N O W , L O O K H E R E !(publicistics)Chris MYRSKI, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2001 ...— — — — —
[ Remark: As far as the book is enormously big it is published here, by old habit, in small booklets amounting to about 50 (to 100) KB, containing normally from three to five papers. Here is the latest (till 2015) portion of two materials "For Newspapers". ] — — — — — CONTENTS OF THE SECTIONS Foreword I. For Journals II. For Newspapers III. Feuilletons IV. Others — — — — — Contents Of Section "For Newspapers" The truth about Bulgaria About the market and the Bulgarian Five years of devastation Do you want to lose your 13th pension? Time to draw conclusions About the elections and the demos Requiem for one coalition Something more about democracy What we have messed with the Currency Board Convergence, what is this? Why the communism has fallen down? And where are we? Predictions for the year 1999 Can the Bulgarian pay 50% taxes? Reflections on the eve of the "holiday" About democracy and melioration About democratic phenomenon A step forward and two back Again sharp turn Oh God, what we eat! Why the cocks crow early morning? Does global warming exist? The fatal 2013 year in Bulgaria Why we vote, when we ... don't vote? About the fascism from common sense positions About the Social Ministry in Bulgaria How to improve democratic protests? Read Chris Myrski (in the sense of political reviews) Thoughts about Ukraine ... new for newspapers — — — — — READ CHRIS MYRSKI (in the sense of political reviews) Now, ladies and gentlemen, I have said about an year ago that this Government of former communists will not stay long, but if this happens then just give up reading Myrski anymore. Well, presently, in the end of 2014 I can quietly say that I have turned right and, hence, read Chris Myrski! This is so, yet there is nothing to brag about, this was obvious (for me), so that I don't write this material because of this, but because the situation in Bulgaria has changed, after all, although it can't be said that for the better, we are hoping as before for some extraterrestrial intervention. But it can not change to the better until the world crisis ends, which, according to Myrski, will end in the middle of year 2022 (not that I believe much in this, but if I alone do not believe in my prognoses then how can I require that the others believed me?). In any case, however, the crises does not show signs of ending, so that till the end of the whole mandate of our 43rd National Assembly (the Bulgarian Parliament) it will in any event continue. Hence from here can be inferred that this Government, too, will not stay to the end of its mandate, but let us hope that it will survive at least till the half of it. So that the most important I as if have already said, the situation in Bulgaria is as before unstable (yet we do not fight, how have done in their time the Serbs of how it happens in Ukraine, the Bulgarians, in this regard, are the "dream" of every nation), but let me ponder a little about what the socialists have (or have not) done, about the new political situation, and about our current Government, as well as about what can be expected in Bulgaria, and, let's hope, I will give you in the end some expert rules, so that you alone will be able to judge like the very Myrski about the politics by us, and maybe by you. Good, and now we will begin with 1. What the socialists have done in 42nd National Assembly? Ah, they have done something, they have succeeded to constrain the prices on communal expenses and even have lowered them with about 10 percents (for central heating and electricity), what is not at all little, having in mind also that they were going to jump up somewhere with 15 percents. These are successes, no matter how the anti-communists will spit on them, but do you know what is bad with our socialists? I will tell you, that is why I intended to write this material. So the bad thing is that one does not know to believe in them or not, one can not find the answer to the question, what kind of party they are, left (which they must be as successors of communist party), or centrists (as they beat themselves in the chest that have become), or maybe even right-wing (only not Russophobes, thank God), when have introduced the flat income tax, but also, in outline, have changed nothing fundamental in the system of social insurance (it is still anti-popular). So that they have constrained the increase of main communal scourges for the Bulgarian, but as if have overdone the things, because in relation with the heating have introduced one inconceivable system for bigger distortion of individual readouts, in view of their desire to reduce the big upper peaks. I have explained in my "Survival" that the system of payment for central heating is entirely inconsistent with the devices for individual measuring and that only 1/4 of all consumption can be regulated personally. And now they have decided to introduce some coefficients and conduct the calculations on the basis of the past year, and the averaged consumption for the heating season (but not for the entire year, mark this), what distorts even more the results. So for example, for November, when somewhere till the 20th of the month the leaves have stayed on the trees and when the temperature have not come below 3-4 degrees Celsius above the zero, I have received a bill for 45 levs (1 lv = 0.5 euro), while in the previous year I have had a bill for 29 levs. Yet even a donkey can understand (I beg to be excused by the highly paid experts) that neither two equal years in a row happen, nor is possible to lessen much the consumption in the winter if the averaging is done only for the winter, and in addition to this one simply gets confused in these coefficients and can figure out nothing in advance. In the same time I (having scratched a little my head of a genius) can propose, and this to the whole world, a much better system for averaging modification of readouts, if it comes to distortion of the exact results. The thing is simple, the cycle begins from September (when even on the North pole, if there exists central heating there — but, say, on the Spitsbergen Island, possibly, it exists —, the summer ends), then for the every user is computed the average monthly consumption, AMC, on the basis of doubled amount of the previous year (i.e. cycle, not the calendar year) and single one of the year before the last, and further is proceeded in the following way: for the months without whatever heating is required payment in the amount of 1/3 AMC, for the months in which was heating less than 16 days (in Bulgaria these are: October and April, as a rule) — in the amount of 1 AMC, and for the other months of actual heating — in the amount of 1 and 2/3 AMC. This is all. Then in the normal case for us will be 5 winter months, 5 summer months, and 2 transitional ones, what gives in sum: 5 * 5/3 + 5 * 1/3 + 2 * 1 = 25/3 + 5/3 + 2 = 30/3 + 2 = 10 + 2 = 12 AMC. So, and when the heating season ends (by us this is in May, in all cases) is conducted alignment of the consumption and then will happen, either small increase, or such decrease, of the bills for the last 2 months of the cycle. Let us have a look also in concrete numbers, given in euros, where for a two-room (what for the readers on the West has to be put as one-bedroom) flat in Sofia only for the heating, without the hot water, for one year is collected about 144 euros (I am rounding for easier calculations, but in levs this is between 250 and 300), what gives one AMC equal to 12 euros. Then in the summer will be necessary to pay, without whatever reasons, only 1/3 * 12 = 4 euros, what will not make any problems for the people, because even for the hot water each month normally is used 1 cubic meter and by 3 euros and per person, i.e. for 2.5 persons on the average this will make 8 euros, and besides, for the electricity the averaged bills for such flat are somewhere about 12 euros (25 levs). The payment of 12 euros for October and April can seem a bit increased, especially if the heating was on only 4-5 days, but this is, still, a season, so that people will swallow it, and in winter 5/3 * 12 = 60/3 = 20 euros (40 levs) will look laughably low, and particularly the extreme amounts usually come up to 40 - 50 euros (80 - 100 levs; in the last year I have a maximal bill for 70 lv in December, but the winter was relatively warm, about 20 percents less heating, where in the other previous years the maximal bills were usually for 80 and 90 levs). And the most important: no intricate coefficients, and everyone knows in advance how much has to be paid each month, and the alignment will be approximately within the framework of 10% (I have each year aligning bill for about 5-10 euros, and once it was even with the exactness of cents, for the entire year). So, I have devoted so much time to this issue because it, by itself, is actual, really for the whole world, paying on some basis, and when our specialists have bungled such "miscarriage", then it can freely be so that the situation is similar also in other countries. But if the ex-communists have not tried so beyond their strengths to shine before the others with their cares about the people they would have not "spat out" such pearl. Although they have reduced a bit the taxes on deposits in the banks, from 10%, to 8, and as if promised in the next year to lower them to 7, an so on (because we, as the poorest country in European Union, have taxes on the deposits, what affects mainly the poor, I repeat, not the wealthy clients, who keep their money on current accounts for faster access, and on them, because of the bigger sums, the banks give to the clients on the average 3.5%, while for annual deposits these percents are on the average 4.5). So that I don't belittle their successes. Even if in 2015 some communal price jumps up, it can be taken that it did not jump earlier because of the efforts of the communists, sorry, socialists. And they have succeeded to raise the minimal salary from 310 lv to 340 lv, what nevertheless is only 170 euro in month (or just 1 euro per hour), and for comparison it is, as follows: in Rumania 190 euro, in Czech Republic 308, in Turkey 415, in Spain 750, in Germany will be 8.5 per hour (what has to give, multiplying by 170, 1445), and in France 1430 (with the countries of CIS there is no need to compare because there is not this currency, and in that case comes into force the rule about computing of some consumer basket, taking into account the real buying power, or purchasing power parity — because there, I thing, one egg of size M is not, like by us, 0.11 euro, or one ticket for the city transport has to be less than our 50 euro-cents). Naturally, there are many other aspects of the work of our former Government, but it has alone resigned in the end of July, so that we will find no more faults with them. This, what I have predicted, that their positions, obviously, will worsen after their standing at the helm of power, has happened, though not at once, but gradually lower and lower during the whole 2014. And also, if one takes another look at the matter, the other parties would have made similar changes, because something what is highly necessary is seen by everybody (say, now the leader of GERB party, Boiko Borisov, said that he also will conduct negotiations with Russia about the pipeline South Stream, while earlier he did not want to). And do not overlook also another fact, that for the majority of products, at least by assortment, if not by quantity, or in the sense of urgent need of them, exist market mechanisms, they are not formed by the politicians, this is not the old totalitarian time. And the market is very stable system, i.e. with strong negative feedback, for this reason it existed since antediluvian times. This is such "beast", that it is capable to take all your free money not even batting an eye. So that if people have money then the prices raise up (in order to take them from the buyers), but when such are absent then the prices drop down. So for example, in 2014 the sugar has fallen roughly twice (from 2.20 lv to 1.20 in December, but I have bought even for a bit less than 1 lv), the sunflower oil, too (it was around 3 lv and now almost everywhere it goes by 1.90), even the eggs, which somewhere in 2012 jumped up nearly two times, little by little have already decreased and now they are with only about 20 percents higher than the situation in 2012 (then one egg, of size M, middle, was 17 stotinki-cents and now it is 21 st). And the industrial goods are also slowly falling all the time (either because by established production they are falling anyway, and /or because in Bulgaria are sold products of very poor quality, but the fact is fact). So that the situation of the people has not improved (it could have not especially improve, the politics is not economy), and whatever the leading party has not done the people would have again remained dissatisfied; if the politicians could have succeeded to lower all communal expenses, with a magic wand, entire two times, then after a pair of euphoric months would have been set new equilibrium of prices and the people would have again become unsatisfied. But enough with this, let us see 2. What has happened till September 2014? Well, it has happened this what could have been expected, the parties acted comparatively reasonable, new blocks of relatively new parties have emerged, or more precisely: already in December 2013 was formed the party RB, Reformist Block, from five, chiefly right-wing parties (which say that they are for immediate reforms — because they must somehow invent reasons for their name), then in January was registered the party BWC or Bulgaria Without Censoring (they also have some slogan, and how else?), headed by one media boss, a bit later emerged another new party, ABC (it isn't exactly so, its name has to be literally translated as Alternative of Bulgarian Renaissance, but in Bulgarian the initials are exactly as our first three letters of the alphabet), headed by the former President Georgi Parvanov (well, the "guy" was accustomed to get good money so that he strained himself a bit and formed his party), and in the middle of May was registered one more party, this time fascist, NFFB, National Front for Free Bulgaria. Also the very BSP, the Bulgarian socialists, changed at last their leader and their Already_Boss (allusion to his family name, Stanishev, and become_boss in Bulgarian is "stani-shef") after the end of July has ceased to be more boss of this party, it emerged a new person, Mihail Mikov. And what caused all these feverish changes in the political life of Bulgaria? Well, the elections in European Parliament on 25 of May 2014, when BSP, and especially its former boss Stanishev, has received a strong slap in the face, Because then the GERB party (its name is Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria but the point again is that "gerb" in Bulgarian means coat of arms) has won 30.4% (like in the previous National Assembly where they have had 30.5%), BSP has won only 19% (against their previous 26.6), MRF (or DPS in Bulgarian, the Turks) — 17.3 (and earlier was 11.3), and ATAKA (what surely means attack, the fascists) 3% (against 7.3%). In short: GERB continues to lead, BSP has lost roughly 1/3 of the votes, the Turks have won another half, and ATAKA has lost more than the half! And where have gone the other votes? They were taken by the new coalitions: BWC — 10.7%, RB (5 parties) — 6.5%, ABC (the former President) — 4.0%, and NFFB (the new fascists) — 3.05%. Although by number of Euro-Deputies (only 17) the distribution is: GERB — 6, BSP — 4, MRF — 4, BWC — 2, and RB — 1. So. And then in the end of July the Government abdicated. What other conclusions can be drawn here (in addition to the obvious, that the socialists have ridiculed themselves, and GERB continues to lead and has the same amount of voters)? Well, the one things is that there emerged new fascists and they have taken the half of the votes of the old, in result of what both parties have remained out of the ranking (and it serves them right, when they don't want to coalesce, but it is so between the fascists, they can rarely build coalitions). Another thing is that the media — they are for that purpose media — win, but something remains also for other classical right-wing parties. But the more important thing is that DPS-MRF (the Turks) are nearly aligning with the BSP, and then arises the logical question: from where have come their increase in the votes? I personally think that, in spite of some increase of the voters abroad, the votes to the Turks have come from BSP, i.e. that these are such ethnical Turks who sometimes consider themselves Turks, but sometimes Bulgarians, this is quite natural situation amidst national minorities, and because they can not be between the supporters of the fascists, then this means that earlier they have supported the socialists. But this is not good for the stability in Bulgaria, because it is one thing 7% fascists and 11% Turks and Gypsies (theoretically as percentage of the population there have to be about 20% Turks and 15% Gypsies, but there is nobody who can tell you this exactly), and it is quite another thing when the Turks occupy 1/4 of the places and aim at the second place between parties; it turns out that this confirms the old joke, even since 1991, that "the path to Europe goes through the Bosphorus"! So, and let us see further 3. What have shown the Parliamentary elections on 5 October 2014? In two word, not very different picture than for the Euro-Parliament, with this detail that have emerged , PF or Patriotic Front, which unites now two new fascist parties (in addition to the old ATAKA), NFFB and VMRO (the latter this time are Macedonians), what was necessary because otherwise neither of them would have entered the Parliament, and in this way have emerged whole eight parties in it, or twice more as parties (or coalitions). This is entirely new disposition, in comparison with the previous Parliament. More precisely the results are the following (taking into account that in our National Assembly are 240 Deputies): GERB — 32.7%, 84 places (or -13, as percentage they have increased but as number or persons have diminished!), BSP — 15.4%, 39 places (-45, they have remained less than the half), DPS-MRF (the ethnical Turks) — 14.8%, 38 places (only +2, no matter that their percentage has grown with 11.3), further comes RB (new right-wing, coalition) — 8.9%, 23 places, then PF (two new fascist parties) — 7.3%, 19 places, then BWC (new, the media boss) — 5.7%, 15 places, further more are the right-wing atakists (fascists) — 4.5%, 11 places (-12 places, but otherwise nearly -3%), and the last are ABC (the former President) — 4.2%, 11 places. So, and this by electoral activity of 48.7% (against the old 51.3%), i.e. a bit further less. Well, let us discuss these results. After the emergence of four new political powers in the Parliament the next important moment is this, that nearly all parties having taken part in the elections have succeeded to enter the Parliament (NA), because on all other parties remain 6.6%, and earlier (in the 42nd NA) have left 24.3%. This, surely, is good, this must pacify the political life on the streets, on account of bigger circuses in the very NA. But because of this has become possible that, no matter that GERB have won on two percents more, they have received on 13 places less, or MRF, no matter that have won nearly with one quarter more percents, they have earned only two more places. Nonetheless, this is more equitable situation, and for this, that in the last NA one quarter of the electors have voted for "the one that blows" (as they say in Bulgaria) are to be blamed the parties alone, that they have not taken into account in advance the situation and made the necessary coalitions, as they have done in 2014. So well, and with whom has our Boiko, general of firefighters, as it turns out, to make a coalition now? Hard question, and because of this he has kept the "ball" a whole month, but at the end made Government. And the question is difficult because with the Turks he can in no way coalesce, as also with the now plucked out socialists, but on the other hand he has experience that to the fascists one can take resort only in the worst case, because they don't agree to listen to him, and not to listen to generals, of course, is not the right thing. So that four parties /coalitions drop out, and there remain: RB (the new, though otherwise old, right-wing), BWC (the media boss), and ABC (of the former communist President). And in the end our Duce Boiko decided to reject also the media boss and formed Cabinet from GERB, RB, and, as strange as it seems, ABC (well, it is ABV in Bulgarian). But in recompense of this he prolonged it as only possible and appointed four Vice Premiers and 16 Ministers, record achievement. But the important thing is that we now have legitimate Government, and the state carriage can move further on the way of democratic flourishing. How the things will evolve further is not worth to predict, but probably he has fifty-fifty chances to withstand till the middle of his mandate, though to the end of it I don't believe much. But he has chances, because the opposition is too opposed, on one side there are the socialists, who have now curled their tails under them and do not dare to give much voice when have so greatly ridiculed themselves, and they have also only 1/6 of the seats in NA, then come the ethnical Turks (as well Gypsies), who have also 1/6 of the seats, and nobody wants even to greet them, all, especially the fascists, cry out to the heavens that the existing of ethnical party is inadmissible (but of fascist one, according to them, is admissible, and even necessary), then come three fascist parties in two blocks, who greet themselves, but do not respect at all one another, and behind all are trailing the fighters for free media, who want only to increase their capitals at the expense of any contradictions (for them the more disturbances and discontent, the better). And you should not miss also the fact that Boiko Borisov is not so self-confident anymore, and will hardly do big blunders, he will divide the responsibility, i.e. say: "Good, I will agree, but that you do not say later that I have proposed this", and similar words. In general, my personal opinion to a great extent coincides with that of the West, which states that he is the most capable Bulgarian politician. I have said earlier that I am not much impressed by "endowed" men, neither by generals or military people at all, but after all I have been scientific worker, I have become used to think, and to the masses you just give commanders, in order to dictate them what to do, not that they alone wasted much time for thinking. Even this, that he was firefighter, is also to his plus, because he is used to react fast in complex operating environment, as is said, and rely on the work of his subordinates, so that in such big coalition with other parties, and under such motley opposition, he has all chances to make less errors than before. For earlier he has erred maybe in about 20 percent of the cases, but has erred quickly, and have not lost time to propose at once change of the course, when was put under active pressure. Then one should not miss to consider also the meaning of marvelous Angela (because Merkel, if you ask me, means something extraordinary, outstanding, a marker, etc.), who, as the people say, writes him such kind of letters: "Main lieber Bojko, Ich freue mich sehr über deinem Sieg in den Wahlen ..." and so on, and in the end adds, that she hopes very much that he will find somehow time to pay them a visit and then to stay for a while at her summer cottage, where they will be able to share a bottle of bubbling or "ruyno", as he says, Rhine wine, on the mat in front of the blazing fireplace, will remind their gone away youth, and, maybe, will surrender a little to inappropriate for heads of states feelings. I mean, when Angela loves him so much then why should I not accept him, too? Paraphrasing it otherwise, if somebody decides to put a knife to my throat and say: "Now, you scum, choose finally somebody for whom to vote!", then I would choose Duce Boiko, in the end (because I will never live to see neither second strong left-wing party, nor centrist-feminist one, nor also with a bit more reasonable and moderate platform, and if not for him then I will be forced to vote for the Turks, and this seems not much inspiring to me). Well, okay, okay, I was joking about the letter of Frau Professorin (I think) Angela Merkel, I surely can't know what she writes to him, but the various media say that she is in correspondence with him. Yes, and in relation with these last elections I would like to give some peculiar statistical data about them. So for example, it turns out that vote mainly ... women, i.e. they are in the whole 53.4%, and the men are 46.6%, and if you divide the former on the latter then this means that the women are with 14.5% more, and this ratio is in broad lines the same for all parties, only for ATAKA the men are 65% (what is easily explainable), and for ABC the women are 61% (and I have never thought that Georgi Parvanov was such handsome man). Hence, here is the reason why people have long ago allowed to the women to vote — because otherwise there would have been even less voting persons. Further, as Turks in Bulgaria acknowledge 10% of the population, and as Gypsies only 3%, but it has to be clear even to pre-school children that the Gypsies are not less than 15%, and the Turks are the whole 20, because there are areas where the population in predominantly Turkish; then for nearly all parties vote somewhere about 95% Bulgarians, with the exception of the fascist parties, where they are 99%, and MRF, where as Bulgarians declare themselves only 16%, as Turks — 73%, and as Gypsies— 10% . As I said, the ethnic affiliation is entirely fuzzy notion, and, on the other hand, the presence of obviously Turkish names impresses nobody (say, in GERB enters one Vezhdi Rashidov, who is now Minister of Culture. Interesting is also what is the distribution by age of the voters, taking into account that the beginning is in 18 years, and as end we will take the average life span, which is approximately 74 years for both sexes, i.e. the interval of voting will be 56 years; this, however, is not exactly so, the people are distributed not uniformly, and somewhere after 50, and especially after 60, they begin little by little to die, so that I will shorten further the last but one interval with 1 year, and the last one with 2, what means that the average interval of voting will become 53 years (these are not exact calculations, but one should also not much trust these agencies, they contradict one another, so that you better trust my mathematical intuition that this will give more accurate account of the situation). Then (according to "Galap International") in the interval of 18 to 25 years (8 years, the last year is included, or 15.1%) vote on the average 10%, but in BSP 6, and in MRF 14; further in the interval 26 - 35 (10 years, 18.9%) vote on the average 16.4%, but in BSP they are 8, and in the others like in the average case; then in the interval 36 - 45 (10 years, again roughly 19%) vote on the average 19.3%, but in BSP they are 10, and in the others about 21%; then for 46 - 55 (10 years, again 19%) vote averagely also 19.3%, and in the individual cases nearly so, only for BSP this percent is 16; then for 56 - 65 (10 лет, which I diminish to 9, what gives 17.0%) vote on the average also 17.5%, and in GERB they are 17.1, but in BSP they are 21, and in MRF 15; and the last interval from 66 and to 74 (9 years, but diminished with 2 years gives 7 years, or 13%), and in GERB they are 13.6, but in BSP now are nearly 40, and in MRF 12; and then if we sum all these calculated by me percents (15.1 + 18.9 + ... 17 + 13) we get 101.8, what means that my error is less than 2 percents. So that BSP is supported mainly by decrepit old men and old women, and MRF mainly by young and unemployed (probably), and in addition to this only in the age from 36 and to 56 vote all who can vote, but the young ones either vote for the fascists, or then for nobody. Or let us take another statistics, in relation to the employment. There fully working are 50%, for GERB vote 58%, for BSP and MRF — 34, the others are around the average, and only for RB are 64%. Then for partially working on the average are 8%, but MRF has 14; further for studying and housewives there are no special dissonances; but for the unemployed the average percent is 10.6, but for MRF they are 24; and lastly the pensioners are on the average 24%, but for BSP they are 46, for GERB — 20, for MRF — 17, and RB has only 14.6 (in order to recompense the increasing for the fully employed). Or, say, by this who where lives. There in Sofia are on the average 13.4%, but for MRF is only one percent, and for RB they are30; then in the big cities they are 41%, for GERB — 48, for BSP — 34, and for MRF — 13; then in the small towns live on the average 25%, and for GERB they are only 18, for BSP — 29, for MRF — whole 70%, and for RB only 11. So that you see how different is the character of the voters for different parties, and for that reason they are needed all, when there is not one good party for all. Well, it is time to round up because the main things are said: the political situation in Bulgaria is very unstable, but it is a bit better than was during the communist socialists, and general Borisov is the most popular politic in the moment in Bulgaria, who is able to take quick (though not always right) decisions, and who is equally loved by all circles of population. This will hardly continue for a long time, but let us hope that he will stand the main part of his mandate, because the communists will not succeed to recover earlier than after 10 years, on fascists one should never rely, they are braggarts and loudmouths, on the Turks to rely is at least not ethical, in order not to say scandalous, and all other right-wing parties can hardly scrape together 10%, and there simply don't exist other left-wing parties. So that it is how I have said in the very title, read Chris Myrski, he will not cheat you. Although, on the other hand, also ... do not read him, because he intends to stop writing more political materials, he wants to engage himself with translations in other languages of this, what has already written, but also to evolve some of his ideas, co create a pair of another books. For this reason I in broad lines tell goodbye to you, and in relation with this, for not to leave you entirely homeless and neglected, I will give you in the end some of my basic expert rules, the majority of which I have touched in various other materials, many of them are obvious, even if I have not touched them (in what I doubt, I have rather told more than necessary instead of less), and some of them I will explain in the process of narration (yet some may not explain, will leave to you to figure them out). So that there follow 4. The expert rules of Chris Myrski in politics. I will order them somehow, but let's not find fault with this order because the most important thing in one expert system are not so much the very rules, as the succession of their putting in action, there is hidden its intellect, and here I rely mainly on my intuition; if you have not such own infallible (and how else?) intuition, like by the (ingenious) Myrski, then the only advice to you is the following: follow the title of this material! When you read all what he has written, and if succeed to assimilate this without special resistance and keep it in your brains, then you will think like him, wouldn't you? So it is, and it is time to begin. i) The economy determines the politics, not vice versa. Because of this if in the country approximately everything is in order then every government, every party, is good and the people will choose it again and again. But if the things do not go, then no one party will better them! If the situation is very severe then it, anyway, is not for democratic solution, but for some more centralized or authoritative one. In Bulgaria the economy is very weak, and for this reason not a single government can satisfy us. i) In bad circumstances who stays at the helm always compromises himself, and who sits in opposition and only criticizes raises his rating. While when the situation in the country is good then the staying aside politician only loses his chance. So that here a fine estimation is necessary, this is up to some extent an art. i) All parties are bad because they think about their own interests (not even about the interests of their people, but most often only about the career of their leaders), not about the other people, and for that reason they work good when there are not big differences between them, or at least between the leading parties, i.e. when there is a stable center. But when the situation is such there is no special need of the existence of parties (and because of this in totalitarian conditions they are not present, then exists only the vanguard of masses). The main reason for their existence is in this, that they raised the necessary questions, were initiators of activities, but not executors, not leaders, yet in democratic conditions this is not possible, so that we are forced to be satisfied with them, what, however does not mean that they are good. As consequence of this usually happens alternating of different parties, so that in this way was reached some averaged value for a longer period of time. i) When some party leaves the stage usually remain some persons of it, who form new parties. But parties built around persons can not exist for a long time. On the other hand the ideas quite often repeat and with them is speculated, so that parties of personalities have also their advantages. i) The worse the conditions in the country are, first of all the economic ones, the more the platforms of parties begin to differ, and the political situation sharpens, but this leads chiefly to unrest in the country, not to the right decision, which can be reached in result of many fluctuations between the poles (like the movement of a blind person, who pokes with a stick, now right and then left). Due to this it makes sense to speak about oscillation of a pendulum (what I have observed in one of my earlier materials), where the important thing is to avoid the meaningless tremor in both ends, i.e. to brake the development of the events, to increase the inertness of the system. i) In conditions of democracy not the parties (i.e. their rulers) influence the popular masses but vice versa, the masses form (in a long run) the character of the parties. This, naturally, is entirely wrong, because it means that the uneducated teaches the learned person (or that the beast teaches the shepherd), but this is an inborn drawback of democracy. Only by the centralized forms of ruling is possible influence on part of the leaders on the population, but then it often happens that the leaders defend mainly their own interests and forget about the people, or that simply the ideas age and the rulers defend old things. Nevertheless this is the right way, and the masses understand this in their own way, so that they try to make idols out of the leading politicians, what, as a rule, worsens the situation (leads to fascism, or to other bloodshed). For this reason it is very important the presence of a third, moralizing, part, which is to show what is good, to teach the people, but not to govern immediately. In the majority of cases (but not always) the democracy functions good in religious countries, but under separated religion from the state, yet nowadays the number of such countries diminishes. i) The better the different layers of population are represented in the Parliament, the more quietly is on the streets, but in recompense for this is more unquietly in the Parliament, i.e. it works worse! Because of this it happens that the best thing of the democracy are the extra-Parliamentary powers and movements, what reduces to this, that the very parties in the Parliament work badly in conditions of contradictions, and this, too, is an inborn drawback of democracy. But when it works effectively this is similar to the totalitarian model, so that in this respect the democracy delays the development of society. Id est, no matter that by good democracy the development of society is delayed, this is not so bad, because in this way is maintained the status quo, what is the primary goal of every ruling. Due to this it may happen that one bad and ineffective ruling can show good influence over the society; also quite often the democracy seeks (and finds) various ways for lessening of the fast changes, bringing to power dynasty ruling, there are forming families of leading politicians. i) The democracy is in some measure feminine ruling, i.e. weak, strategic, not tactical, it says what has to be done, not how to do it. For this reason participation of women in the ruling is very modern tendency in our times, and it usually shows positive influence (I have discussed this in several places). But it remains the question with the choice of tacticians, who have to know also how to do the things. Probably in relation with this people often choose also the strong fist, in order to have (at least semblance of) action, i.e. here, too, arises frequent changing of different extremities, on what the democracy also stays, because for it the most important thing is that the persons changed but the system remained the same. i) The phenomenon of presence of right-wing parties is pretty strange (from the point of view of the reason), because quite big popular masses, who have absolutely no chances to become strong and wealthy, want that some of them were strong or wealthy, i.e. they simply support their oppressors! This phenomenon is explained with this that people, as a rule, have little brains, but in many cases it is justified, because many careerists are hiding behind the guise of unselfish leaders, and if somebody in the open shows that he is a careerist then people believe in him. So that in this aspect, too, all is reduced to the necessary degree of compromise. i) The democracy in all events is based on delusion, but if this delusion is in the interest of peacefulness, then this is justified from the point of view of logic, for it should not be forgotten that the less one understands something, the more convinced one judges about it. And the management nowadays is necessary at least for coordination of the actions. So that all subtlety is in this, how to make the incompetent person to obey, if not by compulsion. i) When democratic ruling becomes confused often are formed caretakers Governments, which only govern, do pressing or urgent things that can't be left undone, but forget about the circuses for the people. But, in real fact, this is the genuine government, everything else is just dust in the eyes of the people. Id est here, too, this, what is exception to the rules, is more reasonable, but it can not be otherwise when the democracy (according to Myrski, but not he has discovered "America") contradicts to the common sense. In this regard it would have not been bad to have some instance, than will sometimes choose and appoint such Governments, say, some Commission to the European Union. The only reason why this is not done is that such cases are slaps in the face of Miss Democracy, but earlier the Great Powers have not once gathered and decided some questions for other nations (for example, in its time, after liberation of Bulgaria from Ottoman yoke, they have appointed us a King, because for five centuries all our "royal princes" have died, and nobody, I think, has said then that this is bad). So that the caretakers Governments, with which we have begun to become accustomed, are not at all such tragedies, as our politicians try to picture them. So, my honoured readers — I have many times explained that you are for me so honoured by the simple reason that you are not much, but in case you become, say, millions, then I will not at all continue to esteem you, right? So now, this that I wanted to tell you is that I give up to comment anymore the political situation in Bulgaria, because when more than half of the people definitely don't vote, and this now for about a decade, then the people obviously are dissatisfied with the democracy, whatever the political commentators (or whoever only they can be) can say. I personally have tried all possible variants of voting, as reasonable, as well unreasonable ones, and also various possible (they are described in one of my feuilleton) and now 20 years I think that the most reasonable is not to vote, and, do you know, I am happy, because in this regard I have at last reached unanimity with the masses. Indeed, even now, and for the very first party, have voted 32.7% of the voters, but out of 48.7% possible such, what means that for it, in fact, are only 16% (0.327 * 0.487 = 0.1592), while those who choose not-a-single-party are 51.3% or more than three times more (51.3 / 15.9 = 3.23). I still think that if by us have voted, say, 30% of the people, then the European Union positively would have interfered in some way, maybe with subsidies, who knows? Because if it is not so then it turns out that the democracy is to be changed, but not how think our "reformists", but how thinks Myrski in various places. Not that I believe in this, but I have made my propositions, have done my part of the things, the creative one. When the people don't want, then how they want. All is justified in this world, whatever only happens, the difference is solely in the social price. December 2014 — — — THOUGHTS ABOUT UKRAINE This is what is said, contemplations about Ukraine, why this, what is done there, though not new as situation, is not good, by what reasons, how the society evolves and to what this can lead, why Ukraine will in any case only lose if the disorder there will continue, what is best of all to do and to what to aim, who is guilty, and other related questions. Id est this is not political commentary, not only because I am not specialist in these matters, not political commentator or special observer, etc., but also because the situation there develops pretty fast, and while I write and multiply this material for several sites, then it will already become old. But my things usually do not age, even after twenty years, due to the fact that my approach is reasonable and a little philosophical, so that also this time I will write so that this material could have been read after, say, fifty years, or hundred, or two hundreds. Anyway, I for a long time, 3-4 years now, intend to write something of the kind and always can not find free time to do this. Well, then let me begin, and see what will succeed to create. Although I wish to add in the beginning that I may be wrong in some details. For this reason I will summarize now how I understand the situation there, and you, if you think that the things are not so, the problems are entirely different, and this my idea about the situation there is quite vague, then just exit quickly out of this material. So my understanding of the situation is such: the Ukrainians feel themselves displeased and insulted by this that to them was attributed the role of younger brother, but they are more capable and gifted and more genuine Slavs and Christians, and it is long ago time for them to separate from Russia and unite with the West, with Europe, in order to start living happily among rivers of honey and butter. While in the same time the Russians feel obliged to defend the unity of neighbouring states, as also to exercise military supremacy in the region, and the less states remain in the CIS the harder they will defend its integrity. So that the Ukrainians must simply put up with the situation and try to derive from it as much benefits as possible, because else, if they succeed to separate from Russia, they, in any case, will only lose. That is how I thing in outlines, and as far as the situation in Ukraine is in many aspects similar to that in Bulgaria, at least in regard of the poverty, I have some look at the things, because Ukraine goes, so, twenty years after Bulgaria in its actions of untying from the influence of the "great and indestructible" Soviet Union, and in such case I can give some useful advice. So, and now I begin to explain the things in a bit finer raster. Nothing new under the Sun Everyone knows this, right? And this, what I have in mind here, is that the bigger amount of controversies arise between related or territorially adjacent people or territories, for the reason that they have similar views to the things, but differ in details, and because they have what to divide. The same is also true about the conflicts between generations, where the genes, in one or another degree, manifest themselves, and it was nearly the same almost 25 centuries back, when certain Alexander Macedonian decided to conquer first the state of Athens on his way to the East. To conquer not because he did not like them, for they had common gods, and the language as if also was the same, but he needed a strong rear. But he had no desire to fight with them, they were those who wanted to fight whatever happens, and they have even used on expenses for weapons and troops some hundred talents of gold from the neighbouring Persians, which the latter have decided to give them as gift, in order that they, defending themselves, stopped this Ksan Macedonian. Well, they have defended themselves, without any necessity, and have lost the battle. And do you know what is this a talent — where from has come also the word used for such gifted persons (like your author, right?)? It turns out that this was approximately 20 kilograms, because this is the usual load which a person can carry out on his back. But I give you this example in order to show how the related nations from times immemorial have considered as almost obligatory firstly to fight between them, and later, eventually, to begin making friends. Id est how not necessarily economic reasons, but entirely "human", like excessive stubbornness, unwillingness to comply with reality, desire to show off, and so on, lead to entirely unnecessary quarrels and battles. Because it has to be clear that it is not right that the weak fights with the strong, this is silly, isn't it? Yeah, sure, this is silly, but, on the other hand, this is humanly! Such situations happen quite often, take for example the events in Ireland, or in the beginning of 90ies of the past century in Serboslavia, and in other places. And somewhere in that time when the battles in Yugoslavia were led, I think, I have come to the conclusion that usually, as a rule, in 90 percents of the cases guilty are the weaker, but the responsibility carry the stronger. I can not boast that read political commentaries, but have not met officially this statement, no matter that there are quite reasonable causes for it. They are fixed even etymologically, as in the English (your "mean" means average, but also bad, evil, etc.) so also in the Italian (their sinister means left, i.e. here weak, but also like your sinister, evil). And such character usually has the feminine reaction in family conflicts, which, obviously, is weak. Id est the women usually provoke conflicts, hoping that either the men will become ashamed, or there will be some public reaction, but they are those who begin the disputes, and the men are forced to apply brutal force since deep antiquity. And the weak side is usually more dishonest for the simple reason that in a fair fight it, surely, will lose the battle, it has no other choice. At the same time the responsibility carries the strong side, because that is why it is stronger, for to find solution, and with applying of as less as possible force. So also in this conflict, I think, the situation is, generally, such, the Ukrainians want to defend their independence, this is the right of every individual and every nation, to insist on their language, and on their hryvnia, for else the Russians will assimilate them. And all military bases there, the Russian territories in Crimea, and other things, have to be returned to Ukraine, for to increase its prosperity, think they. The Russians may be similar to the Ukrainians, but not exactly, and their own shirt is closer to their body, as the Russian saying goes, what means that self comes first. Yeah, but when they are weaker, when the Russians are three times more on population, but on territory even about 25 times more, and when the Russians are nuclear state, then they simply must obey them, not to show their own wishes but comply with those of the Russians, maintain common market with them, and then they will only gain by all this. But let us proceed. I think that independence is one thing, but to change political blocs is not good. Because we are living now in 21 century, in which all states are independent up to some extent, there are no colonies. Yet military blocs still exist, and as if in the nearest pair of centuries have no intention to disappear. They are still necessary, approximately in such degree in which the parties are necessary in political life, at which I am spitting nearly in every second of my materials, but this does not eliminate the necessity of them. The blocs are necessary for to make us think, before we come to the utmost means (ultima ratio in Latin), before we begin to combat, but also because they are significantly less than the number of states (say, 50 times) and can maintain reasonable relations, can lead negotiations, not to fight each against each. Blocs are power, and the power has to be taken in consideration, this is clear to everybody. What means that as if the only reason to leave one bloc is to enter into another one. Very rare some small state can be considered really independent and not tied with military or economic blocs. Let us take Bulgaria. We left the Warsaw Pact, like also Czech Republic, Poland, at cetera, and did not miss (well, there passed 4-5 years, but we have though long ago, even before exiting this Pact) to enter the NATO. I personally am not satisfied with this, for the reason that, judging by the name of this organization (North Atlantic Trade Organization), we have nothing in common with the Atlantic Ocean (neither with the Northern one, nor with the Southern), and have never had, and also nobody has asked the people do we want this or not, but we, after all, are in Europe, and if all states around us are members of NATO, then we also must be such members, there is no other way. Id est, we have acted correctly, because otherwise we would have been forced to oppose NATO, what is not possible, but the case with Ukraine is not such. Ukraine goes, or has for a very long time gone, hand in hand with Russia, and if it can succeed somehow to enter NATO, exactly then it will become at gunpoint of the neighbouring states, i.e. of Russia and its allies, but now nobody aims at it. In other words, the (possible) membership of Ukraine in NATO will only worsen the situation in the region. To judge that, you see, the Czech Republic and Poland have become members of NATO, have they not, so that why not to expand this bloc a little more on the east, is very naive, because it can not be expanded forever. Now, Turkey also wants to enter NATO but this, still, does not happen. And I will tell you why the whole Western Europe has decided to enter NATO, if you can not guess. Because the world, especially the Americans, do not trust much the Europeans, after the two world wars, and want to control this center of civilization, but also the very Europe, as if, does not trust itself; people there don't love much the Americans (obviously, for this reason they have tried to unite, in order to be in position to oppose the USA), but they want to be in one military bloc with them because it is more quiet in this way (and what if Russia ...). The Baltic states also have become members of NATO, but they are a bit on the outskirts, this is not the same like with Ukraine, not that the Russian military bases were so near as in Crimea. This is all not the same. And in addition Georgia has also confused the situation. I am at least indignant by the behaviour of Georgia, because they should carry some responsibility for the Stalinism, shouldn't they, and he has brewed the biggest mess in the history of whole Soviet Union in the last century, the entire world would not have looked so at Russia and at the communists if Stalin has not existed. And there was also time when the Georgians have written humble petition to the Russian Tsar, Pavel I think, begging him to take them under his protection because the bassurmans oppressed them severely. And, now, the Russians must protect them when they are in trouble, but they have all rights to leave the Russians when the latter have not felt quite well after the collapse of USSR. So that, Ukrainians, Sirs, don't take bad example, take good one, look at the Cossacks, Tajiks, and other southern nations, who are even not Slavs, for them to speak Russian is, obviously, more difficult than for you. Then take into consideration, or if you don't know this then listen, that a military bloc (say, NATO) can not better the economic situation in poor countries, it has not such goal and could never have it. It can even worsen it, by the simple reason that it will want money for purchasing of new armament. From the inclusion of poor or suffered country in new military bloc can win only the ... prostitutes and speculators in the black market! Believe me, please, because in my old years I have begun to read in Italian, and (for reasons of bad assortment of books in this language) I was forced to read a pair of books about the time of American occupation of Italy in the end of the Second World War, and there the situation was exactly the same. Then also Bulgaria for now 10 years is a member of NATO and what has happened? In economic regard nothing good — we are on the last place according the standard of life in European Union (and earlier were even on the penultimate place, after Albania). So that, you, Ukrainians, mark this well into your minds, if you enter some day NATO, as result of this your life will become only worse! Let me explain a bit this my prediction. For one thing there is a psychological reason, which is in this that the West, and especially the Americans, will look at the Ukrainians as at more inferior beings. In this case I wouldn't say as at white slaves, but as at something of the kind. From point of view of the Americans, like the Russian language, so also the Ukrainian one, is anyway some Chinese, to such people one has not to give much credit. That's it. And also this is, still, Asia, isn't Europe, right? Well, maybe not exactly like in India, but somewhere around. Then comes the market, the competition with other countries, far more developed than Ukraine. For Bulgaria, after all, this has turned to be the major blow as result of our including in the European Union, and even before the inclusion, because their politicians wanted that we have had predominant exchange of goods with them, not with other countries (say, with Russia). And when we are not "on the level" nobody buys our products, we though give all our money to buy something from abroad, not Bulgarian. All this is elementary and obvious, I have spoken about it in various places, the market, no matter, how good it is for some countries, for more developed, turns to be as much bad for the weakly developed countries like Bulgaria, and I think I will not make an error if say that also for Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and so on. To happen to be not on your own market is, ah, how bad! So, and now let us turn our attention to the question about Ukrainian contribution to the Slavonic world. I am not specialist in these matters, but I suppose it is known to everybody that in Kiev was adopted at their time the Christianity, that there was Kievan Rus, which later has shifted to the north, and also separated from the Ukrainians, who have left to the south. And the acceptance of Christianity was very important deed in that time, it signified their withdrawal from the barbarism (however strange this may seem from the standpoint of today's views). And generally, in the tenth century, and even earlier, when Cyril and Methodius have created the Slavonic alphabet, the center of Slavic world was on south, approximately in the region of Bulgaria, there was also the representative and single Slavonic language, although Slavs have lived in the north, in Great Moravia, as well on the east, around Kiev and even beyond the Urals. The very name of this town, too, in my opinion, is related somehow with the delight or ... kief, this is great town, mother of the towns, like for the Spaniards is Madrid, and for the Italians is Rome. In all probability this has to be exactly so, and the Ukrainians have all reasons to be proud with their Kiev, as well with the Christianity, and also with this, that they were its major pillars at least on the east and toward Asia, because the religion is carrier of morality and without it (when there was not universal education) people are savages And to all this the very name of Ukrainians has to come, up to my mind (but for me it is obvious) from the border or periphery (okraina in Russian)! Id est these are people on the okraine, they as if are not the major Slavs in the region, but a deep province, agricultural appendage of the great Russia. Their language (to what we will come soon), too, is better than the Russian, and they feed the whole Russia, because on the north even potatoes are hardly sprouting, and despite all this the Russians insult them how they only can, think they. All this is so, yet to accept nationalistic position that, see, we are good but all the others are scum, is not only unethical but also silly and unjustified, because each nation has its achievements. And this, that the nations in their developing are trying all the time to differ with something from the others, especially if they are similar in many aspects, is on the one hand quite natural, this is part of the evolution, but on the other hand pretty oft leads to funny differences, just for the sake to find differences (similarly to various fashion styles of clothing, appearance, etc. — for example, the flower baskets which the great ladies have worn earlier on their heads, or the tin "armors" in which they have confined themselves, or the wigs and men's cylinders, and many other examples). So that, to everybody his own, yet not in the sense that everybody deserves punishment according to his actions (how have interpreted the fascists this slogan — Jedem das seine), but that everyone has his deserts, one some own, but the other also his own, and if the Ukrainians have been pillars of Christianity in their time, then the Russians have been pillars of peace and protection of surrounding countries at their time, and even now are this (don't you think please, that to carry the royal crown and responsibility for everything is easy!). In this direction, but because here I want to say many different things I separate it under different heading, comes the question about the Ukrainian (respectively, Russian) language. As I have said (but not I have come to this conclusion) about 10 centuries back was single Slavonic language, the center of which was approximately on the territory of Bulgaria, because Cyril and Methodius have worked in the monastery of Athos on the territory of today's Greece, and quite near to the contemporary border of Bulgaria (and earlier also on the territory of Bulgaria). And then the question about the primacy of Ukrainians or Russians loses its meaning because first were, of course, the Bulgarians! After all, the Christianity was adopted in Bulgaria in 865, i.e. more than a century earlier than in Kievan Rus, and Bulgarian language was in the basis of Slavonic language, in the sense that contemporary Bulgarian language stays nearer to the old-Slavonic one than the Russian, or else Ukrainian (in it were no Latin letters, like "i", for example). I am laicus also in this relation, have not received linguistic education, but I have quite broad look at these questions (I call myself intelligent laic), for to have the right to pronounce myself on it. So that Sirs, and this time Russians and Ukrainians, there is no need to debate which language is better, I have told you (in my materials in the folder "For all those from CIS", which is in Russian and I don't intend to translate it in other languages but think to compose similar folder only in English for Arabs, Chinese, etc.) that the Bulgarian language deserves to be considered as etalon, standard or benchmark, for all Slavs (and even for the entire world, further more), in many aspects, in grammatical, in phonetical, and in relation to the international politics (now, as one of the languages of European Union). Here can't be whatever discussions, can be only misunderstood preferences due to the inertness of the people, as well also to partiality of judgement ("your own sh. does not smell", I beg your pardon, but this is well known proverb in Russian, not I have invented it, and it is just to the point). But this question is very important, it continues now for many centuries, I suppose. In any case, in the 70ies of the last century, when I have studied in Saint Petersburg, then Leningrad, the Bulgarian students in Kiev have complained that in their University they read lectures to them in Ukrainian, what is entirely wrong, after all then existed still the USSR (and approximately 20 years later I have listened to lectures in Austria in English, what was though to be quite proper decision). Id est, understand me correctly, please: the necessary for the Slavs language, to all appearances (or else prove justifiably, scientifically, that this is not so) has to be the Bulgarian one, but if it goes about the territory of CIS, then this has to be the Russian, at least in the official institutions (how people speak at home, or on the streets, or at the pub, etc., is irrelevant). One can not imagine a state where they speak in different languages, the only exception in this case is Switzerland, but it is mountainous country, the different areas are isolated, there was somehow establisher such tradition, and now they all study English so that the problem was resolved by itself. In the framework of European Union there is no official language, but unofficially this role performs again the English, though the problem stays also before them. There is no need to remind you, I think, the fable about the Tower of Babel; in the present days to do without official language in some big group of people is simply inconceivable. But possibly it was so also in the antiquity, because at those times the languages have differed one from the other even less, they are for this reason called Indo-European languages (if not necessary one language then there were a pair of similar ones). And now a bit more concrete about the Russian and Ukrainian languages. Although about the Russian I have spoken in the cited folder (there is even newer material in this sense) and it is entirely outmoded (in the original is said even "antediluvian"), with this language there is no entering in Europe (not that they will stop you on the border, but will laugh at you behind your back). The same can be said about the Ukrainian, too, when there exist cases in it, also similar prolonged vowels ("oy", "iy", etc.), and 32 letters are not enough for them and they are forced to use the Latin "i", too. And in political regard it can lead only to splitting, because the very Ukraine is not monolithic, one part of it is for alliance with the Russians, but the other is for uniting with Europe, due to the nearness to the Poles (with whom earlier, of course, they have fought and not rarely). If the "watershed" between the two Blocs must be drawn through the middle of Ukraine this is the worst possible scenario (and because of this I am afraid that something similar can happen — when people begin to do stupid things they never, as a rule, are satisfied with small stupidity, no, they play "all in", and usually lose). But, still, the Ukrainian language, from general considerations that it is more southern language, as well also because of some phonetic details, is more correct than the Russian. Say, in regard of the letter "e" or "i" they are right, they say 'divka' (in single quotes I give how the word is pronounced, not how it is written), like in the Latin as also everywhere on the West (diva), what comes somewhere from the Sanskrit, not 'devka' as the Russians say. For this reason they have two letters "i", but not 'ie' like the Russian "e" (i.e. the Russians want to say 'i', but until they take the decision they already give up their intention, and then say 'e'), what in my terminology are modified vowels (like in English 'ae' in the word "back"). And when they are (more) southern Slavs then they must have more southern, understand Arabic or Persian, words. For example, I quite recently have found that they have the word "maydan" as gathering, congregation of people, what is Persian word, exactly 'maydan', and this means the same like Bulgarian archaic word "megdan", i.e. central place in a village where all can gather (if somebody says 'mahay to the maydan /megdan' — this is around the syllable 'may' like in the month May when everything changes fast). And to all this they are nearer to the Bulgarians, they like ... hot peppers, while the Russians — not at all. But in spite of all this, neither the Russian, nor the Ukrainian, are good enough languages, so that they were learned also by the non-Slavic nations of the CIS, and for the Slavic nations using of some other Slavonic language, i.e. of the Bulgarian, would have lessened, a priori, the possible frictions between these nations with about 30 percents, I think! So, and from here it is easy to switch to the next theme, that the disturbances in the CIS only make each of the parties weaker! This is not only because the armament costs money, and all possible destructions in result of the military operations inflict direct damage to the countries, but also because this upsets the normal rhythm of work, this is favorable to no one. What is reduced to this that if the Ukrainians have not "kicked" so strongly against the Russians they would have lived better. And as I have cast a cursory glance in one material on the Internet, it turns out that the Russians propose exactly to maintain or organize common market for Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and other countries of the CIS, if they want this. That is how people act in civilized countries, look at the Arab states, or at the United Europe, or at the Northern America (where are united USA, Canada, and Mexico, if I am not mistaken). Only that the Ukrainians don't want peace, they want disturbances, right? Well, I overdo the things a little, not all Ukrainians want this, but the young ones, who have succeeded to grow up in the democratic time (as also our own, Bulgarian fascists) want exactly this, they want that there were quarrels, battles, actions, in order that they were able to show off with something, because otherwise life seems quite dull to them. They are right in their own way, but this is not the right thing, reasonable people don't behave in this way, the more when the Russians are strongly mixed with the Ukrainians, and there is no sense to stop this process, it goes only to the benefit of gene. And now see what happens. Because the Ukrainians want to separate from Russia, but in Ukraine live many Russians, then these Russians want to separate from Ukraine, and then Russia is simply bound to help them. It begins to help them, and then Ukraine begins to cry aloud to the entire world, how badly Russia behaves to them and that it is high time that NATO intervened, and the generals there, nothing highly surprising, will begin to send weapons to the Ukrainians. Yeah, but how you, my Ukrainian brothers and sisters, think, will Ukraine in this way become more rich, or on the contrary, will their economic problems be solved in this way, or will worsen? Do you really want that the Great Powers and world community intervened, ah? But when they intervene they usually "are felling many trees", like the Russians say, or "together with the dry woods burn also the raw ones", as the Bulgarians say, i.e. they usually worsen the things, isn't it so? To remind you that the Great Powers have organized the country Israel, and 10 years after this there have begun the disorders and fights and they do not intend to stop at all. For the Western world, and especially for the United States, is preferable to have conflicts all around the world, this comes cheaper for them, instead of specially to provoke the conflicts. Try to come to reason, else the disorders will never end! Well, and now let me give you some considerations of myself why the Ukrainians have to put up with the hegemony of Russia, why they will never succeed to become "older brother" and begin to rule "the roast". Here everything is simple, in my view, the civilization nowadays just moves to the north. In the sense that the nations have firstly moved from east to west, maybe because ... wanted to avoid that the sun shined them in the eyes, I suppose, or this was simply easier, to interfere with China there is no sense (if you start from India or the Himalayas), and further is the ocean, who knows (i.e. has known) where it ends and ends it at all or not? So, have come also to the new world, have discovered America, with their Indians instead of Hindus, and what further? To influence the Chinese is impossible, they are too much. What remains then? Well, it remains to go to the north, in Europe, as well in America, and in Asia, too. In particular, the Russians have made exactly this, some 5 - 10 centuries earlier. And why, how do you think? Well, because it is easier to withstand the cold than the heat! That's it. And really, the northern nations, now already a pair of centuries show enviable progress in contrast with the southern ones (say, with the Arabic countries, too much to the south, after the equator, to go is equivalent to moving to the north, so that this is not it). This is because the plants easily withstand the cold, than the heat, and give better results. The winter season, if you ask the southern nations, is not cold but wet, and then everything grows and brings fruit. You all know that today all around the world is sold Canadian wheat or lentil, or something else that grows on earth and is nutritious (tomatoes there as if they do not breed, but they are grown in all countries in hothouses); earlier, in the times of Roman Empire, breadbasket of the world was Egypt, the Nile delta, but now this is Canada. And with the fish the situation is about the same, it is caught more of it in the North. And how is it with the people, ah? Where they withstand the weather easier, how do you think? Well, I personally have given a thought to this issue (because I am trying to economize from what I only can, and decided to measure when I am feeling most comfortably, although this is known to the biologists), and it turned out that this is the temperature of 23ºC (maybe 22º would have been more suitable, but I am old man and skinny and I feel cold). And now let us move away from it in both directions and make conclusions when is better, by 13 or by 33? I personally would have preferred 33, but many people (especially in working premises, when one is dressed), and especially the plants and animals would have preferred 13ºC. And further, say by 3º or by 43º? Of course that by 3º, 43º is difficult to endure, the heart becomes overburdened, and extending this diapason further more the conclusions become directly imperatives, because by -3º people live in clover, but by 53º is necessary a space suite or air conditioner, and the latter is quite expensive. Then -13 this is usual winter for us, but 63 this is inconceivable, then -23º also can be endured, -33º harder but still possible, but in the direction of pluses now the protoplasm coagulates. Such are the things. And the plants and animals withstand even easier the minus temperatures than the humans. But there is also another aspect, I have thought about this matter. When you want to warm yourself you burn some fire, it raises the temperature of the environment, warms it, too. And when you cool what happens? Well, it happens this, that you cool one place but around it you make it even warmer, this is not real cooling of the environment but only locally, yet this is so because there exists one thermodynamic law that says, that you can not take away energy from some body just so (lowering the energy of electrons, releasing to somewhere the fast electrons and leaving only the slow ones), it can give the heat only if there is someone to take it, but simply so to cool is impossible (though simply so to heat is possible), i.e. the situation here is similar to the ... time axes, it has for us only one direction. Add to this also the possible global warming (about which I have spoken that it is not so much warming as is fast mixing of the air, but little by little we are moving away from the glacial period, so that slight warming exists, after all). In the nearest pair of centuries I simply can't see how something in my conclusions can be changed, the more so on the background of mutated fruits and animals; I am telling you: the cold is better than the heat, for everything alive. What naturally, if we return to our topic, means that Ukraine will continue to be weaker in economic relation than Russia, and even in Russia will be possible to grow absolutely everything necessary (even bananas, if need be), so that they will be able to do without the agricultural products that Ukraine can deliver to them. But for the minerals, too, the north seems to be better, for the reason that on the south the major part of them has been already used. So that this my conclusion is obviously correct. But let us proceed further, let us speak now about the patriotism and fatherland. You see, the patria, or the earthen part (-ia, what must be the same in phonetical aspect) is a good thing, but in our days it begins to become more and more symbolical, because if the countries do not oppose especially to each other, if there exists global exchange of goods and services around the world, if one can change his (or her) place of residence and have double (and triple) citizenship, and live where only wants, even in Paris, or in New York, if the laws in all countries increasingly equalize, and the taxes, too, also the wages (in equally developed neighbouring countries, but all world moves to such equalizing), then there is no special difference "which god he will pray", so to say, i.e. what citizenship he will have. This is the reality, and the national flags and currency are of secondary importance, they become now insignificant, we all are humans, there are not best or chosen people, there are (still) only wealthy and poor. So that, my dear adolescents, or also military personnel, enough waving of fighting tomahawk, as the saying goes. Let us become friends, ah? And take into account chiefly the military blocs and the markets, so that there all were approximately equal, don't pay much attention to political differences. Have you still not understood that there is not communism or capitalism? What exists is strongly limited monopolistic production in the framework of capitalism, and more liberal capitalist one, that acknowledges both, monopolies and private companies. The communism, generally speaking, has converged with the capitalism, the difference is only in the level of intensification of labour (respectively, in the exploitation) in some countries, but everything is only a question of time, question of pair of decades of years (and even if it is half a century, what of it?). So my dear (when you are only a few, ah?) readers. It is time to wrap it up, but let me say also something in the end about the urgent measures in the given crisis, because some of you are right to object that these moralizing of mine are only nice talk, but when the fire burns there is no need to explain the fire safety regulations, then the fire must be extinguished. So it is, but not exactly. Because we have not yet begun to throw atom bombs around, and what if we come to this? So that the rules for safety and peaceful coexistence must always be explained, even when we succeed to extinguish the fire ii also necessary, in order to know for the future. And then you know that these urgent measures, if we do not count the even bigger rousing of fire in the very process of extinguising (through supplying of weapons from various countries and to various sides of the conflict), is reduced only to applying of stronger force (as I have explained this in several places), in order that the opposing party was horrified and refused to fight (like, say, only to give an example, have done the Americans in the end of World War Two with Japan, or then, how they have acted after the assault of Bin Laden in the very beginning of this century, declaring war to the whole nation), or even to scare both sides (how it was with the bombing in the former Yugoslavia), if intervenes (as if) neutral side. So it usually happens when casual spectators begin to help; this what they want is to see some real action, but that the fighting parties give human victims — well, after all, we have not forced them to fight, will say the spectators. So that you, first of all, try alone to help yourselves! Because guilty are both sides, the process has entered in cycles, it can't be said that the ones are guilty and the others are victims. For the reason that, if you give credence to my statement in the very beginning, then in the beginning guilty were the Ukrainians, because they wanted to separate from Russia in uncivilized way, mark this, because they were the weak side in the confrontation Ukraine - Russia, and Russia has carried the responsibility, yet it has done nothing, it has not begun to fight with Ukraine. So that on this stage the apparent guilty side was the Ukrainians (like the "kids", also the old ones). Later, however, when have begun the separatists actions in Ukraine, then the weak side were the Ukrainian Russians, and the strong side was the Ukraine alone, so that then guilty were these Russians, and the responsibility carries the Government of Ukraine, yet it has not dealt correctly, has not required reasonable measures together with Russia, with the intention to preserve this union, or else separate in civilized way. But if Ukraine begins (or has begun) to fight with these Russians then the conflict moves between Ukraine, as weaker side, and respectively guilty (if I am still right in my statement in the beginning), and Russia, which carries the responsibility for (not) solving the conflict. So that now, although Ukraine is as before more guilty, nonetheless both countries are guilty and they both carry the responsibility. Only with tanks the conflict will not be solved, maybe is necessary some common denunciation of both sides, of Russian separatists, and of Ukrainian nationalists, but the important things is that this was common verdict. And now about this what means civilized "divorce". Well, this also is obvious, this is how the Czechs and Slovaks have acted in the distant 1993 (I think). If the Ukrainians are such that they always are ready to suspect the adversary in falsifying (and I think that they are exactly such, because that is how in Bulgaria also happens, the weaker ones, judging by themselves, are always unsatisfied, here is actual — I beg the more squeamish readers to excuse me — the aptly comparison, that ... the bad prick is hampered by the balls), then exists obvious decision: has to be performed open voting! It is true that in this way people run to certain risk, but what is this in the end, in Ukraine people either want to be friends with the Russians and stay in the same boat with them, as it was nearly thousand years, or they don't want this; let it be clear who will carry the responsibility for the next even bigger lessening of the standard of life, mainly in Ukraine, but in Russia, too. Or also conduct voting by Internet, and that the results come to both countries, or use as intermediary link some site of European Union and send their meanings to that site, using passwords, and from there they can be sent to the both countries — something of the kind, there are many variants, and it is not at all difficult to choose such, that there were impossible to falsify whatever. And as result of this referendum must be made exact plan how to perform this process, by months and years, but I think that in all cases must be waited 4-5 years till the final separation. Or then first outline roughly the separation zone in the very Ukraine on Eastern and Western, where only the Western can enter in Europe. And this also without hurry, because must be taken the necessary measures, by European countries, by Russia, and by other CIS countries. This is not that a single family has divorced, here are millions of families, it should not be acted in a hurry. And even better to conduct a series of votings, two or three, with half an year between them, so that the people were able to think seriously about the things. Or also to set some neutral zone between the votes "pro" and "against", so that, say, the ratio of the bigger to the smaller parts differed with more than 5% (or rather to require initially even ten), and conduct referendums until people show real difference (after all, approximately so is chosen the Roman Pope), so that it was not possible to say later that some error happened. Because Ukraine, even if it is not so big state like Russia, but it is still quite big, this will be nearly as a "fight between dinosaurs". Ah, it turns out that I can add also something more, about this how the West looks at the might of Russia in the region. I can't be quite sure in this case, but up to my mind the whole Europe, as well also the USA, don't want to intervene in open military confrontation with Russia. They don't want because of fears about the many possible victims, but also because Russia is beneficial for them as force in the region, without it would have become worse, it would have been harder to constrain the discontent of entire Arab world (or at least of the Moslem countries), and the fight for supremacy in the region of Himalayas continues to be central point in the geopolitics of the Great Powers! Some of you maybe remember that back in 1968, by the landing in Czechoslovakia, many people hoped that the West will intervene, but it, and this is reasonable reaction, in my view, has abstained to do this, objected for some time, but then considered the matter as internal affair of the countries in Warsaw Pact. I don't understand why now many Ukrainians (I am almost convinced that this is so) think that the West will intervene, I personally don't think so. After all, if the Russia was not so strong, then it would have begun to seek allies, it maybe would have united with India (ancient civilization, peaceful religion), and even with China (obviously also ancient civilization and vast, the most populated country in the world, and, as I have given a thought to the matter, on the whole peaceful, it has not conquered colonies, and even has defended itself from the Mongols in its time, quite worthy ally, and in addition also communist state, will not look at the Russians as at ... monkeys in the zoo, so to say). And if this happens then with such bloc will be impossible to cope! So that, gentlemen, think, but be wise. The first think here is to stop fighting and begin to think quietly and slowly. And I dedicate you at parting the following tiny verse, hopping that it will cool a little extremely hot heads. He, the Russian — you are bound To admit — he knows to fight! You, Okraynians, are around — That's the truth, my girls and guys. Try to fit, or you'll come down Even more, that's it, bye-bye. Dec 2014 — — — |
Сконвертировано и опубликовано на http://SamoLit.com/