As of this writing, there has recently been an enormous clamor in Russia for the West, and specifically the United States, to offer a range of security guarantees to Russia. I want to discuss this phenomenon, because even though notions of security guarantees for Russia from the West are, I think, positive, the premise of a need for security guarantees from the West is extremely disingenuous. Why – because Russia behaves totally counterproductively to its own security interests at almost all times. Russia ought to instead commit to offering itself its own guarantees of security against the West. I will explain.

Rather then go through one of the biographies of Vladimir Putin line by line and annotate it, I would prefer to merely provide a brief and pragmatic recapitulation of who Vladimir Putin is – the son of a cook and probably only the second generation of his family to even be literate. Putin studied “law” at the epicenter of an authoritarian revolutionist shithole country without basic property rights and then fulfilled a long-held ambition to join that authoritarian revolutionist shithole country's security apparatus at a time when it had several decades of a softer rebrand around itself after the notably brutal but extremely efficient Stalinist epoch. By the time Putin had finished his “law” degree and entered government service, the Soviet standard behavior of antagonizing into exile, imprisoning, and/or murdering most credible, capable intellectuals had degraded the quality and performance of the agency he had so long aspired to join significantly – by letting people like him in.

When a class of incompetent criminals with access to lethal force and very high-level access to information is created, things rarely go well. The history of the KGB after the death of Leonid Brezhnev is not an impressive one, nor is it an exception to this rule: it is an history marked by disastrous indecision, near-total disloyalty to nations and peoples, and outright theft and fraud from almost anyone upon whom it could be attempted, both at home and abroad. All to elevate a painfully, gratingly mediocre Mandarin class of genetically adverse-selected gun-toting psychopathic incompetents.

When the Soviet Union dissolved at the end of 1991, it was already crystal clear that behavior totally counterproductive to the security interests of the former nation's constituent republics was to become the order of the day. Enormous capital investments in everything from agriculture to manufacturing to the space program were dropped entirely and scrapped – sometimes even literally scrapped, as was the case with the Soviet nuclear space fleet. At the same time, decisions that could have rebuilt Russia and its near-abroad into legitimate diplomatic and commercial partners for a free and open Europe were repeatedly left untaken. All restitution to victims of the Bolsheviks was denied. Legal claims brought by descendants of victims of the 1917 revolution were refused. Stolen property remaining in state hands – war loot from the first and second World Wars, particularly cultural property, as well as from the 1917 revolution – was never returned to rightful owners, and often stolen and sold abroad instead. Prominent legal disputes of the new independent Russian era, even in Western courts, centered on rights of criminal peasants to exploit reserves of resources, rights to which had been stolen to begin with: first from the Russian Imperial Family, and then from the Soviet people. To this day the only former Soviet republic to have re-recognized the Russian Imperial Family – the Romanovs – as rightful heads of state is a European micronation, Transnistria. It is not even recognized formally by the United Nations.

I was once asked, during a certain job interview in Russia, what I thought the greatest security challenges were to Russia today, and I was asked to produce a report on that theme. Instead, I left the country over an unrelated dispute over a rather massive, fraudulent customs fine that I later resolved for the correct amount of just 4500 rubles, or about 80 USD. But the answer to that question, in principle, is simple, and rather famous, actually – the greatest security challenge to Russia today is not only the same one that I would have specified in 1992 or 1981 or even 1916, in fact, it dates to the late 18th century: it is the Russian people themselves. But that is not in and of itself so unique, in fact, the underlying problem with the Russian people was a very common theme throughout the whole of nineteenth-century Europe also. So it deserves more elaboration: the problem with the Russian people today, just as in those previous eras of pivotal change, has an underlying cause that is both demographic and biological: something now known as the adverse-selected Y chromosome.

It is not exactly a secret that much of the genetic material that determines male intellectual ability lies on the Y chromosome: the reduced level of redundancy associated with a separate, differentiated chromosome increases the likelihood of expressed mutations substantially and so men are more likely than women to be IQ outliers at both ends of the distribution. They are likewise more likely than women to be mentally stable and vigilant, and also more likely to suffer from severe mental illness. The role of adverse selection, however, has been less clearly defined until relatively recently. In essence, the notion of adverse selection involves an increased proportion of dysgenic reproduction within a given population. These patterns in population demographics typically occur when peasant populations are able to survive and grow faster than they otherwise would via connivances and thefts as a substitute for performance of work. At each of these key periods in Russian history that I mention above, major cataclysmic societal events occurred as adverse-selected men – their numbers ever increasing as an overall percentage of the population - chose a future for their nation based on seizures of property and other wealth from high-achieving and/or high-born men whom they then either exiled, imprisoned, or murdered.

It is important to remember that the existence of large cohorts of adverse-selected men within a population has not typically led to positive social and economic outcomes anywhere, ever. To that end, wars since the 19th century were used increasingly to cull these populations. Drastic responses to events such as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which set off the first World War, were often intended, at the highest levels of government, to solve issues with such populations at scale on both sides of a conflict.

As an avowed monarchist, I tend not to argue with the products of transgenerational success, the likes of which are often referred to as “nepotism” by the sorts of worthless criminal peasants I have just discussed. It does not bother me one bit, for example, that Aleksandr Bortnikov, director of the Russian FSB (successor agency to the Soviet KGB) has a son, Denis, who has a very highly-paid job on the management board of VTB Bank. I rather think that this is a good thing, to have people with major-league transgenerational expertise actively participating in a developing society, because I have worked in Russia and I know what the alternative is. I have had bosses in Russia who were totally worthless, stupid, rude, disgusting stinking farm animals, and if Denis Bortnikov being on the board of VTB Bank happened because his father is the director of the FSB, then that may very well be the right outcome even though VTB is kind of a shithole because it is extremely unlikely that Denis Bortnikov is anywhere near as dumb as most other people in Russia's corporate sector are.

So we have to now ask what Russia's requests for “guarantees of security” from the West are really about. And I suggest that what the Russians are asking for is an exemption from defending themselves, because Aleksandr Bortnikov does not have enough children to keep the lights on in the entire place, and because the upper echelons of white-skinned Anglo peasant America quietly consider themselves a totally different race from white-skinned Slavic peasant Russia, whom they view as inferior for reasons which are mostly not even well founded. Nevertheless, as the entirety of Russia “goes dark”, so to speak, and it will, from adverse-selected population trends over the next few decades, I suggest that no security guarantees should be provided to Russia, ever, by anyone. Instead, Russia and Russians should be more rigorous about defending themselves and their near-abroad, as well as the foreigners who support them and other Slavic civilizations. But because they have demonstrated repeatedly that they will not ever make any of the right choices on their own, they should be forced to do it.

Otherwise, they will have no future, irrespective of any guarantees ultimately made by any nation. So it is time for a moment of honesty. These two civilizations, Russia and America, are diametrically opposed to each other by nature and mentality. America is a failed rogue state founded by a religious fundamentalist peasant junta that has existed for multiple centuries in a near-constant state of war and that has never proven itself to be a reliable diplomatic partner for any country. Any guarantees made to Russia will therefore be meaningless – worth nothing more than a new Soviet-Nazi non-aggression pact. Russia should not repeat such a mistake.