The “Ukrainian card” has become one of the most important in the US election race, so Donald Trump’s team did not miss the opportunity to use the war for ratings. And the recent attacks by some Republicans on Volodymyr Zelenskyy show not so much the incompetence of Ukrainian diplomacy, which is already balancing on a shoestring, but rather the escalation of the election saga.

A decade ago, it would have seemed fantastic to Ukrainians to imagine a subjectivity where American Republicans would be offended if they were not invited to join the delegation during the Ukrainian president’s visit to a plant in the United States. It would be an incredible story that the US leader would be impeached for allegedly putting pressure on the Ukrainian president, as happened in 2019. But no country in the world would really want such subjectivity in the situation we are in.

This week, Trump’s controversial and rather opaque policy toward Ukraine has once again mixed up the cards among those trying to answer the question: “Is Trump really against Ukraine or is he just pretending?”

Trump’s recent statements about “millennia-old destroyed cities,” that “Ukraine is gone” and “all the money in the world will not be enough to rebuild” and so on show that the Republican leader does not understand many aspects of the Russian-Ukrainian war. And his demands to “make a deal,” which in reality mean a frozen conflict without victory, in the form of a deceptive “peace in exchange for territories” offer, dispel hopes for ordinary election populism. So far, there is no indication that after his victory, Trump might make a 180-degree turn in his attitude toward supporting Ukraine and begin to help decisively.

But the personal meeting with Zelensky, whose communiqué ended with general phrases about peace and shaking hands, has re-actualized the arguments of those who claim that by criticizing aid to Ukraine, Trump is only attacking the Democratic administration’s ratings. Trump is now making statements that he would never have allowed as president, but he hopes that with these words he will play on the mood of the American plebs and win the election. Then, in his potential presidency, Trump would have to give up his eccentric actions and follow the established course of US foreign policy. Many institutions of the system of checks and balances in the US political apparatus force every leader to be balanced and take into account the opinions of other important players.

After all, if not Trump himself, then the Republican leaders and sponsors and senior officials who do all the major management work are aware of how American partners and allies will react if the United States abandons tomorrow the country it has supported for three years and called an ally. What would Israel, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and eventually Europe say and do? The answer is obvious: they will start building their own nuclear weapons or strengthening their existing nuclear capabilities. Trump will not be allowed to destroy the foundations of the world order and turn the United States into an isolated Elysium, which abandoned its allies to Russia, Iran, and China and won decades of peace until they came for Alaska and Hawaii. So far, the United States has never seen a change of president refuse to support an ally it has supported for years.

Donald Trump continues to maintain intrigue about his own position in support of Ukraine. His election strategy is based on this: to attract votes from both opponents and supporters of Ukraine. And after his likely victory, the owner of the White House will do what is in the interests of preserving the image of the United States.

Author: Valeriy Maydanyuk

The alleged suspect in the murder of Iryna Farion and numerous reports of teenagers setting fire to Ukrainian army vehicles for money show the risks in the state’s policy on youth education. Although we don’t really have such a policy as a coherent program.

Today, Tik Tok, Telegram, and Instagram have a greater influence on the upbringing of Ukrainian teenagers than school, family, and even more so the church. There is virtually no comprehensive educational policy, education for ethical behavior, patriotism, etc. in the modern NUS. The methodology of education of American public schools, borrowed from the West and failed there, has very few tools to influence the education of young people. Moreover, it is considered an unnecessary interference with the freedom of children and adolescents.

Thoughtlessly copying the experience of countries that have lived in prosperity and peace for decades is also not entirely appropriate for Ukraine, which may live under threat from the east for many years to come. It would be much more useful for us to look at the experience of warring democracies that have an inadequate neighbor: South Korea, Israel, Taiwan, etc. It would be useful to know what principles they use for school education and youth upbringing, what forms and approaches they use, what role the state and patriotic public organizations play, etc.

Currently, patriotic education is conducted by individual enthusiastic teachers and public organizations such as Plast or Sokil, but they are not active everywhere and certainly not in every school. Ukraine is in a situation where there are not enough enthusiasts and a program is needed to cover all students in all educational institutions with political and patriotic education. Some events are still held in modern schools, but they do not carry the ideological patriotic influence and the sense of national unity and responsibility that our country needs.

Even in the third year of the war, no one is even discussing school-wide programs for political and patriotic education of Ukrainian youth. However, a sober look at the situation is enough to realize that even in ten years, Ukraine will need people who are motivated to do something for their country. Today, a significant number of high school students are planning to emigrate from Ukraine. And there is a high probability that the Ukrainian nation will lose these young people, who quickly adapt to the West, for the sake of the nation.

If the Ukrainian state does not work with young people now, leaving them to be educated by Chinese Tik Tok with Russian content, in decades to come we will not only lack those who will be motivated to defend the country, but even those who will remain here.

Author: Valeriy Maydanyuk

The death of Alce de Gasperi and the gradual departure of the first generation of Christian Democrats brought a new, more pragmatic and cynical generation of politicians to the forefront. While the “Christian Democrats of the first draft” saw politics as primarily ideological and were willing to suffer and make sacrifices in the name of political principles, the new generation of leaders saw politics as an exclusively instrumental goal.

Personal enrichment, the struggle for influence, and corruption have been important features of Italy’s political culture since the 1950s. Corruption exists in all countries. However, in most developed countries, it is a point phenomenon. Italy was one of the first countries where corruption turned from an exception to a systemic framework that supported the entire political system. Increased state intervention in politics has led to entire sectors of the economy becoming a source of personal enrichment for several leaders of the Christian Democratic Party.

Gradually, entire families emerged that retained influence over a particular industry or enterprise for several generations. Positions and informal privileges were shared among all political forces, depending on local specifics. Virtually every institution, from trade unions to sports clubs, was divided between Christian Democrats, socialists, communists, and representatives of other parties.

The corruption component led to the artificial preservation of the political system. Attempts to preserve their own preferences and wealth led the establishment to resist any attempts to change the system.

This system gradually led to a decrease in individual initiative in economic, political, or civic terms. Civic activities not affiliated with parliamentary parties found neither financial nor media support. The Italian political system gradually became regimented and, as a result, too fragile.

Excessive bureaucratization of the economy and the influence of corruption have led to the fact that the “Italian economic miracle” (unlike the “German economic miracle”) has become a short-lived phenomenon. Italy, which in the 50s and 60s had every chance of becoming another economic powerhouse in Europe, has significantly reduced its economic growth. Corruption, like a cancer, was eating away at the social and economic body of Italy.

Already in the mid-1970s, it became apparent that the electoral support of the Italian CDs was of a specific nature. Voters, who do not support the policies of the Christian Democrats, vote for the CD only as the most powerful non-communist party.

After the fall of communism and the loss of a counterweight in the form of a powerful communist party, the Italian CD began to lose electoral support. Operation Clean Hands, aimed at combating the influence of the mafia, demonstrated the corruption of all political parties, including the CD. Populist projects began to dominate the Italian political scene.

Author: Konstantin Kanishev

As in France, Italian Christian democracy was largely based on the ideas of the Resistance Movement. The formation of Christian democracy in Italy was largely due to the personal influence of Alce de Gasperi.

After the First World War, Alce de Gasperi was elected to the Italian Parliament from the Italian People’s Party. The rise to power of the Fascists and the banning of the Italian People’s Party turned Alce de Gasperi into one of the critics of the totalitarian regime. De Gasperi was arrested. It was only through the intervention of the Catholic Church hierarchs that de Gasperi was granted amnesty. For a long time after his release from prison, Alce de Gasperi could not find a job until he took a low-profile position in the Vatican library.

In early 1943, Alce de Gasperi published a manifesto entitled Ideas for the Reconstruction of Christian Democracy. In this document, de Gasperi proposed the restoration of postwar Italy on the principles of parliamentarism, guaranteeing civil and political freedoms, and implementing social reforms on a Christian basis. The document envisaged the introduction of universal suffrage, including for women, granting autonomy to the regions, reforming industry, increasing the role of workers, reforming agriculture and the tax system, and encouraging the process of rapprochement between European nations on the basis of Christian values.

During 1943, a significant number of Christian groups of the Resistance Movement and anti-fascist “white partisan groups” emerged in Italy. The Ideas for the Reconstruction of Christian Democracy became a kind of ideological tool for those partisan groups that did not share communist or socialist beliefs.

By the end of 1943, the Christian Democrats had already established a political party. Alce de Gasperi was elected chairman of the party. The newly formed Christian Democratic Party joined the Communists and Socialists in a coalition government.

In the first post-war elections in Italy, the Christian Democratic Party gained 48.5% of the vote, which was 17% more than the bloc of communists and socialists. Prior to the 1992 elections, the Italian Christian Democrats had formed governments either independently or in coalition with other parties.

Support for the Christian Democrats in the Italian parliamentary elections:

Christian democrats have actually become hostages to the specifics of Italian political culture. In postwar Italy, two “political subcultures” existed in parallel: Catholic and socialist-communist. The voters of both “subcultures” existed in different symbolic fields and practically did not overlap. Catholic voters would not vote for left-wing parties under any circumstances, and voters of left-wing parties would not vote for Christian Democrats or other right-wing parties.

In most countries, this polarization is balanced by a significant number of “undecided voters” who can vote for one party or the other on a moment’s notice. In Italy, however, such a field practically did not exist. Both the Christian Democrats and the Communists and Socialists had their own stable electorate, which remained virtually unchanged throughout all election cycles.

The death of Alce de Gasperi and the gradual withdrawal of the first generation of Christian Democrats brought a new, more pragmatic and cynical generation of politicians to the forefront.

Author: Konstantin Kanishev

Despite a number of classical conservative views and opposition to leftist “progressivism,” Donald Trump’s political views diverge from conservatism in many aspects.

Todd Geisinga, an American diplomat, president of the Center for Transatlantic Renewal (CTR) and senior fellow at the Religious Freedom Institute, notes that the United States is gravitating toward so-called “destructive conservatism.” “It’s not about quiet and polite rhetoric, but rather loud and destructive,” the scholar said.

In contrast to Ronald Reagan’s conservatism, Trump’s political orientation diverges from conservatism in at least three aspects and is marked by ideas that are not typical of conservatives: populism, isolationism, and radicalism.

Too many scholars and political experts have stated that Trump is a populist, and this is a trait that is completely uncharacteristic of conservatives. Conservatives have always been one of the biggest opponents of populism, flirting with the masses, speculating on the problems of ordinary people, and warning against the illusion that they can be solved by simple methods. Instead, “support for the common man, the common American” has become the new thesis of Donald Trump and a large part of the Republicans who are influenced by the party leader. Trump is the first Republican president to emphasize not the support of the middle class and entrepreneurship, but to appeal to the plebs, not shying away from conspiracy theories.

Of course, in the United States, the growing gap between the increasingly wealthy elite and the lower middle class is increasingly visible, many people cannot afford college even when working multiple jobs, and living standards have declined since the Reagan era. Ordinary Americans need support more than ever, but Trump’s flirtations with the masses and outright populist statements have little to do with actually protecting citizens.

Trump talks about how many billions the United States has given to Ukraine by taking money out of Americans’ pockets, while these amounts are actually pittance compared to the military campaigns of Republican presidents in Iraq and Afghanistan, which also proved to be unnecessary.

And during the evacuation in Afghanistan, the United States abandoned $80 billion worth of weapons! This is a disproportionately larger amount than the aid packages to Ukraine. Leaving combat helicopters, tanks and missile systems, 73 airplanes to the Taliban (!) is fine, but giving Ukraine a much smaller amount and letting American industry make money is what the whole blockade at the level of Congress was about.

To give Ukrainians a 1970s Petriot to protect civilians means holding long meetings and looking back at red lines while Ukrainians are dying in rivers of red blood. And leaving the space-age C-RAM Centurion air defense systems manufactured in 2009, which shoot down artillery shells, to Islamic terrorists is easy. These figures show the falsity of the Trumpists’ indignation and their pretense of saving ordinary taxpayers’ money. If Trumpists really respected American money, the Pentagon would not be wasting it in Afghanistan. And it’s not just that many of these events happened under Biden – Trumpists didn’t scream against the abandonment of American weapons in Afghanistan as much as they did against military aid to Ukraine.

Foreign policy has always been a priority for American conservatives, who rightly saw the welfare of the entire American nation as a priority in protecting American interests internationally. Instead, Trump and his team members are gravitating toward a form of de facto isolationism, arguing that we should remove ourselves from the security problem in Europe and the war in Ukraine by withdrawing support. Trump calls this approach “principled realism” and calls for taking into account global challenges. He offers national sovereignty instead of globalism, but does not want to realize that the US retreat from its current position as a world leader will lead to the collapse of the entire international security system and the US will quickly become a victim.

Not only Republican conservatives, but also other American presidents have always respected the stability and consistency of Washington’s foreign policy – international allies need to know that the United States will not change course depending on the name of the owner of the White House. What would happen if every American president shuffled allies like a card deck: one president of the United States was an ally of Israel, and the new president decided to be friends with Iran, and the third has already changed his mind and is cooperating with Jerusalem again. One will be friends with South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, while the other will choose new favorites and sacrifice the old ones. If previous US leaders supported Ukraine, the new president should support the Ukrainian state no less.

One can understand Trump’s desire to avoid US involvement in military conflicts that are not in direct American interests. But in foreign policy, Donald Trump paradoxically wants to put pressure on China and befriend Russia, not realizing that these are members of the same, though not yet very public, geopolitical axis. Trump does not understand that you cannot hit your neighbor on the right hand and stroke the left.

Many of Trump’s statements sound radical – and radicalism, as a tendency to make sudden and often unreasonable changes, is the main antagonism of conservatism. Conservatives believe that changes should be made thoughtfully, rationally, and only when necessary. But prudence is not about Trump. Geisinga notes that “Trump is the loud uncle at the Christmas party who tells an awkward joke that makes people think: “Oh my God, what is he saying?” But you better look at what he’s doing.” Populism and radicalism are the worst allies for conservatives, and always lead to the leveling of conservatism, the ideology of common sense.

Author: Valeriy Maydanyuk