Mariupol, the Stalingrad of Orthodox Atlanticism
Following the fall of the Reichskanzlei in 1945, western elites embarked on a process of ideological colonisation by, ironically, their former colonial dependencies. The rhetoric of Woodrow Wilson contaminated the post-War elites with its exceptionalist liberal democracy melting pot narrative. Normatively, the two sides of the Iron Curtain diverged quickly: the USSR did not demobilise its WWII army, it did not allow democratic elections in its conquered territories and rejected Marshall Plan aid. This stood in stark contrast, not to the USA but to the decisions of western European elites. Led by the atoning Germans, the european elites came to associate nationalism to fascism, and thanks largely to their international cosmopolitan status, became believers in an ‘american model’ for Europe and, eventually, the world. The EEC would be a halfway house to European unity – the US of Europe – which in turn would be a stepping stone to continental demo-liberal integration – African Union, ASEAN, etc – ultimately resulting in empowering the UN to rule the globe.
In successive waves of accession, the Brussels bubble never realised the cultural and national forces which were incompatible with its ideological uniformity delusions. BENELUX merged with the Dunkirk Treaty and proceeded to adopt the PIIGS without comprehending that their catholic/adriatic mentality was not compatible with the political and financial governance standards of the north. Next, Brussels turned to the Velvet vector without understanding that their stance against dictatorship stemmed from a national conservative instinct and not from an individualist liberal mindset. While losing political capital to Visegrad’s nationalist and traditionalist policies and haemorrhaging money to both the south and east, Brussels still partnered with Washington DC, in order to evangelise the post-soviet space. Progressive atlanticism was advanced by NATO expansion, EU association agreements and normative subversion undergirded with massive funding, put to proper use by local Soros and CIA nomenklatura – formalized under the auspices of NATO’s Partnership for Peace and the EU’s Neighbourhood Policy.
Moscow was caught off guard in 2003 by the Rose Revolution in Georgia and then again by the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine which quickly began allying with revolutionary Georgia. In 2005 it was the turn of Kyrgyzstan with the Tulip Revolution which while displacing the ruling dynasty of the republic, did not succeed in extirpating Russian influence. In all these episodes, Moscow was surprised by political developments which disregarded Russia’s natural interdependencies with the respective former possessions. In 2008, Georgia, led by its Eurasian internationalist president Mikhail Saakashvili, started a war with Russia by invading South Ossetia. The frozen conflict was reheated and, fumbling with an obsolete army of conscripts, Moscow eventually managed to re-establish the status quo ante, not without having come close to being denied use of its military facilities in Ukrainian Crimea – Tbilisi was not overthrown by Moscow but Saakashvili was eventually removed by the Georgian establishment itself which also returned Georgia to its traditional neutral status. Shocked by what was happening, the Putin government moved to begin fighting fire with fire, and picking players in Ukraine to counter-balance western universalist subversion. By 2010, Moscow had succeeded in legitimately seeing its own Ukrainian candidate freely elected into the presidency but subsequently to Yanukovych’s rejection of the EU’s association agreement, the atlanticist intelligentsia of Kiev decided to force him out without caring about the consequences. The Russian Federation gave up playing the fixed political game and annexed Crimea as well as loaning support for the pro-Russian rebels in the Donbass region of Ukraine. In 2020, Russia abstained from having its influence much felt when Azerbaijan attacked Armenia in Karabakh. This served both as a punishment for Armenia pursuing a semi-atlanticist path with its new government and as a favour to Erdogan’s Turkey, thus further putting the Turkish leader in Russia’s debt – after Russia’s helpful hand in aiding Reçep Erdogan avoid a coup in 2016. Following its Turkish precedent, the Russian government helped Lukashenko stave off a colour revolution in Belarus in 2020 by providing the Byelorussian president with sensitive intelligence. The Kremlin mobilised the CSTO to preempt yet another in Kazakhstan in 2021.
Why should they be classified as ‘colour revolutions’? Because they were ostensibly financed and politically controlled from abroad by atlanticist forces. It is questionable that they occurred organically but certain they were managed politically throughout the events.
In 2022, Moscow went on the offensive thereby inaugurating the conservative counter-revolution of the 2020s. Ukraine and its army of a quarter million men, spearheaded by Galician neonazis and marketed by Ruthenian-Carpathian-Kiev eurofederalists was indeed being built up to intervene in a future conflict, possibly within Russia, in order to tip the scales in favour of atlanticism, thus furthering Russia’s disintegration.
Russia is regarded by the universalists as the single greatest obstacle to their world unity dreams, precisely due to its stubborn defence of sovereignty, and success with conservative policies. Even Beijing is not as feared since China’s energy supplies can be cut and its activities in Africa and Latin America are vulnerable to Western military threats, as well.
In Mariupol too much is at stake. It was the bastion of Kiev’s shock troops in the Donbass, it was the base of the extremists’ torture and intimidation programmes – as Mariupol was not only Russophone and Russophile but it was actually ethnically Russian – and it still stands as a symbol of Ukrainian resistance; exploited by Kiev’s giant propaganda machine to deceive Western audiences into believing that aiding the war effort is not only moral but also not a lost cause.
The fall of Mariupol will also mean the liberation of Russian and Donetsk forces to participate in the further encirclements of Ukrainian regiments in the east, accelerating the collapse of the Ukrainian army and, in turn, allowing the rapid advance of Russian forces to the Dnieper and to Odessa – hence landlocking the Banderite regime in Kiev.
The destruction of the neonazi batallions could remove the political leverage the far-right holds over president Zelensky and drive him to sue for peace with Moscow but the euro-federalists still hold much sway in the capital and could prevent Zelensky from negotiating. If part of the Ukrainian bureaucracy and military decides to revolt against the madness, an internal putsch could be in the offing, especially since Putin hinted to such a move in his war declaration speech.
More significantly, the more tardive the capitulation, the greater the risk to Ukrainian territorial integrity since Galicia and the Trans-Carpathians may very well decide they cannot live in a Russian influenced polity, under the leadership of Putin’s niece’s parents and the dynasty of the Gas Princess. Indeed, Ukraine succumbed to extremist totalitarians and militant utopians precisely because its nationhood is so artificial – much resembling the German and Italian fascists whose states were relatively recent fabrications, in the 1920s/30s.
In remains to be seen whether Ukrainian liberals will one day come to regret their romance with the post-soviet fascists, if they are forced to share a polity with them which no longer merits much funding or media attention from Brussels. This was the case of the el Baradei progressives in Egypt when they realised their affair with the Muslim Brotherhood was actually worse than secular military dictatorship.
Such tends to be the bitter aftertaste of indulging in dystopian self-delusion; an ailment only stoic pragmatism can cure.
Bending Over Backwards the Polish Way
None more than the Polish conservatives, has become utterly hypocritical and contradictory over the Ukraine crisis.
We have, thus far, abstained from devoting much attention to Polish foreign policy as it has so far been logical and predictable. Yet, the 2020s have brought some heavy schizophrenia to polish external relations, in particular when articulated by the current polish conservative government.
Warsaw was treated with particular care by Moscow during the Iron Curtain times, as suppressing a rebellion in Poland would have been incommensurately more politically costly than the lightning Red Army operations in Prague and Budapest.
Thusly, while not as independent and free as Yugoslavia, communist Poland was still awarded a ‘special relationship’ with the USSR and a slightly higher modicum of tolerance comparatively to other soviet satellites.
However ‘mild’ the treatment of Poland might have been, the Katyn massacre, the annexation of polish territory, the economic impoverishment and the totalitarian oppression, left Warsaw with a justifiable paranoia regarding Russia. Add to this the polish experience with successive partitions at the hands of the Tsars.
Consequently, that the poles would be interested in integrating any and all alliances which could assist Poland in the event of a conflict with Russia, is perfectly rational policy. So rational that even Russia understands it. President Putin has made it a point to recognise soviet atrocities against Poland and even sought to make the most of the Katyn Remembrance Day, by paying homage and offering to deepen relations with the old nation.
Nevertheless, while Russia has been apologetic and even facilitated Polish deployments to Afghanistan, Poland has proceeded to undermine Russian interests at every turn. Moscow has awarded Warsaw a certain leeway but with Ukraine and Belarus, the patience ran out. The Russians have also abstained from grandstanding and antagonizing the poles over polish intervention in Iraq or their reneging their commitments in Ukraine – the Yanukovych-opposition deal as well as the Minsk Accords.
Were these the only factors to take into account, one might be critical of the poles for their insolence but the context, in particular for Poland’s conservatives, is far more disorienting.
Ever since entering NATO, Poland has had to send troops to a panoply of theatres which bear zero relevance to its national interests. If one can understand polish deployments to the Baltic, the presence of polish troops in controversial interventions south of the Mediterranean, is utterly bewildering. Far from begrudging these deployments, Poland has gone into them with enthusiasm, aiming to prove its value to its new allies.
Additionally, Poland has eagerly facilitated the West’s ideological subversion of eastern Europe, by partnering with the universalist efforts to convert Europe’s traditionalists into the new dogmatic faith of progressivism. Taken to extremes, these efforts result in ‘colour revolutions’ which contribute only to aggressively expel Russian influence in the continent.
Worse still, the progressivism which the poles facilitate is very much antithetical to conservative values, by financing NGOs and media which promote cultural Marxism, anti-national sentiment as well as racist and anti-religious policies.
These policies have contributed only to increase tensions with Russia which Poland should rationally try and avoid.
With the EU, while Poland has greatly profited commercially, it has had to endure successive betrayals and humiliations. Brussels has only further expanded its powers in non-democratic ways, including by making use of biased courts to ensure that ‘European integration’ is unidirectional. Polish conservatives have protested but not only have their objections fallen in deaf ears, Warsaw has been systematically embarrassed, co-opted, and subverted by the eurocrats. The discrimination which Poland suffers along with countries such as Hungary should be unacceptable to a nation zealous of sovereignty and national pride but yet again, the poles have swallowed it whole.
This attitude reaches an apogee of cognitive dissonance with the 2014-2022 Ukraine crisis where Poland has supported and helped a Ukrainian state whose soviet borders include parts of historical Poland and whose regime is heavily influenced by nazi worshipping factions inspired by hitlerian collaborators who massacred poles, in the first half of the XX century.
As stated, even the Russians understand Poland’s paranoia but aligning with everything the polish conservatives hate, against the polish national interests, in order to incite passions to the brink of nuclear tensions, can no longer be perceived as a rational policy. Poland has gone too far. At a certain point, moderate conservatives should acknowledge that Russia is no longer the greatest natural threat to Poland. Much to the contrary, Russia does not seek to overthrow governments nor does it promote regime change. That is very much the almost exclusive priority of Warsaw’s newfound allies, to the west.
For how long will Poland’s conservatives sacrifice all their standards, values and interests in order to obsessively attack Russia? Must Russia be the only concern of polish foreign policy – one before which all others shall be martyred? Especially a Russia which is largely attacked by the same institutions and totalitarian ideologies and for the same reasons, of those that aggress Poland…
The Potemkin West and Strategic Cacophony
Browsing through the current offer of entertainment drama, one notices a certain pattern of late: the fraud genre. From the story of Elizabeth Holmes in ‘The Dropout’, to Anna Delvey’s ‘Inventing Anna’ and the ‘Tinder Swindler’, the most interesting stories are of those who tried to fake it till they made it …only to all end in disaster.
This is not a coincidence, this is a wider tendency.
When the Great Recession of the 2010s hit, one of the realisations was that the financial world had changed dramatically during the 1980s. The enthusiasm of deregulation had led to promiscuity between the commercial and investment sectors of banking. Perhaps most importantly – as The Big Short so well illustrates – not only had the banks become irresponsible, the regulators and auditors had as well. The rating agencies and the auditing consultancies had ceded to the temptation of short term gain.
In part this was due to the monopolistic ‘too big to fail’ structure of the market but there was also the human element. In an era when Ivy League universities privilege political correctness, the quality and the critical thinking abilities of the respective graduates is questionable at best. More importantly, the West had drunk too much of its own democracy Kool-aid. In mixing 80s capitalism triumphalism with counter-culture, the path was open to an extreme atomisation of society.
The millennial generation was born to a world without ethics: there is no more sense of honour towards societal norms, towards the state, towards the profession, towards religious community, towards family, nor, as the divorce and marriage rates indicate, there is no loyalty even to the significant other. Deontology is extinct.
Whereas, in the 1980s, many of the banks were not yet consolidated and some were still owned by old Atlantic coast clans, Jordan Belfort style institutionally vampiric conducts, could still be checked by the dynastic sense of institutional honour. The name of an institution still reflected its reliability. But arrived at the 21st century, all the collectivistic dependencies of the individual are gone and we reside in the ethical wild west.
This too is reflected on the international institutions which are unduly revered as if they were still the moral arbiters of the days of old. The modern cosmopolitan bureaucrats of the alphabet soup are born of nowhere cities (The Hague, Geneva, NYC, Brussels, Vienna) and embody loyalty to no one but themselves. Often emanating from the nowhere dynasties, they possess multiple nationalities and their children will go on to perpetuate the family’s original sin. The only purpose of the EU, the UN or NATO is to perpetuate themselves, not to serve the national interest of the states who fund them. It is this logic which leads to the gratuitous antagonization of states such as Russia or Hungary, when they don’t play ball.
The same phenomenon has begun to infect national technocracies as well, with the US federal government outright being seditious and subversive towards Donald Trump during his tenure.
This atomisation and institutional extraversion can also explain the current Ukraine crisis in which the West seems to be completely adrift.
Brandon and BoJo are both …’out of it’. Both elected on reactive platforms without any coherent strategic overview of how to steer the ship of government, both have utterly failed at managing the great challenges they have faced in Brexit and the pandemic. Not being genuine articles, they owe too much to special interests and know too little to argue with the technocrats when they skew policy-making in the direction of institutional inertia. Bojo did not believe he could accomplish Brexit without negotiating and Biden’s senility has resulted in there being no arbiter to contradicting lobbies in his administration, leading to a schizophrenic system where all agencies and factions get their way and all ends in a chaotic cacophony: defund the police but don’t, exit Afghanistan but double down on NATO, spend trillions domestically but endanger the petrodollar as a reserve currency externally, incite Ukrainians to resist to the end but cancel any actual military aid.
When the Pentagon directly contradicts the State Department in the same week, things are not well.
This is not simply the lack of a strategic vision, this is the complete lack of deontological bearing. Trump or Reagan might not have been strategic geniuses but they had an ethos which they followed and occasional adequate instincts. The current pretence Ivy Leaguers in charge, have nothing.
The one aspect of western policy making which seems to have worked in the present crisis, was the propaganda. After decades of self-involved social media marketing, all the alphabet virtue signallers are exceedingly efficient at ginning up a moral panic. However, as with the Netflix fraudsters du jour, western policy makers too will inevitably meet an inglorious end when their escape forward doctrine smashes head first into hardcore cold blooded reality. ‘Empire of Lies’ indeed.
The Westphalian Post 