A foray into Putin's mind

In his war declaration, Putin told the world that he is going on a mission to denazify Ukrain, a country with a Jewish president, who speaks Russian.

How is Ukraine Nazi? What does he mean? What does he think?

In the following, I will put myself in Putin's shoes. I do not agree with the opinions and ideas below, but, I believe, Putin does.

Putin's world is skit between Putin's Russian East and the Nazi West. Nazi, in his mind, is a way of saying "not Putin's", i.e., the other side, the opposition. The Nazi West is dominated by Nazi Germany, which never stopped being Nazi, in the same way Russia never stopped being Soviet and Putin's office still smells of Stalin.

Germany has started two world wars and lost both. Upon losing the first, the country was allowed to recover and be, again, the strongest on the European continent. Soon after, it started the second World War.

Upon losing the Second World War, plans were put in place to destroy Germany. The purpose, as the Soviets saw it, was the prevent Germany from dominating Europe again and starting another war. The Morgenthau Plan, which was never fully implemented, has the purpose to destroy the German war machine and make sure these people disperse across the world, engage in subsidence agriculture and never raise again.

In order to prevent it from building weapons, Germany was not supposed to develop industry of any kind. This would make sure it cannot produce weapons in case of war.

The world, however, is very different today.

German industry is the engine of Europe.

Germany is one of the largest exporters of arms worldwide.

The same work ethic that led to the success of the Nazis is now powering a modern western state. It's used wise political decisions and Frauen Power to position itself at the center of the European Union, and, after Brexit, remained the unmatched in economic and financial power in the EU. It's Deutschland Über Alles, Putin may say.

After all, if Hitler would have stayed in power, the German economic machine would probably make Europe something like what it is now. United under one flag, Putin may say. And, unlike under the Soviet flag, in "the Nazi" camp, the economy works.

Russia tried hard. It deported Volga Germans to Kazakhstan and Putin's KGB friends recruited many in Putin's Dresden for sunny Siberian holidays. Those Gulags brought Nazi labour and technique to Putin's Russia, but, it didn't stick.

Now, "the Nazi" the West keeps expanding further East. One by one, former Soviet republics came under the flags of EU and NATO: Romanians, Hungarians, East Germans, the Baltic states, and the Slavs -- Poles, Yugoslavs, Bulgarians, Czechs -- all have left Putin's Russia for Nazi Europe.

Ukraine has been the beating heart of the Soviet Union. Ukraine is the better half of Russia. Ukrainian and Russian share the same alphabet and are similar languages. Furthermore, virtually all Ukrainians, and, for sure, all those who matter speak Russian. Ukraine inherited Soviet nuclear power plants and bombs, one being the infamous Cernobil.

It wisely choose to destroy the bombs, in exchange for a guarantee from NATO and the International community for territorial integrity. As it is after the case, some politicians lied. I wonder what the future holds, if that group includes the Ukrainians.

Now, Ukraine has a democratically elected president. The Servant of the People is not a servant of Putin anymore. Ukraine is trying to joint the capitalist Nazi West and, while culturally, the people are virtually the same as father East, politically, even the Russians in Ukraine are free.

Demilitarize and Denazify very likely means bringing Ukraine back into Soviet Times, back under Putin's command.

But ... Putin is losing the war. He expected his planes to be met by peasants fighting with sticks or scared enough to give him flowers. Instead, he encounters the Nazi weapons, made by the German Nazi industrial machine -- one that works with the same people and the same work ethic as in the times of the Nazis.

The conflict runs on old conflict lines. On one side the Russians -- many, poor, unskilled and not terribly well armed and on the other, the Ukrainians holding "Nazi" made guns (Nazi = German, American etc.)

The Nazis used an equivalent of the nuclear option when it comes to the sanctions against Russia. They took all Russian money. They blocked the SWIFT, making it impossible or terribly hard for Russia to use even the little money it has. A nuclear bomb -- make it a large hydrogen bomb, could have been dropped anywhere on 90% of Russian territory and caused less damage. A smaller bomb, like Hiroshima, could have been anywhere on 99% of the land.

At this point, faced dissent at home, soldiers that lay down arms and lose the war in front of an army are perceived to be much weaker, Putin may find himself entitled to use nuclear bombs.

Against Who? A Russian bomb falling on Kyiv could be too much, even for Putin. After all, Ukraine only resisted, but didn't hit Russia on its home turf. Europe and the US, however did. He wouldn't be likely to hit Eastern Europe either. That was part of Russia, and might be his again.

War is not made only with guns. Europe did expand on Putin's Soviet land. And the Swift move cause very much harm. Private Russian property was also targeted.

In Putin's world, in Europe, Germany is the leading power. Thus, should the nukes fly, it may the the leading target.

A nuclear attack would probably be suicidal for Putin, and, perhaps, Russia. Thus, he'd try to strike simultaneously, as many targets as possible. He'd hit most likely, large cities. He'd hit Western Europe, most likely, Germany, but not only.

Russia has strong recollection of their fight against Nazi Germany, so he may even get a little bit of popular support for such a wild, suicidal move.

We did cripple their economy. Now all they have is bombs. And no way out of the pointless war they started. Or, maybe, there was a point -- to incite a war with Germany and justify the bombing?

Let's hope none of these happen.

Slava Ukraine!

Will the nightmare end?

All news sites are full of the destruction and loss of life in Ukraine. We see young men, women and children die for no reason. Some are Russian. Some are Ukrainean. Some are Russian of Ukrainean origin. Some are Ukrainean of Russian origin. Outside Ukraine everyone is very agressive verbally. They want to manufacture weapons in Europe again. Countries bordering Ukraine (e.g., Romania, Poland, Lithuania) have NATO boots on the ground. Why would they waste money on weapons and troops if they wanted to stop? Politicians sanction Russia (and Belarus), and they target some of the assets of some of the oligarchs -- a very selective number-- in hopes that they could help end the war or so they say. Will the war end when it has just begun? They keep saying everything is unprecedented, but is it? Haven't both the rich and the poor lost everything in past wars? And everyone blames Putin. He is the one man who is responsible for all the aggression, but is he? is Biden responsible for everything in the US? Was Trump just as responsible even though his sentences did not make sense and did not add up?

Then there is the dream. Most people, me included, would like the war to end, and would like Putin to vanish and to see "his" Russia be replaced by a democratic Russia that ultimately joins NATO and the EU. Ukraine would join first, but the rest of the countries from former USSR would follow. And if China continues to expand, the same measures that worked with Russia will apply. Then Xi would disappear and there'd be a democratic China, and all countries would work together to defeat evils like cancer and climate change. Eventually peace and oder would stretch to Africa and the Middle East. But is this dream possible? or will it turn into a nightmare yet again? Will the nightmare from Ukraine extend?

Will targeting people with loads of money work? maybe. On average, people with money are more influencial than those without. When one does not pay their obligations and is in debt, but has money to cover what they are not paying, their assets, e.g., their cars, their bank accounts, their yachts and private jets, are blocked or frozen. Then they get scared and pay up. They say everything has a price: the life of a person, the outcome of an election or the change of a regime cost different amounts but can be bought if one goes about them in the right way. While none of these people might be able to end a war on their own (or so they say) even though they are very rich, colectively they might find a solution if they are pushed to care or at least not oppose a solution when it appears. Of course, looking at them -- a bunch old, overweight and visibly ill men -- they look more like toys being taken out of business by others like them and eventually by a younger, more modern generation than as tools that bring an end to the war. I was hopeful at first, but now I am less sure we are safe or will be safe.

Instinctively, I oppose aggression and I agree with the pope. I don't believe our politicians are correct in patting themselves on the back. They are not stronger than ever, and neither are their alliances. They have failed! and they keep failing as long as war rages on! In a country in Europe people are suddenly killing each other. Bombs fall and kill and maim and destroy. And it's convenient to have Putin. He can be blamed for everything. Suddenly Boris Johnson looks good and Emmanuel Macron even better. Biden looked weak after Afganistan, but now he is the leader of the free world. I've always thought that sanctions are like applying austerity measures when the economy fails. They answer aggresion with more aggression, and cause an exacerbation in ostilities. Ideally, one proposes solutions from which both parties would gain, and then they never go to war.

Economic incentives to end the war? A proposal

Offer each soldier that surrenders to Ukrainian forces a reward sufficient to start a new life in Ukraine, settle down, find a wife or become an immigrant in EU.

-- Ukrainian citizenship, with the right to free travel to the European Union, and the possibility of asylum in the EU.
-- The right to bring relatives, and, perhaps, friends.
-- one plot of land to build a house in Ukraine. Good location.

1000 m2 should be enough for 500 m2 plot and associated infrastructure - roads, parks, etc. Thus, 1 square km is enough for 1000 soldiers. If 100 000 soldiers surrender, a piece of land 10 km by 10 km is sufficient. There are virtually no costs to Ukraine, as this would be state owned agricultural land that turns residential. The tax income from so much residential property would cover the cost of the agricultural land in a few years.

-- one $ 10 000 cash paymemnt to buy materials and start building a house
-- a monthly stipend of $ 1000 for one year, sufficient for a decent living, finding a nice Ukrainian wife, and a good job.
-- senior officers should receive more. A larger cash bonus, perhaps a nice house, and a significant fraction of the value of the military equipment they surrender. There are so many empty house with the decreasing population all throughout Eastern Europe that the governments can afford such decisions easily.

Russians and Ukrainians are similar people, with common tradition and similar language. There are many Russians living in Ukraine and nearly all Ukrainians speak Russian. Thus, assimilating Russians into Ukrainian society is very easy. Soldiers are young, capable people and very much needed in a society like Ukraine that has a low birth rate and has lost many people to the European Union. We cannot afford to kill the best and the brightest yet again.

The cost of the above package is very low to the Ukrainian society, and, overall, a profitable deal.
Each soldier that surrenders will bring with him military equipment that is very much needed and costly. The cost of this military equipment is likely to vastly exceed the rewards.
The damage this military equipment would inflict upon Ukraine is orders of magnitude greater.

Sure, there is a risk of such soldiers becoming spies, but, this risk exists for many Ukrainians, like the millions of separatists. Thus, the overall composition and global sabotage risk in Ukrainian society would not change dramatically.

There is a good chance that, in this way, Ukraine will use the German money as a weapon and, perhaps, destabilize the Russian army and hasten the collapse of the Putin regime.

All weapons surrendered are weapons that won't be used in war. It is buying lives.

Obviously, in the advertising, perhaps the President of Ukraine should tell the truth. The Russian soldiers are children of the USSR, just like Ukrainian soldiers. They are the most valuable and loved age group in society. They are children. They are young men and women. They should grow up into old men and not kill each other or maim each other in the battle field for the sake of criminal leaders. People should find a way to stop the war now! It should be stopped before more blood is lost to the contagious madness incited by leaders who should know better than to cause and applaud such destruction!

Note: a few days later they implemented such a suggestion backed by Ukraine's defense ministry with money donated by the international IT community.

And the sanity contest is won by Pope Francis

I generally don't quote religious leaders, but today I agree with the pope -- yet again he is a voice of reason. War a 'shameful capitulation', Pope Francis says “Every war leaves our world worse than it was before. War is a failure of politics and of humanity, a shameful capitulation, a stinging defeat before the forces of evil,” the leader of the Catholic Church said in tweets published in English and Russian.

It's sad that of all our leaders he is the only one who seems sane. How have Putin, Xi, Boris, Trump (Biden is slightly better; he is way too old to lead America, but he does not appear to be mad) and others like them ended up in charge? What about the non-descript creatures that don't seem fit to lead to anything other than disaster? How can we build institutions that fail us so? I don't believe war is ever necessary. There must be a way that makes sense and does not result in such destruction. Hiram W Johnson said in 1917 that "The first casualty when war comes is truth" and this still holds true today.

Another of my favourite quotes by Pope Francis is "who am I to judge?". He said it when referring to gay people. Perhaps I am wrong to judge world leaders. But when everything I read seems so wrong, I can't help it. The UK, the US and some of the EU give automatic weapons to civilians in Ukraine and brag it's the next best thing to being there. They don't let men of fighting age leave Ukraine. All have to be part of the blood bath. The conflict will blow over in time. But when? how many will die? how far will it extend? and what will be left behind? The cold war lasted until 1991 -- a very long 50 years or so.

It is said that Nero set Rome on fire so that he could watch it burn. Some even say he played the fiddle by the light of the flames. Of course, since it happened so long ago it's unclear how much of Nero's story is true. However, it's pretty certain he was a horrible person, a criminal, and ultimately mad. But are our leaders better today? Our Neros are giving weapons to civilians and applauding each other for that. It's the only thing they could have done they say. It's like saying the only choice is to be a mad criminal. Perhaps it is, if one is a criminal and is in charge. But why do we keep them in charge? Many US presidents who started a war were reelected. So, they must be supported by the kind of people who gain from wars. They gain as long as the war is not on their soil. Perhaps that is why there are so many people in charge who are either criminals (e.g., Putin) or criminally incompetent (e.g., EU leaders). It seems to make no difference either way. The leaders in Eastern Europe merge the two categories in a brilliant show of ingenuity. And they are not even that original if one thinks of Nero and of other leaders of the past.