Slava Ukraini

(Image: pinterest.com)

Yes, I also uttered that watchword once. But before scolding me with swinish fury in your comments, please let me tell you how it happened.

It was my very first trip to Ukraine. I knew nothing about that country except that it was a former SSR, many people spoke Russian and there were beautiful women. Seizing the chance that no visa was required for European citizens, I simply crossed the border from Poland, where I was by then, and landed in Lviv. There I sought accommodation in a youth hostel, packed as they usually are by young people, in this case mostly Ukrainians–plus some other senior travellers like myself–by whom I felt warmly received. Thanks to Couchsurfing (that extremely useful but ill-fated website) I soon got acquainted with a bunch of other equally welcoming Ukrainians eager to meet foreigners (on which to preach their cause, as I later found out). In less than a week, I saw myself in the company of a dozen new enthusiastic acquaintances who were very happy to join me up, engage in conversations and show me around. It didn’t take me long, however, to realize that there was, among these folks–and generally in Lviv–a sort of atmosphere that felt quite familiar to me, since I had previously seen something similar in two other places: Catalonia (a well-known secessionist region in Spain) and Ireland. What I found in common between the three of them was this imprecise yet unmistakable spirit of opposition, of antagonism and ‘insular rebelliousness’ if I may use the term, by virtue of which their people’s attitudes and conversations geared, rather than fruitful constructiveness, to sterile discredit and negation. Their energies, instead of being spent mostly to create or build up something useful and productive, were in a good part wasted in proving their distinctiveness from something else, in stating not what they are, but what they are not: the Irish are not British, the Catalonians are not Spaniards and the Ukranians are not Russians. These societies, who seem to be based not so much in thesis but in antithesis, whose existence depends on opposing others, are apparently lacking in real substance. I can’t help thinking that, should those ‘others’ suddenly disappear, these peoples would find themselves without a reason for being and much of their discourse, stimuli and motivating force would crumble.

And so it turned out that none of the Russian words I had learnt for the occasion were approved by my new Ukrainian acquaintances: instead of privet I had to say zdorov; instead of spasibo it was dyakuyu; pozhaluista was replaced by bud-laska, and so on.

One day this young cabal took me, with some sort of juvenile, merry secrecy, to an underground pub where, in order to be admitted by the doorman, one had to pronounce a codeword. My friends, of course, had already instructed me about it: slava ukraini. Needless to say, I did not have a clue of what it meant — nor could I care less. That password thing sounded to me puerile Freemasonry, and I just wanted to have a nice while. So, I uttered the Open sesame and was, in effect, given free entry to the conspirers’ den, where I did amuse myself among them.

It was only five years later, following the Maidan revolt, when I realized the meaning of the aforementioned slogan and learnt about its context and background. Now everything fitted into place, and I understood my early perception of (West) Ukrainians as a people who, alike the Catalonian (perhaps not so much the Irish), was driven by reject towards another, greater one.

The international rules-based order

The ‘international community’ that subscribes the ‘rules-based’ order. (Image: vk.com)

For the past few months, one expression is being repeated by the leaders, politicians, elites and journalists all over the West: A rules-based international order.

Although the term was coined at the end of the Cold War, it has recently gained enormous momentum after Moscow’s recognition of the Lugansk PR and the Donetsk PR as independent states on February 21st 2022, reaching all corners of the planet and being echoed everywhere, from Juneau to Wellington, throughout the whole US-led Collective West. We can hear the slogan incessantly repeated by the dubiously-legitimate 46th president of the United States of America, ‘Big Mouth’ Joseph Robinette Biden, every time he sees himself in front of a microphone, as well as by that globalist cyborg and White House parrot who is Mrs. Ursula Vonderleyen, president of the European Commission as of today. ‘We must rally around a rules-based international order’, we get ad nauseam coming out of our TV sets’ and electronic devices’ speakers; ‘We are aiming to a rules-based world order’, we read on every media terminal owned by the harbingers of such a concept.

And it certainly sounds good. It could not be otherwise, given these people’s ability Continue reading “The international rules-based order”

Exercises on sociopolitics

(Picture: latest-law-news.blogspot.com)

Today I am going to propose the reader some exercises (which I hope to be amusing) on a sociopolitical situation. I will set forward a fictitious–yet plausible–scenario and then ask some questions. It may be a good way, I believe, to develop and reason our own points of view without getting too ‘distracted’ by our own biases, which we all have. So, here it goes:

————————————-

Once upon a time there was a young independent republic called Katlunya; so young that it was still on the process of settling down and putting itself together. Despite much of its population’s decades-long yearning for secession from Iberka (the empire it had been a part of since the dawn of time), this republic eventually came up leaping at the chance when its fatherland was undergoing times of severe decline, and thanks also to a good deal of support from the Confederacy of Uropia, an alliance of rich countries and Iberka’s economical and political adversary.

However, not all of Katlunya’s citizens were that happy with the new status, Continue reading “Exercises on sociopolitics”

The Green agenda hoax

Being a genuine environmentalist myself since my early teens–that is, four decades before I begun being interested in politics–I don’t think any single human being can lecture me on what loving nature and respecting the planet does mean. Except for my admitted venial sin of wearing for some time an “anti-nuclear” badge (I remember it perfectly: a red, smiling, beaming sun on yellow background, and the reading “¿Nuclear? No, gracias”), which I hope I will be forgiven, since I was only too young and still didn’t know that–though very dangerous–nuclear is one of the cleanest energy sources our civilization has come up with, for the rest of my life I have followed the most nature-friendly habits compatible with a decent quality of life. Besides, given that I studied a good deal of chemistry and thermodynamics at college, and then air physics (meteorology), which was my profession for three lustrums, I believe I have a fairly reasonable idea of both what is more and less polluting, and what heats up, and what does not, the atmosphere so as to cause global warming.

I spontaneously developed this concern for ecology out of my own romanticism, love for nature and fondness of rural lifestyles way before the “green movement” gained the popularity they have today. As a matter of fact, during my youth I was so naïve that, for many years, I nursed the idea of becoming a Jeremiah Johnson revived… Poor me! But that is another story. My point now is: when the Green agenda bursted into our socio-political life, I immediately smelled the hoax and begun despising the so-called environmentalists. Not that I believe this agenda’s main slogan to be false: for purely technical reasons (on which I will not elaborate here), it turns out that global warming is a well-measured and undeniable fact among scientists, plus I am positive that, for the most part, it is man-made. But this fact does not make the Green agenda less of a fraud. Why? Because it does not address the main issue, and because it entails so many contradictions. For the sake of brevity, in this article I’ll only mention three. Continue reading “The Green agenda hoax”

Global agenda and war in Donbass

Klaus Schwab and Volodimir Zelenski. (Photo: flickr.com)

Index

The information channels I usually follow to be updated on the war in Donbass and its political implications agree, among other things, on one idea which I personally find not plausible: the collective West governments’ astonishing stupidity or nearsightedness. Apparently, this idea stems from the disastrous failure of the economical sanctions imposed on Russia, which not only have barely hurt this country but rather contribute to strengthen its currency and -literally- overflow its revenue with the money coming from the ridiculous prices gas and oil have reached thanks to, precisely, those very sanctions; which, besides, turn out to be ruinous -in social and economical terms- for the same countries that have decreed them. In effect, we have already begun to undergo energy and supply shortages (including food), as well as a worsening of our industry and agriculture, with severe inflation the like of which we have not seen in decades and threatens to cause a general standstill of our economy. Upheavals are taking place in several European countries, with harsh social demonstrations and a weakening and downfall of their governments.

To those consequences we must add the increase in defense budgets Euro-NATO countries will have to undertake, the need to accommodate and feed millions of Ukrainian immigrants, plus a worsening of public safety, the cold we are going to endure next winter and, most dangerously, the risk of provoking a world war of unpredictable (or predictable?) consequences. All for what? For siding with, and support, one particular side in a warlike conflict that does not belong to us and takes place in a country which is none of our business. And, worst of all, to no avail, because Ukraine is going to lose all the same. Continue reading “Global agenda and war in Donbass”