The key thesis of dictators Putin and Xi Jinping over the past decade has been a multipolar world. In other words, global feudalism instead of international law and complete impunity for regional dictators. And given that the main theme of Western leaders’ speeches is a “just peace” through negotiations, we can say that the dictators have succeeded in shaping the world they dreamed of.

The dictators wanted the West and the international community to treat them not as international criminals, but as equals with whom they should negotiate on mutually beneficial terms. To do so, they used the old criminal method of problem-solving. First, a problem is created, and then the criminal bargains to solve it or reduce its consequences, making a good profit. The West, torn apart by decades of peace and development, with a weak system of social values, is afraid of war and is not ready for a clash with Russia, let alone China. And even after the first unambiguous signals of a possible war in the future, it is not ready to put its social values and priorities, economy, and even its armies on high alert. Some thinking Western officials point to the threat, but the majority of those who do not want to change anything, deepen their own comfort, and want to delegate authority to someone to negotiate and delay the war prevail.

Therefore, instead of a tough response, international criminals are offered negotiations at the highest geopolitical level. Translated into the language of ordinary citizens, this means that instead of a courtroom, the police and a judge shake hands with a maniacal killer and discuss “zones of influence” and the limits of compromise regarding his ability to commit further crimes. This is exactly what is being offered to the Kremlin dictator, who has been convicted by an international court.

The leaders of the United States and European countries do not declare the inevitability of punishment for an international criminal, but hope to reach a compromise with him. Instead of forcing the criminal to return the stolen goods – the occupied Ukrainian territories – they try to negotiate with him, allowing him to keep them in exchange for “no more in the future.” What seems absurd even at the level of the first grade of school is becoming a reality for world leaders on a global scale. All the statements of Western leaders in recent months are not aimed at the triumph of the values they have talked about so much, but at opportunistic agreements and compromises with evil.

Any option for ending the Russian-Ukrainian war without the 1991 borders recognized by the international community would be a spit in the face of the international community and the existing international order. Even if this community claims that it was not spit on, or that it was raining, the weakness of Western leaders and societies will be obvious to Putin and Xi Jinping. Regardless of whether Ukraine is provided with more weapons or British and Polish troops come to the demarcation line, if the stolen goods are left to the criminal and shaken hands with him in negotiations, this is the collapse of international law and the existing world order. After that, the world will be left with only the right of the strongest, only relations based on the formula of vassalage and domination, which will mean outbreaks of new military conflicts and global escalation.

The only possible solution that will show the “Axis of Dictatorships” the strong position of the West is to admit Ukraine to NATO as a signal to international criminals: we do not stand aside, but take the victim country under our protection. Only a demonstration of the power of “kindness with fists” will stop further arrogance of aggressive regimes. The outcome of the Russian-Ukrainian war will be a test of the possibility of preserving democracy in the world and the answer to the question: will World War III begin?

Author: Valeriy Maydanyuk

One of the wisest politicians of the twentieth century, who recognized the global threat of Nazi aggression in advance and saved his country from occupation, was the conservative Winston Churchill. And the biggest problem of today is that there is currently no figure on the geopolitical scene who could become Churchill against the backdrop of the global offensive of new fascism.

The era in which Churchill lived was very similar to ours. Fascism was rising, and Western democracies were worried about business, which loves peace, and believed that business people could negotiate everything with anyone.

In the 1930s, Churchill warned of the danger posed by Hitler, warned Europe against destruction, and called for action before it was too late, but respectable politicians of the time called him an “arsonist of war.”

When the Nazis targeted Czechoslovakia, Churchill called for decisive action. But the British Prime Minister of the time, Neville Chamberlain, was an adherent of the policy of appeasement of the aggressor, which consisted of concessions and compromises with international criminals: “If you give the criminal what he wants, you can avoid war,” Chamberlain believed. Such a political philosophy seems absurd only now, but at the time everything was very ambiguous and many people thought that there was a chance to resolve everything peacefully. Like, we will always have time to fight.

Chamberlain was thinking in the spirit of democratic, election-oriented politicians. War is expensive, and even more so the war for some distant Czechoslovakia, where, as the German press writes, Germans are “oppressed.” Is it worth dragging your country into a war for someone else’s interests, sending British soldiers to their deaths, incurring huge budgetary costs, and even before the elections? A party that does this will inevitably lose the election. “Wouldn’t it be better to seek a compromise at someone else’s expense, bargaining for peace and tranquility for the British?” Chamberlain thought, just as Obama, Biden, Trump, etc. will think 80 years after him.

Hitler openly despised Western democratic leaders, and especially Chamberlain, whom he called a nobody out loud in the corridor of the Munich Conference. And the naïve Chamberlain, upon returning to London, declared that he had brought peace to this generation of Britons.

Only Churchill warned that Hitler would cheat and that a world war would soon ensue, which happened less than a year later. But few people liked this inconvenient truth. Just as no one now likes warnings that Russia may attack Europe in the next few years.

Modern Western politicians are trying to speak cautiously, to warn, but in a way that does not disrupt the usual way of life and does not lose popularity. Recently, NATO Secretary General Rutte pointed out the weakness and unpreparedness of the Alliance for such a large-scale war as Russia is waging against Ukraine.

But even voicing this means risks to their political careers and ratings. Politicians and generals who talk about this are breaking the usual pattern of life and demanding some extraordinary measures that cost a lot of money, may cost them defeat in the elections, and it is not yet known whether they will be justified if there is no war.

For example, if an average European country started real defense preparations, began to allocate enormous amounts of money for the army and weapons, froze unnecessary social projects, various programs to fight for tolerance, etc., and instead began to educate the population in military training, began to build trenches and bunkers, or, God forbid, to mobilize, this party would definitely lose the election, and very likely early.

Because if there is no war, the electorate will not see the effectiveness of all those weapons, air defense, and military equipment, but will only see a reduction in their own comfort. Therefore, politicians choose not to change anything drastically, to prepare for defense so minimally that neither the budget nor the voters will feel it, and to rely on negotiations in the hope of avoiding future conflict.

Meanwhile, Russia spends up to half of its GDP on war. And in Erefia, there are increasingly clear signals about the need to strike at the places where Ukraine supplies weapons, to “save from the blockade” the Kaliningrad region, which is “surrounded” by Poland and Lithuania, to break through the Suvalkovsky corridor, etc.

De facto, there is no influential politician in Europe, or in the West, who thinks as decisively and correctly about aggressive regimes as Churchill did on the eve of World War II. Statements that Putin, an international criminal, should be put at the negotiating table, not in the dock, show that there are too many Chamberlains in Europe today, but no Churchills.

Author: Valeriy Maydanyuk

One of the most dangerous arguments of the Axis of Dictatorships and Erefia against the West is the widespread overuse of leftist values and LGBT rhetoric in recent years, against which Putin portrays himself as a “conservative.”

Putin’s dictatorship is already officially calling itself “conservative” both for domestic Russian audiences and abroad. Realizing that leftist identity politics is not popular in the West, Putin decided to focus on shaping the image of Erefia as an alternative to leftist liberalism. Russia is presented as the cradle of the traditional family, moral values (!), conservatism and traditions.

And this has a propaganda effect: Russian supporters in the West appear not only for Gazprom’s money, but there is no shortage of useful idiots among the influencers. When many citizens believe that their country, and civilization in general, is developing in the wrong direction and going the wrong way, they start looking for other guidelines. And the Kremlin spares no effort to present itself as a conservative reference point that supports the traditional family and conventional gender roles.

And against the backdrop of the onslaught of leftist values in the West, this has a disappointing result for democracy. Not only in France, Hungary, or Germany are there influential anti-Western political forces in parliament that capitalize on conservatism and traditional values. But the list of European countries where Eurosceptics and Muscovites are gaining popularity is growing. Unexpectedly, in addition to Slovakia, where Robert Fico won earlier, a threatening situation has emerged in Romania, where the influence of anti-Western and anti-Ukrainian forces calling themselves “conservative” and oriented toward Russia is growing.

This is despite the fact that Putin’s fascist policy has nothing to do with conservatism. On the contrary, it is characterized by such features as:

• The cult of glorification of the state leader;
• National chauvinism and the cult of superiority over other nations;
• Destruction of democratic institutions;
• Aggressive foreign policy and seizure of foreign lands;
• The cult of power and militarism;

Russia is 100% fascist and falls short of Nazi Germany only in the absence of a racial policy of “ethnic purity of Russians,” although this does not prevent many Putin’s chauvinists from calling Russians “Aryans.” Apart from empty rhetoric, Putin’s regime has nothing to do with conservatism.

Conservatives not only respect but also defend democracy from threats of usurpation from above and below. While the Putin regime buried Russian democracy a quarter of a century ago.

Conservatives really respect the rule of law, and do not nullify the constitution to make the Kremlin dwarf president again in violation of the law.

Conservatives respect the church and religious institutions, and do not subordinate them to the special services to turn them into another propaganda tool.

Conservatives honor the traditional family as an environment for the development of a healthy human personality, and do not turn it into a conveyor belt for stamping out laborers and cannon fodder for Putin’s wars.

Conservatism never wanted anything to do with fascism, although fascists wanted to copy conservative features for their own legitimization. As did the founder of fascism, Benito Mussolini. Conservatism is primarily about respect for rules and traditions, not about breaking them over the knee to please an unbalanced dictator. No true conservatism has ever emerged without respect for laws and democratic traditions, and this is one of the most important features of why Putin’s dictatorship has nothing to do with conservative values.

Author: Valeriy Maydanyuk

The visit of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was a memorable event that left a trail of memes and discussions in the Ukrainian segment of social media, but the purpose of Scholz’s sudden and unannounced arrival may be related to the desire to get ahead of… the future chancellor.

The influential Politico magazine writes that the German Chancellor’s urgent visit to Ukraine could have been caused by an election strategy. And the fact that Scholz visited Ukraine for the first time in 2.5 years may be due to an invitation to Kyiv from the head of the CDU, Friedrich Merz, who has the best chance of leading the German government after the February 2025 parliamentary elections. “Is Scholz trying to win at least the race to the Ukrainian capital?” notes Politico.

This year, Germany’s largest opposition force, the conservative bloc of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU), nominated Friedrich Merz as a candidate for chancellor in the 2025 Bundestag elections.

The CSU leader and Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söder spoke warmly of Merz’s candidacy, emphasizing that the conservatives have a common goal: to replace the ruling “traffic light coalition” and put Germany back on the right track.”

Significantly, it is the CDU/CSU bloc that is the favorite in the upcoming elections and remains the most popular party in Germany. 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% of the vote. While the CDU/CSU bloc would be supported by 33% of voters, which is a surprisingly significant figure.

Therefore, it would be advisable to consider the biography and political position of the possible future chancellor of the country that is currently the leader in Europe in supplying military aid to Ukraine.

Friedrich Merz is a German conservative politician, a lawyer by training. Until 1976, he served in the military. He studied law at the University of Bonn. He worked as a judge and practiced law.

From 1989 to 1994, he was a member of the European Parliament, then elected to the Bundestag, where he became known for his legislative initiatives in the financial and economic sphere. In the late 1990s, he became deputy leader of the CDU/CSU faction.

In 2000, he became the undisputed leader of the faction. Two years later, however, Merz resigned after the CDU’s defeat in the parliamentary elections. He had a tense relationship with Angela Merkel, who advocated his removal from the position of deputy head of the faction and blocked the tax reform proposed by Merz.

Instead, Merz criticized Angela Merkel’s proposed health care reform and, in contrast to the Chancellor, advocated a common European budget policy and a common labor market.

The disagreements between Merz and Merkel were clearly ideological in nature. Merkel tended to the left of the spectrum, while Merz stood on center-right conservative positions. He actively criticized the construction of Nord Stream 2. In May 2022, he visited Kyiv and the towns in the Kyiv region destroyed during the Russian invasion.

In the fall of this year, Friedrich Merz said that the West has no goal of defeating Russia in the conflict with Ukraine, but the latter must restore sovereignty over its territory and ensure its security. According to Merz, the Western allies acted “too late” and did “too little,” and as a result, the balance of power today “looks quite terrible and very sobering.”

Friedrich Merz is considered to be in favor of increasing assistance to Ukraine. In particular, he has repeatedly called for the supply of German long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine. There is every reason to believe that Merz’s possible victory next year will make Ukrainian-German cooperation more meaningful and Germany’s international position more resolute.

Author: Valeriy Maydanyuk

The left-wing press and blogosphere have found a very convenient target for attack – moderate conservatism, which is perhaps the only one that continues to defend true democracy and human rights and freedoms that are not oppressed by the minority.

Even domestic left-wing and left-oriented publications do not shy away from tagging conservatism with the words “Chauvinism, Conservatism, Discrimination” in an attempt to defame an ideology that calls for common sense and legality. Conservatism is easy to target because it is too polite, rational, and tolerant to engage in a discussion on the level of the true far right. However, this does not prevent leftist forces from labeling conservatives as “far right” for their patriotism, national identity, or even for such “radical” ideas as calls for an increase in the birth rate, because some believe that this would “discriminate against women’s rights to career success.” Of course, women themselves are not asked, and if the majority of women are not satisfied with the answer, they will be called “not progressive enough.”

Conservatives do not shout at the mouth, call people bad names, or throw paint cans at their opponents, as many “progressives” do when they damage artworks in museums. Moderate conservatives generally try not to accuse anyone, not to make real diagnoses, and not to engage in heated discussions.

We have witnessed an interesting paradox: left-wing liberals and “progressives” who were apologists for tolerance a few decades ago are now criticizing and stigmatizing their opponents without any regard for logic, let alone respect for a different point of view, which, by the way, was guaranteed by the founding fathers of liberalism. The phrase attributed to Voltaire, “I do not agree with a single word you say, but I am ready to die for your right to say it,” which has long been popular among liberals, looks like an irony today.

Today’s “progressives” are fighting for bans, restrictions on freedom of speech, and more bans on social media for what they call “hate speech” with ever-increasing variability, which changes its scope every year. The only ones who continue to respect and follow this liberal slogan attributed to Voltaire are conservatives.” – An adult opinion of adults, educated and balanced people with education and life experience.

De facto, today’s conservatives are the last true liberals who stand for freedom of speech, assembly, conscience, and respect the opinion of the majority. And paradoxically, they call other points of view “populist,” “right-wing radical,” or “intolerant” and do not impose their “only right, diverse” opinion on anyone without any diversity.