the imaginative conservative logo

Polish-Ukranian-Lithuanian BrigadeHardly four months have passed since those who supported the Maidan revolution in Ukraine promised us, and the people of that unfortunate country, a liberal democratic paradise. Instead, as those of us not willfully blind to reality warned, there is now a major land and air war taking place in the heart of Europe, and more people have died in that war than at any time since 1939.

To be precise, hundreds of people now die on a daily basis, both military and civilian. This war could have been avoided, even after the coup d’etat which ousted Ukranian’s former President Viktor Yanukovich, by supporting the idea of self-determination in Ukrain’s administrative regions. Proof of this is to be found in Crimea, which voted for independence and then federation with Russia. During this entire process, two casualties were reported in an incident on a military base. Today, Crimea is at peace. Independent of whether or not someone thinks Crimea should or should not be part of Russia, the undeniable fact is that the people of Crimea are not dying and their homes are not being destroyed, nor their children conscripted into the army to fight their own brothers. No decent and honest human being can deny that when one juxtaposes the present peace in Crimea with the mass warfare taking place in the Donbas, in Luhansk and in Slovyansk, it is obvious that self-determination, even if it meant the peaceful territorial disintegration of Ukraine, was the better policy.

Current events make this policy impossible to pursue, because under conditions of war, no voting (much less calm debate and deliberation) can take place. Only a cessation of fighting can bring about the conditions for functional liberal democracy. Sadly, the policy of the Ukranian government now is not to end the war and allow the people to vote, it is to prosecute the war against the separatist forces until those forces are destroyed, even if it means destroying the cities which are home to the separatists, and thus destroying the lives of the Ukrainian people themselves. Under the present conditions, it is impossible to know with any level of accuracy just how many of the people in the East and South desire political independence. We do know that the recent Presidential elections following the illegal coup d’etat were conducted under conditions of war or the threat of war, and that their results can at best be considered a partial legitimization of the current President (whose powers have been curtailed anyways by the Maidan, which overthrew the former constitution which had given the President broader powers). Under the circumstances, the current government (which is actually still the Maidan government, since the Prime Minister remains the coup appointed Mr. Yatsenyuk) hopes to use the undoubted military advantage of a conventional army against the separatists. Even with minimal Russian support in the form of arms, the separatists stand little chance of winning. Yet, as with any guerrilla war, they also will not “lose.” If peace does not come within the next few months, Ukraine will collapse as a functional civil society and be reduced to absolute poverty and political impotence. Peace can only come if Kiev lets the Donbas go according to its own will, just as Moscow let Kiev go when the Soviet Union broke apart.

The fact of the matter is that Ukraine has lost its historical chance at establishing itself as a relatively peaceful and prosperous nation-state. Even if the government wins the war, it will lose the peace, just as it has done incrementally since 1993, because the tensions within the multi-ethnic state have never been resolved adequately, and the chance to resolve them through economic growth has passed. Ukraine is a failed state. It must be allowed to disintegrate peacefully like Czechoslovakia or risk the horrible and bloody disintegration that was the sad fate of Yugoslavia. Above all, Europe, Russia and the United States cannot “take sides” in an explicitly military sense because this would risk a wider war. A wider war is in no one’s interests. The present war in Ukraine is not a war between democracy and tyranny, but between billionaire oligarchs vying for territorial control, oblivious to the suffering of human beings caught in the crossfire of history.

Polish-Ukranian-Lithuanian BrigadeUnfortunately, what is still a containable, limited civil war could become a wider European war if the Polish government’s insane and treasonous notion of creating a joint Polish-Ukranian-Lithuanian Brigade to take part in the Ukraine Civil War is put into effect. This idea, first floated by a Polish EMP a few years ago, and based on the inclusion of Ukranian soldiers in the Polish military contingent in the Iraq war, has unfortunately not died and attempts are once again under way to execute the idea. The creation of a joint Polish-Ukranian-Lithuanian Brigade would have far-reaching and catastrophic consequences and the fact that the Polish government is considering it invites serious doubts as to the mental sanity of the government, not to mention constituting an act of treason against the Polish nation, which has nothing to do with the Ukranian civil war and has no interest in a wider war against any of the warring factions in Ukraine, let alone against Poland’s third largest trade-partner, Russia.

If a joint Polish-Ukranian-Lithuanian Brigade is established and deployed on Ukrainian soil, then two NATO members will be engaged in direct military conflict on behalf of a non-NATO military entity without the consent of the other NATO members. This would almost surely divide the Alliance and effectively cancel any possibility for concerted NATO policy in the region, leaving Poland abandoned and alone. If all of NATO consents to the establishment and deployment of the Brigade, then Poland (if its government were rational and sane) would insist not on a “Polish-Ukranian-Lithuanian” Brigade, but on a NATO-Ukranian Brigade, where the NATO component would be composed of soldiers from a multiplicity of NATO member states. Ironically, Russia floated the idea of a multinational peacekeeping force long before the hostilities became out of control. Of course, it is doubtful that a NATO-Ukranian Brigade would have any political chance of being created, since none of the Western powers have any interest or ambition in sending troops to the Ukraine. NATO might consent to a Polish-Ukranian-Lithuanian Brigade, but Poland is governed by deluded men if they think that the simple fact that the Brigade will formally be composed of NATO members (Poland and Lithuania) will guarantee the future engagement of Western armies. All of history and elementary logic suggests that the West would wait to see how the situation plays out and enter the stage at a time that is most convenient, and in a manner most conducive to Western interests—which by that time might be peace at the price of not only a territorially reduced Ukraine, but a Poland whose western regions are re-occupied by Germany (call it a “joint NATO German-Polish Defense Brigade”). German military re-occupation of Poland, under the auspices of NATO and the EU would be the obvious logical consequence of any wider Polish-Ukrainian war, because Germany has the economic and military resources, and will quickly rediscover the political will, to do it—all with the support of the United States, Great Britain and France—if it could “secure” Eastern Europe.

This is not my imaginary fantasy scenario. The practical basis of this scenario is visible in the foreign policies of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary, all of whom have explicitly rejected the permanent stationing of foreign soldiers on their soil, even if they are NATO soldiers. Hungary and Slovakia have signed mutually beneficial gas deals with Russia, just as Germany has, and focused on pursuing their own interests, growing their own economies and staying out of the Ukrainian civil war. In any eventual wider war, barring total conventional war or nuclear war, these countries would not find themselves threatened by Germany or by Russia. Germany has no interest in deploying soldiers or re-occupying lands where its economic interest is already well established. Russia has no interest in deploying soldiers or re-occupying lands where its economic interest is already well established. Neither Russia, nor Germany, are under the sway of expansionist revolutionary ideologies which would compel them to engage in irrational imperial adventures.

However, Germany could, in future, like modern Japan in Asia, find itself being asked by the United States to shoulder a heavier military responsibility on the Continent or simply compelled by circumstance to do so. Anglo-American weariness with Continental problems leaves France and Germany as the Continent’s regional powers (France militarily, as a fully autonomous nuclear power, Germany economically and potentially as a conventional military power). Polish foreign Minister Radek Sikorski’s statement that he “fears the lack of German leadership more than German tanks” could come back to haunt Poland. If a Polish-Ukranian-Lithuanian Brigade arises and becomes embroiled in a wider European war, German troops and German tanks will be rolling back into Warsaw to defend Europe’s Eastern flank and provide assistance to the 600 rotating American soldiers President Obama has now stationed in Poland. Supported by an America unwilling to bear the costs of permanent military bases in Poland, Germany will resume the historical duties of Prussia and Austro-Hungary, while Warsaw will find itself reduced to its Cold War status: a formal Polish State with no real sovereignty.

All of the amazing gains made by Poland in 1989: the peaceful withdrawal of all foreign soldiers, the establishment of real sovereignty and the establishment of peaceful relations with both East and West, will be lost. Poland, which managed to establish itself as a free market economy, as an exemplary Christian nation which forgives its former enemies and pursues peace, trade and culture, will be transformed into a German satellite state on the West and will be hated by every one of the hundreds of Ukrainian families whose loved ones died for nothing in a Polish-inspired Maidan and Polish-supported Ukrainian civil war. Poland seems oblivious to the fact that for every Western Ukranian Poland “supports”, it makes an enemy of his brother in the East. This is a road to historical catastrophe.

Given these grim prospects, why is Poland pursuing this course of action? If Polish statesmen are convinced, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Russia is bent on re-building its’ Empire, “first Georgia, then Ukraine, then Poland”, then why are Poland’s smaller and weaker neighbors unconvinced? Why is even Georgia now pursuing rapprochement with Russia after the catastrophe of the Shakasvilli administration which gained Georgians nothing but destruction? Could it be that Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania have less reason to fear Russia? Did these smaller nations not suffer the same Soviet domination that Poland suffered? Why are they not clamoring for “American bases”? Perhaps it is because having experienced occupation armies from East and West running roughshod over their nations, those smaller nations realize that their priority must be to keep all foreign troops off their soil and engage in high levels of economic cooperation with the Great Powers so as to make the prospect of aggressive war by one of them (barring the rise of neo-Napoleonic ideology) simply too costly. Perhaps these smaller nations do not want to squander their historical chance at peace and prosperity on some foolish military adventure in Ukraine, fighting for the 16th richest billionaire on earth against common people who feel disenfranchised, cheated and are now pawns of Russian oligarchs, having effectively lost the last bits of their country’s independence due to the foolish faith in foreign inspired street revolutions? None of these countries, unlike Poland, deludes themselves into believing that Jacobinism’s anti-Russian and anti-Prussian crusades were revolutions in support of prolonged national independence. They recognize that every demagogue yearning for war preaches the liberation of nations on his path of conquest and that sovereignty must be gained through self-reliance and kept through responsible self-government.

All of these points seem so obviously logical and sane that it defies belief that Poland’s rulers are actually pursuing a policy that will put Poland at war with the Ukranian separatists and potentially with a Russia that, in spite of overwhelming domestic public and political pressure to invade and occupy the Donbas—has limited itself to arms supplies for the separatists and is willing to pursue a diplomatic solution to the crisis. So again: why are Poland’s rulers doing this? Are they tired of living? Do they think the economic and cultural wealth the Polish people have generated since 1989 should now be spent and destroyed for one of the most unstable and corrupt governments on Earth; the oligarchy of Ukraine? Is the territorial integrity of Ukraine and the preservation of its oligarchs more important to the Polish government than Polish national security and Polish liberty?

No Polish government has been this short-sighted since the Poles marched into Czechoslovakia in 1938, with Hitler’s forces. As historian Richard M. Watt recounts in his book Bitter Glory: “Amid the general euphoria in Poland—the acquisition of Teschen was a very popular development—no one paid attention to the bitter comment of the Czechoslovak general who handed the region over to the incoming Poles. He predicted that it would not be long before the Poles would themselves be handing Teschen over to the Germans,” adding that “the Polish 1938 ultimatum to Czechoslovakia and its acquisition of Teschen were gross tactical errors. Whatever justice there might have been to the Polish claim upon Teschen, its seizure in 1938 was an enormous mistake in terms of the damage done to Poland’s reputation among the democratic powers of the world.” If Poland succeeds in creating and deploying a Polish-Ukranian-Lithuanian Brigade to Ukraine, it will go down in history as the most catastrophic act to ever befall Poland, more catastrophic than what happened in 1938, because while Hitler and Stalin existed in 1938, they are nowhere to be seen in 2014. Entering the Ukrainian civil war, Poland is not preempting anything, it is only inviting its own demise for the next thousand years as a sovereign nation. Europeans can only pray that the present Polish government, shaken by domestic scandal, collapses before it has the chance to execute this insane policy, or, failing that, the decades old Lithuanian-Polish conflicts over minorities and language make the venture impossible. Otherwise, look for calls for German tanks to follow on the heels of the present calls for German leadership.

Books on the topic of this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore

Print Friendly
"All comments are subject to moderation. We welcome the comments of those who disagree, but not those who are disagreeable."
6 replies to this post
  1. King Jan III Sobieski, leading the greatest cavalry charge in history with his famous Winged Hussars, saved Europe (The Siege of Vienna 1683) in a decisive and spectacular blow against Ottoman forces. Now it‘s fat-kid functionaries, oligarchs and Neocons pulling each other’s hair in a sandbox. Old World Order, anyone?

    • Sometimes I do believe we could use some of the old world order in the new era. At least back then they weren’t blinded by ideology to the extent we are now.

  2. I shall respond here to both the above comments, as well as the facebook comments (I don’t use facebook, thus I will reply here):

    1. Mr. Harris – I did not forget the war in the Balkans; I reference the war in Yugoslavia in the article. I did, however, commit an error of haste; namely I did not enter the phrase “in that region” which would have made the sentence read “more people in that region have died in that war than at any time since 1939”, which would be an accurate and important statement of fact. My apologies for that ommission.

    Secondly, regarding your claim that “it is surprising to find a Polish emigre being so pro-Russian” – it is surprising to me that any Polish citizen, emigre or not, would be in favor of a policy that puts Ukrainian interests before Polish freedom and security.

    Ukraine is responsible for a genocide that it did not even apologize for committed against 200,000 Poles, Ukraine maintains a trade embargo against Polish farm goods, Ukraine exists at the expense of Poland’s historic East, and Ukraine has time and time again failed to fulfill its obligations to both Poland and Russia, sucking both countries and the world into a widening conflict. Any such conflict would destroy Poland. Why Polish people do not see this and act accordingly – I do not know. Russophobia on the part of the political elites which blinds their common sense?

    2. Mr. Sullivan – I will be more than happy to be proven completely wrong in my fears by the miraculous appearance any day now of peace and liberalism in Ukraine thanks to the present Western policy.

    I doubt, however, that the problem in Ukraine is that the West has given that government one too few billion dollars. Rather, I suspect the principle source of the war is the rebirth of Ukrainian Nazism, the Nazi revolution that overthrew a democratic government a few months ago, and the fact that, historically, Ukraine was founded as a Nazi state by Adolf Hitler and his acolyte, Stephen Bandera, who was such a ferocious man that the Gestapo considered him psychopathic. This psychopathy of the Ukrainian Nazis is made evident by the fact that when Hitler came to power, he did not proceed to bomb German cities, nor did he send the German Army to lay siege to German cities. Quite the opposite – he terminated Rhom and the national revolutionaries and embraced a moderate form of fascist statism. If he had proceeded with using the German state to bomb, say, Bavarians, Germany would have found itself in a civil war much like the one Ukraine is in now.

    That the Ukranian government wasted no time in using its’ army and air force against dienfranchized voters testifies to the psychotic nature of the Ukrainian regime and is the third time in recent European history that Europe has fallen prey to Ukranian nationalism (first 1918, then 1943, and now 2014). As to “who is Vladimir Putin” – we have a rich history of several Presidential terms, interrupted by the Presidency of Dmitri Medviediev, to answer that question. Mr. Putin is a known factor. for better or worse. Russia is not engaged in a war against Ukraine, let alone against the United States or the EU now. Believe me – if they were – we would be dealing with several tens of thousands of dead and wounded. The worst thing Mr. Putin has done is conduct a terrible war in Chechnia – but that war is over now and the Chechens were not exactly without blame in that conflict.

    If there is anything we should worry about it is those in Russia who are trying to capitalize on Mr. Putin’s restraint. Mr. Putin is all but reviled by those Russians who see his “failure” to invade and occupy Eastern Ukraine as a “betrayal” of fellow Russian nationals. Mr. Putin wisely seems to have concluded that while a strategic port in Crimea already stationing several thousand Russians under prior agreement was worth some minor risk, entering the Ukranian civil war on the side of the Donbas, even if he could occupy it militarily, would risk a guerrilla war and destabilize Russia. Mr. Putin is not going to go to war in Ukraine unless the Ukranian army attacks Russia or, unless he sees that his power begins to slip away due to internal factors. Assuming none of this happens and the Ukranian war drags on in its’ present confines – the real question is “who is after Putin?” If the answer is Deputy Prime Minister Dimitri Rogozin, who is a staunch advocate of re-intergrating the Donbas with Russia, then we might have a wider war. President Obama is now doing a a great job making Rogozin look like the patriot of Russian politics, while Putin looks increasingly weak in Russian eyes because he refuses to use Russian forces in the Donbas.

    3. Miss Christoff-Kurapovna: We needn’t go all the way back to 1683; the last time that a war of this sort was fought in the region now called “Ukraine” was from 1943-1947. The war ended in 1947 when the Polish military, working together with the Soviet Union, resolved the conflict in the controversial Operation Vistula – a typically Stalinist resettlement method and defeated the last, most vicious remnant of Hitler’s fantasies.

    Unfortunately – that’s what it took to calm Ukraine the last time the UPA acted up. That is a very sad, sobering fact.

    On the other hand, I bet that if you asked a Pole “who is General Karol Swierczewski and how and when did he die?” – nobody would know.

    Nobody realizes that the UPA was fighitng even the AK, not just the LWP after 1945. That’s how bad they were. That’s how fanatic they are.

    The Maidan has awoken this sleeping demon.

    4. This brings us to Mr. Will’s excellent point about the scourge of ideology. We are now suffering from anti-Comunist and anti-Stalinist ideology clouding our judgement. We fail to see that there is no force in Russia, Ukraine or Poland that wishes a restoration of anything resembling the Soviet Union. In fact, the closest approximation to the Soviet Union in the nearest proximity is the European Union, with its’ unelected Comissars (in english, they call themselves “Commisioners”, but in Polish, they are “Komisarze” – the exact word used to describe the Soviet Comissars).

    If we took off our ideological glasses, we would note that just as Hitler was a tolerable presence in Europe from 1933 to 1938, and later became an intolerable presence begining in 1939, so Stalin, who had been an intolerable presence along with the whole Soviet aparatus since 1918, became a necessarily tolerable presence by 1941. Certainly, for Poland, Stalin in 1943 was less of a threat than the Ukrainian UPA.

    Stalin murdered 22,000 Poles in Katyn – yes. But how many Poles did Ukraine murder? At least 200,000. Stalin shot his prisoners in the back of the head. The Ukrainians beat, raped, and burned Poles alive between July 11th and August 1943, just like they burned the people in Odessa alive a few months ago.

    Stalin, initially supportive of a Polish Communist party that had negligable public support in a reborn Poland, seeing since the Nazi efforts on behalf of Francoist Spain that a war with Nazi Germany against Soviet Russia was on the horizon, abandoned support for Polish Communism and concluded the Molotov-Ribentrop pact which removed Poland from the map. But by 1941, Stalin recognized that he required Polish support to conduct the war against Hitler, and so armed the largest Polish army to fight in World War II, which ended up taking the Reichstagg and planting a Polish flag on it.Stalin and this Polish army were common allies against the Ukrainians, who remained not only loyal products of Hitlerism, but were more passionately fascist that Hitler himself.

    Fast forward to the present: The Russian Federation has admitted Soviet crimes and formally apologized. Ukraine still celebrates its’ crimes, and the Ukrainian state is built on those crimes. Why does Poland risk a war with Russia in support of people who claim as their hero a man responsible for genocide against Poland? Russia, though irritated that Poles bitterly detest and deface graves of Soviet soldiers on Polish soil, does nothing to counter this fact – because Russia understands that this resentment is born of Polish distaste for the poverty and repression of Communist times. Russia understands that Poles in 2014, unlike some Poles in 1945, do not see the Soviet Union as a hero who restored Polish statehood, but rather as an oppressor. In fact – and unfortunately – both scenarios are true.

    That’s where the hold of ideology is hardest to break. Poles have a teribble time with Stalin because with Stalin; Poland was terminated- but without Stalin – Poland would not have regained its’ statehood.

    Bad as Yalta was for Poland, at least Stalin agreed to Polish statehood. Guess who did NOT agree to it? Ukraine. Ukraine insisted on continuing the war – the last Pole to die at the hands of Ukrainian Nazis died in 1951.

    Ukraine – despite its enthusiastic and voluntary cooperation with Hitler and the SS occupies the cities that were taken from Poland as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

    Nazi Ukrainians still march in Reichkommisariat uniforms through the Polish city of Lvov and salute their Nazi bretheren. The Ukrainian government does nothing to stop them.

    Why do Poles support a government that lets Nazis march around Lvov? Nazism did not just grow in Germany in the 1930s – Nazism grew up in Ukraine at the same time. Look at the photographs that Father Isakowicz Zalewski presents showing all the Shwatzikas in Ukraine, in their Churches, in their Opera Houses, all of the SS volunteers.

    How can any Polish patriot look at the Ukrainian Nazis, in the year 2013, dressed in full Nazi battle fatigue, honoring SS murders – in Lvov? In the Polish city of Lvov which was never returned to Poland despite Poland being a supposed victor in World War II?

    How can Poles join these people rather than condemn their government and stand with Russia against them?

    The reality of 2014 is that the only European country not to acknowledge its’ wartime attrocities is Ukraine.

    So long as at least the results of democratic elections were honored in Ukraine, there was some hope that over time, the country would normalize – but now it has undergone a Nationalist Revolution and is conducting a war against its’ own citizens.

    Did the people of the Donbas ever resort to arms in the past, when their candidate lost an election? No. And they would not be fighting now if they had not been disenfranchized and if their people were not being massacred in genocidal fashion just like Poles were in 1943.

    I myself of course have considered that it may have been possible to avoid annihilation in war if Poland had joined with Hitler in 1933 or 1936 or even in 1939 – somehow resolved its’ disputes and, like France, preserved itself from destruction. But the Ukrainians were Poland’s enemies since Karl I of Austro-Hungary faced the great political dilemna of what to do with the Galicia in October of 1916.

    “Ukraine” means “on the fringes” or “on the borders” (in Polish “U Krain” literaly menas “at the edge”). In Europe, when someone was a “Ukrainian” – that meant he or she was Russian, German, Polish, Hungarian, Austrian – but there was NO SUCH THING as a “Ukrainian” – Hitler invented that. Hitler financed and supported Bander and Shukhevych – they are Ukraine’s founders and they are responsible for commiting genocide against Poles.

    If you don’t believe me – look at Ludvig Von Mises.

    Did anyone ever call Ludvig Von Mises a “Ukranian”? He was born in Lvov. Lvov is in Ukraine. Do we talk about “Ukrainian economics”?

    No – we talk about “Austrian economics.” Why? Because Mises was an Austrian Jew – that was his nationality; his ethnic and religious background. It didn’t matter that he was born in the Ukraine, because the Ukraine was never a country – just a territory.

    Boris Yeltsin tried to give Ukraine a chance at establishing itself as a new, liberal democratic nation – but if you watch the video “neo-Nazis in Ukraine” and look at the war there, if you consider that now airplanes are blown out of the sky where only last year people lived normal peaceful lives – you will surely conclude Ukraine is a failed state as a direct result of the Maidan.

    Why is Poland pursuing the course of action that it is now pursuing? I don’t know. It makes no sense. It’s madness.

    I have no answer to that question. I do not understand. Watch the video and tell me that these are just “isolated incidents” – and then imagine if someone said that about the Brown shirts in Germany in the 1930s.

    Who is “Hitler” here? Vladimir Putin or maybe they guys waving Swatzikas, giving Hitler salutes, and waving the Red and Black Banners of the Waffen-SS-UPA while they burn people to death?

    I am not “Pro-Russian”. I am anti-Nazi. Why isn’t President Obama and the Democratic party of FDR?

  3. A wise old Ukrainian once told me in Kiev, “we are like our Polish and Hungarian neighbours, except they got communism in 1946 and their old people could remember normalcy. We got it in 1917 so nobody remembers. One extra generation will cost us 100 years.”

  4. The elderly gentleman’s statemet can only get us so far. After all; if true, it would apply equally well to Russia and Belarus; yet neither of those countries are in the midst of civil wars now. In point of fact, 1917 brought not only communism, but a complex Polish-Ukrainian war and violence in the region which lasted through the 20s, 30s and 40s and was only effectively dealt with when Poland and the Soviet Union worked together to settle the matter.

    This assessment is extremely discomforting for liberal democrats because it does not fit into the narrative of ideological anti-communism, but it is accurate history. Recovering our understanding of why Polish-Russian cooperation brought peace to the Ukrainian region in the past is key if we wish to solve the problem today. So long as Poland and Russia remain at odds over Ukraine, rather than working together, so long the conflict will widen. Non-ideological conservatism would not reject learning from the peaceful resolution of the Ukrainian question that Polish-Russian cooperation brought in the past only because it was a communist success; unless of course someone prefers the current bloodshed – which is a situation exactly the same as the horrible wars of 1917-1947.

    In fact, the last time a “Polish-Ukrainian army” was formed – it only led to more division amongst the Ukrainians and more victories for the Bolsheviks – all of the suffering of those times (the 20s) was for nothing – since in the end Poland and Russia had to stand side by side to end the problem.

    I realize that a different course of action was undertaken – a liberal democratic one aimed not only at mere peace but also democratic self-government – but since it has clearly failed; perhaps it is time to reconsider the virtues of Russian-Polish alliance that led to peace in Ukraine from 1947 until 2014.

    This is not a happy conclusion. Sometimes, however, Imaginative Conservatism – when it fails – must take refuge in Tragic Conservatism – and Tragic Conservatism has a deep political history within the Soviet past.

  5. Unfortunately what is happening in the Ukraine happened in the Sudatenland with the inevitable consequences. What we see in the Ukraine is a preview of what will occur in Europe and the USA. When Latinos demand a hispanic nation what will the response be? When the Muslims in Europe declare sharia what will the oligrachs say?

    No matter what, this will not end well.

Leave a Reply