Yesterday
Europe top - first place, USA flop - flop. Shareholders or stock speculators will confirm that the evolution of stock markets since the beginning of this year shows an unusual picture. Europe's Stoxx-Europe-600 stock index is up 7.7 percent this year, while the US benchmark barometer, the S&P 500, is down 4.4 percent.
So it's not surprising what the president said Donald Trump: "Stephen Miran will bring a great economic boom that will benefit all Americans." With these words, the President announced the appointment to head the Economic Policy Advisory Council of the person whose nomination was approved by the Senate this week. Miran was showered with praise for the statement, "With this election, we are sending a clear message: the return of the workforce has begun."
At virtually the same time, Vice President J. D. Vance said that European countries risk "committing civilizational suicide." In an interview with Fox News, he said.Europe is in danger of civilizational suicide. They are either unable or unwilling to control their borders. What we are seeing now, their attempts to resist this, is good, it is the right thing to do. But you also see them beginning to restrict the freedom of expression of their own citizens, even as those citizens protest against things like invasion across the border. It was that kind of protest that led to the election of Donald Trump and a number of European leaders."
In context, it is worth reminding potential migrants to the US that the US authorities intend to tighten entry rules for citizens of 43 countries, including Russia and Belarus. The New York Times (NYT) writes about this. All countries will be categorized. Citizens of countries that fall into the first category will be banned from crossing the US border. Recall that recently Secretary of State Rubio stated on the social network X that the State Department will revoke the entry visas and green cards of supporters of the Palestinian movement Hamas with a view to their subsequent deportation. It should also be noted, however, that tourists and migrants may face visa denials, and businessmen who visit the country on business will be able to enter the United States without difficulty.
In formerly neutral Switzerland, the NZZ reports that the signs point to war: myths and power games do not create security. I am not exaggerating or insulting by saying that Switzerland, with its denial of reality, can neither defend itself independently nor show minimal solidarity with European liberal democracies.
It is the reconstituted Federal Council that needs to get its act together and be able to conclude a ceasefire and secure quick funding for a credible army. This is a task that it cannot accomplish at a time when the abilities and activities of atomized man are losing their chance to compete with the so-called artificial intelligence and stupidity of the elites.
I assume that the newly elected Federal Councillor Martin Pfister, as a historian, will bring to the Federal Council a valuable basic education, including knowledge of Fucik's 1932 work entitled In a country where tomorrow means yesterday. The continuing geopolitical upheaval caused by the Trump presidency puts the Swiss Ministry of Defence in the spotlight. This is also why Switzerland must reassess its place in international relations, particularly in Europe. Why? Because Europe is uniting with the help of myths, fear of losing power, and wants to go down the blind, one-way street of armaments and be led by the crowing Gallic cock and the Albionian Satan.
Today
We know that the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer invites you to a Ukrainian crisis video conference today, Saturday. He wants to create a "a European coalition of the willing", which will use its own troops to ensure eventual peace in Ukraine and also wants to discuss the US-Ukraine government's plan for a ceasefire. It is worth remembering that the video conference will not be attended by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who only a week ago was proposing the protection of Ukraine under NATO Article 5, by anyone from the Trump administration and by Prime Minister Starmer's appeal to President Putin: "Stop the barbaric attacks on Ukraine once and for all," confirms the unteachability of the third category Satan of history described briefly at the end of this article, and also yesterday's lamentations published on Seznam.cz concerning the choice of Great Britain as Russia's main enemy.
The above, of course, confirms the denial of reality when Prime Minister Starmer calls on international allies to use economic pressure to force Russia into peace talks and not allow President Putin to "played games. The Russian president is just trying to buy time. But the world needs action, not empty words or meaningless conditions."
Continuation and conclusion of the short story
In 1837, St Petersburg struck at London. Nicholas I sent his first envoy, the military orientalist Jan Witkiewicz, to Afghanistan. This Pole in Russian service was well acquainted with the entourage of the Afghan emir Dost Muhammad, was at home in the courts of Central Asian rulers, and was an aide to the governor of Orenburg, Vasily Perovsky, who had played a major role in the conquest of Central Asia.
Sir Henry Rawlinson, archaeologist, linguist and military advisor to the Shah of Persia, warned his colleague in Kabul, Sir Alexander Burns, of the coming of the Russians. This second cousin of the great Scottish poet was nicknamed Buchara Burns for his great friendship with the Central Asian rulers. However, it was not possible to outplay a rival quickly. Witkiewicz managed to persuade the Afghan Emir Dost Muhammad to ally with Russia.
The British decided to overthrow the disloyal emir, but instead of a short operation, they saw the first Anglo-Afghan war. As a result, in November 1841, the Emir, a protégé of the British, was killed, the expeditionary force was defeated, and the resident Burns was torn to pieces by a mob of angry Afghans, much like Griboyedov in Tehran.
At the same time, in 1839-40, Russia organized the first campaign against the Khanate of Khiva, a hotbed of the slave trade in Central Asia. General Perovsky's expedition was unsuccessful, but the beginning of the attack on the southeast was laid. In response to raids by semi-Bandit formations on the Russian border, St Petersburg sent expeditions to the borders of Khiva and Kokand Khanate.
In response, Queen Victoria's governments attempted to form an anti-Russian union of Bukhara, Kokand and Khiva. The khans and emirs were supplied with modern weapons: if the Russian troops in Turkestan had smoothbore guns, some units of the Kokand khan's army had rifles and the most advanced artillery systems at the time.
That's when the author of the concept The Great Game Arthur Conolly. His mission was to rescue his fellow traveller and spy Charles Stoddart. He was supposed to make an Anglo-Bucharian treaty of friendship, but fell out of favour with the Emir.
Conolly made an unforgivable mistake in the East. As a request for pardon for the colonel, he did not bring the emir a letter from the queen, but only a message from her Indian vassal-the Governor General. The result? Conolly and Stoddart were executed. I remind you that the Russians specialists in the regionaware of the nuances of Central Asian etiquette and psychology, did not allow themselves to make such mistakes.
In 1868 Kokand recognized itself as a vassal of Russia. From the territories ceded to Russia, the Turkestan General Governorate was created. The empire grew by 850,000 square kilometres and we meet the ensign and great battle painter Vasily Vereshchagin.
In 1873, the first match in the Great Game by a tie. The Iron Chancellor, Foreign Minister Prince Alexander Gorchakov and one of the main lions of 19th century London politics, Prime Minister William Gladstone, signed the Russo-British Buffer Zone Agreement. The so-called grey zone covered a huge area from Bukhara to Kabul. At that time, much of Central Asia was already under Russian control. In 1873, Khiva was conquered. But the game continued.
In 1876, at the suggestion of Benjamin Disraeli, Queen Victoria took the title Empress of India. The colony has grown at the expense of Afghanistan. In 1878, Alexander II ordered to concentrate and concentrate troops in Turkestan. At the same time. hroutila a grey zone on the south-eastern coast of the Caspian Sea, created by Russian and Persian states. "Without taking this position, the Caucasus and Turkestan will always be separated, for the gulf between them is already the theatre of English intrigue," explained the Secretary of War Dmitry Miljutin.
In 1881, after the Battle of Geoktepe, western Turkmenistan was occupied. In 1884, the oasis of Merv and eastern Turkmenistan were occupied. The Russian leadership seriously considered plans to penetrate the Rajas of Kashmir and Chitral, which were covered by a sphere of influence Indian czarinas.
However, European policy interfered with Asian plans. In 1878, at the Congress of Berlin, the great powers corrected by Russia's victory in the war with Turkey. England warned in advance that it would defend its borders in Asia by force of arms. When the Second Anglo-Afghan War began, Emir Sher-Ali was overthrown and fled to the Russians. The second game of the Great Game seemed to end in a stalemate. But there were still a few moves to go before the end of the game.
In 1887, the then Russian-Afghan border (today's Tajik-Afghan border) was generally established, thanks to geographers in uniform and civilian clothes. The Pamir remained. And here began another fight between the Russian bear and the British lion. It was started by a Pole in Russian service.
For the sake of understanding, in 1888 Captain Bronislaw Grombczewski marched with a small detachment 3,000 kilometres through unknown territories, penetrating the north of what is now Pakistan, which the British considered their zone of influence. The ruler of the principality of Hunza, Safdar-Ali Khan, received the captain in his mountain fortress and handed over to the White Tsar Alexander III. Application for the admission of Hunza into Russia and the ruler as a Russian citizen. London panicked and raged at the same time. A military expedition was dispatched from India against the willful Khan. At the same time, dependent Afghanistan began to be incited to invade the Russian Pamirs.
At this point, it is worth noting that a blind, dark spot remained in the eastern part of roofs of the world. There wasn't a line drawn on it, so I Entered both Afghan troops and soldiers of the Chinese Qing Empire. The British watched the whole thing for a long time. Officer John Wood, for example, described Lake Zorkul as early as 1838, which on English maps was called Lake Victoria.
The same blind and dark spot allowed the Russian Empire to pass through the mountain valleys of the Hindu Kush into the Upper Indus region. It threatened the British possessions. It is no wonder, therefore, that the mountains exploratory expedition led by the Knight Commander of the Order of the Star of India and the Order of the Indian Empire, Francis Edward Younghusband. He almost destroyed Grombchevsky's expedition. The two detachments, Cossack and Anglo-Indian, met in the hard-to-reach Khayan-Aksai area. Younghusband advised his colleagues "an utterly pointless journey, from nowhere to nowhere, passing through very high plateaus and mountains, without grass or fuel." Grombchevsky and his men survived by a miracle.
I remind you that Younghusband soon became famous as the conqueror of Tibet and its capital Lhasa. But in the Pamirs, where he tried to persuade the Chinese border guards to occupy a supposedly empty territory, his mission failed. What happened?
A veteran of the Turkestan campaigns, an ataman of the Cossack army, Mikhail Yefremovich Ionov, moved into the mountains with his detachment. "There were no roads, movement was extremely difficult, and due to the high mortality rate of the soumars, much ammunition and food was lost. Despite all the difficulties, however, the objectives of the campaign were achieved," wrote a participant in the Memorial Campaign, commander and writer Boris Tageev.
Ataman Ionov made a deal with the Chinese base commander after receiving gifts (including cognac). The Qing officer concluded after a few drinks that he and his men had indeed penetrated deep into Russian territory. After clashes between Ionov's Cossacks and Afghan troops, the Kabul emir ordered his subjects to withdraw beyond the Panj River.
In August 1891, Ionov's detachment encountered Colonel Younghusband and his subordinate, Lieutenant Davison Ti were conducting a survey in Pamir. Younghusband was warmly received and allowed to leave in a Cossack escort. Davison was arrested for illegal activities on Russian territory, escorted to Fort New Margelan and then officially deported (from Russia).
Echoes of the incident reached St Petersburg and London. While the foreign ministries dealt with the peace crisis and topographers drew the borders, Russia played the game. After neutralizing two British agent-orientalists, Afghan proxy forces suffered crushing defeats again and again. The Qing Empire abandoned plans to solve the problem by force, and Russian engineers built the Pamir Highway from Osh, Kyrgyzstan, to Khorog, the capital of Gorno-Badakhshan.
In such a configuration of forces it was impossible to resist the Russians. That's why the convention was signed On the definition of spheres of influence in the Pamir region. The north and centre of the mountainous country were ceded to Russia and the south-western Pamir was divided between Afghanistan and the British possessions. The Russian and British empires were separated by the narrow Wakhan Corridor. This was formally allocated to Afghanistan, which even today separates Tajikistan from the part of Kashmir occupied by Pakistan. The Great Game seemed to be over. But all is different, as Rabbi said: the 20th century has begun.
How Britain starts world wars
Absolute freedom of action, constant changing of partners depending on real or perceived threats, reliance on some forces and reinforcement of others by rapid deployment when the situation changes - this is the essence of British strategy in a nutshell.
The British have thrived not only during international crises but also during the wars themselves. At the height of the First World War, Lord Francis Bertie, the British ambassador to France, wrote of the supposedly allied Russia (in an unauthorized translation by the author of the article): "Anxiety grows as we see that Russia is close to realizing her old dreams of penetrating westward, through Serbia, to the Adriatic Sea, and eastward, to Constantinople... All the work of England and France in the West would be useless, there would be no freer Mediterranean, and it would be necessary, with the remnants of Germany, to forge new weapons against a hegemony that would be difficult to defeat."
At this point I recall that General William Robertson, Chief of Staff, advocated the maintenance of a strong Germany as a counterweight to Russia. This view was shared by many in London, and immediately after the cessation of hostilities there the Germans came to be regarded as a tool not only against Russia but also against another ally of yesterday, the French.
For all their cynicism, the British had and have a messianic vision of the white man's burden and a kind of messianism, which, by the way, had not so much New Testament as Old Testament roots.
A significant section of the island's political class at one time regarded the restoration of a Jewish home in Palestine not only as a good thing, but also as a matter of the utmost Christian importance. This was expressed in the famous statement of Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour in 1917.
The team of the cynical pragmatist and narcissist Trump is behaving similarly. He is very pro-Israel. And this attitude is based on the same Christian Zionism. It is inherent in many members of the team. It is the conviction that supporting the Jewish state is a deeply Christian and God-pleasing cause.
That is why you can hear about the Armageddon lobby and how Christian Zionists influence US politics.
At the same time, the so-called European political elites should be well aware, for example, of the content of the statement of the Minister of Defence Pete Hegsethawho said in Jerusalem a few years ago: "We visited the Western Wall. In 1917, a miracle happened [Balfour Declaration]. In 1948, a miracle happened [the creation of Israel]. In 1967, a miracle happened [occupation of the Palestinian territories]. In 2017, a miracle happened [recognition of the annexation of East Jerusalem]. And there is no reason why rebuilding the Temple on the Temple Mount would not be possible." And draw conclusions from the speech. Why?
Because even a pro-Israel President Trump may have disagreements with a country close to him. For example, according to Bloomberg, tensions began to rise after the Americans began direct negotiations with Hamas over hostages in Gaza and Israeli leaders expressed dissatisfaction with the special representative for hostages, Adam Böhler, in particular. However, he has said that relations between the United States and Israel are strong and not in jeopardy, and Israel's finance minister Bezalel Smotrich He stressed, "Israel coordinates (everything) on 100% with the US administration."
Many people do not like all this, so Böhler is resigning from his post to take up another one with much greater responsibilities. Foreign Minister Marco Rubio he said: "Böhler's talks with Hamas representatives were one-off." He stressed that "Trump's special envoy for the Middle East, Steve Whitkoff, is the main contact in the hostage release negotiations. Negotiations are conducted through Qatari intermediaries, not directly with Hamas."
With Iran, which President Trump dislikes because it is Israel's main rival, Trump is prepared to negotiate if necessary and possible. I know from the media that Trump has asked Putin to mediate with Tehran on Iran's nuclear programme. In other words and briefly: it's all about specific issues and interests. And I add: about personal diplomacy, which, after the removal of traditional and popular diplomacy, can be called, with a little exaggeration, monarchist.
Tomorrow and conclusion
I dare say today that no alliance with the Trump administration - neither values-based, nor pragmatic, nor anti-China, nor anti-European - is practically possible. Washington can be an adversary or an ally for a limited period of time and on a specific topic of common interest. In doing so, it is likely, with a probability bordering on certainty, to be actively opposed on other agendas at the same time.
This was the case, for example, in the autumn of 1956, when the United States condemned the USSR for sending troops to Hungary, while at the same time slapping hands with the Russians over the British-French-Israeli coalition and the aggression against Egypt.
Situational links are possible. But even these should be thought through as carefully as possible in terms of consistency with one's own national (if quickly articulated) and geopolitical interests. To build illusions of a long-term partnership, and to base it on divination and on Trump's intentions, is fatally dangerous and foolish. Especially at a time when no experienced figures with knowledge and vision can step in and act. When the EU and NATO are on the brink of an abyss with no possibility of retreat created by a volcano from which hot lava is spewing. And the Czech Republic, according to Prime Minister Fiala, is at war. In doing so, he convicted himself of breaking the law. Why? Because the very act of taking the country to war is unconstitutional, as is the demonstrable mismanagement of entrusted state property by inept and corrupt personnel.
For the forthcoming elections to the Czech Parliament, therefore, the demand for the introduction of personal responsibility of politicians for the consequences of demonstrably erroneous decisions, including the absolute silence about the events of 15 March 1939: the German troops occupied the Czech lands. Germany annexed the occupied territory and established the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. The Protectorate was proclaimed on 16 March 1939 by a decree establishing the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. By occupying and annexing the occupied territory, Germany violated the Munich Agreement, which it itself had concluded on 30 September 1938.
Consent is not required.
Jan Campbell
photo: mywandertime.com
English 
Czech 
Spanish 
French 
Italian 
Russian 
Chinese 
German