Trump’s victory has led some Western companies to refuse to appoint people based on race or gender and to return to democratic criteria of professionalism.

After Donald Trump’s victory, a number of large Western corporations, such as McDonald’s, Meta, Axios, etc., announced their rejection of leftist censorship or gender equality programs and stopped considering candidates for employment under affirmative action protocols, i.e., giving preference based on gender, race, or other aspects of personality.

In particular, the influential Axios media outlet refuses to use criteria for ethnic or gender minorities in its management decision-making processes. Now everything will be based solely on professional qualities.

This was, by the way, the way the law, the Constitution, and the democratic norms gained in such a difficult century-long struggle envisaged. And then the apologists for equality, who actually fought to establish INEQUALITY, shouting everywhere about their own understanding of “equality,” gradually attacked common sense and silenced the majority, establishing frankly absurd ideas and values.

The absurdist values that actually promoted inequality and racial and sexual discrimination, that buried freedom of speech, democracy and constitutional norms, have indeed gone too far beyond the current legislation in many countries.

Any state or civilization is strong when professionals are in place. Soviet communism rotted and collapsed, among other things, because of the dictatorship’s inherent conservation (in the bad sense of the word) of personnel. Loyal, mediocre, but ideologically loyal to the party and the local nomenclature, rather than the best, were appointed to positions. There was no healthy competition in the areas where the most important decisions were made in the USSR. And in the era of “Stagnation,” when the country was ruled by gerontocrats, the personnel crisis was already leading the country to collapse.

In contrast to the communists, the democratic countries of the West were dominated by competition among politicians, executives, and managers, as a result of which professional professionals in leadership positions led their corporations, industries, and countries to rise. It was thanks to competition and selection of the best that the United States was more successful than the Soviet Union.

However, when Western countries, under the influence of the onset of leftist values, gradually began to select the best for government and corporate leadership positions not on the basis of professionalism, but on the basis of skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or perceived human identities, there was a threat of losing Western leadership in a fiercely competitive world. Quotas for the representation of only certain categories of “discriminated against” within the framework of positive discrimination of the majority began to cover an increasing number of corporations and structures not only in the West but also in Central Europe and began to be popularized in Ukraine.

In a developed and robust economy, the devastating effect of appointing someone to a position is not immediately noticeable, and a gradual downward trajectory can last for decades, combined with other harmful factors. But the USSR was also rotting and decaying gradually, somehow existing under the leadership of the decrepit Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko.

The protest reaction of the majority, which went to the other extreme against the extremes of leftist absurdism and manifested itself in the victory of Trump and the Republicans, was a response to the imposition of unacceptable values on the social majority. And the rapid abandonment of leftist professional criteria by many corporations showed that they were not inherently inherent in many of them and were rejected at the first convenient moment, even before Trump’s inauguration.

Conservatism and Christian democracy in Ukraine today are in an uncertain state, but have good chances for the future.

It is significant that it was conservative ideology that stood at the origins of Ukrainian independence. Such a national democratic party as the People’s Movement of Ukraine was a clearly conservative force that stood on a strong Christian democratic platform. In general, conservatism and Christian democracy are often “interchangeable” ideologies: in countries where a conservative party is strong, Christian democrats vote for conservatives, as we see in the United States or Britain. Instead, the German conservative voter votes with the CDU/CSU.

Today, among the major parties, European Solidarity calls itself conservative and Christian democratic, although not all voters and experts agree that this party adheres to its declared ideological principles. At the same time, various sociological agencies put the level of support for the party at 6-9%. However, it should be borne in mind that the non-existent party of Valeriy Zaluzhnyi has a fairly large percentage of support in Ukrainian opinion polls and could even take the lead if the general were to enter politics. Part of the conservative electorate may also vote for this political force.

Although Zaluzhnyi has hardly expressed his ideological views, some citizens would like to transfer their ideological values to the popular general and be convinced that his list of political guidelines should include the church community and Christian values, family, traditions, patriotism, nation and state.

Despite the fact that modern left-liberal forces from the West are actively influencing the views of Ukrainians and attacking traditional Christian and conservative values that have historically been the foundation of the Ukrainian people, there is a trend toward a “conservative renaissance” in the world. In the United States, Donald Trump and the Republican conservatives won the election, the CDU/CSU is leading in Germany, and the positions of opponents of leftist values are strengthening in other countries. Ukraine can also become part of this process, once a full-fledged political process and elections are restored.

After the possible end of the hot phase of the war, values and social groups that have traditionally been considered the basis of conservatism will gain popularity in Ukrainian society.

The military, as a social category that tends to favor order and stability, has always voted for conservatives in different countries. Ukrainian opinion polls show a clear trend of increasing popularity of the military and recognition of the public need for their involvement in politics. There is a fairly high chance that Ukrainian veterans and former military personnel, with their inherent conservative values, will have a significant representation in the future Ukrainian parliament.

At the same time, during and after the war, religious views and faith in God have traditionally been characterized by an increase in religious beliefs. In Ukraine, this is also facilitated by the institute of military chaplaincy and the volunteerism of priests. This is also facilitated by the urgency of the religious situation in Ukraine: the importance of establishing Ukrainian spiritual independence from the Moscow church, because this problem has not been given sufficiently decisive attention. Therefore, political forces that already have or will adopt Christian values may have higher voter support than before the war.

Therefore, in the first elections, Ukraine may have a much higher representation of conservative and Christian democratic forces, which is a rather natural social phenomenon given the nature of key problems and demands of a society that has experienced a psychological and security crisis. At the same time, it would be easier for Ukrainian conservatives and Christian democrats in power to find common ground with the ruling American conservatives or German Christian democrats, which would have a positive impact on strengthening Ukraine’s position.

One of the main threats to the growing influence of conservatism on political power in Ukraine may be radicalism and populism, which always have many supporters in a war-torn society. However, if Ukrainian society proves to be resistant to these threats and realizes that radicals and populists have never built anything but fascism, Nazism, and Putinism after the war, as history has shown, Ukraine will have a chance to increase the political representation of forces oriented toward traditional and Christian democratic values.

Author: Valeriy Maydanyuk

Conservatism is a political term that is often misunderstood and associated, if not with canning vegetables, then with old “conservative” clothing fashion. This perception is primarily due to the foreignness of the term conservative, which means preservation. However, wider use of the Ukrainian equivalent of conservatism could “whitewash” the image and significantly expand support for this idea, which is actually extremely popular among Ukrainians.

Conservation is always positively associated in the human mind, and for good reason. Preserving health, protecting nature, Ukrainian cultural heritage, etc. are always associated with positive values. Despite the prevailing leftist myths about conservatism as an ideology of backwardness, hostility to change, and cave-age Stone Age values, today’s conservatives are just in favor of preserving what has been achieved and preventing its destruction by absurdists under the guise of “progress.”

Conservatives stand for the preservation of democracy and civil liberties before it is replaced by a congress of aggressive minorities and noisy activists selected by unclear criteria.

Conservatives demand that freedom of speech be preserved before people are arrested for statements that do not violate the law, but which someone does not like, may offend, or even dislike.

Conservatives advocate the preservation of cultural heritage, including normal cinema, without imposing values that are incomprehensible to society and alien ideological canons that someone has decided to forcefully introduce.

Conservatives advocate educating young people and society in the values that lead to the creation of full-fledged families, the birth of children, the strengthening of health, civil liberties and opportunities, patriotism and national dignity of Ukrainians. After all, if such values prevail, it means that the strength and defense capability of the Ukrainian state will increase, and invaders will be afraid to attack it.

Conservatism leads to preservation and multiplication, moderation and frugality, rationality and prudence, healthy skepticism and active actions aimed at establishing security, stability and well-being.

A Ukraine dominated by the idea of preservation is a country without corruption, the threat of military intervention, national conflicts, and without daily absurdities in the news that make the nation ashamed.

Author: Valeriy Maydanyuk

Germany ranks first in Europe and second after the United States in the world in terms of military and financial assistance to Ukraine, so the name of the new German Chancellor is one of the most important strategic issues for our country, on which our future history in the twenty-first century depends.

German opinion polls report a clear advantage for the CDU/CSU bloc, which is currently supported by up to 33% of voters. A poll conducted in early September showed that the three ruling parties – the Social Democrats, the Greens and the Liberals from the Free Democratic Party – would collectively gain 30%. De facto, the German Christian Democrats outnumber the combined result of all three parties, until recently the ruling coalition.

And the leader of the German conservatives, Friedrich Merz, is considered almost a chancellor in Germany. The 69-year-old Merz is one of the most experienced figures in the CDU/CSU, having made his career during the Cold War and the Berlin Wall. And this really means a lot for understanding what Erefia is and how it should be treated. The leader of the German conservatives also served in the military until 1976. And this is an extremely important feature for the German Chancellor against the backdrop of recent German intelligence reports about the possibility of a military conflict between Europe and Russia in the coming years.

So far, Merz has demonstrated a political stance of support for Ukraine, called for pressure on Erephia, and appealed for a just peace. However, some of his statements were close to the traditional policy of compromise for European centrists. In particular, Merz recently stated that the West has no goal of defeating Russia in the conflict with Ukraine, but Ukraine must restore sovereignty over its territory and ensure its security. It is doubtful, however, that such a policy of being humane to the enemy and compromising with the Russian threat will be successful and guarantee peace in Europe.

At the same time, Merz actively criticized the Scholz government for its indecision in helping Ukraine and called for the provision of Taurus missiles to the Ukrainian armed forces, Merz aptly said that without Taurus missiles, Ukraine is fighting with one hand tied. And after winning the election and taking office as chancellor, Merz promises to announce a 24-hour deadline for the Kremlin to end the war against Ukraine. If Moscow ignores this demand, Merz will support the supply of long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine, which will allow for deeper strikes on Russian territory.

In security policy, Merz supports increasing spending on the army and instead of 2% of GDP on military spending, he proposes 3%. This is a really mature and wise step against the background of the rest of the left-wing German politics and the threats from Moscow. In addition, Merz emphasizes the importance for Europe to be prepared to defend itself against the Russian threat in the face of Donald Trump’s isolationist policies.

Compared to the current Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who has been cautiously timid in his policy of supporting Ukraine – hesitating for a long time about whether to provide lethal weapons, whether to escalate the supply of tanks to the victim country, etc. – Merz’s statements look promising.

However, we should be careful with our expectations, because even despite the polls, Merz is not yet the chancellor of Germany. By the time of the early elections on February 23, other parties may have grown in popularity. The threat of political scandals or even Moscow’s destructive influence on German elections remains serious. The example of the elections in Romania, where a previously unknown candidate came out on top thanks to a staged campaign on Chinese Tik Tok, shows that unpredictable electoral scenarios can occur.

In addition, it should be understood that Merz is only a candidate for chancellor and will not be able to fulfill all his promises as leader of Germany. In the end, the CDU/CSU will probably have to enter into a coalition with other parties and coordinate its position on Ukraine with partners who may have a parliamentary “golden share.”

The fact remains that Friedrich Merz is a much stronger supporter of Ukraine than the ruling Social Democrats, and Germany’s position on Russian aggression could be much stronger.

Author: Valeriy Maydanyuk

Recently, one of Europe’s most vocal “defenders” of Christian values, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, has been fired up by a new pious idea that is in fact nothing more than self-promotion with added benefits for Moscow.

On December 11, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban proposed a “peace plan” for Ukraine, which included a “Christmas truce” clause. According to the Hungarian radical, Ukraine would have to declare a ceasefire for several days so that “thousands of young people do not die on the battlefield on Christmas Day” and conduct a large-scale exchange of prisoners of war for the holidays. As Orbán noted, such Christmas truces were common in European history and even in larger wars. But, according to Orban, the Ukrainian president for some reason “rejected this proposal.” But the Hungarian prime minister does not lose hope that Ukraine can still agree to such a “pious” proposal.

It is paradoxical that Putin’s friend Orban puts forward this hypocritical pseudo-Christian thesis at the same time as the Russians are striking Ukrainian civilian cities, energy infrastructure during freezing temperatures, and seizing Ukrainian villages in Donbas. If the Kremlin really wanted a ceasefire, it would stop the offensive on Ukrainian soil instead of letting Orban’s pseudo-peacekeeping initiatives be voiced.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine advised the Hungarian authorities to stop “immoral manipulations” on the topic of peace and Christmas, and to refrain from unilateral contacts with the aggressor country, as Orban recently had another phone conversation with Putin. The Ukrainian president condemned such pseudo-pacifist initiatives by Orban, emphasizing: “His relationship with Putin is too warm to put Putin in his place.”

Such deceitful rhetoric from politicians who hide behind their concern for Christian values is actually beneficial only to the Kremlin, which wants to freeze the war in order to gain a respite and launch a new wave of invasion. The current positional war is no less tiring for Erephia, so the truce announced by Orban for a few days would allow Moscow to fulfill its minimum and maximum plans.

The minimum plan is to take advantage of the ceasefire, conduct unimpeded reconnaissance of Ukrainian positions, safely pull up reserves, and strike at the Ukrainian Armed Forces, most likely without even waiting for the end of the “Christmas truce.” At most, the plan is to make the “Christmas” ceasefire the first step toward a larger truce in the format of a conflict freeze with the occupied Ukrainian territories retained. If the Russians respected Christian values, they would not have started the war against Ukraine in the first place, and the current hypocritical calls for a truce look disingenuous.

Christian and democratic rhetoric has often been a tool of the Kremlin to deceive and distract its victims, relying on their kindness and decency, after which Moscow has always struck a sneak attack.

Author: Valeriy Maydanyuk