How Open Pit Mining Changed the World

 

Back in the days I liked to watch a Russian TV show called Chto, Gde, Kogda where a group of very erudite people would answer not so trivial questions about various global trivia. Despite their erudition I doubt they will be able to explain how the process, depicted in the picture above, caused both rule of Margaret Thatcher in UK, collapse of USSR and war in Donbas. In fact, they might even struggle to name the process, much less explain its far-reaching implications. Their knowledge is more of cultural rather economic kind.

Now the correct answer. The process above is called Strip Mining and the machine doing it is Bucket Wheel Excavator. The experimental prototypes appeared in early 20th century but really took off around 1970. There are more technicalities a professional miner will be able to point out but for the purpose of this article they are not important. 

These technological and other developments revolutionised mining. If before a lot of people had to work together in small pits or underground shafts to painstakingly collect a few pieces of coal every day, then with BWE a small crew can easily extract tons upon tons of coal every day. Coal, that was very hard and sometimes dangerous to mine, suddenly became cheap easy and abundant.

However new methods of mining did have a certain negative effect. Just like any other technological breakthrough, it did make obsolete the methods that were used before. In this case old mines, using more traditional methods of mining, became unable to compete with new much more productive and cheaper ones.

Already in 1973 government of UK considered closing some of their mines. The miner's strike did put an end to this plan, and miners even got a pay rise. However, that made traditional mining even more unprofitable than it was before. Combined salaries of miners were much higher than the price Coal Board could get for the coal they could mine. That was not sustainable. As time went it only got worse.

Eventually government struck back. Charismatic Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher first convinced the public the cuts were necessary and then went after mines. She closed the already unprofitable ones and promised to gradually close the rest as they gradually deplete. Miners fought back with strikes and protests, but this time government was prepared. They stockpiled coal in advance, and this time had access to significant amounts of imported coal. 

Fundamentally miners lost precisely because their mining was no longer as essential to economy as it once was. Early 1900s of peak coal when without its mines and miners UK would just stop were long gone. Now miners and their mines were history, a different kind of mines that used heavy machinery like BWE were now making more than enough coal to heat not just UK but the world, cheap and easy.

Now to the second part of the question. Why it collapsed USSR. BWE sure is big but not big enough to destroy the superpower armed with nuclear weapons, right? Turned out BWE could and did destroy a superpower armed with nuclear weapons.

Unlike UK, where Thatcher government could alter laws and close mines, Soviet system had workers protections enshrined on nearly constitutional level. That gave workers unparallel job security that USSR liked to brag about both to its public and abroad, never failing to mention how Soviet worker cannot be fired on a whim of some greedy capitalist boss. In times of economic stability and absence of dramatic technological changes it worked well, but when technological change required that some industries be completely re-imagined, it was an unacceptable impediment. 

Since Soviet Socialist ethos prevented them from just firing workers, they decided to fight the economy instead. Ever since early 80s successive governments tried variety of measures to improve productivity and stave off economic collapse and bankruptcy. One year they will toughen measures, institute strict accountability and tell people work harder or else? When that did not work, they will try the other way and instead allow private enterprise. A year later Gorbachev will go on a global charm offensive to get loans to democratise USSR and prop up the economy while at it.

Despite best efforts, Gorbachev policy experiments have not managed to beat the economy. Late 80s were characterised by shortages of food and other basic goods. Finally, USSR itself collapsed in 1991. Economy won. All that showed that if a country will not adapt to an economic change, it will be swept away by an economic storm even if it's a superpower armed with nuclear weapons.

The final question. How that relates to a War in Donbas. Simple, the people do not get the economy. Even in relatively economically savvy UK, if you ask anyone from a mining town why mines closed. they will squarely blame it on Thatcher. Most will say it her sheer malice and evil nature that make her close mines, hurt workers and steal children's milk from schools. Even complex in depth explanation by YouTube pundits often cite neoconservative conspiracy to enrich the rich by robbing the poor. Hadly anyone will quote Bill Clinton's famous "it's the economy stupid".

That should be no surprise than their colleagues in Ukrainian Donbas also do not blame the economy for their troubles. If an average erudite from Chto Gde Kogda will not be able to get that one, what can one expect from a miner that goes down the dusty shaft every working day. Not the most conductive environment for intellectual development.

Back during Soviet times miners would blame Gorbachev and Soviet government. Most actually supported Ukraine's independence for that simple reason, thinking it will make mining great again. However, after independence they would soon start blaming new government in Kyiv that old underground shaft mines do not pay as much as they used to during 70s. Eventually this sentiment gave rise to Soviet nostalgia and pro-Russian irredentism. Miners forgot how they thought separating from USSR will solve the mining problem, now they thought re-uniting with Russia will solve it instead.

Hawks in Russia, overrepresented both in government and among the general population compared to other countries, saw it as a call for action. To "liberate" the miners from government in Kyiv. Concerns for Russian language, culture, EU, NATO and other things further added to the casus belli. In actuality Ukraine was and still is very reasonable in phasing in use of Ukrainian language instead of Russian one. It natural that every country would expect its residents and citizens to be able to communicate in its national language. Even that however offended Russian hawks as they see Russian language and its continued usage as some sort of unalienable right of Russophones of post-Soviet states. 

Russian government made things worse by either deliberately exacerbating or downright inventing obstacles Russian speakers face in Ukraine, giving hawks more reasons to call for action. At first, they simply wanted cheap distraction from domestic problems for Russian public. However, the lies they told eventually grew so large, it became impossible to not act on them. After certain point refusing to do so would either mean Putin is too weak or cowardly to do anything. Admitting that all Russian TV has told them about Ukraine was a lie (which it was), including life footage of abuse that was staged or fabricated, was not good either as that will make people question other things Putin and Russian TV ever claimed or showed. 

A war ensued and as of writing this text the end it nowhere in sight.

However, while war is often seen as univocally bad thing, there is one silver lining that can actually produce something good from all that destruction. It will open Donbas area to a more modern methods of mining.

Most of Donbas mining was in underground shafts. These take very little space on the surface, so mining towns were built all around mines. The density of build-up makes it impossible to convert the area into open pit or strip-mining area, where heavy machinery will fit and be able to work, without destroying the mining towns themselves.

Now that war brought destruction in the area and Russia literary levelled several towns like Bakhmut with the ground, that surface mining could become feasible. 

If Ukraine will begin shelling the annexed areas controlled by Russia the same way Russia shelled Bakhmut, soon the entire area will be rubble. War will give convenient excuse to do this to this area. Most of the population has already fled and a lot of housing is already damaged beyond repair. There is no reason to not finish the job.

Profits from surface mining will be able to bring prosperity to Ukraine and fix the damage war has done to it. At the same time there are hardly any downsides left as most towns are already damaged beyond repair and most people have fled. So, it's time to make lemonade out of proverbial lemons that life gives sometimes. The country will be richer from it.

Socialism is Dead and We Should Move On

 

Socialism is dead. As someone who looks at things objectively and does not hesitate to point out issues of both right and left, I have to say it straight and clear. Socialism is dead, it will never recover and it's time to move on.

In this article I do not mean Social Democracy that is practiced in Scandinavia and generally across the Europe. Neither do I mean new left like Podemos or Syriza. They do have a future. New ideas such as Social Liberalism and Social Libertarianism together with UBI have future as well.

However actual orthodox Marxist Socialism that wants to cease means of production is fully and truly dead. Nationalising means of production did not work then and has even less chances of succeeding now.

The reason why Socialism is dead is the fact that nationalizing means of production does not solve the inherent problems of capitalist system. It just replaces one ruling class with another one, who are no less cruel and condescending towards working people than those capitalists they replace.

George Orwell illustrated it well in his Animal Farm book. The pigs who led the revolution gradually became even more spoiled and exploitative than the farmer they expelled. Real life communists went the same way. They wear blue collar worker's uniform to look like one of the masses, but in reality, lead a more spoiled life than kings they replaced. Look and Kim Jong Un or Fidel Castro and see if for yourself.

Even when first socialist congress was convened in the middle of 19th century, many cautioned against this very outcome. What was the reaction of the congress: to expel the critics, labelling them naysayers and press on.

Several splits on, the more radical socialists managed to seize power in dysfunctional and backward Russian Empire. They finally got their go and what did it showed. The fact that critics were right. The new ruling class replaced capitalists and now exploiting workers like never before. Even some very fervent supporters of revolution like Trotsky and Mayakovski were pointing that out. What did communist party did about, it? Once again expelled the naysayers and pretended that there is no problem.

What happened in USSR afterwards? Did they tried to address the issues and fix the system. No, far from it. Instead, they doubled down on repression. 

Anyone critical of the system in any way was silenced and repressed. Zealotry and unwavering faith in the system became the modus operandi of the party. Competence, ability, science, skills and other useful abilities that could actually move country forward were ignored and sidelined in favor of blind faith that Lenin and the party know what they are doing and unflagging desire to carry their will forward. 

Even leaders who wanted to improve life of common people were removed in favor of brain-dead dogmatic zealots. Khruschev fell because he had ideas and wanted to make things better. He was replaced with Brezhnev who just parroted the slogans and pretended that everything is sunshine when it clearly was not.

How was life for an ordinary worker. Much worse than in "exploitative, rotten capitalism." Leaders' desire to stick it to Americans and the West bled the country dry. USSR had half of GDP of the United States, yet leaders wanted an army bigger than American one and be first in space as well. They also spend lavishly on various communist guerrillas across the globe to win the Cold War. 

Average worker had to foot the bill. Every rouble spends to help Africa is rouble not spend on quality of life. Average Soviet and Eastern Block citizen had much less wealth than average Westerner NATO member. Apartments were small, cars where exotic luxury and so were electronics. Even food and clothes were scarce, the planners of planned economy somehow calculated that person needs only a pair of socks and pair of trousers a year and produced no more. putting all surplus money in tanks, rockets and African dictators like Mugabe.

Meanwhile across the iron curtain Americans and Europeans learned from their mistakes and fixed the issues that their system had. They started spending to improve quality of life of common man. FDR introduced New Deal policy, Social Democracy was implementing welfare state across Europe. Post WWII era became time of unprecedented prosperity and comfort for average joe.

What USSR did to match that? Nothing. Instead, it double down on propaganda and tried to claim moral high ground. They had no quality of life, so instead they pushed ethics, claiming that spending of Africa and space is more moral than on yachts and mansions. Did average worker who had to work more and eat less to make it happened cared for Africa. Not at all. However self-righteous party bosses decided for him anyway. They chose to beat America, matching American achievements move by move.

Gradually USSR mirrored everything Americans had. Americans flew a man into space; USSR has to to. US build 5000 nukes; USSR has to build 6000 to top that. Americans won 40 Olympic medals; USSR has to win 50 and so on. Even organisations such as Boy Scouts and YMCA were copied. Society scouts were called Young Pioneers and instead of Young Christian Men Association there was Committee of Lenin's Youth (ComSoMol). Even that scarf around neck was the same, just of different colour. The church was of course the party itself, huge sprawling juggernaut that controlled it all.

Eventually conflict started too like Cola Wars between Coke and Pepsi, labels are different, but content is largely the same, just of different colour. Joke that capitalism is exploitation of a man by a man and socialism is the other way around very aptly described it.

Final nail in the coffin was delivered by crazy dictators such as Pol Pot and Kim Jong Un. No matter how much socialists will claim "it was not real socialism" the public will forever associate socialism with Pol Pot's brutality, North Korea Craziness and Cuba's poverty. There is just no way to whitewash any of that.

It all ended in late 80s when people grew so tired of sacrificing their wellbeing for the ego of party bosses, they just rebelled against the system, and it was no more.

Almost 40 years have passed since then. Did communists learn something from all that? Nothing at all. All communists and orthodox socialists do is wallow in nostalgia, tout few achievements and fervently deny all shortcomings no matter how small.

Capitalism won because it could learn from its own mistakes, identify its shortcomings and offer solutions that work. Communism lost because it cannot do the same critical analysis of its own system shortcomings.

That does not mean that left in general is dead. New left, born in the current system and offering solutions to the current problems still able to be popular. Podemos and Syriza win elections and form governments. Broadly left Pirate Parties do the same.

New left has future, but its bogged down by the old left. Old communists eventually made their way into Podemos ranks and destroyed the party from within. Now people no longer trust Podemos, and it could not win anything. Syriza and Pirates are smarter because they refuse to do the same and keep communists at arm length.

Pirates can win election, Syriza can win elections, but old orthodox Marxist Socialist cannot. So, it's long overdue Marxists finally get down from their high horse, admit critics were right, put their red flag into museum and rally behind the black and/or purple one instead. Then under leadership of sceptics and critics we can actually create a better world for us all.

Communism and Socialism is dead, and the sooner left realised it the better. Then we can finally work on a new and better system that will actually solve the problems.

Australia Should Replace $5 Note With A Coin and Withdraw 5c and 10c Coins

 

Ever since Queen Elizabeth II has died, there was an issue of replacing her image on $5 note with something else. A progressive crowd want aboriginal motive while those not so found of Aboriginals resist this idea.

What both sides overlook however is the fact that inflation made value of $5 note much lower than it once was. Nowadays you can buy a lot less with $5 note compared to what you could buy with $2 note when it was withdrawn and replaced with $2 coin. 

Australian mint already makes commemorative $5 coins. They are pretty, bimetallic or coloured with various fancy features. Instead of reinventing the $5 bill it will be much easier and practical to make one of the commemorative designs a permanent coin. It will save country a lot of money in the long run as coins are much more durable than notes, even plastic notes.

Also, while at it we should also withdraw 5c and 10c coins. By now their value have deprecated so much, they hardly even make change for anything. Minting them is waste of money. They are nothing more than deadweight that often just casually gets dropped on the floor and ignored by people. Yet these worthless coins cost money and effort to actually mint.

At the same time the other coins can be reimagined as well. 50c coin can be made smaller and thinner. Meanwhile a 20c coin should be re-imagined as 25c and lowest denomination available. It should also be made smaller and thinner. Prices even in grocery stores are in increments of 25c, so it will be practical and reflect reality. 

Truth About Migration

 

For quite a while now, immigration have been a major topic of political discourse. People blame migrants for all sorts of problems, from crime to employment to housing availability. At the same time there is a lot of myth about migrants, claiming they get various things for free while locals go without. Some of these myths are perpetrated by defenders of migration as well, as they are equally uninformed about the topic and just accuse the critics of racism instead of informing them about realities of migration.

To help remedy the situation I decided to write about migration myself. Since I am a migrant myself, I know how the system works as I went through the system myself. I also know that not all migrants are going through the same system as I did. There are many types of migrants, and their experience and reality of migration varies dramatically. I personally saw different kind of migrants with completely different situation and prospects compare to myself. 

Couple of years ago I already wrote about this topic once, but it was poorly structured and worded, so I decided to write it anew.

I will be being from the very beginning. There were at least two distinct waves of migration since mid 90s. There were more before that, but I cannot judge them much as they happened way before I was born. They say back then (50s -60s) you could get 10 pounds for moving to Australia or even get a free land for your farm somewhere in the outback. In my time (2000s) you had to pay department of immigration $2500 just to look at your application. The only explanation to that is that application is 20+ pages long and there is lots of supporting documents to process. 

First Wave - Skilled Migration - mid 90s to late 2000s

First wave that I was part of was skilled migration. Back then people complained that there are not enough doctors in Australia and you had to book one month in advance to see a GP. The solution they came up with was to convince foreign doctors to come to Australia and so Skilled Migration was born.

In addition to doctors, government decided to add other professions that are in short supply, for example accountants as well as IT professionals because IT was new and hot back then and government did not want to fall behind in tech. Other professions were available too, but they had fewer points awarded thus pushing your approval bar higher. There was a many pages long list of all recognised professions, each with different number of points available. It's likely still available on immigration website.

To simplify it worked as follows: you education and profession decided you immigration prospects. If you have a profession a country really needs (doctor, accountant), your migration will be relatively easy and streamlined. If you have somewhat average profession, they could let you in if you had a lot of qualification and experience. If you had a profession the country does not need as we already have plenty of locals doing it, they you will be told Australia is closed permanently and you cannot migrate here, unless it is to spend your money here and come back home. Blocked for immigration professions include ecology experts, teachers, lawyers (unless from Common Law country), fishers (locals do that enough already) and more.

There were other requirements too, like health (no-disabilities), English language proficiency and more. Finally, there was age. Government did not want people close to retirement to come here and almost immediately fall on government pensions. People between 18 and 25 got maximum points and then every 5 years will cut 5 points off your total, making passing it harder and harder. Cut off age was 45 and if you are older than that, too bad, Australia is closed for you permanently.

One subtype of this program was student migration. If you do not have the desired profession but willing to learn it, you can come and study in Australian University and after graduation you can get a skilled visa with permanent resident status with naturalisation pathway. All that has to be paid out of pocket and on double rate compared to locals. 

All in all, it was rather realistic, even cynical system that will bring the skills country needs, while filter out those who are not needed here. No education beyond school, you cannot come here. Uni degree but in ecology or liberal arts, the same as for school only. Too old, also no go. Disabled, same. Back that I did not care for any of that, I qualified and could change drab cold dictatorial Russia with crazy Putin and his equally crazy supporters for a tropical paradise of one of the wealthiest countries in the world. I am pretty sure I was not the only one who thought this way.

Despite strict requirements, applicants were many. Somewhat well-off and educated inhabitants of various dictatorships like China and Russia were very eager to escape their oppressive nations. Thus, demand was always higher than available quotas.

Overtime as country was managed to plug its shortages of certain skills, it could afford to be even more selective, and requirements got even tougher. Higher language skills, more points and so on. It's probably much harder to get this visa now compared to when I applied and got it.

Selection criteria were tough, but you could estimate in advance if you will meet them or not. If you do not qualify, you will not bother going through with it or try a different country instead. If you qualify then you can plan ahead and be fairly certain you will get your permanent resident status and naturalisation in the end. After naturalisation you will be considered a citizen (national) of your new country with the same rights and responsibilities as those who were born there. Now it's your new home and you are not foreign anymore. Doing that sometimes will deprive you of your original citizenship, making it impossible to travel back freely, but most migrants will naturalise anyway. 

Life on people who went through Skilled migration program was quite cozy for the most part. Once you are approved, your status is the same as that of locals. Since program is geared towards selecting only well adaptable people with professions in demand, the new migrants on average did much better than locals. That will probably not be so if you only measure people in compatible professions, say local accountants against migrant accountants.

Nonetheless I knew a migrant family on one accountant income, who had 2 cars and 2 investment properties and one daughter. Back then Migrant Dream or Australian Dream was real and well and alive. I missed out on all that thanks to Financial Crisis of 2008 and Ben Bernanke personally, if I was born earlier, I would have had that as well.

It all ended with a financial Crisis of 2008. Not program itself, it got it requirements toughened to really reduce intake of skilled migrants. However, by that point Australia had enough professionals to fill in skilled work no one knew how to do. Now they needed people to do work no one wanted to do.

Second Wave, Unskilled Migration

If first wave of migration was about filling the jobs no one knew how to do, then second (post-crisis) wave was about filling the jobs no one wanted to do. Simple unskilled but physically demanding roles like cleaning, hauling cargo, construction (in Russia at least) and so on. Low pay and unpleasant working conditions make these roles unappealing to pretty much everyone. How to fill these roles, by using those who for one or another reason have no other choice.

Demand for unskilled labor gave rise to a new kind of migrant. Lack of uni level skills was not the only difference with the first wave migrant. Second wave migrant was a complete inversion of the first wave one. Unskilled migrants were very poor, hardly knew much English beyond simple phrases, often were rather stupid and/or unable to adapt to a new environment and finally had dubious legal status. 

Unlike skilled migrants, unskilled ones did not have a dedicated legal pathway visa program for them. Some were refugees, other came of tourist visas and overstay, others had no visas at all. Unlike skilled migrant visa, with tourist visa one has no legal right to work in Australia. With no visa at all one had no right to even be in Australia. It is them who are the illegal migrants; people so like to hate.

However, these were exact traits that made them desirable for their employers. Countries like Australia have strong labor laws, guaranteeing workers protection, relatively good wages together with safe and sound working conditions. All these things cost employers a lot of money and limit their power in the workplace. Bewielded by these rules, some unscrupulous employers would like to circumvent these laws in some way. Second wave unskilled migrants provide them with just the way to do it. 

Uneducated unskilled foreign worker is unlikely to know that labor laws even exist, much less what is written in them. That make it easy to exploit them by paying them much less then minimum wage and making them work in hazardous environments. Even if they knew what minimum wage is, their own precarious legal status will prevent them from taking it to court. While court may award them the salary they were underpaid and other compensations, it will also likely order their deportation due to violating visa conditions or not having visa at all. Also, unlike first wave migrants, those of the second one have no access to welfare and have to work to survive. Because of that these illegal unskilled workers continue being overworked and underpaid by their employers.

Because unskilled worker migrants are typically also illegal migrants, they cannot simply enter the country normally using planes and airports like skilled workers do. Because of that they rely on smugglers who know ways around rules. Smugglers arrange for them to be shipped on some boats and such. The infamous boat people are likely these types of migrants. 

Though saying migrants rely on smugglers is somewhat misleading. Its smugglers who often advertise their services, luring unsuspected people towards life of near involuntary servitude. Smugglers could also screen future migrants to pick more obedient ones and turn down more unruly or knowledgeable ones.

Even after migrants are in the country, their smugglers likely continue as their handlers. Unskilled workers do not have enough ability to find their way around the country; this and their legal status prevents them from safely interacting with people around them or police. Thus smugglers/handlers do it for them. Handlers arrange for accommodation, food and work for unskilled migrants. Said accommodation is likely not much better than for similarly unskilled workers in Dubai (see here), but here they cannot show it as that violates Australian labor laws, but not Dubai labor laws.

Because of the abovementioned laws, unskilled workers do not work for Aussie companies directly but rather through some shady employment company, set up by their handlers. Such a company subcontracts their work to Aussie employers for prices below minimum wage, collects their pay and later pay actual migrant workers much less than what they received for their work, pocketing the difference. 

A person from a country that lives on 1 dollar a day will likely be happy to be paid five times that much without thinking how little it is in the country they are in. They cannot go out and interact with people in Australia so they cannot know how much a dollar buys in Australia. Their handlers will also be happy with how high the difference is between what they pay their smuggled migrants and what get from Aussie employers who use their labour. Smugglers are the real winner of this arrangement.

Unlike skill migrants that take work for which locals do not have skills, the unskilled migrants actually take work from equally unskilled locals. School grads with no tafe or uni degree are likely to be affected the most. Due to how labor law works employers actually prefer to unskilled migrant to a local because they could pay a migrant less than minimum wage and treat them like shit, while local in the same situation will eventually take them to court and win. Locals know labor laws and that is why employers prefer foreigners who do not.

That said if unskilled migrants were completely removed, most businesses will likely close rather than begin employing locals. Years of paying less and neglecting safety and other regulation will likely make complying with laws too expensive to be profitable.

I personally did not meet anyone from the second wave in Australia, but I have seen how people in compatible situation lived and worked in Russia and it was not pretty. There are people who live in the same construction site they are working at, surrounded by their work tools, toxic paints and other chemicals. Their documents are confiscated by their employers, and they cannot go anywhere out of fear of being arrested for being illegal and deported back to Tajikistan (most of them are from this country, but some are from other Central Asian or post-Soviet states).

Thanks to that knowledge of unskilled worker reality in Russia I could reasonably reconstruct and estimate what happens with unskilled illegal migrants in Australia. After all the idea that government out of sheer generosity and kindness of their hearts gives migrants free humane accommodation and everything while neglecting locals, just like Murdoch press claims, is a pure fantasy to rile up nationalistic sentiment. Unskilled migrants live in terrible conditions and work for money you will rightfully consider a sick joke or an insult. People who bring them here do so to take advantage of this fact.

Conclusion

All things considered in our current economy being on a dole over competing with unskilled migrants makes the most sense for pretty much any local. That is why being on dole should be normalised and it should be transformed into a permanent citizen allowance/dividend rather than temporary (in theory) arrangement for those looking for work. Mutual obligations and job search requirements should be dropped, and payment should be reimagined as permanent citizen allowance. The UBI solution.

However, just like age of skilled workers came to an end, the end is coming for unskilled ones as well. Automation will soon replace many menial unskilled jobs, making illegal unskilled migrants obsolete. Unlike the legal skilled migrants before them, they will not be able to fall on the dole and will either be deported or starve to death. We will or course soon forget all about them as we embrace our fully automated future. 

Extra: How All That related to War in Ukraine

One final bit of insight as to why conservatives support Russian war in Ukraine. War produces refugees who flee destruction caused by war. Since it's an emergency they have to leave with next to nothing. Once abroad these clueless foreigners with no local knowledge or language ability will very likely become easy prey for the same unscrupulous employment companies that used to smuggle boat people. These smuggler/handlers now have extra 9 million strong pool of refugees to work with, enough to man every unskilled work out there. To top this pool up even further Putin constantly shells Ukrainian civilian targets instead of military ones. Dead soldiers will not make good unskilled underpaid workers but civilians whose homes were destroyed will. 

On the other hand, Zelenski refuses to help this effort out by limiting Ukrainian shelling to military targets and infrastructure. Putin and Trump want Zelenski removed because they hope a different leader will target homes instead of valuable military equipment and will add many more millions to the already large pool of refugees, this time from Russian side of the border. Putin does not need them in Russia as they tend to protest his rule and demand fair election in which they could elect Navalny to replace Putin. Putin is tired of using riot police and communal trucks blockades to keep them off his Kremlin office.

God is Dead and We Should Move On

 

Nietzsche is famous for his "God is Dead" quote. Some people misunderstood it as simply rephrasing of atheist idea that there is no god. However, that is misleading. 

If you read the whole passage where this quote has originated, you will get a different idea. It's not like there is no god and by extension it never existed. Instead, the passage asserts that God did exist at certain point of time, but then he died and so there is no god as of the moment of writing of the abovementioned passage.

If you read further, then you can further grasp that in these passages God is something of a driving idea of society. Something that directs society forward towards some goal. A god like this existed in Middle Ages and during Renaissance, but by 19th century he ceased to exist and now there is a void in his place. Void that at various times was attempted to be filled by communists (in USSR during and after Stalin) and many others. None of them have succeeded.

Some believe that the void left by God has to be replaced with something else, some new god. I personally inclined to think that humanity simply outgrown god. For a Medieval human god and Catholic Church was something that brought civilization, education, knowledge and better quality of life. It was a broadly positive influence over the savage humans, that humanity was back them. 

Modern humanity is rather different, however. Now civilization is part of everyday life, we have education, knowledge and quality of life without God or the Church. However, while we as humanity grew and improved, Church went the other way around. 

Church became backward, superstitious. While once championing education and creating universities, it now clings to dogma and resist modernity. Religious people fervently oppose science, from the most learned people in Middle Ages, the religious people today are the most backward ones instead.

During Middle Ages monks and priest were the only people who could write or read and even Kings had to rely on them for these now ubiquitous skills. Back then Church and its members were actually useful to society. They administer the state on behalf of the kings, made all the books, funded universities, even brew vine and beer for people. Without them society will not have these many other things that make civilization. Back them Church was also innovative. Monks invented many new things that improved lives of people around them. 

Finally, Church was politically left. Priest would oppose tyrannical Kings the same way modern democracy activists oppose dictators today and sometimes will be killed for that by the said Kings. That will be followed by an excommunication by the Pope, much like modern Western nations sanction dictators who repress their people. History repeats itself in curious ways.

Modern Church does nothing of the above, it just sits on the laurels, oppose modernity and preaches "moral" that increasingly makes no sense. As an institution it became an equivalent of an old person who is stuck in the past, no longer capable of doing anything, but thinks of themselves as a "moral guide" for younger generations. From house of innovation Church became the abode of reactionaries who keep talking about brining past back. Christianity now is an inversion of its former self.

You can see parallels of this development in communists, who used to be innovative, and progress driven, but by now became senile reactionaries who oppose all change, whitewash the time they were in power and hope to bring them back.

In light of all that is no wonder that people increasingly abandon their "faith" and become atheists, agnostics, irreligious or spiritual. Modern Church no longer does anything useful to anyone. Its "moral" role is as overrated as that of an average 90 years old.

Nonetheless Church was moribund and senile for several centuries already, why people turning away from it only now. The answer is that life has changed, and people no longer think that core Christian characters like Jesus or God are lovable or inspiring.

Back in the days story of Jesus inspired people. They actually loved him; they thought he was awesome. To them Jesus was like a superman who can solve any problem, cure ill, create food, stand up for the common people against Romans or Jewish clergy and more. They certainly wished that someone like him was real and will go and solve all their problems. Jesus could even defeat death by curing Lazarus and then rising from the dead after being crucified. 

All that was very impressive in the eyes of Medieval man and so they believed because they truly wished he was real. Medieval people would want to meet Jesus and ask him to fix their lives too. That is why they would pray in hope he will listen and fix their problems.

Not only it was impressive, but it also addressed many of the problems, people of the past had. Not enough food, Jesus could conjure some. Death and disease, Jesus can cure. Jesus could deal with profiteering too.

Thanks to technological development all that is hardly impressive in the eyes of modern man. Instead, modern people will find it repulsive to display crucifixions as they depict an agonising man tortured to near death. Crosses extensively used in cemeteries and by now firmly associated with the cemetery. Love for Jesus sound too homosexual for modern men as majority are not gay. 

All in all, modern people would vary of talking to Jesus and most will likely try to avoid him if he suddenly appeared on the streets today. Even those who will talk to him will likely do it out of curiosity rather than awe.

Miracles he performed sound either too trivial or too fake. Modern people know science and so they could not be easily impressed with a few tricks. Modern doctors will likely be able to cure Lazarus. They will also not pronounce Jesus dead on the cross as they will be able to feel his pulse and confirm it with electrocardiogram.

God himself was not spared either. Back in the days people probably found certain paternalistic comfort in thought that God is watching them like a loving parent. Pope's title as well as addressing priests as father further hints towards this theory.

Modern people who often have problematic and dysfunctional families do not find the same comfort in paternalistic god. They more likely think of him as a creepy stalker. Recent issue with NSA surveillance makes problem even worse as God is essentially supernatural NSA in that regard.

Virgin Mary's story, that perhaps was an ideal mother for the people of the past, looks more like an adulteress in the eyes of modern man. People no longer dream of having children and often suspect that their wives cheat on them with outsiders to be inspired by Virgin Mary's story. No one wants to be a cuckold.

Finally, priest's holy and respectable status attracted crooks who wanted to use it as a cover for their nefarious actions. Eventually these actions destroyed reputation of Christianity itself. Recent paedophile scandals among priests come to mind, but even long before that corruption of Borgias and many other priests already damaged the Church. Paedophile priests were the final nail.

All of the above clearly indicates that God is indeed dead. Christianity no longer inspires but rather intimidates people with a creepy by modern standards narrative and imaginary. It also does not give people anything valuable that will make them come to priests and churches. Modern attempts at religious revival at pathetic at best and completely pointless at worst. People could no longer believe in God or Jesus. Neither could they trust priests or institution of the church. 

Religion come and go. Roman religion was at one point replaced by Christianity. Christianity had its time in the sun and contributed a lot to a civilization. However, that was long ago. By now Christianity run its course and no longer capable of anything worthwhile. By now it's a moribund sclerotic religion that lost almost all its followers. Time has come to close the door on its existence.

As for what can replace Christianity then there is hardly any cohesive answer. In fact, different aspects of what Christianity used to do is now done by different institutions. Education and science are their own distinct spheres of live, unconnected to religion. So is government bureaucracy that replaced administrative clergy. Entertainment industry now creates characters that people love and who inspire them. Finally, internet and community centers connect people like never before. There is no role for Christianity left, it's time for it to go.

Since everything that religion once done is now done by other structures, we no longer need church in our lives. It's time we phased out religious institutions from our life and make that final step into the future. Jesus, his story and associated holidays like Christmas will stay with us just like Greek and Roman myth did, but believing in him is no longer possible.

Propaganda in UK and in Russia

 

I recently watched this article about how tree powerful families of UK control all the news media and brainwash society. Even their headquarters are located only a short walk from Westminster Palace where Parliament sits.

If you thought that could not be worse, it can. In Russia one street away is too far away. People who run the government also run media and Russian counterpart of Rupert Murdoch shuttles between broadcasting tower and Putin's office almost daily. Saying anything that differs from what such puppet media says carries 15 years in prison and there not a single TV channel or newspaper that is not controlled by this system.

If Rupert Murdoch managed to convince so many people that Islam is a threat to UK, imagine how many people Putin can convince that Nazis in Ukraine are real.

Also, Rupert Murdoch recently married former wife of Roman Abramovich. Abramovich is de-facto something of a Putin's personal asset manager. He uses money Putin have embezzled or taken as bribes to buy various luxurious properties for the use of the latter. Marriage to a former wife of such a person could only mean one thing. Putin bought Murdoch and now using his media empire to spread propaganda beneficial for Russia in the West. Internal security has to look into that.

Actual White Values

Recently people on twitter pointed towards so called "White Values by Smithsonian." In these small picture Smithsonian claims to have summarised what all white people believe in. Some of these not really wrong but many others are downright wrong and opposite of what any kind of white people actually believe or practice.

Unmasking Smithsonian Values

Here I also need to add that, "White people" are not a single entity with a single set of values shared across entire NATO or OECD. Germans and Italians are very different from what they believe and practice. However, the so-called White Values by Smithsonian managed to cite certain things that pretty much entire OECD rejects. I cannot say much for the US as I have not been in America, but even in theoretically culturally close Anglophone places like Australia and UK a lot is different.

However, I can point out where these so-called Smithsonian White Values came from, Puritans. Back in the days, Puritans were expelled from England for trying to impose on society their extremely radical views no one else could agree to. 

Nonetheless Puritans found new home in what is now the US, they founded Massachusetts Bay colony and run it according to these views and values. As time went on some of them who grew to disagree with Puritan rule, splintered from them to create their own colonies of Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Maine. Together this area of the US is called New England. That is about 1/3 of total original colonies that later rebelled against British rule and created the United States.

Officially Puritanism have disappeared, but I always suspected that its influence lingers in the US to a certain extend. These Smithsonian White Values is a prove of that. White Values here is misnomer however, it's not White Values, it's just neo-Puritan values. Some, but not all Americans share these values. I absolutely doubt they hold true elsewhere in the world.

Actual White or Western Values

Despite being inaccurate and misleading in their nature, timing of appearance of these White Values definitely carefully calculated. World is interested in what white people believe in, and neo-Puritans decided to use it as an attempt at come back.

I will go in the same order as Smithsonian organised it.

Individualism part is correct for the most part. Individual is primary unit and has autonomy from both society as whole and any individual social groups. Any group association is voluntary, and individual may always leave group that do not work for them, and no one can stop them. The only exception is classified military work, and you will always be informed in advance if anything is classified. Marriage can be dissolved if one partner asks for it, children can leave too and does not owe anything to their parents. Self-reliance is valued and encouraged, but that does not preclude welfare and government responsibility for wellbeing of their members (welfare). 

Last part "individuals assumed to be in control of their environment" as well as "you get what you deserve" is the most dubious part here. Its poorly worded and should not be considered as part of individualism. If it's about responsibility, then people have limited control over what happens around them and will not be blamed for things they have no control of. Neither law, nor society holds people liable for things around them. Unless their job responsibilities have the "duty of care" as part of role description. Some jobs are about maintaining certain condition of the premises. These are always limited to the workplace and do not extend to everyday life or applicable off duty.

Family Structure for the most part correct. Extended families are not something most can rely on, even grandparents (parents of the couple) are detached from so called nuclear family. That said its ok to be single or childless. Number of children depends on socio-economic condition. In 18th century people will have 9 or more kids because only few will live to adulthood due to high mortality. Nowadays people have only 1 or none at all.

Wife is subordinate of husband, I wonder about that, especially now that feminism poking its nose into it. You are probably best to discuss it with the girl if she sees herself as subordinated to husband before committing to her as I doubt you can enforce it against her will.

Children are raised to be autonomous and self-reliant, own rooms and so on.

Scientific Method They listed a few oddly specific methods there, like linear thinking or quantitative emphasis. It should not be limited to just these, scientific method is more complex than that. However, things are researched and new ideas are developed, using these and other methods. Relying on past knowledge is far not enough, there is clear emphasis on development of new technologies and theories need to be developed and people who aspire to do so need to learn the scientific method of doing it. Theories are debated and tested empirically. Those that work and useful get to be implemented. 

This applies to both technology and society at large. Work and social relationships, even culture and religion can be subject of scientific enquiry and may change if research finds that old practices are not as efficient and useful and something else. Nothing is too sacred to be questioned, but some more delicate matters have to be handled equally delicately.

History Now here it even hints on Puritan origin of the Smithsonian values. History varies from country to country. History is part of each nation story of what makes them who they are. History differs from one country to another. Each country has right to its own history, centered on them and narrating why they are more cool, awesome and special compared to countries around them.

There is no emphasis on Greko-Roman or Judeo-Christian tradition, at least in history. Fields like philosophy, math or geometry do cover Greeks extensively but not history.

There is a separate scientific study of history, that is more objective and common among the white nations, but that is for professional and amateur historians. There are few taboo subjects like Nazis, but in general its open uncensored research.

Protestant Work Ethic Not all white people are protestant, and not all protestants agree on common work ethics. While hard work is praised, it's not absolute, there is also smart work, work-life balance and more. Australia has heavy emphasis on fair pay, fair working condition and fair work in general. Work should sufficiently reward the people who do it or it's not fair. Left-wing Labor party if heavily focused on this and while right-wing Liberals avoid talking about it, they have no alternative values to speak of.

Religion is where Smithsonian gets it all wrong. 

White people are multi confessional. After many years of wars between Catholics and Protestants we now agree to disagree. There are many Christian denominations who all believe in vastly different things but co-exist in the same society that also includes non-Christian believes as well as atheism. There is clear separation between religion and state. One can believe anything or nothing at all and function in society all the same. While government does not ban religion or endorse official state atheism like communists do, laws and society are secular and detached from religion.

Single or multiple gods is just as optional as anything else.

So called Judeo-Christian tradition is also irrelevant to most, but the vocal rightist minority. A lot of people embrace Buddhism and other foreign religions, and it is considered normal.

Status, Power and Authority is another completely incorrect take from Smithsonian. The section jumbles together too many unrelated things. Justice section is also covered here.

To begin with there is Rule of Law, not rule of authority figure or respect for authority. Law is above everyone, including presidents and prime ministers. Law guarantees people's right and freedoms and protects them from among other things from authority figures. Law also protects people from unlawful conduct of other citizens. There is equality before law, means no matter what status you have or how rich of poor you are, law is applied the same way and treat you the same way. Law applies equally to homeless and presidents alike.

There is no special emphasis for property rights in justice system. There are certain entitlements that comes from owning anything but there are also more responsibilities, like paying rates. Ultimately the state (the crown) remains the sovereign over land and individual's ownership of said land is closer to hold than to ownership, perpetual tenancy. Tenancy agreements transfer actual control of property to a tenant and limit what owners can do with the property.

In the same way, there is no special emphasis on entitlements in justice system.

Intend does count, but facts count to. Intentionally killing people count as one type of crime (murder) and doing so unintentionally as a different one (manslaughter). This too vary from between legal systems. For example, Russian legal system does not differentiate based on intend.

Ownership of anything does not make you especially respected or loved. There are benefits from owning things, but that is about it. In the same way there is no particular respect for wealth in the same way it works in the United States. Australian and British people think the richer you are, the more you should contribute to the state and communal property in taxes. 

Overall, these attitudes vary from country to country and from social class to social class. Richer and more affluent classes tend to value wealth more and look down of poverty while poor and working class tend to believe rich ought to contribute more and support the poor. Rich people tend to think they deserve or earned their wealth, and poor people should not lay claim to it. Poor tend to think that all should contribute towards common good and welfare, with wealthier should pay more. Both sides tend to believe what benefits them most. In the US views are more pro-rich than say elsewhere while in the West and in Scandinavia they are more pro-poor.

Not everyone measures worth in money or property one's own, this is an American concept at best. A Massachusetts one at worst.

Some people see their job as something that defines them but it's perfectly normal to see it as just means to make money.

Time Once again American do it more than others. However, work in many industries indeed is measured and paid in hours worked. Compare to that countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia pay per month without taking in account number of hours worked, giving no insensitive for taking extra hours of overtime. Thus, time is a commodity. 

Rigid schedule is optional, but most Anglophones as well as Germans value being on time. South Europe is more relaxed about it and its ok to be late there.

Holidays Some holidays are based on Christian ones, typically those that themselves are based on pre-existing pagan holidays that most no longer remember now. However, there are many other reasons for holidays, for example military commemoration and many other things that government deem worthy of reverence. 

Aesthetics is another fully absurd article. If anything, arguments about tastes are pointless. That is why white people embrace freedom of choice. 

Also, there is fashion and thing get in fashion and get out of fashion. That allows for change in aesthetics to make sure looks never become too stall, same all the time. Fashion existed since times immemorial, and one can talk of things fashionable in 12th century and contrast that with 17th century or modern times.

Plain is not better; white people did went go as far as to discover America to get access to Southeast Asian spices. In general, white culture seeks to find and appropriate more interesting and likable aspects of cultures and societies around the world. Isolationism is an exception, not a rule.

In my experience non-white people care about blonde women a lot more than white ones. The only thing everyone will possibly agree on is that slimmer and younger women are better than fat and old ones. The rest is up to individual tastes and men prefer not to argue about it. Other things like face shape, skin and hair colour are very individual. 

Man's attractiveness depends on who you ask. Women are often divided between stability a wealthy man can offer and attractiveness of physically strong and muscular one. That said muscles will not get you anywhere in man's world, they will not give you friends or favors from male colleagues.

Future Orientation for the most part is correct. Delayed gratification only works in stable economic conditions though, but it is considered positive even if does not always work in practice.

Compared to Wahhabism that glorifies first 3 generations or Chinese ancestor worship, believe in better future is prevalent among the white people. Even those who are nostalgic about past, often think that future will be better.

Competitiveness has too many unnecessary subsections. Overall competitiveness is encouraged. Excelling in things is rewarded. There are no notions about keeping social harmony by staying quiet like in some Asian cultures. If you can do something better you can speak up and if it really works, you will be rewarded. 

Winners celebrated more than just rich and respectable. Those who were poor and became rich are celebrated more than those from rich and influential families. Those who have something tangible to show, like Elon Musk with his cars and rockets, are celebrated more because of the things they created. Meanwhile rich who inherited wealth from rich parents or without clear source of wealth are questioned at best, hated at worst. They are not criminalised however.

The only exception is relationship and family life. Some outspoken strong women who did well in business struggle in dating because men seek more docile and obedient women as a wife or girlfriend. Its either what husband likes or what boss likes, hardly anyone could manage both.

Aggressiveness is not encouraged, but proactiveness could often be useful.

Action orientation and doing something about situation valued more than not doing anything about it is once again more American than generally white, especially in such maximalist terms. However more often than not people want their problems solves and will value one who can solve problems. Few will understand doing nothing when a solution is readily available. However, if you do not have solutions that will work, only Americans will appreciate just doing something even if it is pointless.

Communication values vary from nation to nation and culture to culture. Some readily talk about personal life while others find it intrusive and unacceptable. Sometimes even different areas of the same country have vastly different attitudes when it comes to that. Southern areas are typically more open and northern more closed, but there are exceptions. 

Rules are normally written. Unspoken rules are extremely rare, and most of the time no one will blame one for ignoring them. Russia is exception to that, it's a country of unspoken rules. 

Thou unspoken rules in Russia apply mostly to elites as well as mafia. Common people do not follow them. Unspoken rules are favored by elites much more than by common people. Elites like them because it lets them hide their secret dealings from public. Public on the other hand hate them and believe they should be gone as they are nothing more than excuse for elites to steal.

There are certain courtesy words and things to say as part of politeness.

Northern areas do not show emotions, see Kimi Raikkonen as example, but showing emotions more common in the south Europe.

Formal communication as well as written communication has more rigid and conservative rules compare to informal and oral ones. You can express yourself with smiles in mobile texts, but you cannot use them in documents.

Outward Orientation is something not on the list, but I would like to add it. I mentioned some in aesthetics section, but this deserves a separate section. White people value good ideas, good products and other good things no matter where they come from. That is why we explore the world and invent things. To find better things or to create them.

Rome was successful because it could copy the good ideas from people around them. Renaissance Europe prospered because they discovered New World and brought lots of good and valuable things from there back home.

In contrast inward looking and very religious Medieval Europe was poor and miserable. Rome fell soon after Christianity spread throughout it.

Prosperity came back when religion was weakened and countries got more outward looking.

Thus, white people always looking for ways to do things better and improve their lives. Sometimes these efforts get into misguided territory like current gym obsession, but more often than not they bring the chance that improves.

Conclusion

That is all I can think of, at least for now. There is probably more, but I will live it at that. 

Countries Should Buy and Sell National Land

 

The premise is in the title. Countries should buy and sell national territory more often. For example, Russia famously sold pictured above Alaska to the United States in 19th century. It is sometimes criticised in modern times as Americans later found a lot of natural resources in the area. However, at a time of the purchase the transfer was beneficial as Russia could get something for a piece of land it did not know what to do with and the US could get more frontier to explore.

That is not the unique example either. Earlier that that in 17th and 18th century trading national territory was common. Every peace treaty diplomat will trade more land than stockbrokers will buy and sell shares on a stock market. Selling an unprofitable colony was Tuesday. Sure, it was mostly done with colonial sparsely inhabitant land, but the point stands. Seeling land was normal.

Somehow from that we went to a 20th century notion that land is sacred patrimony of this or that people, must be defended to the last drop of blood and so on. Even politicians of nations in questions, who should be able to know better, often stick to the same stubborn refusal to even consider it.

Thanks to that we are stuck with unmovable borders and extreme nationalists who claim that their nation's rightful and sacred patrimony extends into some of their neighbors, causing animosity between them.

It would not be half bad if these borders were at least half decent, but they are not. Depend on where you look, current borders raise uncomfortable question of "who on earth thought it make sense to draw border here". Yet no matter how ridiculous these borders are, there are always those who will defend them to the last drop of blood. Talking about buying or selling territory just gets dismissed out of hand. Trump's attempt to buy Greenland shows us just that. 

It leads to a situation where the only way to move borders is the war. However, it does not have to be this way. Leaders of nations could sit together and agree to a deal that will work for both sides. They could either trade land in one place for equivalent piece elsewhere or sell it for money or other valuables, like technology, even shares in valuable companies. With that the geographic obstacles with turn into business opportunities for prosperity and development. This will allow humanity to reach even greater potential and solve many geopolitical problems that plague our world.

There are plenty of historical examples of how trading land led towards better outcomes for both parties. Dutch could not make any profit on their colony of New Amsterdam and agreed to swap if for sugar producing Surinam with the British. For British New Amsterdam was valuable because it allowed them to connect their northern and southern colonies together, sparing colonials the trouble of sailing around it. Nowadays it is called New York and is one of the richest and largest cities in the world. No one would have guessed that mere 200 years ago Dutch wanted to abandon the settlement and do nothing with the area. That is one of the examples of how trading land benefitted both sides.

Thus, modern countries should start trading land too. That is much better than keep staring at each other menacingly and white countless comments on internet on how Kosovo is Serbia or Albania. I myself wrote several articles on how many borders in former USSR make no sense and should be changed. There are many other places that can benefit from that such as Balkans. Old pointless borders can give way for a new development and prosperity.

Rules of International Land Trade

To make it beneficial for all sides of the issue we should lay some groundwork rules to make sure trade is fair and does not impinge on the selling party and its citizens rights and interests in significant ways.

Every ethnicity is entitled for a country they can call their own. Such country should have at least reasonable amount of land space per person of said ethnicity to accommodate them all within their borders.

Nevertheless, they can only claim the areas they actually inhabit and use. Greenlanders, whose total population is less than average rural town, cannot call the entire huge island as their own, but they are entitled to the part of it that they currently inhabit. 

No country should completely disappear from the map of the world. Saying that country should disappear from the map of the world in its entirety puts both government of the country as well as it people into corner and leaves them no choice but to fight back. Good example is current Russian war in Ukraine. That is counterproductive. Instead, certain parts of the country can and should be traded.

An adequate compensation has to be paid for the land traded. It can be paid in land, money, company stock, commodities such as oil, gold or diamonds. The selling party has ultimate choice of compensation they wish to receive for the land they sell.

If population of the area is significant, the people should be given a vote on whether they want to change the country they live in or not.

Residents of the traded area in question should further be offered a choice of whether to keep their original citizenship or switch citizenship to that of the purchasing nation.

Finally, residents should be given enough time to sell their property and relocate to the remaining area of their nation. If number of residents wishing to move is significant, a dedicated relocation program should be organised by nations who trade lands.

To facilitate the above, a transitional period of at least 1 year should be arranged between completing of sale and actual transfer of sovereignty between nations. That will give residents enough time to move if they so wish.

A nation selling land should not be deprived of access to sea and ability to use it for shipping and such.

International community should be given an opportunity to assess the deal and voice their objections if they have any. The final deal may be adjusted or even outright blocked based on these objections.

Fundamentally decision to trade or not will rest with the two trading nations in question, but neighboring countries as well as nations with vested interest in the deal should have input in final decision as it affects them to a certain extend.

An impartial mediation by the UN or other international body can be arranged if the trade is essential for the global security and prosperity. 

 

Lands that Should be Traded

Lands that will leave both parties better off if they change hands are many. For example, I wrote many times that Ukraine should sell some lands to Russia as it will benefit both nations, Russia with its surplus money can brag about expanding and Ukraine can get richer by selling off unprofitable parts of the country.

To begin with parts of Ukraine that are part of Don River basin should be sold to Russia or divested to an independent Don Basin Nation, if both Russia and Ukraine could agree on creation of such nation. These areas are largely pro-Russian in political orientation. Their vested interest almost always conflicts with the rest of Ukraine as they depend on Russian Don River for shipping. Generally, their region is far too connected to Russian cities across the border, while largely disconnected from the rest of Ukraine. 

Actual border can be Vorskla-Dnipro line as river borders are defensible. Alternatively, they can go with the river basins. Most rivers in the area ultimately flow either into Dnipro or into Don, making it possible to map a gorge that divides the two river systems. Such a gorge also makes for a natural border as it's the most elevated part of the area.

Russia too has lands that are more of a trouble for everyone involved, including Russia itself. For example, Kaliningrad Oblast. Disconnected from mainland Russia and completely surrounded by Poland and Lithuania, the oblast is hard to supply as all land transportation has to go through Lithuanian territory, making life of residents and logisticians alike much harder.

For Poland and Lithuania this land is also a thorn in the side. To being with Russia hosts lots of weapons in the area and these make almost every country that border Baltic Sea nervous. There is another issue and that is shortness of the border between Poland and Lithuania, the so-called Suwalki Gap. While there is no direct border between Kaliningrad Oblast and Russia friendly Belarus, the distance between these areas is too small, putting it at risk in the event of war. Because of that all three of the Baltic nations could easily be cut of and surrounded in mere hours.

It will make life much easier for everyone is Russia will transfer sovereignty of this area to someone else, but Russia will not do so. Aside from usual stubbornness, Russia has one reason to keep control of the area. Kaliningrad is the only Russia port on the Baltic Sea that does not freezes in winter, Russia's other port, St. Petersburg is only usable in summer as Finland's Gulf freezes in winter, making Kaliningrad the only possible shipping destination.

However, the problem could be solved if Russia acquires another port in the Baltic Sea that does not freezes in winter. Certain areas in northeastern Latvia (Latgale and Vidzeme parts of Livonia) will be perfect for such purpose. Something like Salacgriva can be turned into a military base to replace Kaliningrad. Unlike Kaliningrad, these areas can be connected to Russia directly, sparing everyone the trouble of having to deal with heavy Russian railway traffic through Lithuania. Population of these areas are very low, making impact on locals very low, if locals choose to relocate to other parts of Latvia, it could easily be arranged.

Finally, such transfer could solve Latvia's non-citizens problem. During Soviet times many people from the rest of USSR have moved into what is now Latvia. These people did not spoke local Latvian language and did not bother to learn it as knowledge of Russian was enough for life in USSR. That have changed after independence as Latvian became sole official language of the country. The Russophone migrant population did not like that change and resisted either learning Latvian or moving out to somewhere in Russia. On their side Latvians refused to grant these migrants Latvian citizenship, insisting that only those who were citizen of pre-WWII Latvia and their descendants are entitled to citizenship. Ever since the Latvian society is divided into citizens and non-citizens: Latvians and so-called Latvian Russians. Some of these do assimilate and eventually acquire Latvian citizenship by naturalisation but there are significant number of those who do not. They continue to be a constant problem in the country. Russia could purchase areas with significant Latvian Russian population, solving the problem of these people. 

Since Latvia is not interested in Kaliningrad oblast and will not be able to administer it, a multilateral deal has to be arranged. EU can buy Kaliningrad off Russia while selling them parts of Latvian Livonia instead. Russia can then move some or all people of Kaliningrad to settle the Livonia instead, though some might opt to stay. Livonia will become part of Russia and Kaliningrad can become first EU territory, directly administered by the union. Latvia can be compensated by the EU with more EU funds for

Finally, there is Belarus. Belarus dictator, Lukashenka long have been a thorn in EU side. Geographically Belarus also located very inconveniently, protruding far too deep west and putting EU in danger. Belarus's geographic position could easily facilitate a deadly Russian or Chinese invasion into EU while at the same time giving Russia no real security from an invasion from the west.

Belarussian people chaff under the oppression of Lukashenka and want him gone, but he has Russian support and Russian riot police to help him stay in power. It's a truly sad state of affairs.

Geographically two major eastern European rives: Dnipro and Daugava get very close to each other in eastern Belarus. Together these rivers can create a solid and easily defensible frontier that will prevent the war between EU and Russia. The problem is that Belarus is Russian ally, giving Russia a huge bridgehead on the western side of these rivers. On the other hand, Ukraine goes much further east of Dnipro, creating a large bridgehead for potential invasion into Russia.

Solution to this problem can be in giving Russia much of east bank Ukraine. The problem there is that in northeastern oblasts there is strong anti-Russian sentiment, making it near impossible for Russia to rule there. Thus, this has to be limited to areas Russia can control, such as Kharkiv (Don basin I mentioned above). The rest of east bank should stay with Ukraine, but heavy offensive weapons should be limited to west bank only.

In exchange Russia should abandon Lukashenka and let EU replace him with democratic pro-EU government. Some border adjustments between Belarus and Russia to make borders align with the two rivers is also in order.

These three adjustments will straighten the border between EU and Russia and by extension between Western world and Eurasia. New borders, resulting from these changes will be much more defendable that current one. This will allow both sides to feel much safer knowing that a new war is unlikely and even if it happens, defenders will have a clear advantage. 

Truth about Stalin and Inner Working of Communist Party

It's no secret that many historical figures of the past have lots of books and narratives written about them. Some of these exacerbate things either embellishing or demonising the person in question. Yet others go further and completely misinterpret the person and their action into something that no longer resemble the person in question of the times they have lived in. Sometimes it is done due to genuine lack of understanding of person in question and other times due to desire to hide the truth. 

Stalin is one such figure. Stalin is often portrayed as paranoid homicidal tyrant that intimidated everyone around him, killing anyone he felt like and forcing others to do silly things for his amusement. Some of this narrative come from Khruschev's account, who might had reasons to twist the facts if not downright invent them. Even Supporters of Stalin tend to cite him as strong leader who ruled with iron fist.

While Holodomor, purges and atmosphere of fear indeed existed and it is reasonable to blame Soviet regime and Stalin personally for that. However, it did not happen on orders of a barking mad full of himself cinema dictator, surrounded by sycophants who could never say no to their boss. Such things and relationships only exist in cinema. Real world works differently.

Accidental Leader

Some occasionally heard the story that Lenin did not want Stalin to succeed him and cautioned the party against him. Reality is that party worked in such a way that a successor could not be nominated in such a matter at all. In fact, there could not be a successor at all.

Early communists believed and practiced collective leadership. In practice that meant that members of the party will occasionally meet to discuss and debate policy and other issues. After debate they will vote on policies, and those that could get majority in favor will become binding directives for all members of the party. Lenin called it democratic centralism. 

Back them vote was actually free and uncoerced unlike later times. Nonetheless continuous practice of this democratic centralism resulted in a situation where some had more sway over the body of party members compare to others. Oratorial skills were everything. Those who talked well could sway other party members to their side and get nearly anything voted in. Others could try but will get voted down.

Best speaker was Lenin himself. Even Trotsky acknowledged how well Lenin could convince these guys to his point of view no matter what the issue was. The real testament to Lenin's oratorial skills was an issue of NEP. Convincing die-hard fervent communists to adopt it was akin to convicting devout Christians to replace Jesus with Satan or Prophet Muhammad, yet Lenin talked them over to his side.

While Lenin was alive this system worked. Other party members not only acknowledged him but also trusted him. They thought he was some kind of genius who saw many more steps ahead than they did and could figure out a solution where no one else will know what to do. Thus, Lenin de-facto ruled the party without any formal title or any even minimal formal authority. Officially he was just an ordinary member, like the rest of them and in reality, he was much more than that.

All that worked fine when Lenin was alive, but then he died. The system did not have a mechanism to replace him with someone. Nominally the collective leadership will govern just as it did before. In reality collective leadership very soon devolved into battle royale for power.

The second most oratorically gifted after Lenin was Trotsky, but the rest of the party did not hold him in the same high esteem as they did Lenin. They saw Trotsky more as a threat then as a leader. Reason for that was Trotsky's popularity in Red Army. Trotsky was not always able to convince fellow party members of something, but he could convince soldiers to invade hell itself if he so wished. Thus, other party members feared that Trotsky will use his popularity in the army to stage a military coup and then rule as military dictator.

Because of that most of the prominent members of the party decided to unite against Trotsky. Instead of debating honestly and openly they decided to use every opportunity to attack Trotsky, hoping to eventually sway party members to fire Trotsky as commissar for war and later even expel him from the party. 

Eventually they managed to remove Trotsky not only from power but also from USSR itself. Problem solved? Not really, it only got worse. Former allies, no longer united by common threat, started to look at their former friends with suspicion. 

Next after Trotsky was Bukharin. He was popular editor of main communist newspaper Pravda and could use the paper to rally the public against his party rivals. They removed him next. Next fell Zinoviev and Kamenev, who had certain clot and sway in the party and thus could use it as power base. Eventually everyone with any modicum or power and influence was purged by the majorly rule of the average party member. The last man standing was timid, humble and unambitious guy, whom no one could possibly perceive as a threat. That man was Joseph Stalin.

Some might want to point out that Stalin was General Secretary since the beginning of the communist rule. Yes, that is true, but originally office of General Secretary was not intended to be the seat of power. It gradually evolved into one as Stalin accumulated power around him. Later leaders like Khruschev and Brezhnev did deliver their power from this office, but not as much from the formal responsibilities or powers of the office itself, but from the fact that Stalin once held it and convention and habit of communist party members associate it with power.

General Secretary is a person only in charge of party Secretariat. Party Secretariat handles various paperwork for the party, like processing membership applications, collecting membership fees, scheduling party activities, including meeting of central committee and so on. Lots of boring bureaucratic paperwork, a work for someone quiet and boring, but with good attention to details. 

Stalin was given that role almost as an insult, other Bolsheviks did not think much of him so gave him something not too important and significant. However, the job was more than it seems. As head of secretariat Stalin and his crew got to meet and interview many people who aspired to join the party.

 

Unlike the old guard, the newcomers saw Stalin as the boss, since he was the guy who approved their applications to join and generally spend more time with them compared to other old Bolsheviks. As old guard was busy fighting for power, the newcomers gradually became the majority of not only the party but also of central committee. As party grew bigger, holding all members meetings became impractical so Central Committee was created to replace it.

Eventually new members came to dominate the party. With that role of Stalin have dramatically increased. He became a de-facto leader of sorts, not yet on the level of unquestionable authority, but a leader, nonetheless. Since most influential members of the old guard were gone in the power struggle, there was no one left to even contest Stalin's rule.

Stalin of course was not as simple as people though he was. Underneath rather humble outer appearance was rather cunning and calculated man who survived many hardships such as Siberian exile.

During old guard infighting Stalin played it safe, by supporting moderate centrist by party standards views. That prevented ideological radicals on both left and right from targeting him, as they did not see him as being against their views. Generally, he was too small of a target for anyone to bother with and thus he was left standing when the rest knifed each other out.

Surviving at the Top

Stalin's early rule however was not all smooth and easy, it was far from unaccountable unquestionable dictator people see him now. Loyal to him new members thrusted him into power and limelight, but once their Stalin had to act and actually lead.

Stalin's first major policy was collectivisation. The idea was to replace outdated methods of agriculture with modern ones. Russian peasants still used horse driven wooden plows instead of tractors and harvested using scythes instead of harvesters and combines. Using these methods, they could only work small plots of land and produce too little surplus grain to feed the country.

Communists decided to solve that creating collective farms (kolkhoz). Peasant's land would be confiscated to create large modern size fields, and peasants themselves will be employed by a collective farm to work these fields using modern machinery provided by the state. People from cities, educated in modern methods of agriculture, will lead these collective farms. 

If they were Germans, they could have created equipment sharing system instead, where peasants could take turns using tractors and combines on their fields. However, they were not Germans, so they did much worse.

The reform was rather unpopular. Peasants did not want to share work on collective farm. Rural communities are small, so everyone knows everyone else. So, they knew who works well and who is completely useless. The richer better working peasants resisted collectivisation because it will equalise them with lazy losers who don't do squat. Poor peasants instead supported collectivisation because they could easily see it as their more hardworking neighbors doing all the actual work while everyone later shares all the spoils equally.

Government however pressed on with the reform. Government misinterpreted opposition to reform as opposition to communist values and ideals and ended up repressing a lot of hard-working successful rich peasants as kulaks, while leaving poor peasants to work in collective farms. That in itself was a recipe for disaster but add to it another problem and that will be real storm.

People appointed to run collective farms were familiar with agriculture in theory but did not have any practical experience and were often unfamiliar with areas they were assigned to. To make matters worse they were sycophants, that worshiped their superiors and looked down on peasants they were in charge of. Most of them saw peasants as selfish, greedy and backward. The kind of people who would hog up the produce and put country and production plans in danger over their petty selfish desire to not part with their harvest. On the other hand, they wanted to impress their superiors with record high harvests and potentially earn a promotion by beating rival collective farm bosses. 

With that kind of attitudes, they would frisk all the basements and barns in search of stolen produce. They will send all the grain they could find to Moscow, hoping for rewards and promotion, leaving not enough for peasants themselves to eat and plant next year. The result was a famine that took 10 million lives, Holodomor, a recognised genocide against Ukrainian people, those some Russians and Kazakhs died too. Read about it in Wikipedia.

If you ever wondered what Chernomyrdin meant when he said, "We wanted to make it better, but it turned out as always.", now you know. A lot of policies different Russian government ever attempted ended up a lot worse compared to how they envisioned it when they planned it.

As if Holodomor was not bad enough, what came afterwards was much worse.

The first meeting of Central Committee after the reality and scale of famine became apparent was terse and charged. Members demanded that those responsible for famine be prosecuted and punished, severely, by death sentence. Gravity of the situation and scale of the famine made asking less preposterous. 

Many names were floated; Stalin himself was not immune either. He got dangerously close to losing his position and status, just like many old Bolsheviks before him. However, unlike them, he would also be criminally prosecuted and then likely shot.

Ultimately Stalin narrowly survived the vote. Stalin's role as General Secretary does not make him directly responsible for agriculture, there is separate government department for that. Humbleses of his office saved him from this purge. Some argued that he announced the policy and should be held responsible, but majority chose to spare him.

That is something that profoundly affected him, as he started to think of a way to avoid another such dangerous moment.

Other was not so lucky. Central Committee instructed KGB (then called OGPU and later NKVD) to begin investigating the famine and punish all responsible. They also instructed them to go after other crimes against the government and the system to make sure that tragedy like that will not repeat itself. A year later murder of Kirov further expanded scope of KGB investigative actions. All that gave rise to what will later be called Great Purge or Great Terror.

KGB was not very familiar with judicial due process and even if they were, they chose to ignore it in favour of fast and streamlined troikas. Troikas too were assessed based on the number of people they investigated and successfully convicted. They had no proper judicial oversight, as "judge" was also a member of troika and therefore a KGB employee. Aiming to hit their targets, they look not to bring justice but to convict as many as possible as fast as possible. If they went after you, you are as good as dead or in Gulag. Technically there was court hearing, and one could argue their innocence, but since the judge was also member of the troika, he had clear insensitive to convict, ignoring all the evidence. The best one can do it to make them look stupid before they will convict you to death out of spite. Though most convictions were 20 years in Gulag as KGB realise value of prisoner labor.

Bu unleashing KGB, Central Commitee released the djinn no one could control. Gradually the entire country was plunged into the depth of fear. KGB's approach of wrongfully accusing people of various capital crimes that carried death sentence and convicting them in spite of lack of evidence made people fear them. More stupid ones feared out of control crime levels and smarter ones feared out of control KGB instead. There certainly were no 20 million something American spies, that KGB troikas successfully investigated and convicted in just a couple of odd years.

Eventually however the rate of KGB convictions started to worry the Central Committee. They figured that in practice KGB does not go after those responsible but rather jails everyone they could get their hands on. The committee demanded that someone investigate the KGB and punish out of control operatives of secret police. 

To appease the Central Commitee Stalin recommended for Yezhov to replace Yagoda as head of KGB and investigate the conduct of the latter. Central Commitee agreed. Yezhov was notably an outsider who did not worked in secret police before. Central Commitee wanted an outsider to clean up the agency they believed was a danger in itself.

Yezhov's investigation of his predecessor Yagoda resulted in latter conviction and death sentence. Central Commitee hoped that it will stop the purges, but it only made them worse. Unlike Yagoda, Yezhov went directly after old Bolsheviks as well as many members of Central Commitee. By the time of next meeting of Central Commitee, all who ever criticised Stalin, demanded removal of Yagoda as well as every old Bolshevik were long convicted and shot.

Yezhov too however fell to the same repressive KGB apparatus that Yagoda created and Yezhov later used to kill Yagoda and take his place. Most felt sign of relief as Beria was somewhat milder and not as ardent as Yezhov. The Great Purge ended with the death of the latter.

However, atmosphere of fear did not dissipate. Those who survived the Great Purge, now felt it is too risky to criticize government and the party. From an era of fight for power that preceded Stalin's rise to power, the country went to era of silence where everyone was too afraid to say anything that could even remotely be interpreted as criticism or dissent.

Arrests and convictions by KGB did not end completely. By now KGB started to see their anti-espionage investigations as a form of recruitment for their prison slave labor workforce. The work they made convicts do required constant intake of fresh prisoners to replace those who die from hardship of that work. So, arrests, fake trials and convictions have continued even during Beria, but he was more subtle than Yezhov and Yagoda were.

In their use and reliance on prisoner's slave labor, KGB was no different than SS Totenkopf. Both used prisoners to build various useful for country things, like canals. Both worked them to death. Both did not feed underperforming inmates, leading to many deaths. Overall Gulag system processed and killed more people than Nazi camps did.

Stalin personally fared relatively well and his popularity with elites and the country at large only increase. Back them no one associated Stalin with the purges the same way we do now. The reason for that is that Stalin controlled KGB informally. Party Secretariat had no direct authority over KGB, but many KGB leaders were informal friends of Stalin. Some even say that Yagoda was Stalin's friend and he did not want to see him gone but had to bow to demands from the Central Commitee to save his own neck.

Both Yagoda and Yezhov consulted with Stalin over who to prosecute, but until Stalin died, that remained a secret to everyone else. That is why Stalin eventually went from an idol and a symbol of the country to a bloody paranoid dictator in the elites and much of public image.

Stalin was a puppet master that ruled through others. Stalin instructed Yezhov to press on with the purges, dismissing his reservations over the people Stalin suggested he investigate. As Stalin encouraged Yezhov to act tougher and slay "enemies of revolution" without mercy, he simultaneously plotted with Beria to eventually throw Yezhov under the bus by blaming him for the homicidal power trip rampage that killed off most of the Central Commitee. Stalin will act through others and discard them to their death if heat from his actions will demand a sacrifice. People always blamed someone else and Stalin walked away without a scratch.

Stalin's personal demeanor and mannerism make it hard to blame him or suspect him of anything. He was humble and unambitious. That made people think he is someone they could trust in these dangerous cutthroat times when everyone else was out to get you. Stalin further contributed to this image by offering to resign as General Secretary every time something went wrong and someone blamed him. That was of course a calculated move, as immediately afterwards several of his allies in Central Commitee will take rostrum to insist that he stays. At the end Stalin will say something like: "I am but a man of the party and I do what party tells me to do. If you all insist that I should stay, then I will stay." That made people think that if there indeed were any evil people on a homicidal power trip, that was not him.

Birth Cult of Personality

Now Stalin was no longer challenged, but he was not yet renown or idolised like Lenin before him. He was but one cog in the system, important one but still replaceable in theory. What really elevated him to stardom was the war, second world war, particularly German invasion of USSR itself.

Even before German invasion there was disastrous war with Finland. However, after the Great Purge, elites were reluctant to criticize Stalin or anyone for it as they feared KGB too much. However German invasion swiftly changed that.

Beginning of Operation Barbarossa was a disaster for USSR. Pretty much every major formation, concentrated close to the border was caught off guard by Germans and forced to surrender within weeks. Fear of Germans eclipsed fear of KGB and people started voice their criticism again. 

Stalin also was a target of such criticism. Real risk of fall once again hanged over his head, first time since 1938. However, Stalin again played it smart by disappearing for a few weeks straight. That was a gamble as that might have allowed the rest of the elites to replace him with someone else. However, gamble paid off as elites once again squabbled for power and could not get anything done. By the time Stalin was back, the rest of the elites could clearly see that without him their squabbles for power will doom them all. Thus, they basically had no choice but rally behind him or die in German concentration camps.

Thus, Stalin led war efforts. War effort needed an image of a strong war time leader to give confidence to troops and intimidate the enemy. Thus, propaganda begun working on making Stalin into one. These efforts portrayed Stalin and strong, decisive and unquestionable leader who with sheer strength and will power will lead the country to victory.

Most modern depictions of Stalin heavily take from this pumped-up image of Stalin and not from what the actual man was. Even those who are critical of Stalin still repeat the same stereotypes but colour them negatively instead. For supporters he is super strong defender of the country that strikes fear in the foreign invaders. For opponents he is super strong oppressor who strikes fear among the population of the country.

These propaganda efforts eventually displaced fear of KGB with fear of Stalin. Now KGB was seen as merely an instrument at Stalin beck and call, rather than a fearsome institution full of homicidal psychos in their own right.

The final cherry on top of the mountain that Stalin gradually became were Allied Conferences. There Stalin set next to Roosevelt and Churchill, clearly signalling not only to the rest of the world but also to USSR itself, that he is one of the big three people who decide fate of the world. It will be a mistake to overlook the fact that these conferences affected his perception and standing among Soviet people and even elites. 

If before Stalin was limited to a certain role, for which he was at least theoretically accountable for as well as had theoretical limitations on his power, then after these things if not disappeared completely, clearly faded away. Stalin became a symbol, an idol an embodiment of the country itself. Questioning him was no longer holding an official accountable, it was opposing USSR and communism itself. The Cult of Personality, later dismantled by Khruschev, have begun.

Cult of Personality Era

Victory in WWII was probably the peak of Stalin's fame, influence and power. Victory in war was associated with him and that gave him near mythical status. Status that Stalin himself would constantly enhance by enhancing the importance of war and Soviet Victory in it. Dubbed Great Patriotic War, the WWII (German invasion to German surrender phase to be precise, the rest of it is just overlooked), was portrayed as an epic struggle for survival against evil homicidal invader.

War depicted not factually as a historical event, but as a traditional epic or perhaps a fictional narrative of struggle between good and evil. This perception of war shapes Russian people's mentality even nowadays. That is why Putin invokes Nazis in justifying his invasion in Ukraine. He wants people to see war in Ukraine as another battle between good and evil. Years of Soviet WWII propaganda, that people grew up on, allows him to frame war in Ukraine as Second Great Patriotic War to avoid any scrutiny over the actual realities on the battlefield.

In addition to war, Stalin also tapped into Lenin's popularity with both party elites and common people. Stalin portrayed himself as heir to Lenin's legacy and ideas, the most devout follower who better understands how to fulfil Lenin's vision than everyone else. That made criticizing Stalin as good as criticizing Lenin himself, unthinkable. A lot of propaganda imagery of post war era depicted Lenin and Stalin together, a visionary genius and his most loyal and devout student.

Before joining the communists, Stalin studied to become a priest. Now he was using some of what he learned back then to create a communist religion of sorts. Lenin were to be communist Jesus and Stalin his sole apostle. Stalin even reappropriated many Russian Orthodox Christian traditions but replaced Jesus with Lenin. Lenin's images and statues were everywhere. He was the savior of Soviet people who will lead them to brighter future. 

Even after Stalin death, this religious cult level of devotion to Lenin and his vision was the most essential element of Soviet political life. Lenin's words were treated almost as revelations from God. Advancement within the party ranks often dependent on showing zealotry, devotion and fervor in following the Lenin's vision. Lenin's writings were treated nearly as sacred as Bible or Quran; universities made it mandatory to study these texts as part of any higher education program.

However gradually euphoria of winning the war subsided and elites started to look at thing in a more sober way. By now Stalin had so much renown, no one could go openly against him. Common people could still believe in the myth, the propaganda created, but those who see him daily could see that the man himself is far from perfect. 

At the same time all this fame likely got into Stalin head, and he was increasingly more willing to flex his power on his subordinates. Stalin was also aging and was gradually less and less capable of running anything. 

For a long time, Stalin managed to stay a small target and avoid envy of the fellow party members. However, as a result of war time propaganda, this was no longer possible. His star rose far too high and some considered plotting against him.

However, removing Stalin on the Central Commitee meeting was unthinkable, like it was done with old Bolsheviks or later to Khruschev. An assassination plot was possibly the only option.

Stalin actually pre-empted that by formally resigning as General Secretary in a sudden move. I cannot read minds so I cannot be 100% certain of what any of them thought, but the move did not seem forced. Stalin honestly agreed to just step down, citing his age and desire to rest. Problem solved.

Turns out not. Even after formal retirement, Stalin's power and role have not diminished in the slightest. As I mentioned in the beginning of this article, his powers came not from formal powers and responsibilities of the office of General Secretary but from personal connections, clot and renown. Thus, resigning from his formal post only freed him from many onerous duties of the party Secretariat daily work without reducing his power over the country. 

Eventually however Stalin died. Whether he died a natural death or was murdered by KGB officers on orders of Lavrenti Beria is still debated. 

Some claimed that Stalin accidently signaled to people around him, that Beria will be purged. It was too ambiguous to say for sure, but it was enough for the latter to assume the worst and to decide to kill Stalin before Stalin could kill him. If that true it would be truly ironic: a person who manipulated people around him to act by using ambiguous hints, signals and signs to avoid direct responsibility, accidently given a wrong signal to a wrong person that killed him. A puppet master finally got entangled in his strings after pulling far too many reckless stunts with his puppets.

Dismantling of the Cult of Personality

Stalin died. At first Beria acted as if he was in charge and threatened other prominent figures within the party with his role as boss of KGB. That worked against him as the whole party has united to take him down and did so. Beria lacked subtlety of Stalin, leaving people no benefit of doubt that they have to kill him before he kills them. Beria was blamed for Stalin's death, sentenced to death and shot.

After that there was no clear favorites to either succeed Stalin or major threats to unite against. Khruschev and Malenkov agreed to divide the power among two of them, sidelined all others and afterwards Khruschev sidelined Malenkov too, becoming sole de-facto leader. At first, he was only First Secretary, a clear nod to the title Stalin once had, but later he also assumed office of Chairman of Consul of Ministers (Prime Minister). Much unlike Stalin in this regard, Khruschev was accumulating titles to show people around him who is the boss and have more formal powers to direct things.

After Stalin's death more facts emerged about the extent of his influence on the country. Khruschev and other eventually discovered all his private correspondence with Yezhov, Yagoda and many other key members of the government. From what was written there they could conclude that Stalin was far from just a bystander who just run secretariat had not input in major events of Soviet life prior to WWII. Far from it, he was the secret puppet muster who directed others how to act, while remaining in shadows himself.

Among other things, they found Yezhov letters where he expressed doubt over the repressions. In his letters to Stalin, Yezhov claimed that a lot of people he and KGB have investigated hardly did anything wrong, so he is not sure what to do with them. Stalin replied to him that he should not falter in revolutionary zeal and that he is pretty certain all these people are guilty and Yezhov should get them all convicted as fast as possible. Turned out it was not Yezhov who was on homicidal power trip, it was Stalin.

These new revelations triggered re-thinking of the role Stalin played in the Soviet governance. Khruschev and other leaders were now thinking how they should address this new reality. Eventually Khruschev decided to reveal the truth in his famous Secret Speech to at least inform the rest of the elites of reality of how Stalin was.

Elites listened silently, it was hard for them to process it as Stalin's public image was far too polished and illustrious. Some refused to believe it. Some might even doubt if that was really true and not something Khruschev made up. Even among the elites there are inner and outer circles. There is select few who a privy of many things and the mostly clueless outer majority. Outer majority was not taking it easier, making other doubt how general public will react.

Public too remained divided. Even nowadays some still refuse to believe it was Stalin's fault, though most of modern neo-Stalinists are actually pro-repression homicidal tankies. Back in the days some summarised it as "guy, they used to love like father, turned into villain overnight." Some of that lingering doubt possibly tarnished Khruschev own image, as public was not willing to trust him completely.

Nonetheless Khruschev and the elites begun de-Stalinisation. Stalin was removed from the mausoleum, where he was embalmed together with Lenin and buried behind it in what later became known as Kremlin necropolis. Stalin statues were torn down and cities named after him were renamed.

Stalin was removed as Lenin's most devout student, but the rest of cult of Lenin remained as it was designed by Stalin. As I already mentioned in previous chapter, Lenin, his thoughts and writings were central in communist orthodoxy. The only alteration Stalin's successors made it removal of Stalin from all the propaganda.

Conclusion

Stalin was a much more nuanced and cunning person that a two-bit full of himself dictator some make him out to be. He was not just another rostrum hitting Khruschev, but with actual death toll. He was rather different. 

Circumstances often pushed him towards acting the way he did. While that does not negate his crimes against humanity as well as those that were committed in USSR during his tenure, it certainly useful to know why and how all that happened.