Solidarity Short-Story

Poland has been again overrun by two of the great powers, which held it in bondage for 150 years but were unable to quench the spirit of the polish nation. The heroic defense of Warsaw shows that the soul of Poland is indestructible and that she will rise again like a rock which may for a spell be submerged by a tidal wave, but which remains… a rock. These words, which I remember with great clarity, were filled with hope and promise that my nation would be given a new, just future. These words, spoken by Winston Churchill, however, only served to dig the knife deeper into our backs when Great Britain, France, and the United States sold Poland to Stalin, and therefore, the Soviet Union. Soldiers from all fronts, heroes, returned to Poland only to see that, while the allies had won the war, Poland had lost it. Members of the Polish RAF divisions, who scored twice as many kills as British Pilots with a third the losses and were vital to the defense of Britain and victory in the Second World War, were sent back their motherland, betrayed and unwanted. Over the course of the Soviet Occupation, the Polish culture was slowly suppressed as puppet politicians kissed the ground of Stalin and burned the ground of the common Pole. If you were not a communist, you had no future in Poland.

Now, in 1988, everyone in my country plays the same game. Praise the Communist Party, worship the Supreme Soviet as a God, and forget your history or be killed for it. I have abided by these rules since I was a child. Every day, my mother, who would read to me stories of the old Poland: its fairness, tolerance, and glory. We lived in apartments then, fourth floor, room 413. The door was thin and high off of the ground, so it was easy to hear commotion in the hallway. Whenever my mother heard footsteps, she immediately hid her books in the cushions on the couch. My Father, like my mother, also shared a piece of the old Poland with me, and that was Catholicism. My schoolteacher told me that there was no God, my leaders told me that there was no God, and the churches told me that there was no God, for they had been secularized. I did not realize it at the time, but this was another suppression of Polish culture. The Catholic Church held close ties with the old Poland and Poland to the Catholic Church. Our faith was a large piece of our national identity, so it had to be done away with for communism to flourish and for nationalism to die. Their efforts were incredibly successful; I only found out about Pope John Paul II when I saw him with my own eyes in 1979, for example.

Now, the Polish worker slaves for fourteen hours a day and his or her happiness is entirely dependent upon the weekly ration of vodka handed out on Saturday evening at 5 pm. I, myself, am also lying in this pit of nihilism and despair, but having been told of the past and of basic human rights to God, family, and history; I am ready to bring this disgusting blight to its knees. The solidarity movement, founded in 1980, had just appeared and was the perfect opponent to the soviet regime. The opportunity was perfect.

Working as an architect I have noticed two things: one, people like having space, and two, nobody is willing to pay for it! Sometimes I feel like I only design the next generations of closets for people to live in! Nothing exciting happens at my work, so I have time, too much time. I am allowed access to entire maps of Warsaw, maps of demographics, sewer systems, electrical supplies, etc. I have been formulating plans for years, and finding co-conspirators, and keeping the Policja off of my back. It was difficult, however, there was very little space between workers, so I had to keep my head down and my arms around my work. If I was caught with any anti-state materials, I would be arrested in an instant. The obvious thing to do to prevent this was to keep all of my materials in my bag, after all, nobody searched architects.

This morning, I was mapping out favorable electrical patterns for cutting off electricity to key government buildings when my boss, Grzegorz, gave me a surprise visit.

“Good morning Jakub!” he said with his un-understandable enthusiasm.

“Hey buddy, got more closets for me to design?” I casually replied as I quickly hid my maps.

“Surprisingly, No! I actually need you to come up with a floor-plan for grain processing facility,” he explained as he handed me a folder with instructions.          

“Exciting” I replied.

“Do a good job, and the state might allow you double bread rations!” he joked. I waited for him to leave, then I continued with my planning. I tossed the folder aside, as I could get away with an unproductive day by claiming that I had to do research on grain-processing. Grzegorz usually accepted such excuses. My boss was an obedient, loyal communist. His one saving grace, however, was his gullibility. I went about my work, keeping my head down as I scribbled black lines across the map. My plan was to coordinate a massive strike all across Warsaw and the surrounding areas. The idea was that if enough workers revolted, it would inspire revolts across the country. If the communists wanted to kill everyone, they could. Most Poles would probably have been better off, but the communists can’t repopulate an entire country with ethnic Germans, Tatars, or whoever else they decided were unworthy of living in the Russian Socialist Republic. Because of this, I thought, they would have to give us what we want. I continued with my work. I had located the lines that needed to be cut to prevent power flow to emergency sirens, police stations, central government facilities, military stations; everything was coming together. I needed to meet with the Solidarity leaders. We had a good meeting place just outside of the Warsaw City Limits. It was an old, run-down bar in the middle of nowhere covered with overgrowth. It was perfect. Getting there wasn’t a problem, coming back, however, was. I got up from my desk and walked down to the telephone and dialed 11-58-722-1134, the number of the Solidarity offices in Gdańsk. In my best Russian accent, as all calls were monitored, of course. I said, “Come down to Warsaw for a beer or two, we need to talk about the future of this agency of yours!”

I added a couple of death threats as well, for the listener’s benefit. The code was fourteen words between Warsaw and agency. It really should’ve been more complicated, but their telephone operator was somewhat dimwitted. I heard a shuffling noise as the operator stood up from his rolling chair. I waited for about five minutes until I heard the inevitable squish that concluded the operator’s absence. He cleared his throat, and uttered, “Please refrain from any violence… we will meet with you.” He hung up. Ten words mean ten o’ clock, I needed to leave. I told Grzegorz that I had a family emergency and that I was leaving. He nodded his head and waved to me. Surely, he can’t really be that stupid, I thought to myself as I walked to my standard Fiat 126, which was the most common car at the time. It wasn’t very comfortable, it was too small, and it couldn’t go very fast. I opened the door and slithered my way inside. I knew that tonight was going to be rough.

            I pulled out of the office parking lot and onto the road. It took some maneuvering to get to the eastbound highway, along which was the turnoff to the bar. The road was full of cracks and potholes, my fellow drivers were full of rage, and it began to rain. I was ecstatic. The overcast sky seemed vibrant with excitement. The trees swayed. It was as if everything in Poland was hinging on these next few days. Everything watched with anticipation as liberation was at hand! I was too excited. I needed to think clearly and remain calm. After all, if I had so much as a smile on my face, it would likely be enough to get me arrested. I drove on the highway until I saw the turnoff to Leonów, which was about an hour east of Warsaw. I took the turnoff and headed down a small rural road a bit south of the town. I drove until I saw a wooden sign which said: “Mała Beczka” which means “little barrel.” The somewhat familiar bushes came into view and I could see the row of Fiats that were parked outside of the bar. The best kind of vodka was non-rationed vodka, so the bar needed secrecy to survive as a business. As a result, it was perfect for any type of lawlessness: drugs, smuggling, and even a few church services. The doorman, Łukasz, had to screen everyone before entry, but he knew me and the Solidarity Movement, so he motioned me inside and gave me an approving nod.

            The interior of the bar was almost as dull as the outside. The wood was wet and rotting, tables were shipping pallets fastened to old kerosene barrels, and the drinks were served in reused beer bottles. It wasn’t pretty, but it was home for someone hoping to forget about the realities of life. I saw my friend, Artur, leaning on one of the “tables” at the north-eastern corner of the little shack. Artur claims that he is a descendant of King Casimir III and that his father killed over three hundred Germans with his saber! The man’s phony family history was the foundation of his own warped sense of humor. He was a fun guy to hang around, better to drink with, and best to plot with. Aside from getting a laugh out of anyone, his greatest talent was intrigue.

            As he saw me, he motioned me over, yelling, “Privyet Brat!” Hello brother… in Russian. His speaking Russian was, no doubt, the funniest thing that he did. The irony of a Polish person willingly speaking Russian was just hilarious. I walked over to the table that he was leaning on and set my bag down. I reached into it, found my maps, and set them on the table.

            “What are these presents that you have brought me?” asked Artur, whose eyes were darting across the maps with great interest. I narrowed my eyes and lowered my voice, and then replied: “these are maps of everything from escape routes through the sewers to likely roads, on which, Soviet tanks can arrive. His smile gave way to an intent frown as his analytical brain began working out all of the possible uses of the information. After a few minutes of intense analysis, he cracked a smile, which indicated that he had a plan.

            “You know we are already in talks with the communists, right tovarish?” he added.

            “What?” I replied, with surprise.

            “The Solidarity Movement is trying to gain seats in the parliament as we speak.” He reiterated. I was at a loss for words. He saw the color drain from my face and he grinned.

            “There is no way that these talks will ever amount to anything.” He reassured, “The communists will never give up their grip on the one party system. In order for these talks to succeed, we need to bring the pressure. As you know, tension has been mounting for forty years, we are ready to show these zakhvatchiki that we are through with them.” I knew that what he said was true.

            “What is a month from today?” Artur inquired.

            “May the first,” I responded.

            “Be ready, Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła.”

            We shook hands, he took my maps, and I left. It was midnight, past curfew, so I walked to the town of Leonów and found a lovely little corner to sleep in. I left the next morning as quickly as possible so I wouldn’t be late for work. Being late means an interrogation, an interrogation means the failure of the operation, and such a failure would delay the freedom of Poland by ten years at the least. I had to hurry, my shift began at eight in the morning and it was already six-forty. I sped as long as there wasn’t another car on the road, any car could be a police car. They were everywhere. My heart was racing at 120 kilometers an hour. Everyone everywhere was Policja, and all of a sudden, I longed for my quiet flat, my weekly vodka, and my state-controlled TV. I longed for my life. In that moment, I slowed down and thought to myself, is it really worth my own life to free Poland? Hundreds of thousands have already died for Poland, but we, still, are not free. What guarantees that once the communists are gone that nobody else will seize control? I sped up again. This was my home, my culture, and my friends and family that were in question. I didn’t have a right to deny the freedom of anyone, especially through lack of action. I was in the position I was in for a reason.

            I arrived on time, and nobody raised an eyebrow to my lack of clean hair or my shaken demeanor. I made it.

            The first of May came swiftly. I woke up to the sounds of the screeching of tires and the smell of tear gas. The Solidarity protest was in full swing. Thousands of people were in the streets, waving flags of white and red. I received a phone call, it was my boss.

            “Hey, buddy! Beautiful day outside! You really should get out there, its stunning really! Work is, of course, canceled. You have a great protest!” He hung up. I could think of nothing better than to follow his advice. The Policja were everywhere. The blue flashes of the sirens on the vans reflected off of the helmets and riot shields. The tear gas was everywhere and the beatings were intense. The people formed lines, each holding a flag or a cross. They stood there waiting only to be thrown to the ground, beaten, and arrested. The occasional street fight took place, in which, a few protesters would attempt to break the lines of shields that filled the streets. They failed, of course, and were arrested. I stood there in the midst of it all with complete silence and stillness. I watched people throw bricks and firebombs at the policja and the government buildings. The effects of Artur’s planning was seen, as protestors disappeared into the sewers, there were no alarms, no tanks. It truly didn’t matter. All of those months that I spent buried in my maps and my research did not help anything. Sirens or no sirens, tanks or no tanks, broken or unbroken supply lines; everything failed. I took a breath and let out my anger as I reached for the nearest item and hurled it at the Policja. I felt like nothing could stop me. I grabbed a Solidarity flag from the street corner and charged into the Policja. I had a crowd charging with me. I knocked the first officer to the ground with my sheer weight as the others broke through the lines. I saw the parliament building over the helmets of hundreds of communists. I ran as fast as I could, as hard as I could. As I plowed through the communist ranks, I saw my goal and nobody could stop me. I ran into the door as tear gas grenades burst all around me. I climbed the stairs, not stopping for a single breath. I went through door after door and staircase after staircase until I finally reached the roof. I saw the soviet flag and I grabbed it and pulled. I struggled for a few minutes before it finally fell. I stood, waving the Solidarity flag, feeling victorious. The reality then plunged its way into my throat and my stomach like a series of punches. I looked down upon the square and the Soviet military was marching through the streets. Everybody that was human was gone. I lowered my arms as they pointed their silver Kalashnikovs at me. I let go of the flag and it fell to the ground below. What sounded like a clunk, felt like an explosion.

            I was a prisoner for a little over a year. Soon after the protests in Warsaw, protests began all over the country. They flared up in Gdańsk, Wrocław, Łódż, Kraków, Płock, Poznań, and many other cities. The Solidarity movement won the right to run against the communists in proper elections. As a result, the communists were voted out of office within a year and free elections were soon opened. The last communist leader in Poland, Czesław Kiszczak, resigned from office on the 19^th of August in 1989. The first prime minister of the new Poland was Tadeusz Mazowiecki, who was appointed on the 24^th of August. This was the first non-communist government to take power in any country dominated by the Soviet Union. I released from jail on the 21^st of September. All of those months while I was in prison, I thought that I had failed, but it came with great delight and joy to find out that I was wrong.  

Love Thy Neighbor: A Vision of Polish-Russian Rapproachment

On April 10, 2010, a Tu-154 aircraft crashed down in the Russian province of Smolensk. All 96 people on board were killed. This was, however, no ordinary flight, as the president of Poland, Lech Kacznyski was making his way to the site of the Katyń massacre (Asian News Monitor, 2010).  The plane crash shattered all previous attempts of Poland and Russia to effectively repair their historically strained relations. These new moments, however, bring with them a dark grey gloom which hangs its head over the continent of Europe. The horizon brims with avoidable conflict as these two nations are again forced to opposite fields as competitors and rivals by a newly inflamed Ukraine. Russia and Poland are two nations with a brilliantly entangled history whose outcomes have shaped the face of Europe. Often as it does, the past shapes the future and the past has dangerously haunted these two nations for centuries. The bitterness between Russia and Poland is a central component to today’s divide between the former Soviet Union and the West. Only rapprochement between the two countries can bridge the gap between the West and the East that is so necessary for a peaceful world. Of the two nations, Poland is the primary inhibitor of warm relations. The dominating attitudes of the Poles must change for the West to avoid a geopolitical deluge of unprecedented repercussions.

            In order to understand the true gravity of this geopolitical conundrum, one must trace the origins of this bitterness. Relations between Poland and Russia were not always hostile. For instance, while minor territorial squabbles were frequent, the first major confrontation between Poland and Russia occurred in 1604 when a claimant of the Muscovite (Russian) throne, Grishka Otrepiev led a Polish-sponsored invasion of Muscovy (Russia) (Zamoyski, 2012, p. 121). His armies swept through Moscovy with ease, as Muscovy was buried in unfortunate disasters which included plagues and famines (Sixsmith, 2014, p. 53-54).  The previously downtrodden Russian society united and, in a miraculous way, forced the Poles out of Russia (p. 55). The Russian attitude toward Poland shifted significantly, as today there is a national holiday in Russia called Unity Day, which celebrates this triumph over the Poles. Polish attitudes, like those of the Russians, were forged from fury and the desire for freedom. In the words of Martin Sixsmith, “By the end of Catherine’s reign, Poland had ceased to exist as a physical entity, surviving only in the hearts of her people and their burning determination to see their country reborn” (p. 89). Russia, along with Austria and Prussia, had annihilated Poland (Zamoyski, 195). Russian intervention and occupation played a large part, but, ultimately, it was Prussia which crippled Poland the most (194-195). Polish attitudes would be further cemented by the countless crimes of the Soviet Union against its people, its religion, and its society. There are, simply, too many atrocities to analyze, but it must be understood that all nations within the Soviet sphere suffered immensely, Russia included.

            Moreover, to properly understand all of the dynamics at play here, one must examine the views of each nation regarding the other. To begin with, Russia’s attitudes toward Poland have shifted drastically in the past decades. In the Soviet era, Russian views flipped between one of ‘the ungrateful Poles’ and one depicting the Poles as comrades (Cheremushkin, 2004, p. 12). As time went by, more and more Russians began to view the Poles unfavorably. The biggest reason was the Polish attitude of resistance. The Soviet Union had spared no effort in rebuilding Poland, but to many Poles, this was not enough. As the Soviet Union dissolved, this attitude became outdated. Now, a new attitude has arisen that revolves around Poland’s unceasing hostility toward Russia. At the end of the Cold War, Russians believed that NATO would not expand any further (Mearsheinmer, 2014). Russian concerns were ignored as NATO stretched eastward. Vladimir Putin, Russia’s former prime minister and current president, still expresses his amazement at the Cold-War attitudes expressed by the leaders who expanded NATO (Putin, 2015). Eventually, Poland joined NATO. Since then, the Poles have adopted unapologetically anti-Russian views (Sakwa, 2014, p.40). On top of this, the foreign minister of Poland, Radosław Sikorski came up with an initiative targeting former Soviet states with EU-integration (p. 39-41). This was very much viewed as a hostile expansion because of EU-integration historically acting as a precursor to NATO membership (Mearsheinmer). Later, the 2008 war in Georgia prompted Sikorski to lobby for rushing Ukraine into the arms of the West (Sakwa, p. 40).  Vladimir Putin, himself, spoke against the idea then, and he still retains that view now (C. Rose & V. Putin, 2015). Putin has said that the Ukraine is important to Russia because of shared culture. In addition, he made it clear that he believes that the West was directly involved in brokering a transfer of power in Ukraine. Poland has actively supported Ukraine in the midst of this crisis, the new pro-West Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko, has said (Interfax Russia and CIS Bulletin, 2015). Poland has even aided Ukrainian officials in drafting its decentralization bill, which was a product of the Minsk talks. As if Poland’s dissent toward Russia was not obvious enough, former Polish President, Bronisław Komorowski kindly provided more evidence. Before leaving office, he said that “Poland supports European aspirations of Ukraine.” These policies have placed Poland in the position of the boy who cried wolf. The Russian attitude has responded accordingly.

            Incredibly, this attitude has not hampered the Russian government in seeking to make peace with Poland. Feklyunina describes the process of rapprochement as having three steps (2012, p. 436). The first is addressing current animosity. The second involves the political elite working to re-articulate national narratives to depict the other party as friendly. Lastly, the third step involves total peace between the two parties. Cheremushkin adds that one nation must accept that it has committed crimes against the other (p. 5). Russia’s efforts toward reconciliation began in the early 2000’s, as relations were steadily warming up. These efforts were hindered because of Polish insistence that reparations were needed (p. 8). Nevertheless, Russia continued to try. Cheremushkin argues that these attempts were hampered by the way that Russian officials handled the Katyń Massacre (p. 9). According to him, the Russian representatives declared that the Russian people suffered more from Stalin’s crimes than any other group. Despite the factual accuracy of such statements, they did not help Russia’s relationship with the Poles. The aim was for Russia to paint itself as a victim along with Poland. The result, however, was that focus was taken away from the Poles who died. Needless to say, the effort was not effective. The next attempt came when Putin made a monumental trip to Poland in 2002 (p. 10). He honored the victims and heroes of the Warsaw Uprising in addition to victims of Soviet crimes. He was well received by the Poles, but relations were still not as good as Moscow wanted them to be. In the 2007-2008 period, Russia revamped its Poland project (Feklyunina, p. 434). The Georgian conflict had broken out and the Poles were openly against the Russian measures that were taken (Sakwa, p.40). Russian policy-makers, not wanting to lose their precious progress with the Poles, revealed their willingness to discuss the issues of the past (Feklyunina, p. 434). A few years later, momentous steps were being taken by Russian policy-makers. 2010 was the first year that the Russian Prime Minister had attended a ceremony commemorating the Katyń massacre (p. 441). At this time, the Russian government was taking major efforts to promote the Russian language and culture in Poland. Ceaseless Russian efforts were gaining traction until April 10, 2010 when the plane carrying the Polish president crashed near Smolensk. Almost immediately after the accident, Russian officials passed their condolences on to the Poles. In a move that could be considered damage control, the Russian Duma (Parliament) officially recognized Stalin as the perpetrator of the Katyń massacre in an incredibly important resolution. Additionally, Andrzej Wajda’s historically accurate drama Katyń was shown on Russian State Television. Despite all of these crucial steps taken by the Russians, they were not enough. Relations quickly declined once both sides began to blame each other for the crash. Russia put forth so much effort in reconciling their differences with the Poles, and if Poland had reciprocated even half of that effort, the rapprochement could easily have already taken place.

            On the other side of the spectrum, Polish concerns cannot be left out of the equation. For rapprochement to actually take place, there are complicated issues that must be worked through with regard to Poland’s national identity. Attitudes toward Russia are largely based in the context of Poland’s national identity (Zarycki, 2004, p. 611). This attitude can be traced from the time of the partitions of Poland, through the Soviet era, and into modern times (p. 604). The Poles saw Russian developments in their country as useless and unwanted throughout the 19^th century. Later, in the Soviet period, attitudes came into conflict as the Left looked to Russia with a practical desire for cooperation (p. 598). The Right, alternatively, saw Russia as an occupier and resisted their influence at every turn. As time went on, the latter view became more and more popular. Now, pro-Russian views are mostly kept in the context of a Poland outside the European Union. These views, like those of their left-wing predecessors, are held in a practical desire for cooperation. There is no room for these viewpoints for the admiration of Russia. These views, themselves, will not shift because any Kremlin official desires it. Feklyunina rightly points out that the last stage of rapprochement occurs fully when the historical narratives of two nations converge to the point of being fully compatible (p. 437). Russia has made the attempt to bridge the gap (p. 444).The Russian narrative tries to create a national solidarity between nations by recounting a narrative of shared suffering. This, unfortunately, failed, but not for a lack of trying. There has been no Polish attempt to do the same for the Russians.

            For Poland, altering the historical narrative to accommodate Russia means revamping the Polish national identity as a whole. This national identity is mired with complex interactions between glorious heroism and the horrors of subjugation (Zarycki, p.601-602). In addition, Polish society suffers from defeatism, an imperial complex, and an inferiority complex, but is complemented by very high levels of national pride (p. 600-601). The defeatism mostly stems from the many eras of subjugation that Poland had experienced. Previously, Russia was a weak nation mired with economic trouble. Now, Russia has re-emerged and thrust itself onto the world stage. Because of this, the inferiority complex takes its toll. Poland needs Russia to remain the bad guy for its national identity to remain relevant (p. 607). Embedded in Poland’s national identity is their self-proclaimed status of the ‘Defenders of Europe.’ The evidence is plainly laid out in history books. Poland turned back the Ottoman hordes at Vienna and miraculously defeated the Red Army at the battle of Warsaw in 1920, in addition to their countless acts of heroism against the Third Reich (p. 611). In the continuing issue of Ukraine, Józef Piłsudski, the dictator of Poland during the Russian Civil War, chose to ally himself with the Ukrainians over the White Russians. He, like most Poles, saw very little difference between the communists and the Tsarist forces. This, itself, brings an excellent point. Poland suffered extensively under the rule of the Soviets, as their national identity was threatened (p. 614). One should, however, ask the question of whether or not the Soviet Union is the same as Russia. Russia obviously values their standing with Poland whereas the Soviet Union had no time to care beyond the practical applications of one of its subjects dissenting. The answer has to be no. In addition, it should be addressed that the Poles earned their own image by fighting the Soviet Union, the Nazis, and the Ottoman Empire in addition to the Russian Empire. The clear solution to renovating this part of the Polish national identity is to point out what the Poles were fighting for rather than against. Those things were honor and freedom. Józef Beck, the Polish foreign minister, demonstrated this about the Poles as he gave his speech refusing to meet the demands of Nazi Germany: “We in Poland do not know the concept of peace at any price. There is only one thing in the lives of men, nations, and countries that is without price. That thing is honor “(Kuźniar, 19). Poland does not need Russia to be a perpetual enemy for its national identity to remain intact. Poland’s national identity should be reshaped to differentiate the Soviet Union from Russia and to shift the focus from who they were fighting to what they were fighting for.

To continue, Polish national identity is also very closely intertwined with the East-West paradigm. In short, Poland suffers from defeatism and an inferiority complex. Because of this paradigm, the Poles have a condescending view of Russia that offers a quick, easy fix to those problems (Zarycki p. 600). The view of Russia as a backward Asian nation offers some respite to Poland’s self-image problems. Poland considers itself a member of the West and of Europe (p. 604). The most inconvenient aspect of this view is that it involves shoving aside all similarities the Poland has with Russia. All that is Eastern about Poland’s identity must be abolished in order to “fit in” with the rest of Europe. Nothing could be more destructive for Poland’s relationship to the West, as the West already relies on Poland’s situation of being both inside and outside of the West. Poland is valuable in this sense because it has endured the harshness of Soviet subjugation (p. 615-16). Poland also has the eastern roots that make it relatable to countries like Russia and Turkey. Poland is able to understand Russia and it is relatable to the West because of a more closely shared religion, as Poland is predominately Roman Catholic (p. 617). This particular aspect of the Polish national identity needs to shift from seeing the East as undesirable to seeing it as valuable. Polish culture is unique because of its shared influences, so it makes sense for Poland to explore its own Eastern-ness and integrate it with its national identity. This way, Poland retains its unique usefulness to the West and it becomes more relatable to Russia in the process.

By consequence, the unique Polish position is exactly why rapprochement between Poland and Russia is necessary. Even in the days of the Soviet Union, Poland was referred to as a “Window to the West” (Cheremushkin, p. 13). Indeed, it is no secret that relations between Russia and the West have soured over the course of the Ukraine crisis. Vladimir Putin, himself, expresses his dissatisfaction with the course of events in recent years. He stresses that international cooperation toward maintaining the agreements made during the Minsk talks is vitally important (C. Rose & V. Putin, 2015). He shows his reservations toward Ukraine’s contribution while saying that Ukraine has behaved unilaterally, and he also believes that the agreements have not been implemented. In addition, Putin sees the sanctions that target Russia as aggressive measures that contradict international law. Such views indicate that the ongoing resolution of the crisis is at a standstill. Poland, however, is on good terms with the Ukrainians (Interfax Russia and CIS Bulletin). Poland and Russia working together to resolve the crisis could have potentially miraculous results. Such an outcome would drastically lower tensions throughout the region. Another opportunity for Polish-Russian cooperation exists in Syria. Poland’s own president, Andrzej Duda, addressed Islamic terrorism and the need for international cooperation to combat it (A. Duda, 2015). Russia has already made impressive progress on that front, to the delight of Poland’s previous foreign minister.  This being said, if Poland’s voice in the West spoke for cooperation with Russia rather than spewing anti-Russian rhetoric, the myth of the ‘bridge to Europe’ could be proven true. Poland has a population of 38 Million people, making it the sixth most populated nation in Europe (S. Hix & B. Høyland, 2011, p. 65). As such, it holds 27 European Union council votes whereas the most populated nation, Germany, holds 29. Poland has enough voting power to make a difference. More than that, Poland’s voice matters especially to Europe, as Poland is known for its sensitivity to Russian influence in Eastern Europe. This powerful voice is key to Russia’s rapprochement with the West.

There exists today an incredible opportunity. The window is rapidly closing as the Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (Truth and Justice) party has won an absolute majority in the Polish Sejm. This party has won on the same anti-Russian rhetoric that has been coming from Poland for ten years. There is an opportunity for Poland and Russia to finally set their differences aside in a move that could bridge East to West in a way that could hardly have seemed possible in 1990. The ongoing conflicts, while terrible in their own rights, provide great opportunities for enemies to become friends. In this way, Ukraine can be used as a means for Russia and Poland to work together to solve a problem. The issues, of course, are bigger than that. A decade and a half of Russian efforts have fallen on mostly deaf ears. Every time that a thaw appears to be on the horizon, reality comes crashing into the picture as national interests diverge. Russia has, quite generously, done half of the work necessary to make this opportunity possible. They have renounced previously accepted truths, acknowledged that they were wrong, and attempted to accommodate their neighbor in their own historical narrative. They have done this in spite of unfavorable attitudes toward Poland that have dominated Russian discourse. Poland continued to express gratitude, but never any more than that. The time has come for Poland to complete the other half of the work necessary to bring this vision of rapprochement to life. Poland has acted as an inhibitor. Their people and governments have made their opinions clear on multiple occasions. They have legitimate grievances. None of these factors stopped Russia. The benefits of this newfound cooperation could be substantial. Quite frankly, its effect would be drastic, to say the least. A Polish-led Russian-West rapprochement would be the best possible scenario for the United States, for example. The US needs Russian cooperation to remove equipment from Afghanistan, broker deals with Iran, and to stabilize the Middle East in general. If these feats can be accomplished with only a single nation’s cooperation with Russia, one can only imagine what potential there can be for others. This opportunity, in essence, has the potential to calm tensions throughout the world, and to make everyone safer in the end. 

The Role of Government: The Discussion that Defines all of the Others

- The Role of Government: Finding a Middle -

There is an interesting division occurring in modern politics. The screeches of the Trump fans and the deafening clapping of the Hillary camp harmonize to an identical tune. This tune is the song of big government. Big government, as anyone who has spent enough time in the company of Libertarians should know, is a devil term that is thrown about at seemingly everything. What does it mean? Why are these people angry at the thought of government intervention? These are very reasonable questions to ask, but the opposite questions are just as valid. The division taking place is now between Libertarians, in addition to the Never Trump movement, and the advocates of Trump the strongman and Hillary the neo-con. At the center of this debate sits the role of government. Big government vs small government and the policies surrounding both theories of government.

The reason that this division is so fiercely fought over is that the issue is often rather binary in nature. Just as it is impossible for a Christian to explain the significance of Lent to an Atheist, it is equally impossible for small government advocate to explain to a big government advocate the principles of non-intervention and faith in the individual. Thus, a chasm of misunderstanding arises between people on opposing sides of this. Small government advocates are often profoundly mistrustful of the government. This is a good attitude as, governments throughout history have been corrupt, self-serving, and tyrannical. It seems prudent to examine all proposals and legislation carefully for signs of corruption and tyranny. Those on the big government field usually see and respect these concerns, but often cite security and abusers of lack of regulation as evidence to push such legislation forward. The role of government, to big government advocates, is a government which works for them, instead of getting out of the way. Those on the Trump side see the government as a facility to rid them of unwanted immigration and to 'win' on trade in order to bring jobs back. Those on the Hillary side see government in the same light but at a different angle. They favor the use of the government to force business to operate as they see fit and to give aid to those in the population who need (or simply want) it. Additionally, both sides see America as a set of groups, and the poll numbers reflect group representation in each of these candidates. Either way, small government advocates recoil to such views of the government. Such people do not want regulation nor bureaucracy and focus instead on individual rights. Unfortunately, the far polarization of these views exposes unseen potential to find a middle ground. Below lies an extensive example which depicts the attempt to find a middle ground while considering viewpoints from both sides:

Upon investigation, it seems as though there can be a united effort to find a middle ground on various issues. To preface this specific set of roles for the government, it must be understood that people must work for the betterment of themselves and ought to be expected to succeed in spite of poor government policies at all times. This being said, people are not unaffected by the government, or its policies, therefore the government should stay out of people's way where it is prudent and intervene when necessary to promote the well-being of its citizens.

Part 1: Taxes

Taxes are the lifeblood of government. Without taxes, there are very little sources of revenue for a market economy. State Capitalism, which thankfully has been almost completely phased out, would utilize national resources to run factories and produce goods. The profits of the resulting trade would go into state coffers and be used to pay salaries, expand factories, etc. Ironically, communism and socialism make heavy use of State Capitalism, so it really is fortunate that taxes are a mainstay of governments in market economies. This being said, the small government advocate despises taxes while the big government advocate views taxes as necessary and sometimes good. Those who view taxes as a way to redistribute wealth have no place in this proposed middle, as a middle cannot be achieved between those who view taxes as theft and those who would utilize it in a larger agenda. Taxes thus should be utilized in a minimal sense to fund what is absolutely necessary and be cut at every opportunity. Necessity includes baseline defense spending, various programs that protect the economy (more detail in part 2), and infrastructure maintenance. Ideally, those who support larger amounts of taxes for the purpose of paying down debt and funding vital programs will be brought on board by tax cuts with the purpose of cutting spending on the military, phasing out social security and other non-discretionary spending, and cutting waste. Refer to the charts below:

As far as what tax model to have, a flat tax is optimal for small business, but not everyone always sees one as fair. The progressive tax discourages class ascension but is seen as more fair. And, the regressive tax is only used by evil empires that have it out for peasants. This poses a problem, a small government advocate would obviously take a flat tax, as it is the most simple and requires no army of lawyers to interpret it. On the other hand, big government advocates typically want those who earn more money to "pay their fair share" in order to fund more government programs. This new middle must include such concerns. Fortunately, the base rate can be adjusted to a higher rate to generate needed government income. So, the optimal solution would be a flat tax which can be fair as well as efficient. A flat tax can be implemented to allow small businesses to flourish as well as allowing federal programs to continue unhindered. Though, as mentioned before, non-discretionary spending needs to be addressed, as well as wasteful spending.

Part 2: Maintaining Economic Interdependency 

An element that is often lost in modern discussions of economic issues is the idea of Economic Interdependency, which is the idea that everyone in an economy is connected. A computer, for instance, takes copper and silicon from mines, plastic from processing plants, electricity from various locations, led's and processors from manufacturing and much much more. All of the industries in an economy depend on each other. The discussions forget this by centering upon regulation and lack thereof. Always, the clamor is about regulation and freedom of the individual, when there is a delicate balance in our economy. As an example, the fishing industry and river rafting joints would suffer greatly if rivers were so polluted that they could catch fire. People who run camps, those who cut wood, and the industries dependent upon the well-being of forests are not helped by a destroyed environment. Therefore, the EPA has a role to perform in the economy. Such intervention is necessary. The issue is when the EPA has so many regulations and so much federal funding that they become an obstacle to business and a general pain. These are balances which must be struck. There is currently so much intervention that the business climate can feel like the rule of government offices. So comes the middle ground: regulations are great if they are efficient and not hinder some. The government has, as a result of too much spending and lobbying, become an obstacle to the success of some business. Because of Economic Interdependency, an obstacle to the success of one business becomes an obstacle to other businesses. Another issue is the idea that one's self-destruction has no effect on anybody else. At the Libertarian Debate, Austin Peterson was asked a question about drugs: this was his response. He was booed by people because he said that children oughtn't to be sold hard drugs. How can this be? How can people so rabidly defend this "right?" People who dope themselves into a numbness to life and who find themselves in dead-end jobs fit for teenagers hurt everyone. The single person will obviously not have much of an effect, but trends and occurrences happen by the millions. It may not matter to anyone that this one pot-head threw his potential to the dirt and worked in retail for the rest of his days. But, when millions of people could be allowed to do so legally, this has an impact. Donald Trump seems to think that we thrive off of factory jobs which require one standing in the same place for eight hours a day, but these jobs have been automated. The ceiling of one's potential is ever higher in this modern job market, and those who choose the bottom hurt the competing power of this country. Small government advocates cite the individual's right to trash his/her life in whatever capacity that they wish. The big government advocates cite the individual's responsibility to his/her country, economy, and family. There must be a middle. There are some activities which are morally questionable, but which do no visible damage to the economy. So, while people load up at McDonald's they may be shortening their lifespans, they aren't often reducing their work efficiency or throwing away their own potential. It is a role of government to preserve, as much as possible, the environment that achieves maximum economic efficiency through preserving Economic Interdependency, but not to get so involved in people's lives that it spends millions of dollars getting kids to eat salad. 

For more on Economic Interdependency:

Cournot, Antoine (1838). Researches into the Mathematical Theory of Wealth. Translated by Nathaniel Bacon (1898).

Part 3: Relegating Issues, both Social and Local

By now, it should be obvious that the United States is a nation divided. The polls show it, the twitter mobs echo it, and the president confirms it all. The US is divided by ideology more than by race, privilege, class, etc. The only reason that people are able to be so easily played against each other by race-baiters is because of this difference in ideology. Last election cycle, the popular vote was won by 5 million votes with a vote count of 127 million. Such a result was close. Very close. 

It can be therefore reasoned that states have general ideological leanings. Here, there is an interesting contradiction in the small government camp. Should states be left to determine their own policies if it gave states the opportunity to create big government solutions? The answer varies from person to person, but generally, a state-level solution is preferred because of one's closeness to the solution. It is far easier to arrange a meeting with your state senator or major than the president, for instance. Big government advocates, on the other hand, have a greater predisposition to favoring federal intervention on issues like marriage, abortion, guns, education, and various social programs. Autonomy works because it simply does not matter the quality, common sense, test-ability, or reliability of a program or law if it is forced upon people. Those people on whom such policies are enforced will seem like tyranny. Therefore, local decisions must be given precedent to broad-stroke decisions for the whole nation. As recompense for their loss of federal power, the big government camp can be free to advocate for big government policies within their state where more big government advocates exist. Additionally, A single glove does not fit all hands, so a middle here would consist of leaving states more autonomy to choose a social policy, financial policy, and to create statewide programs. The purpose of this middle is to allow each state to choose to be big or small government. The benefits of both can be weighed and policy changed, if necessary. There is importance in understanding that allowing people to be closer to the solution that they choose will not solve this nation's division problem. Minorities, women, and white men will not get along if they are constantly pitted against each other for political gain by these ideologies. This issue is far too large to be included in this entry; its brief inclusion here was simply a disclaimer against racial strife continuing in spite of greater local autonomy. Back to the issue, in most of the presidential primary debates of recent history, governors have consistently touted their great successes in each of their states. The idea is to allow these governors to continue to be accessible to their voting bases and to carry out their duty to such people. People, who will have more control over the levels of intervention that their government levies over them.

Subsequently, these proposals are by no means perfect, but to fight the ongoing division in this country, give them a mulling over. Division is everywhere, and the fight between libertarians and authoritarians is a necessary one. Keep in mind that political discourse can be enjoyable and friendly, especially since this is a battle which has ever-increasingly encompassed political discourse. There are views to be considered all around the spectrum. Libertarians, for the most part, are not worried about the government because they are paranoid tin-foil hatters. They hold legitimate fears about the power of government and its role in society. Authoritarians, in a likewise majority, are no fascists. They fear for the moral and economic fabric of this country and trust that a properly implemented government can tear down walls (or build them up, if that is the case). Regardless of one's view of the role of government, each side must be considered in the substance of the argument and not a summation of god and devil terms. This middle has been proposed partially as a simulation of considering multiple sides of this tedious but necessary argument and coming together to find a solution. Remember that it is possible to cross the chasm of these two vastly different views of the role of government. Make the extra effort to cross it, retreat from it, examine it as far as possible, and find a middle with those on the other side.

Congratulations on making it this far! Enjoy a comic:

No Matter Who Wins the Election, You Will Be OK.

With this election cycle comes the wave after wave of people threatening to move if  >insert name< gets elected. Most commonly, it is Hillary or Donald, though a Sanders here or a Cruz there make their way in. The simple truth is that we live in a republic. If congress and the senate were suddenly overrun with new labor politicians and the president was Leon Trotsky incarnate, then people may, then, be on to something with this hysteria. However fortunately, this is not the case. The United States is built with an incredibly flawed but equivocally genius checks and balances system. The president has his/her power, sure, but this power is limited. The wonderful aspect of this system is that, if Trump or Hilary or >insert name< gets elected, they have to contend with congress, the senate, the Supreme Court, and we the people. Obviously, those who fear a Trump or Hillary or >insert name< presidency have a point. Having an incredibly powerful executive branch makes those possibilities scary.  Fortunately, the impact of that person (and his/her cabinet), again, is limited.

To go even further, it can be argued that your life may change very little. Hypothetically, if Trump is elected, the apocalypse will not reign supreme, and KKK members will not uproot from the ground to parade the banner of white supremacy. The fact that this hysteria is so present as to manifest itself in the form of various celebrities threatening to move to Canada is proof of the horrendous misunderstanding of the US political system. The politicians, of course, take advantage of this misunderstanding by offering to resolve issues that they haven't the power to address in the first place. Trump cannot deport all of the illegals, and Hillary cannot take all of your guns. This highlights another quite brilliant system devised for this nation: local autonomy. Many of these issues are controlled by state governments. State governments are far closer to the people and have much more influence over your life. This is an incredible thing because the politicians in your state know your situation better, they know their expectations better, and they fear you more. Nameless, faceless politicians in DC are unreachable by countless Americans, but you can charge right into your state capital after a few hours of driving or less. It is far easier to get in touch with your governor than with the president. This makes two reasons that the presidency is overrated.

The third reason that you have little to fear is that moving to another country will not solve your problems ever. All countries have terrible political atmospheres. Even when you think that you are moving to a paradise an ocean away, you will find yourself surrounded with all of the elements that you were desperate to escape. Every country is divided to an extent. True, the definition of left and right may blur across borders and oceans, but there will always be an ideology to hate and fear. There will always be someone who, if elected, will represent some major shift for the nation that scares you. Several Hollywood types have announced their plans to move to another country. Additionally, the number of google searches on how to move to Canada has exploded since Super Tuesday. It is not only the sensationalist, out-of-touch stars who have considered this. It is unfortunate that this bubble has to be broken for some, but Canada will not solve anybody's problems. The bottom line of this is that the president will not affect your success unless some rare, ultra-specific circumstance occurs. If your metric of personal success is affected once >insert name< becomes president, then you will have been the only factor. Of course, this would mean that you, yourself are to blame. It is time to stop this nonsense.

The Misuse of Hitler and its Unfortunate Cause

There is an alarming trend in modern politics: the comparison of Adolf Hitler to those we don't like. If it isn't Assad, it is Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump or anyone else that isn't too popular. To the better educated, this phenomenon is a mere annoyance, but the comparison sticks with those who are quick to judge and slow to learn. I had previously dismissed this as a scare tactic for the inexperienced minions of corresponding political factions. This aspect did not change, but the alarming growth of the use of this comparison did. Ever since Donald Trump announced his candidacy, there have been non-stop attacks against his person. These attacks typically relate him to Hitler. I am no fan of Donald Trump, but these attacks are lacking in information. Therefore, I wish to do my part in putting certain aspects of this outdated comparison to bed.

An example of this ill-conceived comparison in action. 

The first and most obvious goal of the attack is to compare the xenophobia (alleged) of Donald Trump against the proven xenophobia of Adolf Hitler. This is not accurate in any way. Adolf Hilter abhorred Slavs, Gypsies, disabled people, homosexuals, Catholics, and Jews. This was not simply a desire to keep them out of Germany. Hitler did not stand in front of thousands of people to simply demand that a wall be built and illegals to be deported. His ultimate goal was the extermination of the Jews and the enslavement of the slavs. Hitler wanted to fulfill Germany's century long eastern ambitions by expanding Germany well into Poland and the Soviet Union. Donald Trump, however, only seeks to deny refugees entry and to stop illegal immigration. This is not grounds enough for a comparison to Hitler. Trump does not wish to annihilate the Syrian people nor enslave the Mexican people. At every accusation of being called racist, he loves to remind everyone how much he loves the Mexican people. One may believe this or not, but, again, Hitler would never have made the same claims about those he deemed 'subhuman.'

Now to the meat of these claims. Hitler and his Nazis are often related to the 'Far Right' of politics. In a sense, this can make sense. Populism, nationalism, and xenophobia are often attributed to the far right. Then comes the phrase 'National Socialism.' Obviously, Nazism and Communism are two different evil beasts, but they were more similar than many care to realize. At the heart of Nazism, it is true that whichever 'best race' runs the show is to be the higher class. In Communism, however, class was determined by one's allegiance to the state only. Both systems intersect, but both are opposite to the way that class is determined in a capitalist society. National Socialism was state ownership. Everything about the Nazi order was about state ownership and the relationship between the state and its subjects. This relationship would drastically change depending upon the class of citizen, which again, was determined by race. It should be needless to say that a Donald Trump economy is not about state ownership. It is, however, about bailouts, eminent domain, subsidies, and other things that I do not like. Despite this, a Donald Trump economy does not involve national socialism.

Additionally, it should be brought up that Trump is not the only subject of this comparison. That was just another instance of this phenomenon. The Hitler comparison is just a more forceful and ignorant way of calling someone racist or tyrannical. In reality, the comparison is hyperbolic, but it is never used in such a way. This comparison is a symptom of a greater problem involving politics in the English language. Hopefully, one should conjure up thoughts of George Orwell's piece about proper use of language to articulate an idea. Orwell suggested that simpler language should be used in order to more directly communicate thoughts to a reader or listener. The issue now is that our discourse is too simple. Every aspect of politics has been diluted into identity politics, name-calling, and God words vs Devil words. For example, words like liberty, privilege, minority, and totalitarian are thrown around too often. It would often give trouble to an individual if they were made to give a concise definition of the words that they throw around. For example, instead of outlining what privilege is (Like I did in the linked article above.) and how it affects society, one simply declares that their opponent is privileged. This creates a dangerous political climate in which massive hordes of uninformed populace is swung one way or the other by simple terms and insults. Several examples of this lie in the Republican and Democrat debates. Words and phrases like 'freedom' and 'income equality' and 'socialist' draw applause and booing alike. Democracy is the will of the majority, but if the majority has no will, then it is all for naught. A democracy craves substance. The people of a nation deserve to know the fleshed out ideas of their candidates.

A Spawning Ground for Poor Political Discourse. Source:Washington Post

There is one reason that can be tied to almost every factor that is causing this poisonous atmosphere is individual laziness. Political discourse between opposing viewpoints has been minimized to forced family gatherings and trolling on the internet. Too often do people sit in their camps and complain about the other camp without a shred of respect for that camp's viewpoints. Why? They are too lazy to take responsibility for their own viewpoints. They are too lazy to truly know what it is that they believe aside from a few God-Terms. Thus, upon confrontation, these sides end up spewing nonsense at each other and no-one is left more knowledgeable. Furthermore, when asked for an example of the Russian decent into the dark and deadly Soviet era being repeated in the West, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said: "... It is considered embarrassing to put forward one's counterarguments, lest one become involved. And so there is a certain abdication of responsibility, which is typical here where there is complete freedom. Let us take the press writers, journalists, who enjoy great freedom and meanwhile lose their sense of responsibility before history, before their own people." Solzhenitsyn confirmed then the cause of this ongoing degradation of political discourse. The only solution to this problem of over offence and fear of causing it is to pursue the truth. In so doing, every opinion becomes valuable and every viewpoint becomes useful. Discussion and debate is no longer about defending a political camp or attacking that which is undesirable. Discourse becomes a vessel through which the agreeable course of the nation is made discover-able. If anything, it will make these idiotic comparisons less common.

There will probably come a person who can viably be compared to Hitler, but until then, please refrain from such useless comparisons. Those who use the comparison seriously are only contributing to their own ill-image.

The Great Wall of Serbia - Dealing With Immigration -

--- European Immigration ---

I just got back from Europe and, having seen the effects of immigration firsthand there, that being hordes of men shouting at crowds to buy things while their peers pry at stragglers' pockets, I am not at all surprised at the headlines of the past couple of days. The Hungarian government is completely fed up with the current state of European Immigration. To completely measure the amount of patience that has been squeezed from the aforementioned government, all one must do is to imagine a 175 km long, 4 meter tall 'fence' which is to be built along Hungary's shared border with Serbia. That is a lot of patience which has found its way in the waste bin. Viktor Orban, Hungary's Prime Minister, said that the EU's current immigrant distribution plan "borders on insanity." Heh 'borders' heh. Anyways, immigration is a massive problem in Europe, but is constructing a cold-war style wall really the answer? I was in Berlin not two weeks ago. I saw Checkpoint Charlie and walked along where the wall stood. Surely we have learned our lesson? Hungary is not the only offender here, as Bulgaria is currently planning on extending its own wall which borders Turkey. So, here we have a real issue here. There are unavoidable waves of immigration heading to Europe. What can be done? What are the consequences? Is there a sensitive, ethical way to say no to immigration? I don't know the answer to any of these questions but I will give them a shot.

Source - BBC World News

To begin with, what is there to be done about immigration? European countries are not like the United States. They do not have the luxury of having immigration from predominately catholic countries with populations of resourceful, motivated dream-seekers. Europe borders the empires of Islam, whose immigrants can sometimes be dangerous. The EU has attempted a quota system which has done nothing to control the levels of immigration from abroad. Obviously, nobody in good conscience can idle about while people in need are drowning in the Mediterranean. The current system of distribution, as Orban has already pointed out, also does nothing. Layers of  bureaucratic nonsense piled upon security checks can reduce the threat from immigrants intending to cause mayhem, but it will, inevitably, create larger masses of people collecting like fat in a blood stream which will eventually cause a clog. Efficiency is key, but so is safety. It is already well established that the European economy cannot handle the unskilled labor force and is unwilling to face the additional security risk, so why must the Europeans even deal with immigrants? They have no choice in the matter. Either the Europeans take them in, or they die afloat on their rafts in the Mediterranean. So efficiency must trump safety, at least for the time being. Then infrequent, isolated events like the Charlie Hebdo attacks happen, and every immigrant everywhere is painted an eternal scapegoat. "Why didn't we care about security?"- the newscasters will shout with their inevitable and irritating tones of surprise. Either all the immigrants are to be taken in, and the occasional isolated event happen, or the EU develops tedious and inefficient security infrastructure and allow the lines of Adriatic rafts to pile up. The administrators in the EU must redirect funding it cannot afford toward dealing with immigration, or it must make the choice and deal with the consequences. This does not even touch upon the additional aspects of immigration which makes the Great Wall of Serbia even remotely morally viable.

An Intact Guard Tower From the Berlin Wall Source - Own Collection

To continue, the consequences of immigration are the creation minorities, plain and simple. Depending on the type of government and the power of said government, minorities can either have no impact on a nation or they can have a massive impact. Imperial Russia, for instance, could very easily keep tabs on its minority groups because of its autocratic nature and its ability to give and take autonomy at the drop of a hat. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, is undermined and made weaker because of the increasing division in society caused by reliance of constituencies in its democratic process. Minority groups are the targets of territorial claims, they are the starting point of dissent, and they are rarely satisfied! Czechoslovakia fell apart because of its German minority. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was brought to its knees by Ukrainian minorities. The Dutch declared independence from Spain because they were an unrepresented minority. Don't even get me started on the Balkans. Even in the United States, we have countless issues caused by the effects of multiculturalism. Unjust racism, riots, idiotic victimization, ghettos, affirmative action, imposed guilt, mistrust, failure to provide equal education, failure to provide equal opportunity. Whichever side one happens to be on, he/she believes in some negative aspect of multiculturalism. The opportunity for monoculturalism, however, is lost in most European countries. These immigrants are fueling a wave of new minorities which will be used by politicians to get their way either as scapegoats or as victims. In many cases, these immigrants will be borderline useless to the countries that receive them. On top of the security and social aspects of their journeys, they will drag down the economies of the nations which are unfortunate to have the closest doormat to whichever failed nation from which the immigrants came. Immigrants from the 'acquired' Eastern European countries come prepared to work, but these immigrants come unprepared to do nothing but be fed by welfare programs. This being said, THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE HELPED NONETHELESS. The Hungarians are shutting off immigration to their country, but this does not keep them from helping immigrants.

This brings me to the final question- Is there a sensitive, ethical way to say no to immigration? My first thought is to STOP PURPOSEFULLY DESTABILIZING MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRIES. After this country purposefully destabilized both Iraq and Syria, a militant group with a name that you all know, has been spreading its influence across the middle east. The United States does the minimum to contain its spread out of a spoken fear of intervention when the intervention has come and gone already. The time for worrying about the effects of intervention have long past. This is coming from one of the most die-hard non-interventionists that you will ever read from. I think that the United States has everything to gain from a destabilized Syria and Iraq, because it marginalizes Iran's sphere of influence and, naturally, Iran itself. Iran is increasingly allied with Russia and China, against whom, most of our foreign policy is directed against. Europe, on the other hand, wishes no part of this, and should be spearheading the offensive against ISIS/ISIL/IS/ whatever you want to call it. Italy, specifically, is very concerned about the fate of their close oil spewing friend, Libya. Back to the immigrants, Immigration could easily be halted at the re-stabilization of the middle east. How does one re-stabilize an entire failed region of the world? By backing legitimate governments instead of terrorists labeled 'moderate rebels.' Hungary and Bulgaria, for example, could be leading military assaults against the IS/whatever people and investing their wall money on legitimate governments to restore peace in their countries. They may be tyrants and dictators, but order and the rule of law is more important than idealism when the war front is on your front door. More important than their money is their lobbying power. Both Hungary and Bulgaria should appeal to the US and the EU to do something about the crisis from which their immigration problems stem. Not that the US is willing to listen to a country that none of its citizens could find on a map, however. Hungary can only justifiably say no to immigrants with the promises that it will attempt to remedy the situation in their homelands.

With regards to the wall, I cannot blame the Hungarians for attempting to find solutions, even as desperate as this one. I do, however, wish that they had the foresight to strike the problem at its roots, or even lobby to do so. Their resources could be directed in a more useful direction. Instead, their resources are being poured into a project that offers a short-term solution at best. Additionally, once the wall goes up, what is stopping immigrants from going though Romania or Croatia? Serbia's Prime Minister, Aleksandr Vucic said that he was "Surprised and Shocked," and that the wall is "not the solution." I can do nothing but agree with Mr. Vucic while I nod in silent disagreement with the Hungarian decision to erect the Great Wall of Serbia. I cannot say, however, that I do not share their concerns for their country.

On a lighter note, I had an incredible, borderline indescribable time in Germany these past two and a half weeks. I am, however, glad to be back in the states. I didn't get to go anywhere relevant to this blog, but I would definitely recommend that you, given the chance, should visit East Germany.

As always, thank you for reading and feel free to leave a comment.

History and Politics...Why? -The Political Desecration of Remembrance-

***This is not some silly argument about contribution ratios***

So, today is the anniversary of the surrender of Nazi Germany to Comintern forces (Allied Forces made peace the day before). Other than the obvious and self-evident significance of the anniversary, this particular date is being celebrated by some, but politicized by others. Of course, I am referring to Victory Day celebrations in Moscow. Every year, on May 9, a flurry of celebrations take place on Red Square. The flagship event is the military parade. This is a show of the Russian Armed Forces parading through the square as they had done from the very first Victory Day celebration back in 1946. This holiday is the Russian fourth of July. This parade is not just a show of muscle. This is a commemoration that honors those who sacrificed everything, to pay respects to those who were irreversibly damaged by oppressive Soviet policy regarding veterans, and to celebrate those who are still able to take pride in the successful defense of their homes. But this is not only about Russia. This holiday is about the contribution of the former USSR republics, the Allied forces who fought alongside the Comintern forces, and most importantly, peace. Russia has a tradition of inviting figures from western countries to participate in the event. For instance, in 2005, government ministers from the US, Canada, Poland, Italy, Spain, and even Germany were invited to attend. The Americans, French, and British were even able to march alongside the Russians. Today, the very invitation to attend the Victory Day parade was declined by the US, Canada, Ukraine, Germany, Czech Republic, the UK, the Nordic Countries, the Baltic Countries, Bulgaria, and Poland. My question is...why????

Of course, this is Russia's  equivalent of the Fourth of July, but imagine if we invited the Russians to participate in our Fourth of July!


The very fortunate side of this is that the ministers of a few of these countries are celebrating their own parades. Belarus, for example, will be holding its own parade. Alexander Lukashenko was quoted saying that, "We are together and [we] share [Russia's] feelings." Angela Merkel, however, will be visiting on the day after. What is the point? Why would you directly and purposefully miss the largest celebration of the defeat of your country's largest, darkest blot upon its history? Surely a leader as skilled and competent as Chancellor Merkel recognizes the diplomatic advantages of attending? Merkel confirmed plans to meet with Vladimir Putin to commemorate the event in an alternative manner. Her spokesman, however, stated that attending a military parade in light of recent actions would be 'inappropriate.' As stated above, this celebration is much more than that, and Merkel obviously recognizes that. In addition, such an event which is dedicated to the common struggle of Russia and its partners is a perfect starting point for a relations thaw. The value is there, and Merkel sees it. The question, again, is why would she downplay her attendance?. We can begin to see a clearer picture with the Czech President, Milos Zeman, whose situation is somewhat similar to Merkel's. Zeman has been a critic of western foreign policy since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict, and he has repeatedly criticized the boycotting of this event. Moreover, he remained steadfast in the desire to attend the V-day parade. All of this despite drawing criticism from the US and the EU. Zeman was so confident in his decision that he banned US ambassador-- Andrew Schapiro-- from Prague Castle. This is truly a man of convictions. Well, he was. Zeman has cancelled his attendance to the parade, but he is still visiting Moscow on the 9th to celebrate in a low-key, attention-avoiding way. This is incredibly odd. Two high-class EU leaders are acting independently from what seems like the rest of the western world. They appear to want to mend ties with Russia and participate in the holiday, but they aren't committed enough to face the criticism from the EU and the US. This answer begs yet another question- why are issues of diplomatic ties so extremely interwoven into a celebration of mutual perseverance over evil?

The United States and its not-so-subtle sphere of 'unquestioning co-operation' seems intent on making Russia an enemy on every front. Even, rather laughably, on the front of historical fact, opinion, and remembrance.  The unimportant arguments flow between distant, detached opponents as to the contribution ratio of the belligerent nations of Nazi Germany's surrender. US media outlets mock Belorussian WW2 memorials. We have already seen the desertion of the last bastion of co-operation between the US and the Russian neutral sphere. How hard is it to share in the remembrance of a common victory? How hard is it to not only celebrate liberty bought (long-term) by the sacrifices of another nation, but also your very own?  No two individuals would behave like this! The motive behind this is that the US doesn't want to bury the hatchet with Russia. The United States would very much love to marginalize the nation which does all in its power to defend against US interventionism. What better way to marginalize a nation than to isolate it? Unfortunately, Russia will not be quite as isolated as the US would like it to be. The use of the word 'unfortunately' comes with the consequence of Russia not truly being isolated. Russia has been historically divided between the East and West by both geography and ideologically. The United States, NATO, and the EU all belong to the Western Sphere. Who might head the Eastern Sphere? China of course. The silly behavior of the US is only serving to drive the head of an ideologically neutral sphere (Russia, Belarus, Central Asia, Serbia, probably Greece in the future, the separatist states in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, and the nation of Armenia) into the hands of the enemies that it should really be worried about. But that is enough of that aside. Back to the issue at hand. Merkel and Zeman value their ties with Russia, but they are unwilling to 'diplomatically insult' Washington. They are trying to walk a middle ground made necessary by childish behavior on the part of the US and the nations who went along with it. It is, however, encouraging to see an attempt from these leaders to bridge an ever-expanding rift, despite the fact that greater powers would rather that rift expand out of control. The US is using all of its diplomatic influence to keep Russia from thawing any relations. There has been so much pressure put on European leaders to boycott this event from the US, that it is near impossible for the leaders who need the relations the most to actually recover them. If the US was actually concerned with worldwide well being and peace, then it too would have jumped upon the opportunity to reforge ties through a shared historical struggle. Such an event would, however, loose the US its opportunity to utilize its diplomatic power projection to further isolate its new enemy. The US, as has been previously discussed on this blog, needs a validation for its power. Russia is the wrong target, but a convenient one. I fear that the politicians of my country have an unhealthy jingoist mentality against a country which poses no real threat to them, and, likewise, grovel at the feet of a nation that they should truly fear, China.. For the reasons discussed above, the American attitude toward this parade reflects its attitude toward a nation that doesn't have to be its enemy, but has been pushed and shoved into the uncomfortable role. And so it appears that we have found a possible answer answer to this question, but questions still yet remain.

In addition to the previous questions regarding motives, politics, and other distant topics, this question is far more real. Why does the US spit upon its history, embarrass itself, disrespect all of its veterans, and blatantly step on the effort and the cause of those who did not live to see their profound effect upon the course of the world? This ceremony is not only about Russia! This ceremony is a commemoration of OUR efforts!  I would love to attempt to draw up an answer to this question, but I simply can't. This is inexcusable. It is, however, a consequence of the actions of the lowest of the low who con-volute history by mixing it and its remembrance with politics best left to the present. History has always been and will always be a part of politics, but this is a new low. Especially for our government in the United States.

Despite what anyone has said on your television screen, I hope that you have celebrated victory on May 8th, and I hope that you will celebrate it again today. The Russian V-day parade will undoubtedly be hosted on the RT website and their channel on YouTube. Remember the lessons learned from this years events. Do not pollute or twist history because of modern politics. You will only make a fool of yourself and spit upon the graves of those you dishonor.

And by the way, guess whose army is marching alongside Russia's this time.... China's. This diplomatic disaster can still be prevented, but we must take a painful paradigm shift to vilify one of our largest trading partners. In addition, we must then undo the mess that we have created and drive Russia and its sphere out of China's grasp. This process could begin with a great potential for success next year. We could march alongside the Russians and celebrate our cooperation instead of playing the role of a high school drama queen by creating problems when there are none.