Non-democratic, non-serious European elites, ask others to defend, in the name of their long lost liberal principles, a non-existent Ukrainian democracy. It appears as triple contradiction of terms. And to no avail. It is a saber rattling without sabers, in a battlefield they have no chance of survival. Ultimately, as things stands, the peace will be decided only by these three factors: The Ukraine’s military defeat, the stance of the U.S. government, and the stance of the Russian government. Furthermore, the European governments that bombastically announced around the submit the sending of troops to Ukraine, also added in “small letters” that they could not do that without the military support of the US. Something that will not happen…
In other words, the bravado by Steiner, Macron and other lesser actors in the court of Ursula von der Leyen it will not have serious consequences neither in the peace process nor in the battlefield.
By Prof. Med.dr. Marcello Ferrada de Noli. Emeritus Professor of Epidemiology, esp. injury epidemiology (Sweden). The Indicter chief-editor.
It is known today that almost all of the 27 countries of the European Union, together with England, are willing to form a European army (vis-à-vis, or to replace NATO). This on the one hand to provide direct support to Ukraine for its “military victory over Russia”, and on the other to prepare to militarily reject the – according to them – imminent Russian invasion of other countries in Europe.
It is the rattling of sabers without sabers, on a battlefield where propaganda maneuvers have no chance of survival. Ultimately, peace will be decided solely by these three factors: Ukraine’s military defeat, the U.S. government’s stance, and the Russian government’s stance.
The position of the European countries as far as the London summit is concerned represents a contradiction in terms. Because, if this European/Ukrainian army will defeat Russia – as European leaders are convinced – there can be no belligerently capable Russia of invading anything.
Apart from fact A, that the intelligence services of those countries have not been able to present any evidence that Russia would be preparing an attack on countries in Europe.
Apart from fact B, that, for example, England has only a little more than 44 tanks ready for combat or in active service. Sweden has 120, Germany 180. Estonia, which being the country of the EU’s bellicose foreign minister, Kaja Kallas (who recently in Washington declared that the EU must first defeat Russia, and then China) [1] has zero tanks. Etc. [2] All this is confronted with the fact that Russia has more than 12,500 tanks in its total inventory, of which “only” 2,000 are active, [3] that is, part of them are being used in its hitherto successful special military operation in Ukraine.
Apart from fact C, that the readiness of the European armed forces have deteriorated in last decades, according to reports.
Donald Tusk declares about the London submit March 2, 2025: “500 million Europeans ask 300 million Americans to defend them against 140 million Russians”
Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s fanciful reasoning today that a numerical superiority represented by the total populations of the US and Europe is a guarantee of a victory over Russia reminds me of discussions heard in third grade. For example, about “my dad’s soccer team” (that is, of which his father is a fan) “is going to win the game; and our car is bigger than yours and therefore runs faster.” That is, three different fallacies and only one God. And a god not quite merciful, since “the father’s team” finally lost the game.
And besides, Poland’s Russophobic Prime Minister Donald Tusk is wrong in his figures:
The European Union has 448 million inhabitants, but discounting Hungary (almost ten million population), Slovakia (five and a half million), and Italy (60 million) (opponents of an armed intervention by the EU in Ukraine), the figure drops to 373 million Europeans. Adding people over 64 in Europe, including pensioners – and therefore not eligible for conscription (unless they live in Ukraine) – is around 23 percent, we are now at 287 million. Finally, we must look at the figures for the population under 18 years of age, which is 15% of the total of 373 million; that is, 56 million less.
In short, instead of the 500 million that Mr Tusk wants to impress us with, we have that the EU would have only 228 million – including all the men and women and so on – to potentially be sent to the carnage of the modern battlefields.
More figures – in the event that the conflict becomes hechatomic – by 2024, the United Kingdom has 225 nuclear warheads, France 290 and Russia has 1,710. Apart from the most relevant fact in this context: Only Russia possesses hypersonic missiles, such as the Oreshnik, capable of hitting the target without being detected or destroyed by anti-aircraft defenses. Incidentally, the time it takes for an Oreshnik from its launch pad in Russia to impact in European capitals varies between 12 and 16 seconds. [4]
But it is not this military issue that I want to develop here, centrally, but to provide some reflections on its political, or rather ideological, transcript, and on what seems to be happening in these times in Europe.
The EU calls in the name of ideological liberalism and in the name of democracy based on these principles, for full political and military support for a country with an anti-democratic government and xenophobic ideological behaviour.
When the rulers of Sweden, Italy, Germany, and almost all of the 27 countries of the European Union (in addition to the president of Chile Gabriel Boric and other leaders in the orbit of globalism) tell us that, in the name of democracy, freedom, and the liberal principles that form the basis of democratic nations, we must unconditionally support the government of Ukraine, I have the indispensability to examine 1) What are the liberal values of democracy, 2) These values exist in the ruling praxis of Ukraine, and 3) To what extent that value system has been changing over the years in the EU, to finally come close to looking like a caricature of fascism.
At the heart of political liberalism is the tripartite separation of powers (Montesquieu, 1748) [5], since, although there are reliable governors who are considered the best of the best by their subjects or electors, “virtue itself has needed limits”. [6] Hence the need for accountability of elected officials, government transparency, and the protection of civil and human rights.
Similarly, in a democracy, the following are fundamental: (a) the principle of accountability to those elected, (b) the practice of transparency in government that corresponds to those who have elected them. And c) essentially, the preservation of civil and human rights.
These principles form the basis of a democratic society, ensuring that power is exercised responsibly and that citizens are well informed about the actions and decisions of their government.
In summary:
Accountability ensures that elected officials are held accountable for their actions and decisions.
Transparency, on the other hand, provides the electorate with the knowledge needed to make informed decisions and hold their leaders accountable.
Finally, the preservation of civil and human rights ensures that all people are treated with dignity and respect, providing a safeguard against abuses of power and ensuring that everyone has a voice in the democratic process.
So, is what we have in Ukraine democracy?
A fundamental aspect of a liberal democracy, based on what has been described above, is the existence of opposition political parties. This is the case of Ukraine:
The following parties have been banned by the Zelenskyy regime
– The Opposition Platform for Life, the largest opposition party in Ukraine. Party officials later said that the suspension had “no legal basis” (according to the Guardian, March 20, 2022).
– Opposition Bloc. It grew out of the remnants of the Party of Regions, which was associated with former President Viktor Yanukovych. Banned for “other than division or collusion” (The Guardian, id.)
– Our Land (Nash Krai). Banned on June 20, 2024. Initially registered in 2011. Accused of “subversive activities against the State”. Led by former Ukrainian MP Yevhen Murayev. Real reason: “Murayevis was considered a potential candidate” (The Guardian, January 22, 2022)
– Derzhava (state) Banned in 2022. A small party with nationalist roots.
– Socialist Party of Ukraine. Banned in October 2022. A party of historical importance, accused of “Russophile” tendencies and undermining national security.
– Volodymyr Balance Block. Banned in 2022. Linked to Volodym Saldo, accused of collaboration with the Russians.
– Shariy’s Party. Founded by journalist Anatoly Shariy, banned in 2022.
– Union of Left Forces, banned in 2022. Minor left-wing party accused of pro-Russian activities.
– Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine Banned in 2022. Led by Natalia Vitrenko, it opposed Ukraine’s pro-Western policies.
More on violations of freedom of expression in Ukraine
Let me recall, once again, that Article 19 of the United Nations Charter of Human Rights gives all citizens, of any country, the right to seek, listen to or read news from any media, from any country, including the media of other countries.
“Democratic” Ukraine maintains an infamous register called Myrotvorets, also called the “kill list” or “blacklist”, on which I am also listed.
On that list, Myrotvorets have publicly registered journalists, politicians or academics who are labeled as “criminals” and “enemies of Ukraine”, for actions perceived as “threatening to national security”, etc. [7] , or simply for making “propaganda” against Ukraine’s interests; (until recently, Tulsi Gabbard – the current Director of National Intelligence in the United States – has been on that list, and a few years ago Elon Musk was also there, albeit briefly).
Some people, who have been found dead after being listed in Myrotvorest, have since appeared on the list with their faces covered by the “eliminated” sign.
Among murdered journalists, a prominent case is that of Gonzalo Lira, the Chilean-American journalist killed about a year ago, while imprisoned in Ukraine after being detained in his apartment by members of the Ukrainian security forces. He himself had stated a few days before that he was apprehended again in his apartment, that he had been tortured during his previous detention.
Here are some names of journalists whose activities have been restricted, banned, or who have been detained, imprisoned or killed:
In September 2015, Ukraine banned BBC correspondents Steve Rosenberg (Moscow correspondent), Emma Wells (producer) and Anton Chicherov (cameraman) as part of a sanctions list against more than 400 people, including 41 journalists and bloggers.
– Spanish journalists Antonio Pampliega and Ángel Sastre, Spanish journalists missing since July 2015, were also included in the same 2015 sanctions list, despite their absence in Ukraine.
– Numerous Russian journalists from state-aligned media such as RT, RIA Novosti and Rossiya Segodnya have also been banned under sanctions since 2014, extended in 2017 and 2022. These bans restrict their ability to operate or enter Ukraine. In addition, Ukraine’s martial law allows the authorities to ban entry to journalists deemed a security risk.
– Ruslan Kotsaba: In January 2015, Ukrainian journalist Ruslan Kotsaba was arrested by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) on charges of high treason and obstruction of military activities.
– Sergei Dolgov: Editor of a newspaper in Mariupol. Dolgov disappeared in June 2014 during the war in Donbas. His whereabouts remain unknown, and some sources presume him dead. (Wikipedia)
– In January 2025, Ukrainian military officials detained Petro Chumakov (Ukrainian freelancer), Kurt Pelda (Swiss CH Media), and Josef Zehnder (freelancer) for eight hours in Sudzha, a Ukrainian-controlled area in Russia’s Kursk region, on charges of “illegal border crossing.”
Other journalists killed:
– Andrea Rocchelli (Italian) and Andrei Mironov (Russian), killed on 24 May 2014 near Slovyansk by mortar fire while reporting on the war in Donbas. “Ukrainian National Guard member Vitalii Markiv was convicted in Italy in 2019 for allegedly ordering the attack, sentenced to 24 years, but acquitted on appeal in 2020. (Wikipedia).
Andrey Stenin (Russian) disappeared on 5 August 2014 in Donetsk while integrated with Russian-backed forces; He was confirmed dead on September 3, 2014 in a burned-out car. Ukrainian forces were blamed.
– Oles Buzina (Ukrainian). Shot dead on April 16, 2015 in Kyiv. Known for his pro-Russian views, his assassination was politically motivated; Three suspects were arrested, but not convicted until 2025. Several other journalists, from Russia, Ukraine or Western countries, have been killed as a result of gunfire from the warring parties.
So, can the European Union be considered a bastion of democracy, while at the same time sustaining an ostensibly undemocratic regime like the Ukrainian?
Well, it is not only about its foreign policy. There are other central issues, for example related to civic freedoms and human rights, that show the EU’s ruling elite divorced from the principles of liberal democracy that they claim to uphold.
Perhaps the clearest of these transgressions is his trampling on freedom of expression and the censorship imposed on those who question his policies.
I will give an example that I know from my own experience.
In 2014 I founded the human rights NGO “Swedish Doctors for Human Rights“. From our first publications, online search services began to register and disseminate our articles, or debates by other entities referring to our publications.
But following the publication of the decree on “EU Digital Services Act”, Google was asked to censor articles from/or referring to our human rights organization. This has meant that in the search for SWEDHR on Google News, the list has been reduced from thousands of entries to just a couple of annotations. The proof is in, for example, if a reader searches for “SWEDHR” in a search engine other than Google, for example in Yahoo.com, they will get 15,100 search results referring to our organization Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights, [8] starting with a description and a link to a Wikipedia article about our organization (official name, Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights, SWEDHR. [9]
But it is not only the censorship of analyses or opinions that question the policies of the EU leadership, or the behavior of the governments that make it up. It is also a question of multiple activities that directly infringe the principles of liberal democracy that they paradoxically claim to defend (see below section “The EU asks in the name of ideological liberalism…”).
These are the words of US Vice President J.D. Vance, harshly criticizing the “EU Digital Services Act” – a law that I see as inspired by Mussolini:
REFERENCES AND NOTES
[1 Kaja Kallas on the US-EU Relationship, Hudson Institute, 26 February 2025.
[2] Grok
[3] Data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) “Military Balance” yearbook.
[4] What Putin’s nuclear-capable Oreshnik missile means for NATO security. Washington Post, 30 November 2024. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/11/30/russia-oreshnik-missile-nuclear-nato-putin/
[5] “L’idée fondamentale de la séparation des pouvoirs, qui tire tout son prix, aux yeux de Montesquieu, de ce qu’elle est la meilleure garantie de la liberté, c’est le besoin de limite extérieure commun à toutes les formes des facultés humaines et auquel n’échappe pas le pouvoir politique”. In: Edouard Fuzier-Herman, “Séparation des pouvoirs d’après l’histoire et le droit constitutionnel comparé”: Librairie de A. Marescq aini, éditeur. Paris, 1880.
[6] “Qui le dirait? La vertu même a besoin de limites”. Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, L, XI, chap. vI.
[7] Grok
[8] Search for SWEDHR in Yahoo.com: https://tinyurl.com/3yrjxfjy. Retrieved 21 February 2025.
[9] https://swedhr.org/