Author: HP McLovincraft

Seeker of rabbit holes. Pessimist. Libertine. Contrarian. Your huckleberry. Possibly true tales of sanity-blasting horror also known as abject reality. Prepare yourself. Veteran of a thousand psychic wars. I have seen the fnords. Deplatformed on Tumblr and Twitter.

California’s High-Speed Rail to Nowhere Chief Abruptly Resigns Amid Questions About Multi-Billion Dollar Boondoggle

Ian Choudri, the CEO of California’s high-speed rail to nowhere abruptly resigned late Wednesday night amid questions about the multi-billion-dollar boondoggle.

Originally greenlit by the voters with the promise of linking Los Angeles to San Francisco in a modern, efficient bullet train system for a mere $33 billion with a completion date set for four years ago, the project has ballooned to an eyewatering $128 bilion to $130 billion, with no clear completion date in sight, according to abc30.

Ian Choudri, who came on board in summer 2024, claimed last year that the high speed train might be finished in twenty years. That would be the year 2045.

Via Cal Matters:

The CEO of California’s high-speed rail authority resigned late Wednesday, saying he needs to focus on “important personal and family priorities,” according to a copy of the emailed resignation obtained by CalMatters.

“This has not been an easy decision, as leading the Authority has been one of the most meaningful and rewarding chapters of my professional life,” wrote Chief Executive Ian Choudri.

He will be replaced by Joe Stephenshaw, who has led the state Department of Finance since July 2022 after working as a policy analyst in the state Legislature for more than a decade, the board announced Thursday morning following a closed session.

The abrupt announcement comes in the midst of a two-day meeting of the board that oversees the project, which continues Thursday. It follows Choudri’s tumultuous two-year tenure, which has been troubled by budget woes, project delays, transparency concerns and various scandals including the misuse of nearly $600,000 in taxpayer money for questionable trips by rail authority consultants.

In 2025, President Trump went off on California Governor Gavin “Newscum” and announced he is officially canceled funding for the state’s “failed” high speed railroad to nowhere.

“To the Law abiding, Tax paying, Hardworking Citizens of the United States of America, I am thrilled to announce that I have officially freed you from funding California’s disastrously overpriced, “HIGH SPEED TRAIN TO NOWHERE.” This boondoggle, led by the incompetent Governor of California, Gavin Newscum, has cost Taxpayers Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, and we have received NOTHING in return except Cost Overruns. The Railroad we were promised still does not exist, and never will,” Trump said.

“This project was Severely Overpriced, Overregulated, and NEVER DELIVERED. Thanks to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, not a SINGLE penny in Federal Dollars will go towards this Newscum SCAM ever again. This was an ill-conceived and unnecessary project, and a total waste of Taxpayer money — But no more!” Trump said on Truth Social.

Keep reading

Tax The Rich: The Promise That Leaves The Middle Class Paying The Bill

For more than sixty years, I have listened to politicians repeat the same familiar promise: tax the rich. Every election cycle, the message returns, wrapped in new slogans and delivered with renewed enthusiasm. Millionaires and billionaires, we are told, have more than their fair share. If only government would tax them more aggressively, America could afford an endless assortment of new programs, benefits, and government services. It is a politically attractive argument. After all, who wouldn’t prefer someone else to pay the bill?

But this promise has a fundamental problem, one that rarely gets the attention it deserves. The wealthy represent a relatively small population, while the middle class represents an enormous tax base. And when politicians promise expansive government programs funded exclusively by taxing the rich, basic arithmetic deserves more attention than political rhetoric.

Consider the numbers. America has approximately 1,000 billionaires and more than 23 million millionaires, measured by net worth. Yet millions of these millionaires are not extraordinarily wealthy individuals living extravagant lifestyles. They are homeowners, retirees, and working professionals who have spent decades accumulating savings, retirement accounts, and home equity.

More importantly, wealth and taxable income are very different. A billionaire may own billions in appreciating stock while reporting comparatively little taxable income. A middle-class worker earning $100,000, by contrast, has income reported directly to the IRS, with taxes withheld from every paycheck. And herein lies the distinction politicians conveniently overlook.

The wealthy have options.

They employ accountants, tax attorneys, financial advisers, and estate planners who understand every provision of the tax code. They can defer capital gains, restructure investments, use trusts, relocate businesses, and sometimes move their residences to more favorable tax jurisdictions. These strategies are perfectly legal. The tax code itself provides the opportunities.

The average working American enjoys no comparable flexibility. His employer reports his income, deducts his taxes, and sends the money to Washington before he ever sees it.

When government raises taxes on high-income individuals, some will pay more. Others will adjust their financial affairs to reduce their exposure. Some may relocate, while others will change investment decisions or defer realizing income. The degree varies, but the incentive is undeniable.

Meanwhile, the middle-class taxpayer remains exactly where he has always been: working, earning, and paying.

This brings us to the political appeal of today’s democratic socialist movement, including candidates associated with the Democratic Socialists of America. Their proposals frequently emphasize expanded government services, public benefits, and programs presented as rights rather than expenses. The familiar financing explanation is that corporations and the wealthy will pay more.

But how much more? And for how long?

Wealthy Americans certainly have greater financial resources. And progressive taxation already requires high-income earners to contribute a disproportionate share of federal individual income taxes. But that does not mean their resources are unlimited, nor that every proposed government program can be financed simply by raising their tax rates.

Europe also offers a lesson. Countries operating expansive social welfare systems frequently rely on broad-based consumption taxes, payroll contributions, and income taxes that reach well into the middle class. Their programs are not financed exclusively by billionaires. Ordinary citizens contribute substantially because universal government benefits require an enormous and dependable stream of revenue. Why should Americans assume the mathematics would somehow work differently here?

I believe this is the uncomfortable reality behind the decades-old promise to tax the rich. The political message identifies a small, wealthy minority as the source of funding, while the largest and most dependable potential revenue base consists of ordinary working Americans.

I am not suggesting that every politician secretly intends to raise middle-class taxes. But I am suggesting that voters should demand an honest explanation of how permanently expanding government programs will be financed when projected taxes on the wealthy prove insufficient.

Government cannot escape arithmetic. Spending must ultimately be supported through taxation, borrowing, or reductions elsewhere. Borrowing merely postpones the financial obligation while adding interest costs.

Keep reading

INSANE VIDEO: Creepy Transgender Roblox Developer Says, ‘Republicans Should Be Shot in the Street,’ Gets Cited for Attacking Utah College Republican

A biological male who identifies as a woman and goes by the name “Amber Grace” told University of Utah College Republicans that “Republicans should be shot in the street” moments before tackling a student and ripping his shirt during a campus tabling event.

Rylie Barnes, president of the College Republicans chapter, captured the assault on video.

Journalist Andy Ngo identified the individual as Robert Jefferson Tulley, a Roblox game developer who works at Gamefam Studios in Salt Lake City on children’s gaming projects.

The confrontation took place near the Marriott Library, where the College Republicans had set up a whiteboard reading “There are only two genders” and inviting students to vote yes or no.

According to the group, Tulley approached the table, wiped the board clean by hand, and later returned after it was redrawn.

When a member asked whether he believed in free speech, Tulley laughed and replied, “No, I think Republicans should be shot in the street, personally.”

Tulley then demanded the video be deleted, and when refused, he lunged, tackled the student to the ground, and tore his sweatshirt and shirt.

Bystanders broke it up.

Keep reading

Progressive DAs Have Nothing to Say About Downcharging for Illegal Immigrants

Earlier this week, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee released a report titled “New York City: The Dangerous Consequences of Sanctuary Policies.” The gist of the report is that DAs throughout the city have a habit of downcharging crimes to make sure that the individuals being charged don’t get deported.

Today, several of those DAs and AG Letitia James gave a press conference about some gun seizures and were asked about the report. Suddenly, none of them had anything to say.

From the NY Post:

The attorneys — state AG Letitia James, and city District Attorneys Melinda Katz and Eric Gonzalez — stared blank-faced when asked by The Post about the damning report at a Thursday gun-safety press conference.

“Did any of you order prosecutors to downgrade gun charges to keep illegal immigrants in the US, per the Judiciary Committee report the recent house judiciary report?” a reporter asked, explaining the report could clearly indicate a gun-safety issue.

But the attorneys merely smiled and blinked — with Katz even throwing her hands up in a shrug.

It’s odd that they have nothing to say because the report has been out since Monday and it’s all about them and their office policies. This is from the 22-page report:

  • Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz employs an “Immigration Specialist” to help dangerous foreign nationals avoid immigration consequences for their criminality. Recognizing that “[a] broad range of criminal convictions may trigger severe immigration consequences” for criminal aliens, the Immigration Specialist “helps Assistant District Attorneys navigate through plea options and assist in framing dispositions that will prevent unwanted immigration consequences.”…
  • Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has admitted that “consider[ing] any likely immigration consequences” is “appropriate” in cases involving foreign nationals. Bragg previously specified in a January 2022 memorandum that his office would “seek dispositions that avoid immigration consequences for all misdemeanors, and all felonies for which non-carceral outcomes are the presumptive outcome.” In correspondence to the Committee and Subcommittee, Bragg’s office described that policy as “outdated” and replaced by a policy that broadly directed assistant district attorneys “to apply their judgment on a case-by-case basis to achieve public safety and justice.”
  • Bronx District Attorney Darcel Clark requires prosecutors in her office to consider “immigration” along with a “broad range of other potential collateral consequences when initiating a prosecution.” She has even boasted that her office agreed to dozens of requests “to re-plead to an alternative crime, primarily due to immigration concerns.”
  • Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez announced nearly a decade ago that his office was “implementing a new policy aimed at minimizing collateral immigration consequences of criminal convictions, particularly for misdemeanor and other low-level offenses.” At that time, the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office “hired two immigration attorneys to train all staff on immigration issues and to advise prosecutors when making plea offers and sentencing recommendations on cases of non-citizen defendants in an effort to avoid disproportionate collateral consequences, such as deportation, while maintaining public safety.” To achieve “an immigration-neutral disposition,” Gonzalez directed prosecutors to “consider alternative offenses the defendant can plead to as well as reasonable modifications to the sentence recommendation,” even suggesting that a criminal alien be offered “a plea for a lesser offense in light of the disproportionate immigration consequences a higher level offense may result in.” Gonzalez has boasted that his policy has resulted in reaching “plea deals with immigrant defendants that allowed them to avoid deportation.”
  • Staten Island District Attorney Michael McMahon established an Immigrant Affairs and Collateral Consequences Unit to advise prosecutors “on cases with collateral consequences” to ensure that criminal aliens can avoid deportation. This work includes drafting motions related to “immigration collateral consequence[s] and pardon requests” and even “[c]ontacting [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to postpone removal proceedings against defendants, witnesses, and victims for the interest of justice.”

Keep reading

PSYOP: Washington Post Claims Trump Voters See Abdul El-Sayed as an ‘America First’ Candidate

Just yesterday, the Gateway Pundit highlighted a clip of writer Walter Kirn saying that everything that happens before the election is a psyop.

And here is a perfect example of what he was talking about.

The Washington Post is claiming that Trump voters see Abdul El-Sayed as an ‘America first’ candidate.

Does anyone believe this? It doesn’t even make sense. All the guy ever talks about is the Middle East.

From the story:

In Dearborn, the first Arab American-majority city, many Trump 2024 voters describe El-Sayed as an “America First” candidate due to his opposition to unconditional military aid to Israel and focus on the domestic economy.

El-Sayed himself recently embraced the America First label in a campaign ad on the conservative Fox News and Newsmax networks.

“Mike Rogers will put Israel first,” said Michigan voter Mustapha El-Jaroudi, 27.

Having voted for Trump twice, El-Jaroudi now calls the president “a con artist” who betrayed his campaign refrain of “no new wars.”

So the Washington Post found this person and built a story around him.

Keep reading

European Leaders Determined to Create WWIII

Europe will NEVER avoid war until it starts impeaching Kaja Kallas who was not directly elected by the public to the EU position she uses to oppose any peace deal. However, this is standard procedure for this role for the EU was established to actually prevent the people from having any say in the future of Europe. She claims only more sanctions will end the war when there is no evidence that sanctions have ever worked on anyone even once. She wants world war for her personal vendetta like Victoria Nuland et el.

Kaja Kallas was nominated by the European Council to become the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. This nomination was made in June 2024 by the leaders of the EU member states. Following this nomination, her appointment was formalized through a European Council Decision on July 24, 2024. She was NOT elected to this position yet call Putin a Dictator and not Zelensky or herself!!!!! The High Representative is not a directly elected position; instead, the role is appointed by the European Council (with the agreement of the Commission President), which is the standard constitutional process for this office.

Here we have the PM of Britain putting out absolute lies. These politicians REFUSE to admit that people are rising up because of their policies that let in all the migrants who have been tearing Europe apart. Now this fraud Burnham is ensuring the complete destruction of the the United Kingdom outright lying that BRXIT would not have happened except for Russian interference and now they are claiming AfD in Germany is funded by Russia. These Socialist Marxist lovers REFUSE to admit that they have been wrong and they are spinning this as Russian interference as if the people would agree with their failed policies.

Keep reading

REVEALED: The OBAMA ADMINISTRATION Investigated Ilhan Omar and Found Evidence She Married Her Brother – Here’s Why They Ultimately Did Not Take Action

The investigation into Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) marriage to her “dirty dandy” alleged brother goes back further than anyone realized, and she previously got off on a technicality.

As TGP readers know, Omar has long been dogged by allegations that she married her second husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, as part of a scheme to get him U.S. citizenship. This has now become part of the sprawling federal investigation into Omar’s immigration fraud actions that could result in her deportation or imprisonment.

Omar previously said, “Not to my knowledge,” when asked whether she was related to her former husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi.

Now, a new bombshell has arrived courtesy of The New York Times.

The investigation into Omar’s reported marriage to her fashionable brother did not begin under President Trump. Nor did it begin under Joe Biden.

It began under the Obama regime!

Per the Times, Team Obama actually found evidence that Omar’s marriage to her brother was fraudulent.

But the case allegedly stalled because the crime fell outside a five-year statute of limitations.

Of course, when it comes to Team Obama, take this with a grain of salt.

From The New York Times:

The F.B.I. and Department of Homeland Security investigated the marriage in summer 2016, during the Obama administration, and found some evidence that it was fraudulent, current and former officials said.

Speculation that Ms. Omar committed marriage fraud with a brother has shadowed the Minnesota Democrat’s political career for more than a decade, and President Trump repeated the accusation last week. She has long called it a right-wing conspiracy theory that federal officials debunked during her first race for elected office in 2016.

But that case stalled chiefly because prosecutors concluded that the potential crime, a felony, fell outside a five-year statute of limitations, according to the current and former officials, most of whose law enforcement careers spanned several presidential administrations.

A source familiar with the probe told the New York Post that the “Biden US Attorney in Minnesota shut it down” shortly after entering office in 2021.

Keep reading

Empire Without Guardrails: The Global Toll of U.S.-Israel Arrogance

Imperial systems historically fall by the weight of their insatiable greed, reckless wastefulness and institutional hubris. Today, the United States stands as the sole imperial power, with Israel – the last remaining colonizing state – serving as its vanguard in West Asia. Both are showing the first signs of fundamental decline. A single miscalculation can forge a new reality.  Driven by imperious delusions, the US and Israel launched deadly wars of choice against Iran in June 2025 and again in February 2026.  The folly of their acts was believing that Iran, a civilizational nation, could be easily defeated. Instead of a swift victory, the flawed assumption has triggered a wider regional quagmire and undermined America’s global power and credibility. After eight months of military and economic turmoil, the ongoing war is an existential crisis for both Iran and the United States. For 47 years, the United States and Israel have been a threat to Iran.  Tehran is mindful that Washington and Tel Aviv are bent on destroying the country, and that the war is an existential fight it must win. The start of Operation Epic Fury, on February 28, was the Islamic Republic’s 9-11. Iran also knows that it cannot continue to live with America’s threatening regional presence (40,000 to 50,000 U.S. soldiers stationed across at least 19 bases) and with the crippling economic sanctions that have hindered development. In addition, after a long track-record of betrayals, Iranian leaders are keenly aware that the U.S. is not interested in honest negotiations or peaceful coexistence. By starting an unprovoked war that violated international law, destroyed vital infrastructure, and killed 3,468 Iranians – including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, members of his family and senior leadership – Washington proved it cannot be trusted. Concurrently, the United States is desperately trying to hold onto its military and economic supremacy.  Both Washington and Tel Aviv had little idea when they started the war that they had set in motion a revolutionary shift, regionally and globally. The unrestrained devastation has shattered the illusion of U.S.-Israeli political, economic and military invincibility, that has remained unchallenged for 81 years. Since emerging as the strongest economy following World War II, the American empire has maintained its prosperity and hegemony through resource exploitation, global militarization, strategic partnerships with merciless regimes, the promise of trickle-down wealth and subtlety-managed domestic indoctrination. American supremacy has relied heavily on dollar hegemony. By making the U.S. dollar the default currency for global commerce, Washington secured an exaggerated structural advantage that has underpinned its wider geopolitical leverage. This is particularly true in West Asia, where the dollar, pegged to petroleum  – the currency used worldwide in the oil trade since the 1970s – has been employed to exert control over countries in the region. In July 1944, at Bretton Woods, a new international financial system, centered around the dollar, was established by the United States.  Countries agreed to link the value of their currency to the greenback, and institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank were created under U.S. leadership, governance and control. Because financial transactions are typically processed through U.S-dominated institutions, like SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), an electronic interbank payment platform, dollar dominance gives Washington expansive power to impose far-reaching sanctions against other countries and to freeze them out of the global economy. The United States has weaponized its currency by imposing sanctions and blocking perceived adversaries, like Iran, from SWIFT, using economic isolation to achieve economically what it has failed to do militarily. As the U.S. and Israel witness their historic chokehold over global resources and defense capabilities slip away, they have reacted with fierce ruthlessness against Palestinian resistance, Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansar Allah in Yemen, who are fearlessly contesting their hegemony. For decades, the United States has preserved its global power through unholy alliances with Israel and through military and economic partnerships with authoritarian Arab regimes, tasked with containing regional opposition. The Zionist colony was originally embedded in West Asia to protect British imperial interests.  Following Britain’s decline, Israel secured another willing benefactor.  It has served America as a projection of U.S. power in the region for decades. Paradoxically, Tel Aviv’s long-sought war against Iran might actually trigger its own ruin, topple Arab dictators, and shatter America’s regional and global supremacy. The coordinated U.S.and Israeli attacks on Iran set off long-standing anti-imperialist sentiments across the region.  These revolutionary undercurrents emerged in 1979 when Iran rejected foreign domination, overthrew the U.S.-backed Pahlavi monarchy, and asserted its independent sovereignty. For 47 years, the U.S. has been conducting economic warfare against the Islamic Republic through comprehensive economically destructive sanctions. In 2008, Iran was cut off from CHIPS (Clearing House Interbank Payments System); and in 2012, all Iranian banks were disconnected from SWIFT. To counter the devastating effects of being cut off from the international financial network, Iran has been forced to change strategies and to seek alternative partners, specifically Russia and China. In an effort to overcome the impact of U.S. sanctions, Iran became a full member of China-led BRICS, joining Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa in January 2024. Tehran has been urging the bloc to adopt alternative payment systems and national currency settlements to bypass the U.S. dollar and mitigate Western sanctions. The U.S.-Israel plan for reshaping the region was laid out long ago. In a 1996 policy document titled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,”  senior national security officials, neoconservative hardliners, argued that Israel’s security would be best served, not through the pursuit of peace, but through “regime” change in surrounding countries, starting with Iraq, then Syria and finally Iran. The enduring geopolitical campaign to restructure West Asia by crushing resistance and establishing absolute U.S. and Israeli dominance finally reached its peak in 2026 with the Iran war. The urgency of “securing the realm” was reflected in a nativist speech by Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered in the shadow of the Parthenon in Athens; significantly on October 7 (anniversary of the Palestinian rebellion in Gaza). In addition to extolling its virtues, Rubio stated that Western civilization was at a critical “inflection point” in which the U.S. and Europe must rediscover the values of exploration and conquest that once drove centuries of expansion or face decline or irrelevance. One passage in particular reveals the jingoistic and arrogant path the United States has been on in West Asia for decades:

“And now, today, we find ourselves at a crossroads. Because the next decade and the decision we make will write the story of the next century.  The course we take will determine whether the West maintains its place at the head of the world or resigns itself to a future of atrophy and servitude or decline.  We will either choose to act now or lose the choice to act at all….We choose the unapologetic pursuit of national power: to take back control of our critical supply chains (translated as the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf and Bab al-Mandeb in the Red Sea), to reindustrialize our economy…to rebuild our defense, to fight for dominance of the technologies and industries of the future.”

The U.S. and Israel have chosen the “unapologetic pursuit of national power” in the resource-rich region.  Only now have they met their asymmetrical military match in the Islamic Republic, Ansar Allah and Hezbollah, and in the determination of Palestinians to resist subjugation. The United States has demonstrated that it is incapable of equality; of being one nation among many. It irrationally insists on “maintaining its place at the head of the world,” no matter the cost in lives and treasure.

Keep reading

Alaska’s Senate Decoy Candidate Dan Sullivan Refuses to Go Under Oath as DOJ Issues Flurry of Subpoenas in Expanding Criminal Investigation

Alaska’s Senate decoy candidate Daniel J. Sullivan refused to go under oath during the initial investigation, Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy revealed on Thursday.

News of the criminal investigation comes after The New York Times confirmed that Mary Peltola’s campaign recruited the decoy Dan J Sullivan to confuse Alaska voters.

Democrat operatives in Mary Peltola’s campaign worked to register a man named Daniel J. Sullivan as Dan S. Sullivan (the incumbent Senator’s name) as a GOP challenger.

The Times reported that the plan involved traveling to “far-flung Alaskan communities and the appearance of a mysterious Midwestern operative, who traversed the state using a fake name and made his pitch to would-be candidates over beers at brew pubs.”

“The plan worked. This spring, a retired teacher from a tiny fishing village along the Alaska Panhandle, reachable only by air and sea, announced his candidacy for Senate. His name was Dan J. Sullivan,” the New York Times reported.

On Thursday, it was reported that the Justice Department ramped up its investigation into how Daniel J. Sullivan appeared on the Alaska ballot as a spoiler and issued a flurry of subpoenas in the last 24 hours. According to Fox News, more than 30 subpoenas have been issued.

It was also revealed on Thursday that the decoy Dan Sullivan hasn’t even done any campaign events.

Keep reading

How Ukraine Was Pieced Together

As we indicated in Part 1, even by the end of the 18th century, the nation of “Ukraine” was nowhere to be seen on the maps of the era. And shortly thereafter the greatest map-making assemblage of nations that the world had ever seen only confirmed its non-existence within the maws of an expanding Russian Empire.

We are referring to the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815, which was the diplomatic mechanism by which the victors over Napoleon – Russia, Austria, Prussia, and Great Britain – reordered the political geography of Europe. Their purpose was to restore monarchical legitimacy after a quarter-century of revolution and war, to prevent the re-emergence of French hegemony, and to compensate themselves for the costs of the struggle.

Under the guiding influence of Austria’s Prince Metternich, Russia’s Tsar Alexander I, Britain’s Viscount Castlereagh, and Prussia’s Prince Hardenberg, the powers rejected both the popular sovereignty associated with the French Revolution and also any simple reversion to the pre-revolution map of 1789.

Instead they fashioned a conservative settlement grounded in dynastic right, a workable balance among the great powers, and mutual territorial swaps and boundary adjustments. These rearrangements extended across the continent and into the adjacent Eurasian borderlands.

Thus, France was confined to its frontiers of 1792 and surrounded by reinforced buffer states. The German lands were consolidated into a confederation dominated by Austria, while Italy was left divided among restored or compensated rulers. In northern Europe, territorial exchanges strengthened Sweden and created a united Kingdom of the Netherlands.

But it was the settlement in the east that is material to what was the still missing map of Ukraine at the end of the Congress. In fact, its handiwork went in the opposite direction by confirming and enlarging the late 18th century gains and colonization projects of the Russian Empire.

Alexander I of Russia received most of the former Duchy of Warsaw, reconstituted as the Kingdom of Poland under the Russian crown, and obtained formal recognition of the extensive territories Russia had already acquired through the eighteenth-century partitions of Poland and through earlier wars. Those acquisitions encompassed the greater part of the territories that constitute modern Ukraine: the Right Bank and the Left Bank of the Dnieper River, as well as the region then known as Novorossiya, and the Crimean Peninsula.

At that point in time, Galicia, including the city of Lviv, remained under Habsburg rule, a secondary consequence of the partitions that the Vienna powers left undisturbed. Prussia obtained more limited Polish districts to the west.

In none of these allocations did an independent Ukrainian state appear. The peacemakers regarded the region as imperial territory to be distributed among the victorious monarchies, not as the patrimony of a distinct nation entitled to sovereignty. British and Prussian acquiescence in Russia’s share formed part of the larger bargain that contained France and preserved the conservative equilibrium; neither power had an interest in promoting a Ukrainian polity that would have unsettled the eastern settlement they had helped to construct.

The Concert of Europe that issued from Vienna therefore placed the Czarist empire’s control over the Ukrainian lands under the collective sanction of the anti-Napoleonic coalition. Territories that had been absorbed through Russian conquest, partition, and colonization in the preceding century were now underwritten by the authority of the principal European powers.

For the remainder of the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth, therefore, the territories of today’s Ukraine continued to be governed as provinces of the Russian and Austrian empires. Their inhabitants remained subjects of those states rather than citizens of a Ukraine that the statesmen of 1814 had not had reason to reject because as of yet it had not even been envisioned.

Needless to say, the 1814 map below speaks for itself. The current line of contact in the Ukraine War, which is just east of the Dnieper River has seen the slaughter of upwards of 400,000 soldiers on both sides of the trenches. Yet when the modern map of Europe was fixed at the Congress of Vienna their forebears had all been subjects of the same Russian Empire; most were adherents of the Russian Orthodox confession; and the mother tongue of many was Russian, as well.

Keep reading