Most of us most likely share the common belief that the pro-Ukrainian policy conducted for respective years in the execution of (almost) the full political class, and surely the COPIS, deserves, in the most favorable variant, the word "romantic".
By engaging unconditionally our forces and resources free of charge we supply the Kiev authorities with weapons, fuel and, supposedly, electricity (that's why it is so expensive?), we lose the outlets and low-cost suppliers in the name of (as if) the noble thought of the right to independency from Russia of our east neighbours (dependence from another states is “independence”). At the same time, we invest our money in a political squad owned by a erstwhile (?) comedian who loses interior support and, above all, may lose power erstwhile so decided by “world leadership”.
The support of these people is connected with the forgiveness of the genocide of the citizens of the Second Republic of Poland committed by Ukrainians: political idols of the governing crew in Kiev present are liable not only for killing hundreds of thousands of "ethnic Poles", but besides for physical demolition of many times the larger population of our citizens, who were then and present called Jews. The IPN will most likely not prosecute these crimes – despite its statutory obligation, due to the fact that they are not "communist sacrifices". The highest representatives of our country advise the descendants of the victims of Ukrainian murders in the east Galicia of 1941-1944 "weigh words" due to the fact that it can "slow the enthusiasm of the fighting Ukraine" on its way to self-destruction.
But is this just romanticism filled with good-hearted naivety? 1 can argue the opposite: these are only appearances, due to the fact that unconditional support for the most corrupt state of Europe and groups of oligarchs ruling there notabene who make good money from this war, is not the consequence of political childhood. On the contrary, politics is an example of professional activity in the most "western" edition. After all, the West must destruct any distant country all erstwhile in a while in order to repair its own way and, in a crucial part, its long-term unprofitable economy by:
* the influx of free capital that they flee (of course to the West) from a failing state,
* the acquisition of assets that have been sold in kind, since the depreciation of the value of his assets allows him to buy out for nothing what was previously unavailable or expensive,
* the acceptance of mass emigration of impoverished but inactive willing to work people who "flee from war and poverty" and fall into the embrace of the West will tyre at its marketplace successes.
This script was implemented in relation to Russia (1917-1922), Poland and another "demolus" (1989 to at least 2000), and late to Iraq, Libya or Syria. It should be added that the last of these benefits has been the most crucial for respective decades. The West has been in the alleged 3rd phase of improvement for decades. Let me remind you that, for centuries, in this part of the world, the same evolutionary patterns have been repeated, which consist of 3 phases:
* the first phase (success), i.e. the accomplishment of political conquest or military economical advantage by a state that enriches not only its elite, but besides increases the standard of surviving of an crucial part, if not the majority of the population of that country; then, due to the good coincidence or real skills of its rulers, the sustainability of this enrichment is ensured,
* Phase 2 (replomination): gaining higher than the remainder of the civilization and cultural level financed by accumulations of surpluses created in that country, as confirmed by the “superiority” of his nation or the government in question (depends on what anyone believes),
* Phase 3 (dying): the stableness and prosperity of respective generations surviving in that country gives emergence to comfort and moral amazement, household crisis and extremist decline in fertility, followed by demographic collapse and general deficiency of willingness to work.
In the past, countries in the 3rd phase were more or little forced to bring abroad people (including as slaves) into power in the belief that sooner or later they would assimilate these visitors, due to the fact that the only proposition for them in this planet was to "turn to the winners". The West has been draining erstwhile "demoludes" over the last almost 30 years from which not only liquid capital has been squeezed out, but all another assets of any value, as well as people (probably Old Europe "cuddled" almost 10 million immigrants from east Europe. However, it had to be on an even larger scale to support the influx of labour from erstwhile colonies, and these immigrants can no longer assimilate.
That is why this war is needed, due to the fact that Ukraine has already given up a evidence number of people (more than 10 million), or possibly even more. If this country had led this war on its own account, it had long exhausted its military strength and capabilities: it would so gotta make a compromise to defend their resources. Maintaining his military forces from external resources will lead to an even deeper degradation and depopulation, and this war can “split” into the surrounding states, which will increase the migration effect, and that is the case.
For any time, our political class was filled with the thought that we besides would be beneficiaries of this fall and would be enriched with inexpensive labour and at least part of the sold out assets of the fallen state. This has partially happened, but there are many more willing to take over these goods and they are stronger and richer than us, and most of all they require of us an absolute submission: in return they will commend us "in an global forum", and our leaders will tenderly pat on the back and promise any positions "in European and Atlantic structures". However, the previously underestimated circumstances must be seen: the Ukrainian black people are already in the hands of Western oligarchs and they want that their products were bought by Poles based on “solidarity with independent Ukraine”, which “fights for us”: so we must be ready for large sacrifices and we cannot follow “the selfish interests of Polish farmers”.
So will the final balance of our makiawelist policy be affirmative for us? The most careful estimates of our “non-failure losses” in this war are over PLN 200 billion. These losses may, though partly, compensate for the economical and demographic collapse of Ukraine: if this country, which utilized to be 55 million people, were ruled only at an average level, it would have long dominated the full of Central Europe economically, and so it will proceed for a long time due to the fact that – as the “world leadership” promises us – this war will last long until Donald Trump's election victory.
Witold Modzelewski
