealed. 

Montenegro

Observer: What about this sleeping kid, another one of the problematic ones?

Teacher: On the contrary, Montenegro is our explementary student. Sure, they sleep most of the time, but when they are awake, they answer everything correctly and do everything right. They are currently closest to graduation.

Serbia yells again: Kosovo is Serbian. Karajic did nothing wrong. Free Sesel.

Observer: On the other hand, I can see why a sleeping student would be nice. At least they do not yell crazy things like that guy.

North Macedonia

Observer: Any absent people?

Teacher: Only North Macedonia. Regular absentee, but they should be here now. They skipped class for whole 20 years over their dispute with Greece. North Macedonia claimed to be a descendant of a famous and rich general and disputed his inheritance with Greece. Eventually they settled that North Macedonia is descendant of unrelated famous and rich general with very similar name as the one Greece descendant from and North Macedonia has no claims on Greek inheritance.

Observer: If it all settled, then why North Macedonia is still absent?

Serbia: Bulgaria recently admitted that they are North Macedonia's real father, but North Macedonia insist someone dumb and boring like Bulgaria could not possibly be father of great and mighty North Macedonia. 

Teacher: If anything, I wish some of Bulgaria's sense would have passed to North Macedonia.

Moldova and Ukraine

Suddenly door opens and Moldova rushes in.

Teacher: What's the matter Moldova? It's too early for your class. You have your assignments, finish them before noon.

Moldova: its Ukraine, Eurasian gang leader, Russia, made true of their threats and attacked Ukraine. Other gang members helping him out. They are fighting right now. Send help please.

Teacher: I will call out transatlantic sheriff right away. We ourselves will do what we can as well.

Conclusion

Observer: Hard to be a teacher with all these crazy students. Have you considered kicking some of them out of school.

Teacher: Sure, it's hard, but if we kick them out, Eurasian gang will be sure to pick them up. We already have crime problems, and we do not want to make them even worse.

Observer: Such a commendable attitude, I wish that you succeed in your work. 

Teacher: Thank you.

How to Improve the EU and Make it Stronger

I have two proposals to improve and streamline EU. First is to make federal legal system where federal EU laws that will take precedence over the local laws. Second is to create unified command and commander in chief for all European Armies.

Federal EU Law

First is law. EU should just adopt a federal legal model where EU writes its own statutory federal laws, and such laws should have legal precedence over national laws of each member state. 

Currently EU has a system where EU creates so called aquis (common core) and then individual member states write their own statutes, that complies with the aquis. does allow certain flexibility by allowing member states write their own laws, so long as they are compatible with the EU aquis. That worked well for old small EU that consisted of only countries with long tradition of democracy and rule of law and had time for such time-consuming process. 

However, in current 27-member large EU, such approach is wasteful and redundant. Too many local national jurisdictions make monitoring laws and practices too complicated. EU needs to be able to move fast and no longer has time to study each individual national statute book to make sure each national parliament implemented EU's decisions correctly.

Federal EU law will reduce burden not only on EU institutions but also on individual members states. Freed from implementing EU aquis, national parliaments can focus on local issues instead or simply do nothing.

Old system makes accession talks of prospecting new members too long as they cannot modify their statutes neither fast, nor adequately enough to meet the requirements. EU wants them in, they want in, but process lasts decades simply because local legislators take their sweet time writing and re-writing new statutes and EU institutions spend equally large time accessing and re-assessing these statutes. 

This repeating student class takes too long, and we need results now. Instead, we can have EU federal law and EU bodies to look after it, that function in parallel with local institutions. It is also possible to provisionally suspend new members' voting rights, just like they do with working rights currently, until certain conditions are met. Members of EEA or EFTA do not have voting rights in the EU but they enjoy most of what EU has to offer, why candidates have to do it harder way? That would allow all or most prospective members to join already now and both sides will benefit from EU expansion.

That will be better for business and individual people as well. Sure, businesses have certain confidence that common rules apply throughout, but some caveats could remain. EU federal law will make sure such caveats will no longer be the case at all.

EU Military

For about a decade people were talking about EU army. Often such talks would abruptly end with some decisive no but would eventually re-emerge. Russian war in Ukraine made these voices all the louder. Clearly a European military arm is needed.

Currently there is a lot of talk on more military spending, but, as one Irish politician have said, EU combined already has bigger and stronger military than Russia, the only problem is that it cannot use it. 

Currently all EU member state militaries are under dual NATO and national control. Individual national armes are too many and too small to make significant impact on Russia. On the other hand, using NATO combined command and control requires American approval and desire to lead the way.

Solution is simple, simply recreate NATO structures, but without Americans and give commander in chief power to the EU president with consent of the EU consul. Such European Defense Alliance will be a formidable force that will allow EU to project hard power and would deter Russia and China. 

Even if only half of national militaries are committed to EDA, and some nations get an opt-out it would still be formidable enough to deter Putin. EU will stop being toothless and will become a military power to be reconned with.

Conclusion

Federal EU Law, European Defense Alliance together with my ideas in article about Hungary will solve most of the EU problems and will make EU into a true superpower it always deserved to be.

Why EU Should Not Expel Hungary and How to Solve Orban Problem and Make EU Stronger

 

Recently there has been a lot of talk about expelling Hungary from the EU. Reasons often revolve around Orban and his alleged disagreement with the EU values.

That is fundamentally incorrect. It treats Hungary as Orban's private lordship and Hungarian citizens as Orban's subjects. Hungary is a republic not a kingdom, Orban does not own it, he serves as Prime Minister at a pleasure of Hungarian people and can be removed. Hungarian people want to stay in the EU and will choose EU over Orban if question if this question is presented to them this way. It is fundamentally wrong to make Hungarian people suffer for decisions, made by their leaders.

Hungary did vote for Orban many times in the past, but that is not because they disagree with EU values or support Putin's values or autocracy. Orban simply got lucky. Ferenc Gyurcsány infamous speech made him and MSZP unlikable and unelectable. Instead of apologizing and quitting politics, like a Western politician would do, Ferenc Gyurcsány not only continued as Prime Minister, but also continues to be present in Hungarian politics even today, repeatedly going against Orban in elections. With an opponent like that, Orban does not need to try hard to get reelected, thanks to Gyurcsany, Orban's Fidesz keeps getting reelected with huge majorities. Now that an opponent not allied with Gyurcsany finally emerged, Orban started trailing in polls and now stand to lose next election.

To avoid losing that majority, domestically Orban plays moderate and conciliatory, catch all role, promising best of both worlds. He is fundamentally an opportunist who wants to take both Putin's and EU's money, not a person who thinks that Putin's regime is fundamentally right and EU is wrong. Given a clear choice he will most likely stick with EU.

However, a Hungarian question does need to be solved and solved in a systemic way. You can't just kick out every country where some questionable character would, sometimes by accident, take power. Soon you will have no union left. Questionable leaders come and go, and Europe remains.

Poland once had a right-wing government, and Kachinski was a much bigger affront to rule of law than Orban is. Slovakia's Robert Fico is on a constant revolving door, winning every election from opposition and equally losing every other one from government. That not only happens in Eastern Europe: among the old members, but France is also at risk of presidency of Putin friendly Marie Le Pen, Germany too has AfD and other member states have their own right wingers. 

As you can see bad leaders come and go, but Europe remains. So, a lasting systemic solution that endures is needed no matter what country can elect some problematic leadership for a term or two.

Solutions

Fortunately, long history of liberal democracies already developed many of the solutions we need. For example, rule of law issue. If a local district court made an error of judgement or made biased ruling, such decision can be appealed to a higher-ranking court. It can and should work in the EU, if a local national court makes a decision that violates human rights or EU laws or values, it should be possible to appeal such decisions to EU courts. 

Freedom of press too can be addressed in the same way. As far as I know, most of TV in Europe are open air broadcasts. It's not like local leaders could simply order them to stop broadcasting or use North Korea style noise generators. EU already has its own TV and news; EU should expand both number of channels and their content. EU needs to make sure its TV available in every language and every country. That way people of every country will have access to alternative sources of information even if someone buys all local TV channels in an attempt to create information monopoly.

Fundamentally EU has to provide institutions that people can depend on, even if their national governments are not functioning properly. It cannot act solely through the member states. EU has to grow into a proper federal government with its own branches that handles its matters.

Finally, there is true nuclear option: clandestine interference. Russia and other foreign powers do that too so why should EU simply deal with Russian puppets on consul and do nothing. There are ways to handle this issue. For example, if some country cannot put credible opposition together, then EU can do it for them. European security should also run espionage networks to detect and neutralize any non-EU spies. 

There however remains one remaining issue, so called veto power, ability of a single member state to block decisions that still require unanimous voting. Orban has been abusing this power all too readily recently. Sure, there is Article 7 that can suspend voting powers of every member state if all others agree to it, but that is both too radical and impossible to use if there are 2 members like that.

Instead, more decisions have to be transferred to qualified majority voting system. There is no reason why sanctions on Russia for example have to be agreed upon unanimously. If not all, then at least most decisions have to be made by qualified majority.

Unanimous voting too can be altered to require at least 3 members against to be valid, to remove single member vetoes. Finally, an alternative to bypass leader's vote should be considered. Sovereignty lies with people and not with the leader. So, EU Consul should be allowed to challenge questionable dissenting votes by individual national leaders by referring them to that nation's highest court or even national referendum.

Finally, there is a question of what issues falls under which voting method. For example, question of sanctions on Russia can be re-classified as one of the issues that require qualified majority instead of unanimity.

These and some other methods that I will outline in a separate article, can not only solve Orban's problem but also made EU into a much stronger union that will stand the test of time and be an example for others to follow. 

Why Trump's Peace Efforts Do not Work

 

Recently many people in Trump's inner cycle came to admit that Ukraine's peace talks have stalled and there is no solution in sight.

Reason for that is that Trump misunderstood both Putin and Zelenski's characters and personality. Thus, he acted in a way that was damaged peace prospect instead of advancing them. That happened because Trumps fundamental assumptions about both Russia and Ukraine are incorrect.

Trump went to appease Russia while talked sternly with Ukraine. That had the opposite effect and instead prolonged war.

What he should have done instead is the opposite: to appease Ukraine and talk sternly with Russia instead. That would have given us peace instead.

Ukraine

Trump assumed that Zelenski and Ukraine are opportunistic and simply want to squeeze as much as they can from the current situation. While it is possible to see Zelenski in such colors, fundamentally that is incorrect. Perceived opportunism of Zelenski is just tactics, he developed when dealing with Biden, that is not how they see this war. 

On the ground Ukrainian soldiers and civilians see the war as a war of survival, Europeans agree with that. Russian demands during negotiations in 2022 amount to just that. People who think their continued existence depends on continued fighting, will do what it takes to fight, but will not give up no matter what. 

If Zelenski is opportunist, then he would not have offered to resign in exchange for NATO membership. It's an offer from a victim who will do anything to keep its abuser away. Abuser is Russia.

Thus, when Trump told Zelenski he had no card it was perceived as an insult, both by Ukrainians and Europeans. It took light on all the efforts and sacrifices that Ukrainians endured. It's preposterous to talk about cards when survival is at stake. Ukrainians trying not to get slaughtered like people in Bucha massacre and Trump talks about cards.

To win Ukraine over to his peace efforts, Trump should have appealed to core Ukrainian concerns: survival as a sovereign state, not controlled by Russia in any way. Ukrainians cannot trust Russians at all. Russia consistently shown itself to be untrustworthy by breaking many previous commitments and agreements they made in the past. Budapest memorandum, Minsk agreement and many more.

Fundamentally Ukrainians view Russia as an abuser who hurt and abused them over the course of 18th 19th and 20th century. They would rather die with guns in their hands than let the abuser be back to abuse them again.

Thus, Ukraine needs something that will convince them that Russia will not be back to abuse them again. NATO membership is one such thing. Zelenski can agree to peace if he can see that Ukraine is secure and Russia will not invade again. Trump did absolutely nothing to give Ukraine or Europeans any certainty on security. Thus, Zelenski is looking for alternative security solutions and Europeans increase their weapons donations to Ukraine.

Net result is that in Trump's bad treatment of Ukraine ruined American relationships with Europe and Ukraine.

Russia

However, the biggest obstacle to peace is Trump's treatment of Russia. Trump went on to appease Russia. As a result of this appeasement Russia now thinks it can get away with more and they keep inventing more and more demands for a future peace.

If you put all sentimentality aside, there is not any rational reason for Russia to covet any Ukrainian land. All territories that are currently contested have little economic value. This Russian war is pure opportunism. They think it's good if they can grab more land, but it does not matter too much either way.

Russia acts like its security is at threat, but it is a lie. In reality Russia's main reason for this war is not external but internal, it distracts people in Russia from domestic problems and gives government an excuse to repress people by calling it a war measure. Putin wants war to continue because without it he will have to face much tighter scrutiny at home. Thus, he keeps inventing more and more outrageous demands for peace. The moment Trump agrees to this or that, Putin just pulls out more and more demands.

Trump's appeasement to Russia and desire for peace made things worse. Putin is opportunistic by nature and sees Trump's behavior as an opportunity to get himself some concessions at negotiation table. Now the entire Russian's Foreign Affairs department brainstorms ideas for more concessions to extract as well as for more arguments to convince Trump to agree to that. All that delays peace.

Not only it delays peace, but it also does not guarantee to end war in anyway at all. After all Putin can easily break any agreement and he fully intends to do so. Sure, now Putin talks peace to get on Trump's good side and extract concession. However, after a long and tedious peace is agreed on, Putin will simply break sometime after it was signed, blaming Ukraine for alleged violation of terms. 

We can use Minsk II agreement as an example. It is so unnecessary long and full of clauses that can be interpreted in many different ways, it essentially impossible to implement at all. If it goes to court, hearing could last years. For all intends and purposes it's not an agreement to end war, it's just a diplomatic football.

If Trump really wanted to end this war, he should have talked to Russia and Putin firmly and decisively. He should put clear incentives to end war and contrast them with clear punishments if Putin refuses. It is Putin who should be told he has no cards and cannot achieve anything on the battlefield.

The only real insensitive Trump has to offer to Putin is lifting of sanctions. As much as Russia can weather the sanctions, they do hurt it. Overtime damage of sanctions will be even higher, so time works against Russia here.

Other than sanctions, there are probably no leverage against Putin. At the same time not all sanctions created equal, some cause real damage that Putin wants removed and others are mere inconvenience he could not care less. It is hard to judge what is more or less damaging as Putin's regime is notoriously opaque. 

The real question here is how much Putin will give in return for lifting of the sanctions. He will likely not be willing to return to 1991 borders in exchange for just that, but worth trying. Putin will likely prefer to lift more damaging sanctions in exchange for ceasefire, while keeping territories he annexed even if some other sanctions remain.

In the end lifting some sanctions for permanent ceasefire is likely the only option for peace, if there is any at all.

More on How Target Weak Points in Russian Military

A while back I wrote that Russia empresses conscripts into military against their will. I also mentioned that they do not want to fight and would like to desert, given a chance.

Most of the time however they do not get such chances. Russian command, fully aware about their disloyalty, use more loyal troops to keep watch over the impressed ones. These loyal troops are prepared to shoot those who will try to defect, desert or simply refuse to obey orders.

Because of that it is impossible to expect these troops to flee en-masse on their own accord. However, it is possible to selectively target the guard troops to eliminate supervision. I can work just like in Burning Crusade, where broken Drenai will defect to your side if you eliminate Nagas that guard them. Sure, Russian soldiers do not look as distinct from one another as Drenai and Naga. However, one can still tell their roles apart from monitoring the relationship between different troops. From there snipers can use this information to eliminate all the guard troops. Once all guards are eliminated, the forced conscripts will likely not resist. Of course it is best to communicate with them first before advancing.

Doing this can help Ukraine to win the war and free helpless Russian conscripts from their abusers.

On Proxy Wars and Global Divides

 

Recently I watched a video about, proxy wars. While he did relatively good job to explain that many long wars were so long because major powers were involved on each side, there were many other issues with the video. However, there were many flaws.

Most importantly the whole attitude that war is bad, peace is good. He overlooks atrocities committed by many regimes of the world. 1 million died in war is bad but several millions exterminated on dictator's orders is fine. According to presenters it is almost as if people are better off to just line up in ques to meet firing squads instead of starting a war by resisting. 

They praise China for its peacefulness but overlook what they do to not just Uyghurs but to many millions who simply somewhat different from what Xi Jingling considers desirable behavior. How fair it is do die in concentration camp simply because you are too introverted to socialize, Xi and CCP things it's only natural. World must not accept this butchery as normal.

Nations do not fight simply because they feel like it. Nations have vested interests in countries they support. Saigon government in South Vietnam was US friendly and traded with the western world. Hanoi government that replaced it views US as evil and cut all ties to the Americans. For those who think so called Swiss model is realistic, nations far too often do not trade freely with one another, they are compelled to trade with their patrons withing their clubs. Saigon could trade with free world but not with communists, in contrary Hanoi could only trade with China and USSR and was and still is a puppet of their big commie "brothers" who have real control over the country. After Cold War Hanoi started trading with the west, but only after its Chinese patron started doing so as well. People should

There is humanitarian aspect to consider too, when Hanoi took over in the south, they executed several millions of southern people, many more than could have been considered guilty of any war crimes. It was a purge of the elites so that northerners can steal their wealth and land. When Pol Pot killed millions in Cambodia, world screamed genocide, but when north Vietnamese did the same in the south, no one bite an eye.

Finally, he completely overlooked the fundamental divide that drove these proxy wars: fundamental differences between liberal and communist values, ethics and economic models. People support regimes that align with their world view, because they find alternative world view repugnant and unacceptable. 

USSR sometimes hid it, but it never truly refuted that it wanted to reorganize the world along the communist values. There were only two options for people of the world, either accept communism or fight against it. Vietnam was not just a thing in itself for communists, it was just a step in a way to make world communist. For the US and the free world, it was chance to fight back. After all every of their nations could be next when commies will finish with Vietnam.

This differences in values and principles have not disappeared with the conclusion of Cold War. Communism simply evolved into eastern (Eurasian) autocratic model and for the most part, all the same countries are on either side of the same old divide. China and Russia still want to impose its way of life on the US and EU and extinguish freedom for good. You either surrender to them or fight them. There is no Swiss model where one could just sit it out. For that you need an army that is stronger than either of two sides, and only Swiss are insane enough to have something like that.

Russia Should Divest Western Parts and Move Capital to Siberia

 

A while ago I wrote an article about how to divide Russia into several independent states. Such division would allow newly independent states to actually grow and develop. Moscow central control keeps most of the country undeveloped and unable to reach its potential. There I suggested that current elites should be left in charge of Siberia as they do nothing else buy live off resource export.

However, that plan is possibly tad too ambitious. It would be good for the people involved but Moscow elites are unlikely to agree to that as that will leave them too small and weak. They do like to envision themselves as superpower, not a country with less people than Canada.

Thus, I decided to modify the plan and reduce its scope. I will also bring arguments on why such divestment will be beneficial to these resource extracting elites.

Rules for Rulers Video, that I so often like to reference in many of my blogs, have this to say about dictatorships and democracies. Both wealthiest democracies and most backward dictatorships are very stable, however in between them lies valley of instability and revolution. Grey further mentioned that if people in a dictatorship become somewhat educates and somewhat connected, they get every reason and opportunity to revolt against dictatorship.

 

The stable kind of dictatorship something, you possibly never heard of, like Equatorial Guinea. Yet this country is very wealthy with its huge for its size oil reserves. The entire economy consists of just oil extraction, It's a literal country with just two roads, one from presidential palace to airport and other from oil rigs to port. President and ruling family lives in unheard luxury, while general population, completely disconnected from its state, does not know what electricity is, much less democracy or revolution.

Russia currently is near the bottom of this valley of revolution. All Russian allies are in the same situation. Belarus, Iran, China, North Korea, Syria during Bashir Assad all share the same traits that puts them in the bottom of the valley. These countries have both highly educated and connected to the world populations in capitals and key cities. At the same time, they have backward disconnected stuck in pre-19th century lifestyle people spread across the vast space. 

While backward scattered people can effectively be governed by a dictatorship, educated key cities people could not. That is why every of the abovementioned countries struggle with security and each of these dictators so afraid of another uprising or a civil war that will kick them out like it did to Bashar Assad, less than a year ago. In 2020 that almost happened to Alyaksandr Lukashenka in Belarus, and in 2012 to Putin himself. 

Nowadays Putin wages war in Ukraine, partly triggered by Euromaidan revolution that overthrew Yanukovych in favor of democracy. The only reason Putin cares about Ukraine is because he is afraid to end up just like Yanukovych. All his and Russian foreign and domestic policy is geared to protecting themselves from a revolution they see coming.

That approach is fundamentally flawed. You cannot undo democracy and democratic leaning of people. You cannot govern democratic minded people in autocratic way without risks. History teaches just that. Bourbon Restoration did not eliminate liberal ideas from France, despite Russian, Austrian and Prussian wishes. Both former Astria and Prussia and most of the Europe is now democratic and liberal. Liberal ideas move east as certain as Sun moves the sky and are just as unstoppable. Attempts to stop or undo them are fundamentally impossible. The only outcome of such efforts will be eventual revolution.

War against newly established democracies is even worse. Conquered democratized lands will spread its ideas to the rest of the country and make regime even more unstable. Even if Russian in Crimea celebrate "reunification with Russia" now, they will be grounds for future instability. People that got used to having their opinions and wishes heard, will not just roll over when Putin suddenly does something they do not like.

Fundamentally a modern 21st century connected man and pre-19th century backward one, cannot be governed in the same way. They each need their own state that is run the way they understand and support. If kept in the same state, they will fight each other for control and there will always be instability. 

There is only one way for a dictatorship to become more stable and move back from the valley of revolution closer to Equatorial Guinea levels of stability. That is to cede liberal areas into an independent nation or several. 

Without Moscow Russia will be much a more stable dictatorship, just Iran's regime will not experience protests if Tehran was not part of it. For China, Hong Kong and Shanghai are much bigger issues than Beijing, but fundamentally China does not have enough resources to continue as a dictatorship.

For Russia situation is much easier in that regard. Most of Russian wealth comes from oil and gas that is located in Siberia. On the other hand, most of Russian instability comes from Moscow and St Petersburg, that is far from Siberia. This moving capital to Yekaterinburg or Novosibirsk and divesting Moscow and other western regions will solve all of Moscow's problems.

Unlike my original proposal there is no need to go all the way to Urals. Most of Volga River areas can be kept under the Russian state, that will keep population levels high and allow manning of the military. Just areas close to Moscow as well as those bordering Ukraine or Baltic states have to be divested. A Don River State, Muscovy and St Petersburg area state will together create a buffer between EU and remainder of Russia. 

Border between divested states and the rest of Russia has to be drawn over low population areas to avoid strong economic connections across border. There should be freedom of navigation on Don and Russia can retain sovereign usage of pipelines.

Historical experience proves my point. Russian wealth and importance came not from conquests but from wealth Siberia produced: fur back then and oil and gas now. Conquests only followed and were done mostly for vanity reasons such as uniting Rus or reclaiming Constantinople. 

Russian exploration of Siberia was for the most part smooth conflict free affair. In contrast Westward expansion was always rife with conflict and instability. The further Russia pushes west, the more resistance it faces. In better days Russia could just fight Poles and other opponents, but these days have long gone. Russia lost a lot of lands already and is about to lose it all if it does not pre-empt events. Divest liberals before they overthrow the government.

Fundamentally it was a mistake for Russia to conquer Novgorodian republic, that was a member of Hanseatic Trade League. Because of this conquest liberal ideas have spread in Moscow and other parts of Russia. Strife and disagreements between democratic minded descendants of Novgorodians and autocratic Muscovites continue to this day. Fundamentally Novgorodian interests lie west, and Muscovite lie east, that is why they will never understand each other or get along.

There were many successful examples of moving capitals and divesting territories. For example, Roman Emperors did moved capital from Rome to Constantinople and then abandoned the former to its fate. It abandoned Italy and all of its original lands. New Byzantine Rome managed to survive another 1000 years thanks to that. Russia can do that too or stay as it is and wait inevitable liberal revolution. 

In current war in Ukraine Russia fights for control over unprofitable economically depressed regions. They will not add any wealth or stability to Russian state. Even a temporary boost in popularity will eventually be erased by expectation of prosperity from newly conquered regions. They love for Putin and Russia will soon evaporate if their standards of living will not improve. They will start looking west and add to the discontent that is already there.

Ukrainians, who fight for freedom from tyranny, fight much better than Russians who were forced to the frontlines by dictator's abusive power. Tyranny cannot win against democracy.

There is one final reason why Russia cannot neglect Siberia any longer. China has surplus of people who need place to live and shortage of land and resources. All these problems can be solved by taking Siberia away from Russia and colonizing it themselves. Russia will lose everything to China if it does nothing.

Russia is at a threshold now, it can either streamline and divest lands to stay autocratic resource extracting state or do nothing and wait until eventual liberal revolution will put it on the same path as Ukraine. Time to make decision is running out.

European Defense Spending

 

Recently Donald Trump once again raised issue of European military spending and even went as far as to suggest that US will not defend those who do not spend enough on defense.

Even in this form it was somewhat pointless threat. Countries that border Russia or Belarus and therefore actually need defending are already spending a lot of money on defense; Poland spends even more than the US does. The only ones who are slacking are those who can be certain war will not come to them. Russia cannot stage naval invasion so it will have to go through intermediate courtiers to reach its targets. For example, to attack Germany, Russia will need to defeat Poland first. Because of that Spain sleeps peacefully, knowing that Russia will not reach it until it defeats Poland, Germany and France. 

Thus, Trump's threat will not convince Spanish or other slackers to spend more on defense. All they will do is make Poles, Finns and Baltics worry more about Russia and squeeze even more money out of their not so rich economies on weapons. 5 million strong Finland already has about as many tanks as 37 million Spain and they will likely increase that amount.

However recently a real reason for these threats have emerged. Procurement of American weapons. Trump likely wants to boost American military industrial complex and make Europeans pay for it.

Here too he miscalculated. To begin with, many European countries have their own defense industries and can offer alternatives to American weapons. For most equipment it's a competitive market. Even battlefield characteristics aside, simple logistics make American weapons more expensive than say German or French. Maybe not France, but Germany has good reputation when it comes to power of their weapons.

Here comes a second reason that will complicate Trump's plan, trust. When it comes to buying expensive weapons, one needs to trust they work and fit the purpose. That means both manufacturer and its country need to be reliable. Unfortunately, Trump's threats of withdrawing protection from Europe shattered that trust. Someone further added fuel to fire by speculating if American weapons has kill-switches that would allow the US to disable them at whim. European countries will not want to pay billions for new weapons if Trump can just disable them at whim when they need them most.

Because of that Trump's efforts have misfired. Sure, some Europeans will spend more on defense, but it will be German Rheinmetall and other European manufacturers who will get most contracts.

Of-course some will still place contracts in the US, but these will be few and mostly on weapons that do not have good European alternatives, like Patriot systems. 

Overall Trump needs to up his game if he wants to not just play but also win in this higher league. 

What Actually Ruined Planned Economy and Why a Hybrid Model is the Future.

Nowadays so-called Paleo Conservative or Paleo Libertarian people like to advocate for so called small government, which often means complete laissez-faire economy and no regulations for businesses. One of the arguments they bring is that communism never worked and always led to poverty.

That however is a false analogy fallacy. Just because communism failed does not mean that laissez-faire economy is the only alternative, nor that is proves that laissez-faire is a successful model. Actual practice of laissez-faire first led towards cartels and monopolies and then to Great Depression. According to Paleo-X we now have to overlook these facts because communism led to North Korea and Pol Pot. 

Fundamentally however it's not a binary choice, there are many different models, including Keynesian that tries to bring together best of both worlds.

If we look closer on Soviet Planned Economy, then it's not government ownership per se that was root cause of its problems. The entire Soviet industry was controlled by a Gosplan agency that functioned as both mega conglomerate that united all industries and economic activity under one management as well as legal monopoly. 

Detrimental effects on monopolies are well known, the US had to deal with monopolies in late 19th century. Back in the days public was outraged by what trusts were doing. Teddy Roosevelt made a name for himself busting trusts. Nowadays there are anti-monopoly laws in many states that prevent any company from monopolizing the market in any way. 

Large conglomerates companies are also not the most efficient form of business. A company that does anything from selling matches to building spaceships cannot efficiently and professionally do either. If you read article about conglomerates, you can easily notice that its advantages are superficial and mostly focused on company's survival, rather than efficient operation. At the same time many of its disadvantages are the same that eventually killed off Soviet Planned Economy. 

Combination of these two factors in Gosplan led towards most inefficiencies and problems with Soviet planned economy system. Add to that completely unaccountable government that did not allow for free elections, and you have completely insulated from public scrutiny and feedback bureaucracies in both government and Gosplan, that will not be removed no matter how poorly they do.

At the same time Soviet Planned economy could solve various social issues like maintaining full employment to staff off social unrest. It gave people certainty they will be able to put food on the table and provide for their families.

The biggest advantage a free market has over the alternatives is the competition that drives innovation. Companies invent new better ways of doing things to get ahead of their competitors. That works well for new industries that can still be improved in many ways. However, if industry is mature and fails to innovate, then free market becomes nothing more than rent seeking for the owners and shareholders. It can even turn predatorial if managers who run essential services would deliberately raise prices on essential goods, knowing people will pay anyway.

Because of that a hybrid model can be considered optimal. 

Government should run and control companies and services that are essential for human live: energy, transport, housing market, even grocery stores. That will make sure people have everything they need to live a decent life.

At the same time there should not be legal monopoly on any industry. If private sector feels they can do something better than government does, they should be allowed to step in and make profit. This should be encouraged, not banned like in USSR.

The hybrid system can bring best of both world and allow our society to finally reach universal prosperity and eliminate poverty. This is the way forward. 

Trump's Tariffs

 

Recently Trump announced his "reciprocal" tariffs. Large colorful boards smell poorly thought populism. Same rate for all goods with differentiations only per country does not make it any better. These tariffs are just for show. Now the question is what they will cost the countries in question and the US.

It's not that all tariffs are bad, and they cannot be used to help local manufacturing. However, in order to actually help local manufacturers tariffs have to be per product, not per country. Before charging any tariffs on this or that, local producers have to contacted to discuss if they could profitably produce this product locally if foreign competition was made more expensive. That is what some countries do to protect certain select local industries from foreign competition. High tariffs on some good and pretty much none on the rest. 

For example, EU mostly use tariffs to protects local farming. EU does not want to be completely dependent on foreign import when it comes to food. If they allow foreign competition to completely drive local farmers out of business, they will be at risk of starvation if something interferes with food imports.

Some overprotective countries like Russia even managed to make people buy morally outdated 70s era Ladas, by using tariffs to make even 10 years old imported cars more expensive than local ones. Measure was very unpopular with drivers even if personnel of Lada factory was happy.

In contrast blanket tariffs on all import will do little beyond raising prices on all import. Some or possibly most of this stuff will still be unprofitable to produce locally, so all tariffs will accomplish will be higher prices on every imported product. 

American lovers of foreign goods will be hit hardest, foreign countries that export to the US might lose some sales due to higher price on their goods in the US, but ultimately most will be able to sell their goods elsewhere. 

Out of countries affected by tariffs, the biggest impact will be felt in Mexico as well as China, Vietnam and other southeast Asian countries, whose economies are design to export into the US. For EU tariffs will be mostly an annoyance that nonetheless breaks trust between EU and the US.

Once again if tariffs against China could be justified with geopolitics: China was sliding further into authoritarianism and bellicose behavior. They exploit smaller countries and try to drive Western influence away. Tariffs could cool their heads a little bit.

Doing the same to EU does nothing but hurt transatlantic alliance. After initial shock EU will get its shit together and prepare measures to do everything without the US. America will lose its unique leadership role in the world. Role that still affords them greater say in any global affair then the entire EU combined.

Unfortunately, in their current form, Trump's tariffs are more of a trouble than they are worth. Which is a missed opportunity. Instead of a cohesive policy that could shore up certain key industries from competition and ensure their continued survival, it instead will mostly become lose/lose situation.

Economic Benefits of War in Ukraine

I recently watched a video that stated that Ukraine lost a lot of people to war, and that current population of the country is only about 27 million. Most of the losses are either refugees that fled to Europe or Russia or inhabitants of occupied territories that Russia has given Russian citizenship and now wants to draft into Russian military.

The video uses these numbers to draw a conclusion that Ukraine will not recover from war demographically.

I would like to disagree not with numbers but with conclusion. I generally used to continually claim that world suffers from overpopulation and that reduction of population is beneficial to any nation and the world in general. That does apply to Ukraine as well. The more people will die in war, the more wealth will be left to those who remain. Cynical but truth, nonetheless.

Second issue is question of loyalty. There is significant pro-Russian minority in Ukraine that actually prefers to be part of Russia. Most of them also want to extend that wish to the entirely of the country without regard to the fact that majority of Ukrainians do not see themselves as Russians and see Russia as enemy. 

Half of these Russia sympathizers Russia already claimed in their annexation of Crimea and creation of DNR and LNR puppets, but some still remain scattered here and there across Ukraine. War will help weed these people out. 

During peace time they refused to just move to Russia or elsewhere, because selling their apartment is a hard and they erroneously believed they are majority of country's population. Now that war destroyed their homes and communities most of them have fled the country, some to Russia but most to Europe. 

As I mentioned in my other article, for a person who thinks that Ukraine is not even a country, leaving it behind is just an issue of practicality and possibility. For such people, as war endangered their lives and destroyed their homes, it also opened them towards resettling in Europe by claiming to be a refugee. Russia also offered people in areas they have reached to leave with retreating Russian army and promised to resettle them in Russia at government expense.

As those for whom Ukraine is not a country leave, only those for whom Ukraine one and only their country remains. These patriots will be able to rebuild their country much better and faster without all these naysayers getting in the way and complaining about Ukrainian language or culture.

However, there is one other issue and that is an economic one. There are two areas that can benefit from population reduction and that is mining and farming. I will begin with mining.

Mining in Ukraine is concentrated in Donbas area. It was started in late 19th century by John Hughes and other European and Russian businessmen. Biggest city in the area Donetsk, used to bear Hughes's name. Area grew rapidly and in soviet times was the most densely populated in Ukraine.

However, there is a problem with mining in Donbas: it still uses outdated 19th century shaft method of mining. Modern mining is all open pit mining. Open pit produces a lot more coal than a shaft and require a lot less people to work the equipment. These facts make shaft mining unprofitable compared to open pit.

Converting to open pit however is not easy. The pit itself takes a lot more open space compared to shaft. To convert to open pit almost every settlement in Donbas will have to be levelled to the ground and population resettled somewhere else. Because of that Thatcher government in UK choose to close their mines in northern England instead of converting them to open pits. They did not want to resettle the miners elsewhere, nor would they commit to simply exterminating them. 

Donbas population is whooping 6 million people. Resettling them peacefully would not be prohibitively expensive but also politically complicated. As strange as it sounds, residents of Donbas are attached to their area and would resist moving elsewhere. Just as British miners who resisted Thatcher, they view their mining communities as source of power and influence and would not want to be divided and separated from each other. They tend to mistrust Kyiv government and would remain skeptical, no matter what alternative accommodation Kyiv would offer them.

Thus, war was essentially the only solution to Donbas problem. Constant shelling already levelled many towns with the ground and Russia kept shelling more and more. Russian military heavily relies on multiple rocket launchers that cause a lot of damage to cities and other civilian infrastructure. People, unwilling to move in peacetime, are much more willing to do so in wartime to save their lives. The fact that there is war in Ukraine makes them eligible for refugee status in Europe and elsewhere. That will entice some to migrate to a wealthy western nation.

Second issue is agriculture, but problem there is the same as in mining and thus the same solution will work here as well. Ukrainian soil (Chernozem) is very rich in nutrients and very suitable for any farming.

However, agriculture was practiced in Ukraine since time immemorable, long before tractors, combines and other agricultural machinery was invented. Agricultural machinery allows a single person or a small group of people to work huge swathes of land. Without such machinery it would take thousands of people to do the same. Since Ukraine practiced agriculture long before agricultural machinery was invented, rural population of Ukraine is much higher compared to modern agricultural leaders such as the US or Australia. Ukrainians are accustomed to much smaller pieces of agricultural land, that are too small to make agriculture profitable in 21st century. 

As I mentioned before the US and Australia did not have to deal with the issue of transitioning agriculture from manual to mechanized way. The only country that transitioned agriculture from manual to mechanized was UK. It was done by means of Inclosure Acts that displaced a lot of rural peasants from their land in rather disrespectful to human rights way that would be hard to do in modern times. 

Here again war can help to solve the problem by displacing surplus of rural population to cities or even abroad. Emptied land then could be divided into large modern farms, sized for modern heavily mechanized farming.

I will not claim here that great powers of the world conspired to get this war rolling because of the economic benefits I outlined, but these benefits will be felt in Ukraine and in Russia once the war is over. Now if only COVID or other virus will pick up its killing spree and we would enter New Golden Age.

We Need More Comprehensive Rules Regarding Self-Determination

 

In international law there exist two contradictory principles. One is right of people's and nations for self-determination and the other is invariability of national sovereignty and borders. That creates conflict of interests. A simple example of such conflict of interests would be if a part of an existing country wants to secede and form its own country. Right of self-determination says it has a right to do so. However, a country they currently part of then can claim that their possible independence violates their sovereignty and borders. Give them independence and violate integrity of their current nation borders or deny them independence and violate their right to self-determination. No matter what you do it will break one or the other law.

These conflicting principles led to a situation where in practice interests of powerful nations decide who gets independence and who does not. Force and influence decide who gets to be free and who ends up being oppressed. Uyghurs and Tibetans live under Chinese yoke because China is big and strong in that areas. Tiny South Ossetia, that has less people than Monaco, wins its unrecognized independence on the back or Russian arms.

Dictatorships are not the only ones at fault though. Spain suppressed Catalan independence and EU OK-ed it because they do not want to ruin their cozy relationship with Spain.

These are just few examples. World is full of areas and unrepresented nations, big and small who all claim right for independence, but unable to achieve it. There are also places like Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Bosnia, Ethiopia and many others, where two or more distinct (nations)bodies of people vie for control over the territory and its government.

Nation state is a country where one body of people controls the government collectively. That can only work if there is only one such body of people in any given country. If there are two or more, then they will fight each other over the control of government. Once one group wins such control, they will use it to benefit only their ethnicity, sidelining or even drying extinct the other ethnicities. Multinational experiments, such as Yugoslavia or USSR failed because eventually consistent nations started accusing each other of hogging up all the wealth for their own people only and denying it to others. 

Yet collapse of Yugoslavia led towards international community repeating this experiment in Bosnia, where its three nations: Serbs, Croats and Bosnaks are deadlocked in never-ending Mexican Standoff and nothing ever gets done. As much as some might wish that these people would abandon their petty ethnic differences and unite behind one Bosnian banner, they do not do so. Croats and Serbs in Bosnia may hold Bosnian Passports but see Bosnaks as their enemies and people of nations of Croatia and Serbia respectively as their fellow countrymen. The remaining third nation of Bosnia, Bosnaks wish to unite their country but simply cannot. 

A solution is needed because leave things be and let things work out does no work. Fundamentally countries like Bosnia have to be divided until they reach one nation (polity of people) per country

However, that raises another question. If country is to be divided, then where borders should run and who should be entitled to a nation and who does not. That in turn can create new injustice to replace the old one. 

For example, Kosovo was granted independence in its administrative borders, drawn by Josef Tito. That left province with a Serbian enclave of around 10%. During Serbian control over the area, Serbs attempted to genocide Albanians of Kosovo, who were an ethnic minority in whole of Servia but majority in Kosovo itself. Solution, that granted Kosovo independence, now left Serb minority in new Kosovo, reversing the tables between ethnicities. 

As much as some may say it's fair that Serbs now experience what it's like to be a minority ruled by others who hate them, it's not a solution to a problem, it's just a reversal of roles. Serbia and sympathizers will protest, then do something and a constant chain of offenses will continue.

Kosovo's independence itself raised conflict between territorial integrity and right for self-determination. Sure, there were good reasons to allow Kosovo its independence and the decision was made by a representative of neutral enough country to forestall accusations of bias. However, it was a decision based on merits of the situations seen by a guy from Finland. There was nothing more substantial to back it up.

Russia, long ally of Serbia, protested Kosovo independence on the grounds of Serbian territorial integrity. Later Russian ceased this precedent to hold referendums in Crimea and then claim that people of Crimea should have self-determination to secede from Ukraine. Now EU claimed that Ukrainian territorial integrity cannot be violated in this manner.

Sure, Russia is a dictatorship, it is unduly biased towards Serbia, there was a proper due process in Kosovo but not in Ukraine, Russia has history of electoral fraud and so results of referendum it organized cannot be trusted, Serbs were committing genocide in Kosovo and Ukrainians did not and many other reasons why Kosovo's independence is justified, and Russian annexation of Crimea is not. 

However, it is not written anywhere in particular what is fair and what is not. Lack of clear rules on self-determination is to blame that it used more as a pretext to war or foreign interference than a real body of rules that can govern humanity. For Europe its territorial integrity of Ukraine but right for self-determination of Kosova's Albanians. For Russia its self-determination of Russians in Crimea but territorial integrity of Serbia. Net result that is not an international law but an excuse to carve up the map as one sees fit and more war as a result.

However, it does not have to be this way. A comprehensive set of principles to govern people's right for self-determination can be created to prevent any further wars and accusations of bias and unfairness. 

Such rules have to include minimum size of polity that can be considered for independence. Density of their residence in the area of question. Special provisions have to be made in split areas where half of population wants independence, and the other half does not. Safeguards against saturating area with recent settlers to alter its demographics also has to be accounted for. Options for resettlement to nation of their choice should be offered. 

Geographic implications on nation they want to secede from and many more. New nations should not geographically disadvantage the original nations by blocking all their access to sea, like Eritrea did to Ethiopia. New borders have to be defensible and not put either nation in jeopardy of invasion. Natural barriers like rivers and mountains should be considered as borders whenever possible. Natural resources also have to be considered, new nations should not hog up all the valuable resources such as oil from the nation the want to secede from.

Borders of the new nations should be drawn to avoid including any ethnic minorities. If unrepresented nation/ethnicity makes up 60% of region's population they should get 60% of region territory, not the whole of it. Credible historical population figures should be considered if the current controller of the area deliberately brought migrants of their main ethnicity to the region to dilute its ethnic composition. Population stuffing should be discouraged. Recent migrants should be told to either accept separation from their nation or return to their provinces of origin.

Finally, referendums on self-determination should be organized, held by UN. Votes should be counted by UN in presence of all concerned parties and neutral observers to avoid accusations of electoral fraud. Votes should be counted not only for region as a whole but also for each individual city and sub region. Areas that vote against independence should not be forced to secede with the rest of the province.

Hopefully my proposal principles on nations' self-determination will be able to create a better and both more fair and more workable world where each polity of people will be able to have a country of their own. A world where bigger ethnicities will not oppress smaller ones. A world of rule of law.

Government Should Control Weather

 

Recent storms, rains, cyclones and other tantrums of capricious weather get me convinced that we should use advanced knowledge of weather and climate to simply control weather and shape it to out liking. Government can easily use this knowledge to control weather and prevent damaging cataclysm, while ensuring perfect sunny days for citizens to enjoy. 

Why suffer floods and thunderstorms when you can just launch coolant into a cloud and make it rain couple of km away from the shore. Floods and cyclones cause a lot of damage to properties and kill a lot of people. We do not need to suffer these tantrums of nature, when we can simply tame it to our needs.

I wonder why people fail to realize that it is not only possible but also very easy to do. Even Wikipedia has an article about that.

Not only we can prevent damage, but we can also create rain where it's needed, for example over the agricultural land to help crops grow. One can easily move clouds into hinterlands and make rain over farmlands to make them more productive. With some more complex tricks it likely possible to stop or create hurricanes (cyclones).

 

While we talk about some stupid green initiatives and "preserving" nature, our enemies in Russia and China already control weather. I think hurricanes that hit Louisiana were man-made, they hit America far too consistently. We can do that too and make some off Chinese coast. 

However, what we really need is to not hit Chinese but to prevent bad weather from causing damage to our cities and people. Weather was out of control long enough and we should finally reign in it and make it peaceful and docile.

Weather control is important part of national security. It can be used in unconventional warfare to cause damage without taking any retaliation or responsibility for the act. Because of that we need to master control over weather to prevent Russia and China from destroying us with cyclones and hurricanes.