Co-Authors: Dr. Morris Mottale & Dr. Yiorghos Leventis

At the end of the Cold War, in Washington and Western Europe there was a consensus that a new world order was coming around. Overlooked was the fact that an Islamic revolution in Iran led by an octogenarian Ayatollah brought a series of upheavals in the Islamic world that saw radical terrorism, revolutions in Africa, and civil wars that continue to this day. These events were capped years later by conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, North Africa, and Sub Saharan Africa and eventually a radical Islamic takeover in Afghanistan. In short, the end of the Cold War brought an endless list of conflicts of which the two outstanding ones are the war in Ukraine and the war within the Gaza Strip. There are at least fifty other wars in Africa and Asia but they do not make the news, including conflicts in Somalia, Central Africa Republic, Ethiopia, Sudan, Southern Sudan, and The Republic of Congo among many others.

The preeminence of international news networks such as CNN and the BBC along with social media brings the focus solely on the Arab-Israeli conflict and American politics. By the year 2000, there was a consensus that the new International System would see antagonism between China and the United States. By 2025, Chinese commercial trade preeminence was challenging the European Union and the North American free trade area. From 2000 onward, the Chinese set out to create a new economic block known as BRICS which is composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and by 2025 they included Egypt, Ethiopia, the UAE, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The direct challenge to the US in many areas of the International System began with the challenge that Radical Islam, shaped and manipulated by the Ayatollah, posed against the US, France, and Great Britain. The outstanding tool for Islamic expansion was the Arab-Israeli conflict and more specifically the Palestinian issue. Within a few years of the establishment of what appeared to be peace treaties between Israel and some of its neighbors (Abraham Accords), the Islamic world and the Global South saw antagonism to the existence of the Jewish state, with regional conflicts in which conflicting parties took sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Interestingly, the same parties, with some exceptions including India, are also members of BRICS.

The preeminence of the United States – however much challenged by China, Russia, and Iran – did not decrease the importance of the United States presidential elections of 2024. For the world, the US election was bound to be a defining moment in international politics, regardless of the outcome. The outstanding elements in the International System are the resentment and imitation of American cultural trends, including US mass media. What passes for American soft power is affirmative action and the woke ideology. The US stands out as an agent of cultural change. The anti-women movement in Islamic society has been influenced by the globalization of American culture and the preeminent role of women in American and European society. Misogyny has become a political ideology in the Islamic world. The competition between the major powers is compounded by the rise of new technologies, shaped by electronic communication, artificial intelligence, and cyber technology.

In 2013, China proposed changes to global currency to bypass, if not outright abolish the US Dollar. The original BRIC group was dubbed very loosely the “BRICS,” including Brazil, China, Russia, India, and South Africa. In time, other countries also joined. Venezuela and Turkey are seeking entry to the trade group, which has gained momentum.

The official members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are primarily Asian, Arabic and nations within the former Soviet Union, but growing interest across the Middle East and South America is notable. In 2004, the SCO officially established relations with the United Nations as an observer, in addition to other international bodies.

Two principle international conflicts, the Gaza War and Ukraine, along with conflicts in Africa and Asia have sped up the process of this new world order, where the Anglo-American ideal of a rule-based system is being challenged on the grounds that it is fundamentally pro-American, pro-Liberal, and pro-Capitalist. The rise of conflicts within the Islamic world and the widespread anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic positions of many countries from Latin America to Asia to Africa are adding another dimension to this new world order yet to come.

Rise of Islamic Politics in the West

The rise of Islamic politics in France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Canada the United States and the United Kingdom has influenced domestic electoral politics. In Europe, for example, the rise of the so-called extremist parties like AfD (Alternative for Germany) or the Rassemblement National in France have given new weight to the idea that liberal democratic order, which has characterized the development of Western Europe and America in the post-war period, is not accepted by large portions of the population. Similar trends are evident across Europe, with the rise of Vox from Spain, 5 Stelle in Italy, and BNP in the United Kingdom.

Speaking of the latter, let’s take a closer statistical look at the upsurge of Islamic politics in the UK. There is an array of hard political facts: Muslims count for four million in a total population of 66 million in the UK. Yet they elect Muslim mayors in no less than nine major urban centres in the country, including the mayor of the capital, London, of the second largest city Birmingham and of the world-renowned liberal university city of Oxford. The other six Muslim-led municipalities are: Blackburn, Leeds, Luton, Oldham, Rochdale, Sheffield. There are now 3,000 mosques, (one mosque per 80 square kilometres roughly) 130 Sharia Courts and 50 Sharia councils in the UK. Seventy-eight per cent of Muslim women do not work and receive state support, 63 per cent of British Muslims are out of work and receive state support. UK Muslim families on the receiving end of state support and free accommodation have on average six to eight children. Every school in good old Christian England is required to teach about Islam. Under such circumstances, guess which is the most common name given to British boys nowadays. You guessed right: it is Mohammed!

Greece: Demographic Collapse

At the other end of the Old Continent, Greece, an ancient nation reborn in 1830, lying at the southeastern fringes of the European Union, has been in deep trouble for the past two decades. Endemic corruption and leadership incompetence brought up mounting external foreign debt. Greece’s government debt hovers around 160 per cent of the GDP. The country’s economic woes are compounded by the hordes of irregular migrants. Periodically, vulnerable segments of Hellas’ 15,000 kilometres long coastline get awash with hundreds of mainly sub-Saharan and Middle Eastern unsolicited destitute visitors. The Hellenic Republic currently hosts a large number of immigrants accounting for over a million or approximately ten per cent of the total population, a considerable proportion of whom are Muslim. Pew Research and other international reports estimate there are 520,000 additional Muslims in Greece who are refugees, regular or irregular migrants, or asylum‑seekers. This number is in addition to the indigenous recognized Muslim minority in Western Thrace numbering around 140,000 people. Sharia law applies for this minority, which enjoys a special status in terms of religious and cultural rights, in derogation to the Hellenic Civil Law, in compliance with the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 governing its status.

Greece’s Muslim immigrants are in the most part Albanians (over 0.4 million) who are not particularly devout Muslims given their socialization for over 50 years in a totalitarian communist regime banning religion. In fact, a number of them, in their everyday life, adopt Greek names – either ancient or modern.

However, what should be underlined, is that the rise in the incoming Muslim population in the Hellenic Republic comes on the sharp backdrop of the flight of an impoverished indigenous Greek Orthodox population. Young Greeks are forced to become economic migrants themselves in the more affluent countries of the northern tier of the EU, the UK, the US and Canada. A rough total figure of migrant Greeks for the first quarter of the 21st century is estimated to be around 1.3 to 1.5 million! This is definitely a generation lost for the country. Brain drainage ad nauseum.

To make things worse, Greek birth rates are falling rapidly. Though a small nation, or perhaps because of this, the sharp demographic decline of Greece, has not escaped the attention of Elon Musk. The flamboyant billionaire businessman reposted, on 2 September 2025, an article that reported over 700 schools in Greece were closing due to falling student numbers. He captioned the post: “The death of Greece.” The actual number of Greek schools shutting down because of failing to reach the threshold of fifteen pupils is 721. Conclusively, in the first quarter of the current century, the Hellenic Republic lost well over a million of highly qualified young Greeks only to be replaced by half a million of unskilled Muslim immigrants.

Development of communication technology, social media

The causes of such new developments have to be found in the development of communication technology and what we used to call rising expectations, which characterized the study of development in the 50s and 60s. Social media and international visual communications have fueled rising expectations in the 21^st century. This New World Order has also been characterized by large numbers of so called “illegal” immigrants from Africa, Asia, and Latin America moving to North America or into Western Europe.

In the case of Germany, for example, the growth of “extremist” parties has been fueled by the presence of illegal immigrants and the ease with which the German government has allowed real and imaginary refugees to move and enjoy the benefits of a welfare society in Germany under Angela Merkel. In fact, by September 2024, Germany had imposed passport controls on its borders, irritating some of its neighbors because this policy is against the idea of an integrated, borderless Europe. Both in Europe and North America, the rise of Chinese exports and the decline of local industries, ranging from the car industry to chemicals and steel, has led the traditional working classes to support nationalist and protectionist parties. American elections have seen both parties talking about protecting American industry. This also seems to be the case in Canada.

This new world order has also been propelled by the so-called “Woke Business,” the rise of racial identification, which has added to racial and identity politics all over the world. In Islamic countries, ranging from Pakistan to North and West Africa, this has meant the persecution of Christians and Jews, to the extent that women who do not wear the hijab face persecution. Paradoxically, Islamic society is also being threatened by radical Islamic societies. Al Qaida and violent subversive groups are propagating across Africa and Asia.

Leadership in Western Europe and North America has sometime faced this issue in response to radical terrorism such as 9/11 and Bataclan. More immediate political concerns and challenges see democratic political systems concentrating on jobs, education, human rights, immigration and, last but not least, climate change. Historically, from the Napoleonic period onward, world orders and balances of power never lasted more than a generation. For example, the Peace of Versailles world order lasted twenty years. The Cold War order in Europe lasted from 1947 to 1989. The relative peace that followed the fall of the Soviet Union lasted fifteen years at most, as NATO expanded into Eastern Europe and the rise of a new Russia set off a renewed arms race and added more weight to the developing BRICS.

The spectacular victory of the Ayatollahs in the Middle East and the rise of radical Shiite politics saw Iran waging ideological and international antagonism against Israel. This was historically due to the fact that Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers were violently opposed to the existence of a Jewish state and Zionism. The war in Gaza, while carried out by Hamas, has been instigated and pushed by the Ayatollahs of Iran, unhinging any attempt by the United States and Europe to bring some degree of a peaceful order in the Middle East.

An interesting facet of this new world order was how India, China, and even some Islamic countries such as the United Arab Emirates became interested in a race to the moon. The increasing competition for status and prestige saw an explosion of international sports. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar bought themselves international competitions and famous European players to attempt a change in global perspective towards them, with mixed success.

One approach to studying these new developments would focus on the idea of cultural and political resentment by non-European countries, which for the last two centuries have seen France, Britain and the United States shaping the international order and cultural and political values, ranging from the status of women to economic protectionism and the assertion of secular Euro-American values. For example, the decline of Indian socialism has meant the rise of a new Indian identity which focuses on Hinduism, and the reassertion of Indian heritage against Islam, creating further violent conflict with Pakistan. Cultural trends from the United States, such as radical feminism, transgenderism, the acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriages have added even more contentious issues characterizing this new world order. In Russia, Putin’s government has made clear that homosexual values and marriages will not be accepted, and this has of course been the case in countries in Africa and Asia.

An insight into the cultural and economic context of the rise of BRICS and the New World Order should not overlook the fact that many of the conflicts in the world are of cultural origins. At one time, one could have employed the term “ideological,” but culture and ideology overlap each other, as do religious attitudes. While Islam began as a religion, after centuries of theologically based governance, it has also become a foundational cornerstone of the political ideology of the Middle East. In today’s world order, Islam has taken on heavy political connotations and has been used by radical groups to unhinge societies in European and American states.

Trumps administration in Washington in 2025 was attempting to enhance American power and control conflicts in the name of an American regulated international system. Whether that idea was feasible remains to be seen. As it was of May of 2025, India and Pakistan were on a threshold of war in Kashmir. It added even more to the notion of civilization and religious conflicts that characterized the Islamic world. From the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean and from North Africa to the Cape.

For several decades the international system has seen a concern about the so-called North-South divide. This divide encompassed a gap between the advanced industrial world and the so-called third-world that encompassed Latin America, Africa, and much of Asia. In more specific terms it was an economic gap, best indicated by a much lower standard of living outside of Europe and North America.

Even before the end of the Cold War, the Mediterranean saw increasing numbers of illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees from war zones coming from the Middle East, North Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and of course Sub-Saharan Africa. Hundreds of thousands of refugees began crossing the Mediterranean fleeing from war zones, civil wars, and of course last but not least economic conditions that were not acceptable anymore given the opportunities that people in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America saw in the advanced industrial democratic world. This gap was compounded by the fact that the demographic growth in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia was not economically sustainable. Rising expectations saw then millions of people trying to move into Europe. In 2019 alone, 2.7 million immigrants from non-EU countries entered the EU.

As refugee and immigration crises in the European Union have shown neither national governments nor the European Union institutions have been able to develop a systematic or coherent approach in dealing with constant conflicts in the Middle East or Africa. The end of the cold war had welcomed the idea of peace in our time, but as Samuel P. Huntington prophetically outlined in his essay and eventual book The Clash if Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, the international system was going to see a constant conflict between the secular democratic Euro-American world and as it turned out, the Islamic and Chinese world. The wars in the Persian Gulf, the Near East and the rise of Islamic terrorism in Africa, Europe and Asia followed the traumatic attack by a handful of radical Islamic terrorists on New York. By 2021 the consequences could be seen through the American retreat from Afghanistan. That country had been the breeding ground for the attacks on New York. The United States, Britain and other Western countries came to be humiliated by the Taliban’s victory. 

The Taliban victory in Afghanistan saw hundreds of thousands more refugees trying to enter Europe principally through Turkey and Belarus. Radical Islam wrote a new chapter in the history of the Islamic world. 

The constant international crisis that precipitated a flow of immigrants and refugees to Europe demonstrated increasingly the inability of the European Union and the United Kingdom to resolve an issue that challenged in the final analysis European culture, European economic wellbeing and societal sustainability. The rise of political parties that articulated the apprehension, fears and anxiety of widespread strata of the European population accepting non-European and Islamic newcomers, legal and illegal in France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Germany for example, were symptomatic of future political instability. The inability of European countries to agree on common policies of protecting European borders and even developing a defensive mechanism outside the framework of NATO speaks of structural deficiencies in European strategic decision making.

Immigration was in the final analyses fueled by demographic growth in   Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. Governments in Europe were unable to respond to the increasing expectations of the populations of those regimes. The population of Egypt had reached by 2020 102.3 million, Pakistan 220.9 million, Bangladesh 164 million, Ethiopia 115 million, and Nigeria 206.1 million; these are examples of what Europe was going to face. Increasing mass communications and transportation allowed millions of people to enter Europe. 

European governments seem unable to coordinate a policy that could cope with the increasing movement of people from the developing world towards Western Europe and North America. The issue of illegal immigration was of concern to many societies in Asia, Latin America, and Africa to the extent that economic concern lead many people to move from one nation to another. For example, the case of Bangladesh stands out, hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshis were moving into India generating social, economic and social conflicts. And in the case of Africa, millions of people were moving across the continent with spill over into North Africa and Libya. In turn, hundreds of thousands of Africans were trying to cross the Mediterranean into Italy, Spain and Greece to reach the promised land: the European Union.

The sustainability of such movements did not and does not seem to concern international organizations and NGOs that were and are interested in bringing refugees to Europe. Inevitably, the issue of settling refugees, providing employment and preventing cultural clashes was the subject of much debate but with no solution in sight.

Critical debates on sustainability and climate change did not necessarily address themselves to the catastrophic problem of population growth and food supplies. In fact, the reluctance of some countries such as India, Indonesia and China to comprehend the anxieties of industrial states and European and North American activists was to be expected. Beijing, Delhi and Jakarta were by far more concerned with their populations and their standard of living. Rising expectations could not be postponed because they could be a cause of political instability. The demand for fossil fuels was not decreasing as energy was crucial to the creation of a higher standard of living for hundreds of people in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Immigration is bound to be the biggest challenge for the European Union and Britain. Illegal immigrants from the Middle East were coming to France to cross the channel as others were trying to come through the Italian peninsula to enter Switzerland and Germany. The soft underbellies of the European Union, Italy, Spain and Greece continue to be so. Countries such as Belarus and Turkey use the movement of immigrants into the European Union as a tool for gaining concessions from Brussels and individual European countries. The president of Turkey Erdogan had been successful earlier (in 2015) in gaining financial support from the European Union and Germany to stop the flow of Islamic immigrants into the continent. Hundreds and thousands of refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan could become a great tool for gaining concessions from the European Union and single European states whose power is becoming ever more marginal. 

The trend in international conferences shaped by Western powers and NGOs on climate change, sustainability, energy and food security, and human rights should be understood in the context of an overwhelming demographic shift that does not seem to enter into the political calculus of Western decision makers and their constituents. 

On the other hand, the same day, 19^th May 1919, Mustafa Kemal, a German-trained Ottoman officer, landed in Trabzon (Trapezounta), regrouped dispersed vestiges of the routed Ottoman Army and embarked on his project to purge Asia Minor of Greek – and other Christian minority – presence. By the autumn of 1922 he managed to throw the Greeks into the sea. The burning of Smyrna in September sealed his total victory. The Treaty of Lausanne (1923) assigned him the spoils of war (though divested him from any title or right over Cyprus).

Relatively recent efforts to institutionalize the 19th of May as European Day of Commemoration of the Victims of Kemalism have not produced the expected results. The most notable of such a campaign is by Greek intellectual Michalis Charalambidis, member of the Executive Committee of the International League for the Rights & Liberation of Peoples (LIDLIP). Charalambidis details his efforts for international recognition of the Greek Genocide in his remarkable book The Pontian Question in the United Nations ‘dedicated to the victims of the Pontian Holocaust’, published in two editions 2004/2009 by LIDLIP, Geneva.

Today, 19 May 2016, almost a century later, the Greek people of Cyprus, forming as ever the overwhelming majority of the island’s inhabitants, are struggling to prevent the creeping Turkification/Islamization of their island through a spurious ‘settlement’ that would mortgage future generations of Greeks to the whims of the neo-Ottomans in power in Ankara, Kemalist or Islamist their policy objectives are the same: domination in the eastern Mediterranean and beyond. Ill-conceived British and American Eastern Mediterranean policies in the past four decades introduced the despicable idea of ‘political equality between the two communities’ in the Cyprus-related UN resolutions nurturing Turkish Islamist expansionism. Make no mistake: this is the end result of consistently and systematically playing up the 18 per cent Turkish Cypriot minority by the West.

A latter-day reminder, if one is needed is offered by Milorad Dodik, President of the Serbian Republic within the Bosnia-Herzegovina Federation. In his recent visit to Cyprus invited by the EDEK Socialist Party leader, he told President Anastasiades indirectly ‘beware you are entering a political minefield field strewn by Ankara’. Dodik made an equivocal statement about Turkey’s covert interference in Bosnia-Herzegovina, a statement that leaves no room for doubt:  ‘Turkey’s support for one side only [i.e. the Ottoman time Islamised Bosnian Serbs] is a factor that contributes to the difficulty of making agreements in the country’. Dodik’s experienced remarks ought to sound alarms in the Greek leadership both in Lefkosia and in Athens. For who will pay the price? Who will suffer if Cyprus is turned into a covert Turkish protectorate?

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte declared that Ukraine will “never” join the EU. According to Amsterdam, Kiev today needs to establish good relations with the EU and Russia. It is clear that after the April 6 referendum the Dutch society does not support the idea of Ukraine’s accession to the EU.

Kiev’s foreign policy is built on claiming that Russia is the aggressor. This idea helps Ukraine’s government to cover the flourishing iniquity and corruption in the country. Kiev just promises to bring the country to European standards. The Ukrainian mass media quote the country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ statement that the Ukraine will not stop its integration into the EU. Kiev takes out European loans with no intention to ever pay them back. This is how the Ukrainian leadership acts in the framework of “European integration”. It is obvious that new insolvent state within the EU will cause new economic difficulties.

In an ill-conceived attempt to promote European values, Kiev increases the gap between the government and the Ukrainian society. For example, the majority of citizens reject the idea of LGBT support, but the country’s leaders persistently promote it. It is obvious that this is one of the issues that cause rising tensions in the Ukraine.

Moreover, Ukraine has an official conflict zone – two unrecognized republics of Donbass – which declared independence from Kiev. The country’s leadership has started military actions against its own citizens, bashfully calling them “anti-terrorist operations”; at the same time it declares that the Ukraine is at war with Russia.

Witnessing all of Ukraine’s problems, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte concluded that this country “should never join the EU”. It is worth noting that, unlike the European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, who promised Kiev to join the EU “in twenty years,” Rutte used the word “never”. It is obvious that the Dutch Prime Minister expressed the attitude of the majority of his country’s citizens.

Moreover, no one should forget that the Ukraine and the EU’s rapprochement could affect negatively EU – Moscow relations. Neither Europe, nor Moscow wishes it to happen, no one but Ukraine. Anti-Russian sanctions have already undermined relations between Moscow and European countries, which resulted in economic losses on both sides. Today, Europe has a choice – either Russia or Ukraine. Apparently, the choice will be made not in favor of the latter.

Obviously, the citizens of the Netherlands are not interested in Ukraine’s joining the EU due to the fact that this would entail negative consequences for the whole Europe.

We shall not engage with the English syntax and grammar mistakes (of which there are plenty) that Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, committed in the above statement while in Turkey. However, we ought to address the substance of his words, uttered a day before the date the whole world set – not least the European Union of which Tusk is the prime speaker – to commemorate the Armenian Genocide of 1915, which Ankara never admitted. If anything, the Turkish government criminalized reference to this atrocious war crime, which it conveniently terms as ‘forced population movements’.

It is very ironic that the President of the European Council chose this particular day to pay a visit and praise Turkey unequivocally for its ‘best record in treating refugees’. Let us remind Mr. Tusk that the European Parliament a year earlier on the anniversary of the centennial of the Armenian Genocide noted in its relevant resolution, inter alia, the following:

1. 2015 marks the centennial of the Armenian Genocide perpetrated in the Ottoman Empire;
2. An increasing number of Member States and national parliaments recognize the Armenian Genocide perpetrated in the Ottoman Empire;
3. One of the main motivations for the European unification movement is the will to prevent the recurrence of wars and crimes against humanity in Europe;
4. Turkey and Armenia have embarked on a process of diplomatic normalisation, signing protocols in 2009 in Zurich on establishing and developing relations;
5. The importance of keeping alive the memories of the past is paramount, since there can be no reconciliation without truth and remembrance;

“The EP pays tribute, on the eve of the centenary, to the memory of the one-and-a-half million innocent Armenian victims who perished in the Ottoman Empire; joins the commemoration of the centenary of the Armenian Genocide in a spirit of European solidarity and justice; calls on the Commission and the Council to join in the commemoration.”

Ankara has not as yet normalized diplomatic relations with Armenia neither has it recognized the genocide, despite the importance of doing so being clearly marked by the most democratic of institutions in the European Union.

To the contrary, Turkey has dedicated the time, that lapsed since the signing of the Zurich protocol of 2009, not in promoting good neighbourly relations but in destabilizing its neighbours Syria and Iraq, which she invaded several times. Both Damascus and Baghdad denounced Turkish aggressive actions multiple times referring Ankara’s interventionist policy and creeping invasion to the UN Security Council.

Moreover, Tusk’s statement is an affront to the hundreds of thousands of Syrian victims as well as the tens of thousands of Turkish and Syrian Kurdish victims that the five year old Turkish interference and expansionism has created in the region. The Turkish Armed Forces pound inhabited areas in the southeast of the country nonstop, killing innocent Kurds, citizens of the Republic of Turkey. Turkey’s Kurds cry out every single day: “This is genocide”.

The EU should not support Turkey’s creeping invasion in Syrian and Iraq, neither should it condone the genocidal war within Turkey against its own Kurdish population. One should ask the real questions: What did the EU do for promoting the peace process in Syria? What did the EU do to curb Turkey’s daily attacks on its own civilian population?

It seems that the Ukrainian authorities entertain an ulterior motive in their talk about UN peacekeepers and EU police mission. In the near future, on the initiative of Kiev (in all probability following US wishes), this issue will be discussed by the UN Security Council.

Russia, for its part, has already stated that the latest Minsk agreement should just be observed and made it clear that there is not much of a point in these missions. Moscow places utmost importance to the implementation of the painstakingly negotiated 12th February Minsk Agreement. According to the provisions of the ceasefire agreement, the self-declared republics of Donetsk and Luhansk are to create their own police forces. The OSCE will hold observation missions of the separatist area. Naturally, if some other schemes are immediately put forward, the question arises if the Minsk agreement is going to be implemented, Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, wondered.

What do the Americans and Kiev really seek? A repetition of the Kosovo model? A UN peacekeeping mission, even with the participation of Russia, as the first step to legitimization of foreign military presence in Ukraine? Then an EU police mission can become the follow-up measure designed to preserve the status quo and keep the national liberation movement in Novorossia within the borders of the ‘Donetsk People’s Republic’ and the ‘Luhansk People’s Republic’. If the Europeans balk at the consequences, the Americans will accuse everyone of unwillingness to settle the conflict and will continue to bolster up Kiev’s punitive forces with military counselors, mercenaries and weapons which Washington has long been supplying directly and indirectly through its NATO allies.

Interestingly, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor is not keen in further militarizing the conflict by sending more weapons to the Kiev government. Sensing the distance Berlin keeps from Washington, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin stated that Germany should take more responsibility for the resolution of conflicts in Europe and monitor the compliance of the latest Minsk agreement. In other words Klimkin says that Europe should not allow the US to expose Europe as unable of solving problems of regional security.

Not without reason, Russia is watchful of the Western NATO-driven Kosovo model ‘peacekeeping ideas. The self-proclaimed people’s republics of eastern Ukraine do not put much trust to the current Kiev authorities, neither to the US nor to the EU. Naturally, the pro-Russian Easterners understand that their future depends on themselves including their resolve to fight for freedom with arms. And the number of such people in the East of Ukraine is growing.

It is not surprising that the accumulated over the decades offence of the “Zupadances” (inhabitants of Western Ukraine) on the Communists and the Soviet Union as a whole, could not be constrained for a long period in Lvov, the Carpathians, etc. Nationalism took advantage of the weakness of the central government and has spread to the central regions of the Ukraine. Later on, with substantial support coming from the US and other Western European states, Western rooted Ukrainian nationalists overthrew the incumbent authorities in Kiev in a violent manner. Earlier unknown Dmitry Yarosh became the main ideologue of the galloping Ukrainian nationalism. If one examines his scanty biography, he can find some similarities with the Hitler’s life and times. Like Adolf Hitler, Dmitry Yarosh struck a bad school record. Nevertheless, Yarosh wields great oratory skills, necessary tools in the art of disorienting and captivating one’s audience. Yarosh refers to numerous crimes of his nationalist organization not only against its own citizens, but against Russian and Jewish people. Hitler and his supporters coming to power also ruthlessly killed political enemies and propagated hatred. We may recall that millions of Jews and Russians perished in the Nazi concentration camps.

Like Hitler, Yarosh was able to establish contacts with industrial magnates who sponsor his activities. Today in the Ukraine the once obscure Right Sector, is increasingly becoming an important organization. Likewise in the 1930s, Hitler’s NSDAP rose from obscurity. Even politicians, police and military authorities rely on the strength of this organization. Now thugs of the Right Sector can officially carry firearms and legally participate in anti-terrorist operations.

Another parallel with Hitler’s politics: in the 1930s, Adolf managed to remove his associate Strasser from the leadership of the party; today Yarosh managed to eliminate Belogo, who was a leadership hopeful in the Right Sector. Furthermore, the political programme of the Right Sector is similar in ideology with Hitler’s so-called “25 Points” programme. Nowadays, thanks to the efforts of nationalists the Russian language is almost officially banned in the Ukraine. Whether Petro Poroshenko, the new leader, will approve the relevant law any time soon, remains to be seen.

It is widely expected that Dmitry Yarosh will occupy a high post in the government of Ukraine and then no one can guarantee that the ambitions of this ‘empowered’ maverick politician are limited only to Ukraine. Yarosh repeatedly stated that he is not a supporter of Ukraine’s European integration and sees Europe only as a financial sponsor of the growth of Ukrainian nationalism.

But what will happen when EU aid miss the targeted goal? The answer to this question we will not find, neither in the Ukrainian Constitution nor in the numerous laws adopted by the Verkhovnaya Rada. What would the European leaders make of the uncontrolled nourishment of Ukrainian fascism in the European neighbourhood?

Should not the EU guard against a Nazi-type Ukrainian nationalist monster growth endangering peace, tolerance and therefore security and stability in the whole European continent?