A World Without Soros and Ukraine

Modern Western civilisation entered into a systemic crisis about 20 years ago. Back then it was not too late to carry out reforms that would make it possible to make the transition to a “beautiful new world” in a sparing way.

But in those blessed times you were not even argued with about the possibility that the Western political economic model will collapse – people simply looked at you with pity as if you were a child who did not understand the obvious thing: the sun of the West would shine forever. Ten years ago the crisis was in full swing, the reforms were shamelessly late, and there was no easy way out. The majority of experts were already willingly debating about the crisis of the West. Practically all of them claimed that we were dealing with serious but transient perturbations, and the political, economic, and financial structures of the West were reliable enough to survive this crisis and to emerge from it renewed, like the phoenix from the ashes. In the past two or three years not many people have tried to deny the existence of a systemic crisis of the Western model. There are still enough optimists who believe that the West will survive this crisis, but there are more and more sober voices that indicate that the collapse of the West is not a matter of principle, but of time (it has already taken place, there is just need to admit it).

The West misses its latest, not really obvious opportunity to rescue itself by sabotaging Trump’s reforms. They were 15 years late. It is not a fact that they will allow the US to gently land and rid the world of the worst economic catastrophe in its whole history. But Trump’s reforms are at least some chance for this. Like an experimental medicine that is offered to a patient with the last stage of cancer – if it will not help, at least it will not be worse (anyway they are doomed to die), but who knows maybe it will save them. Nevertheless, American left-liberal globalists, who have transformed the Democratic Party into their political machinery and are trying to establish a dictatorship of totalitarian tolerance in the United States, are prepared to commit any crimes in order to keep power in their hands. Twice in the past three years they have put the United States on the brink of civil war and are now briskly marching towards that brink for the third time.

Thus, the systemic crisis of the global political economic model created by the United States has caused (as an integral part of it) the most acute domestic political crisis in the United States. In turn, the American domestic political crisis has started to have a devastating impact on global politics. The US is losing its ability to serve as a global gendarmerie faster than anyone else will be able to replace them. Russia and China assume responsibility for selected strategic regions (Southeast Asia, Middle East). But at the same time, they are still not able to replace the United States worldwide. Meanwhile, the systemic crisis confidently generates newer and newer local crises that have no one to extinguish them.

READ:  The Crisis in the US Is a Catalyst for Events in Ukraine

In such cases in politics, like in business, there is a focus on saving strategic assets (via which it will be possible to quickly restore global order), while secondary (garbage) assets are simply dumped. If before there was a readiness to pick them up (for storage, as it was in good times when shares of loss-making companies were bought due to artificial high capitalisation), now everyone seek to give up garbage political assets..

This, by the way, was noticed and voiced in time by George Soros – ideologist and one of the creators of the dying system, which is heading into the past along with it. He is already very old and will soon cease to please us with his assessments of reality (by the way, they are very accurate, because of which he is doubly dangerous as an enemy).

But there’s a thing Soros didn’t speak about. I’m afraid he doesn’t even know about one nuance that distinguishes politics from business, because he is, first of all, a businessman. If in business a garbage asset cannot influence its fate in any way, in politics in the vast majority of cases it depends only on the specific leaders of the specific state whether they will be considered as a garbage asset or will be very popular. Here’s a simple example. In 2013 Ukraine was a used but still quite attractive partner. Russia was prepared to invest $15 billion in saving it with loans and 15 billion of investments in joint projects (in the area of the military-industrial complex and infrastructure). In the same year, Syria was already buried, with virtually no one believing Assad would hold on, arguing only whether he would survive or repeat Gaddafi’s fate.

6 years have passed, and everything turned 180 degrees. Syria is now an influential player in the Middle East region, while even Ukraine’s former allies shy away from it like from a pesthouse. Of course, Assad received Russian support, but let me remind you that Ukraine was allocated the same support a year and a half earlier, simply Yanukovych and his company were unable to take advantage of it, betraying each other and handing over the country to the Nazis, when Maidan had already failed (or lost) and its leaders were preparing to flee or go to prison.

But the Nazi-oligarchic regime that replaced Yanukovych (firstly Poroshenko’s one and now Kolomoisky‘s one) initially relied on the strong support of the West, which tried to play the Ukrainian card in its confrontation with Russia. This support started to weaken only in the spring of 2016, and finally went down by the beginning of 2017. But even back then, in the event of carrying out sound policies, that support could, at least partially, be returned.

The West had some illusions even after the election of President Zelensky. Probably, they did not want to recognise the complete crushing failure of their policy in the Ukrainian direction. After all, in principle, European and American politicians are not stupid people, the main thing is that they are experienced. They know full well that oligarchs rarely become presidents themselves (Gerald Ford and Donald Trump are exceptions rather than rule). But the oligarchs are hiring literate, experienced, capable people to fulfil the duties assigned to them by presidents, ministers, and deputies. The election of a meaningless doll as the president shows that the oligarchs intend to quickly finish the country and hold accountable someone who will have to “turn off the light in Borispol”.

READ:  "My Son Is a Traitor, the Country Must Punish Him"

For this purpose, a president who does not understand what he is doing and does not realise the measure of his responsibility is absolutely unable (even if he has such a desire) to intercept the levers of governance and lead on his own. But a Ukrainian oligarchy not only elected such a president, but it also appointed the same Cabinet of Ministers and brought the same majority into the Rada.

It is said that it is easier to govern the fools. No, it’s the smart ones who are easy to manage, you can reach an agreement with them, but fools are unpredictable. At the same time fools are not less, but more conflictual than their smart and experienced colleagues. They do not understand the danger of conflict among the ruling group. In fact, now we see, how one after another conflicts in the midst of the “Servants of the People” [Zelensky’s party – ed] and the “sub-assistants” unsuccessfully trying to join them (like Portnov‘s “disappointed” group) are being inflamed. The massive rise to power of such helpless “new faces” was supposed to show the West that the country was doomed. When there is attempt to bankrupt a company, there are also the old experienced administrators often cede the places of senior managers to “young talents” (who often bear responsibility for what happened).

I repeat, the West did not immediately believe that Ukraine was doomed to be sacrificed by its own masters. For some time it waited for Zelensky and his team to carry out meaningful actions. There were two indicators: implementation of the Minsk Agreements and the achievement of an agreement with Russia on gas transit. The logic of the West was simple: if the Minsk Agreements start to be implemented, there will be peace and Ukraine no longer has to scream that Russia has attacked it, and therefore there is no reason to refuse direct gas purchases, as well as to arrange dancing with transit.

It is clear that in all this story Europe (in particular Germany) was more concerned with the rhythmic supply of the necessary volumes of Russian gas. It is cheaper than any others entering the European market, and therefore increases the competitiveness of the European economy. In a deepening systemic crisis, this is very important. The implementation of the Minsk Agreements was of interest to the EU firstly, as an indicator that gas agreements would also be reached, and also as a reason to begin lifting sanctions that damaged the European economy by tens of billions of dollars (such losses during a crisis should also be avoided).

I.e., Ukraine’s movement towards the implementation of Minsk was seen in the West as a measure of the adequacy of the new government, because it is more than easy to implement these agreements having full control over all branches of government.

But the behaviour of the Ukrainian delegation in the contact group, the constant statements of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Zelensky, in which each subsequent one refuted the previous one, the need for German President Steinmeier to personally assure Zelensky that the “Steinmeier formula” was invented by him (Steinmeier), and not Putin, quickly showed European politicians that they could not expect adequacy from the Ukrainian government. Kiev was clearly not going to take a single step to get out of the quagmire that it had wondered into itself.

READ:  “I Survived & Told the Truth, Now I Am an Enemy for Ukraine”: How the Fate of the “Madonna of Mariupol” Turned Out

In turn, Trump found that Kiev was not going to help him expose Democrat corruption fraud in Ukraine. Zelensky himself can’t do anything and he can, at best, be used as a mule. Kolomoisky is waiting for the opportunity to negotiate, while criminal cases against him in the United States are being investigated, he will surely lose his trials in America and Britain, his property is being arrested, and he himself becomes banned from travelling outside Ukraine. It is necessary not to bargain, but to agree to any terms, but he (Kolomoisky) does not want to miss even the smallest penny and for its sake risks everything. So far neither Zelensky nor Kolomoisky are ready to cooperate with Trump, the rest of Ukrainian politicians act haphazardly, because in their majority they are the brats of the Democrats and Soros, and that’s why they are playing against Trump.

And finally, Gazprom is a company concerning which it was said not so long ago: “What is good for Gazprom is good for Russia”. His Ukraine pesters it with stupid claims for tens of billions of dollars. He will never receive this money, but will drink a lot of blood, and will also cause losses (by halting projects and court costs, which in such disputes amount to millions, if not tens of millions of dollars).

In general, the “garbage asset” decided to remain a “garbage asset” and even fought for it resolutely. In six years Ukraine, having started from the stage when everyone was ready to cooperate with it and even invest in it, quickly passed through the stage of indifference and cheerfully dived into the stage where it is not just unneeded by anyone, but everyone is uncomfortable with it. The idea “it would be better if it didn’t exist” is so frankly read on the faces of Western leaders that already Ukrainian experts (with a quite a Maidan biography and pro-European views) and started to speak about the end of the “project Ukraine”, and not in the distant future, but already now.

The danger for Kiev from outside is not that anyone will attack or destroy Ukraine. It is simply being definitively stopped from being saved from itself, and no one has ever done better with the destruction of the Ukrainian state than the Ukrainian patriots. In the conditions of crisis it’s not a time for charity, nobody will forcefully treat a patient who regularly tries to bite a doctor. In this sense, Ukraine has perhaps indeed achieved the greatest diplomatic victory – the consensus on its uselessness, harmfulness, and even dangerousness towards others has united all the leading global players.

Rostislav Ishchenko

Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.