War under ancap

I recently came across an interview of Evgeny Volnov by Mark Solonin.

Briefly: it describes the organization of a business process for the decentralized volunteer production of consumables to supply the army. Toward the end, Solonin inevitably reflects on libertarianism, so it’s worth me reflecting a bit as well.

The question that concerns me is: can an ancap community already provide all the necessary ingredients for conducting a full-scale war?

Volunteers are capable of mass-purchasing everything necessary for logistics, nutrition, and daily living on the free market and delivering it to the combat zone. The production of small arms and explosives are developed civilian industries. In the absence of government orders, they will not wither away, and in conditions where the state is not getting in the way, they are capable of responding to increased demand by increasing production. Distributed production, similar to what was described in the interview, is capable of saturating the army with light combat mechanisms. Heavier specialized mechanisms can also be produced by volunteers; it’s just that 3D printers on a balcony will no longer suffice—small workshops will be needed instead. The Ukrainian war demonstrates to us that this is also not a problem. Such mechanisms also include long-range drones, including high-speed ones.

Private entities already know how to provide communications and satellite intelligence data excellently.

What about people? Volunteer units are performing excellently at the front and, compared to their state counterparts, demonstrate far fewer problems finding people willing to join them. The better the unit’s reputation, the higher the competition.

Coordination between units is also showing results at least as good as state chains of command, and authoritative commanders are capable of rapidly expanding their sphere of influence, taking responsibility for increasingly larger areas of work.

What private suppliers are not ready to provide today is manned combat aviation. However, today a combat aircraft is de facto a platform to lift a radar and missiles into the sky, and then to ensure that the pilot sees the radar data and launches missiles accordingly. A pilot is no longer needed to perform high-level aerobatics during an aerial dogfight between planes. Given a stable communication channel, the pilot can actually be on the ground, and a stable communication channel can be ensured if there are many planes in the air forming a relay network. A plane’s radar is something comparable in complexity to a Starlink terminal—it also needs to track multiple satellites and somehow make sense of a jumble of signals. That is, a private entity can produce it without an exorbitant price tag. Consequently, under ancap, a combat aircraft looks like a plump propeller-driven carrier of several missiles and many drones, flying in swarms that hover in the air around the clock, analyze the situation a couple of hundred kilometers from the swarm’s perimeter, and clear out everything interesting they find—and as fuel and/or ammunition are exhausted, they fly back to base in automatic mode, calling for a replacement in advance. However, this is still an unrealized fantasy.

Two questions remain.

First, motivation. States are breeding grounds for patriotism, and patriots are precisely the fuel of war. Will an ancap community be patriotic enough to organize large-scale resistance against a state? The example of the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine shows that the chances are quite high: the primary resistance to the sudden attack in areas where hostilities had not occurred since 2014 was mainly volunteer-based, and at the very least, it thwarted the blitzkrieg.

Second, economic sanctions. Sanctions are an insult to the element of the free market. They are imposed by states, and states monitor their compliance, while the market ensures that sanctions work poorly. It can be stated with considerable confidence that sanctions as a tool for influencing an opponent under ancap will have an extremely weak effect, representing isolated examples of refusing deals for moral reasons. Simply put, some will be actively donated to and worked for out of conviction, while others will be provided services only for good money. Since each side may have a quite diverse composition, there will be both volunteers and mercenaries on both sides. And victory will go to the side that is more effective in this resource confrontation. But in the long run, efficiency will be determined by how many ideological and talented people work for the victory of one side or another. And this, in turn, will depend on whose side the majority believes justice lies.

Childhood violence – traumas for a lifetime

Let’s be honest: cruel upbringing is not just a bad idea, but a real crime against a child’s freedom and happiness. Of course, some might claim that “the belt builds character.” But let’s face it—the belt builds psychological trauma, not strength of spirit.

We have said before that physical punishment does not work. And these are not just words—they are the results of a massive analysis of 75 studies conducted on 161 thousand children. The result is simple and sad: the belt does not make children obedient; it makes them miserable. Such children later have worse memory, lower IQ, and higher aggression. But if you think this is old news—wait, it gets even more interesting.

A recent study by the University of Michigan, conducted on 6,500 Americans, proves that childhood traumas haunt us for our entire lives. Imagine, even at nearly 80 years old, people continue to experience depression, loneliness, and physical pain due to the violence they suffered in childhood. Such trauma is not a scratch that will heal, but a deep scar that only hurts more over time.

Another striking discovery: it turns out that parental cruelty turns children into “evil geniuses.” A study by the University of Texas on 524 students showed that abusive upbringing develops malicious creativity. Instead of creating peaceful and responsible citizens, parents literally train cunning manipulators, professional liars, and masters of petty mischief, possessing low conscientiousness. And that, to put it mildly, is not what makes society better.

Why does this happen? It’s all about the brain. Research shows that in children who were systematically traumatized by their parents, the development of key brain areas such as the amygdala and hippocampus, which are responsible for emotions and memory, is impaired. Imagine the brain as a computer that constantly crashes and slows down because of viruses introduced by violence. It is also interesting to note that even in monkeys subjected to violence in childhood, disruptions in the serotonin and dopamine systems of the brain were observed. These are very serious disorders affecting happiness and even the will to live.

Unfortunately, that’s not all. The long-term consequences of such “upbringing” include an increased likelihood of developing alcohol and drug addiction, difficulties in establishing stable relationships, and even a propensity for crime. After all, a person who grew up in an atmosphere of fear and violence often considers aggression to be the norm of behavior and carries it into their adult life. It is a vicious cycle that can only be broken by a radical change in approaches to upbringing.

There are more effective and far more humane methods of upbringing that do not deprive a child of dignity and freedom. Science confirms that empathy, love, and understanding promote the development of a strong and resilient personality. This is how we can help children become not just successful, but happy people, capable of creation and independence. Children deserve respect, and the recognition of their freedom and autonomy. Parents should be mentors, not overseers, allowing children to make their own choices and take responsibility for them.

Parental cruelty is incompatible with the ideals of individual freedom. We must resolutely reject abusive “upbringing.” Because, in all fairness, you either raise a free person, or it is better not to raise anyone at all. So let us be free not only in words, but in action—starting with respect for the freedom of children!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Can a libertarian society withstand the pressure of hereditary inequality?

Imagine this: one person works hard their entire life, building a business from scratch—while another is born with a “silver spoon” in their mouth and receives millions without lifting a finger. A couple of generations pass—the grandchildren of magnates bask in luxury, while the descendants of laborers barely make ends meet. Unfair? Absolutely. And with each new generation, the gap only grows.

Of course, a person has the right and freedom to dispose of their labor and property. But it’s important to understand those who feel a boiling sense of injustice within. Imagine: you strive, you slog away, and next to you, some privileged kids live off the interest of their grandmother’s capital and look down on everyone else. It hurts, right? And although life never promised to be fair, you still want everyone to have a chance, not just those lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family. It is a serious question: how to ensure the stability of society amidst accumulating inequality—while remaining true to the principles of freedom?

To start, a bit of optimism. It is often said: “the first generation earns, the second squanders, the third begs.” Often, that is exactly what happens: the grandfather built a fortune, the son spent it all—and the grandson has nothing left to inherit. Wealth without effort slips through the fingers, so part of the accumulated inequality dissolves on its own over time.

But relying solely on this is cold comfort. Yes, many “golden children” sooner or later end up with nothing. But there are also families like the Rockefellers, who manage to stay at the top for many generations. They say their secret is simple: they force every new heir to work no less than the previous one. No free rides—if you want to use the family capital, multiply it. Such an approach helps preserve wealth for a long time.

So what should we, as a society, do? We want to preserve freedom and create more opportunities for everyone. How can this be achieved?

First, fair competition and equal rules for all. If a wealthy heir conducts business poorly, they should go bankrupt like anyone else—no special privileges or state monopolies. Without friendly officials, even a huge inheritance is not insured against bankruptcy. Conversely, a talented and hardworking person, even without connections, will be able to break through if obstacles are not placed in their way. Competition is the best equalizer when it is truly free.

Second, equality of opportunity. A talented child from a poor family should have the opportunity to study and realize their potential, rather than remaining poor forever simply because of the circumstances of their birth. Society, through private foundations, scholarships, and mentoring, can facilitate this. In the end, everyone wins: more talented and productive people will emerge. By the way, many wealthy people understand this and invest in education and startups—investing in the future.

Third, a culture of responsibility. Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility. If you were born into wealth, it is not your achievement, but it is also no reason to rest on your laurels. Consider it an advance that must be justified. Many heirs do exactly that: instead of a life of leisure, they start their own business or engage in science—trying to leave their own mark.

Finally, social elevators—the opportunities to rise from the “bottom.” Fortunately, the free market regularly provides chances for the talented and energetic. An example is WhatsApp founder Jan Koum: he arrived in the States as a poor immigrant, and a couple of decades later sold his creation for billions. No titles or special connections were required—only an idea and perseverance. There are many such stories, and they are inspiring: even without any “silver spoon,” it is possible to make it in life.

It turns out that the recipe for stability under freedom is this: ensure that the “playing field” remains fair and open to all. Yes, some have a head start from the beginning of the game—wealthy parents did their part. But the game is not lost as long as others have the opportunity to make their move. The most dangerous thing is if the rules of the game begin to be written for the chosen few. This must not be allowed to happen!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How would private military companies act under anarcho-capitalism?

Mauser

Anarcho-capitalism is a free market plus the decentralization of power. A private military company under ancap is a company operating in a free market to solve military tasks—that is, tasks arising from conflicts where people are willing to kill.

It is very easy to imagine the activities of private military companies during a society’s war of liberation against the state. Something similar to how this looks could be observed in the initial stage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, in those areas where the state was practically inactive, yet defense tasks were nonetheless being solved. What is characteristic of such a war? The emergence and decentralized coordination of numerous startups focused on three types of tasks: direct combat operations, supplying those on the front line, and crowdfunding to finance the first two. If the war drags on, the supply task becomes more complex, and a separate industry emerges for the development of new means of warfare.

But once ancap dominates the world, all this flourishing complexity is a heroic past. The grandfathers fought their wars. Military tasks become much more local; the duration and frequency of military conflicts decrease. Thus, private military companies under ancap will operate in survival mode. They will have to exert significant marketing efforts just to justify why they still exist at all, and many will prefer to liquidate instead, since there are many peaceful tasks on the market that will bring a much more significant income with far less effort.

Believe me, you wouldn’t want to work as a PMC employee under ancap. No romanticism, no heroism, very few actual tasks, existing merely as a formality, in conditions where people look at you askance and wonder why you even exist, and if you wouldn’t accidentally like to create a new state, because you seem kind of aggressive—maybe you need a little injection. So, I fully admit that almost no military companies will remain at all under ancap. There will be gamers. There will be reenactors. There will be some kind of brutal sport. There will be fans organizing into teams to vent aggression on one another under the pretext of supporting sports teams. There will be various book theorists imagining what war could be like under current material and technical conditions.

The production of specialized military equipment will inevitably be shut down. Old stocks will be gradually disposed of, and those that make no sense to dispose of will eventually become obsolete anyway. Cheap mass-market items for the civilian market can be adapted for war using blue electrical tape if necessary, but engaging in this—and especially starting to produce more serious military tools—will only happen in the event of a real war whose duration exceeds at least a couple of months. And where would this real war come from?

A mass war under ancap would require a combination of two factors. First, the appearance of a sufficient number of sweet summer children convinced that war is a fun festival of courage. Is this possible under ancap? Of course it is, and it is even inevitable. And second, a talented psychopath is needed who can convince them that the world is rotten to the core, society has lost its purpose, and it is time to shake up these bloated pigs so they scream in terror. Is this possible under ancap? Of course it is; you can’t assign a Bitarch to every psychopath.

As for what happens next, that is also generally clear. There will be bewilderment. There will be distrust of news channels, claiming they are creating hype out of nothing. There will be helpless attempts to counteract this by service agencies involved in maintaining order and security. Then, more and more people will begin to realize that they are actually being fought against. Mostly, they will simply flee far away from the danger zone after receiving insurance payouts (if policies still imply coverage for civil unrest risks). But entrepreneurs will emerge who begin to solve the arising problem. And then the market will do its work, and it will be the hour of glory for private military companies. They will emerge from nowhere, attract all the necessary resources, deal with the war, and disappear again.

Such a boring story.

A hardware problem cannot be solved with software

When a capacitor on your motherboard bulges, you resolder it rather than trying to solve the problem by changing some variable in the Windows registry. When a shock absorber in your car dies, you certainly won’t go in and reprogram the electronic control unit in the hope that the problem can be solved without “dirty work.” But for some reason, when it comes to malfunctions in human “hardware,” many mistakenly believe that these problems can be solved purely “programmatically” (through philosophy, religion, social institutions), without therapeutic intervention in the defective systems of the body.

This misconception is especially noticeable in discussions about the violence inhibitor. But in fact, it is exactly the same kind of hardware system as processor elements like the ALU and registers. If a processor has physical defects or has degraded, no firmware update will help — this sad lesson was well learned by owners of the latest generations of Intel “stones.” Likewise, in the case of a degenerate rapist, no amount of persuasion will help — the problem is purely “hardware,” it is in his “noggin.” It’s time to accept the truth and abandon the illusions: hardware (physical) problems require a corresponding hardware solution (action in the real world)!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Stefan Molynieux, Practical Anarchy, translation of chapter 22

Today, a very short chapter from Practical Anarchy by Stephan Molignu has been translated. The chapter is titled Tank Control and quickly addresses a couple of topics: how the prevention of behavior potentially dangerous to neighbors on one’s own private property will be handled in a stateless society, and how gun control will work, given that people’s opinions on this subject are polar opposites—some believe that widespread gun ownership increases safety, others that it decreases it.

No mega-revelations or grounds for flame wars; the author is simply tying up loose ends, concluding the second part of the book.

Golden cage or contract slavery: why non-compete is inhumane

Imagine this situation: you are a talented engineer at a tech giant. You love your work, you are passionate about your ideas, and you want to push the industry forward. Suddenly, you decide to change jobs to continue growing and keep pace with the times. But then comes a surprise—your contract forbids you from doing what you do best. How is that possible?

Recent news about Google DeepMind employees in the UK, who it turns out are forbidden from working for competitors for a year after leaving, is a great reason to discuss why “non-compete” contracts are, to put it mildly, a very bad idea. And not just bad, but inhumane and contrary to the basic principles of freedom.

What is a non-compete? It is an agreement according to which, upon leaving a company, you pledge not to work for its competitors for a certain period. Moreover, you may continue to receive a salary during this time. Sounds almost dreamy, right? But it’s not that simple. In effect, you are sent to a “golden cage”: you get paid, but professionally you degrade. This is especially true in fast-changing industries like IT and AI, where a year of downtime can cost you your career.

Why is this unacceptable from a libertarian perspective? The core value of libertarian philosophy is personal freedom and the right of self-ownership. When an employer restricts your freedom to pursue your favorite activity, they are infringing upon your fundamental right to dispose of your own labor and talents. Furthermore, such contracts contradict universal human rights. They go against basic humanistic principles by restricting freedom and forcing talented people to either “sit on the bench” or move into another field, losing their skills and motivation.

The good news is that not all courts support such agreements. For example, in the US, the California Supreme Court long ago recognized most non-compete agreements as illegal because they “unfairly restrict a citizen’s ability to earn a living.” In 2021, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to recognize non-competes for restaurant workers, ruling that there were no fair grounds to prohibit waiters from moving to competing establishments.

Other examples of inhumane contracts:

– In 2017, a British court ruled a contract illegal that prohibited nurses from leaving a public hospital to move to private clinics—the court considered this an infringement on the freedom of labor.
– An American court overturned agreements under which Amazon employees were required to reimburse the company for training costs if they resigned early—this was recognized as a form of debt bondage.
– In 2019, a German court overturned a football club’s contract that prohibited a player from playing for competing clubs in the same league upon leaving. The judge argued: “A human is not a commodity.”

Why is this important now? The world is changing rapidly. Artificial intelligence, blockchain, biotechnology—these industries are evolving so quickly that losing even a few months can result in complete professional obsolescence. Are we really ready to allow corporations to control not only our present but also our future, dictating where and as whom we can work tomorrow?

The libertarian view is broader: freedom of contract is good, but freedom should not turn into chains. After all, freedom of contract ends where the restriction of fundamental human rights begins. One cannot sell or buy the right to someone’s future! And the authoritarians who disagree and are ready to forcibly impose such an order on others must understand that the rejection of universal human rights will inevitably work against them as well—for example, through the rejection of non-interference in their nervous system without consent, which is currently perceived as a given, but is actually someone’s goodwill and desire to observe conventions, rather than the laws of physics.

Let us remember: people are not resources. Talent is not company property. And a person’s freedom to dispose of their own life and career is sacred.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

I suggest investing in Nostria

In brief

Sondre Bjellos, an activist in two communities, the Norwegian Liberstad and the Montenegrin Montelibero, with extensive experience in building decentralized systems, is launching a startup called Nostria. Until May 31, anyone interested can invest in it at the pre-seed stage on quite favorable terms. For participants of the Montelibero tokenomics, there is an opportunity to form an investor pool to gain greater control over the project.

Now in more detail

Nostr is a decentralized protocol for exchanging “notes and other things” via relays. I have been using it for quite a while now to publish my notes; I see great potential in it and am always glad when someone takes it upon themselves to develop it.

The idea of the Nostr protocol is that relays store their users’ content in JSON format and provide it to other relays upon request. Such content can also be a Bitcoin payment transaction via the Lightning protocol; thus, Bitcoin payments are natively integrated into Nostr, allowing for the decentralized provision of both content monetization and storage monetization (it is precisely in the area of monetization, for example, where the nearest analog to Nostr, the ActivityPub protocol, has its weak point).

The startup Nostria intends to:

  1. Develop its own client for the Nostr protocol
  2. Create a network of several relays in different parts of the world to ensure fast ping and wide bandwidth for its users (performance speed is the bane of decentralized systems)
  3. Promote, at the protocol level, the idea of specialized relays for storing only user metadata, which will offload large relays by distributing users more evenly across relays, and drastically speed up the collection of all messages related to a particular account and their delivery to clients.
  4. Monetize its service through premium services, offering users dedicated relays, a connection to a dedicated Lightning node, a human-readable name tied to a public key, media content storage, and other perks.
  5. Keep all code open on GitHub, as is proper for decentralized systems.

In this video, Sondre talks about his plans:

Those who prefer text over video can check out the pdf.

For now, Nostria’s medium-term goal is to catch up and surpass the struggling Bluesky. In the longer perspective, it should result in a decentralized solution that one wouldn’t be ashamed to migrate to from Telegram, once Durov finally declares that state security is incomparably more important than user convenience and security.

To launch the MVP, a pre-seed investment round is taking place until May 31. Putting it in plain language: Sondre wants to raise 30 thousand dollars by the end of May, and then spend ten thousand a month throughout the summer to bring the project into commercial operation. First month – hardware deployment. Second – software refinement. Third – marketing. In the autumn, when the project is ready to be shown to more serious investors, fundraising for global expansion will continue, and those who invested at the preliminary stage will have a preferential right to reinvest to maintain their share in the project, and their preliminary investments will be credited to the share capital with a coefficient of 1.15.

By default, investments are attracted in Bitcoin using the decentralized crowdfunding service Angor. Sondre has also released a separate video showing how the investing process works.

Important: the project founder can only unlock the collected funds after confirming the completion of the stated development stage. Until that moment, an investor can request their investment back at any time. All these features are implemented through the relatively simple smart contract mechanism that exists in Bitcoin and do not require the interference of a third trusted party.

However, the entry threshold for these investments is currently quite high: the minimum amount to receive any bonuses is 1000 dollars. Therefore, a solution suggests itself: participants of the Montelibero tokenomics can gather a pool of small investments and invest jointly as a large entity. I want to organize such a pool. My benefits: I will receive various non-monetary bonuses such as a premium account subscription. The benefits for co-investors, besides the financial return on investment: through me (or directly, if agreed upon), they will have convenient feedback with the developers, which means influence over the future functionality of both Nostria and, indirectly, the entire Nostr protocol.

Therefore, I have created a pristine Stellar account, issued the NostriaPre token on it, and created an order to sell it for EURMTL. You have until the end of May to buy this token; then I will also buy as much as possible, close the sell order, and transfer all collected EURMTL to Sondre. In the autumn, Sondre will set up an official Stellar account for his startup and create an order to sell official tokens for NostriaPre tokens at a rate of 1.15. When the startup begins to generate income from premium account services, the distributable profit for token holders will be accrued monthly proportional to the number of tokens.

To purchase the NostriaPre token, you must first open a trust line to it. Your Stellar wallet should have this capability. Token name: NostriaPre. Issuer’s public key: GABAZTSE4DOD4JKFPWQYK5QPUSW57QNZBJBREU2K2UFSGWPHBHNYF46A

This is, for example, how the trust line opening dialog looks in the Sunce
wallet.

Soon, the trust line will also be possible to open via a direct link.

I don’t want to overload the post with detailed instructions on using various types of Stellar wallets, as I assume the pool will be joined by those who already participate in the Montelibero tokenomics (an instruction is even posted on my website, but it is very outdated and I haven’t gotten around to updating it). But if you want to jump in from scratch in “Shut up and take my money” mode, please ask questions in the comments or via DM.

The Myth of Eternal War: How Did Hobbes Deceive Us?

Once, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes confidently stated that the natural state of humanity is an endless “war of all against all.” Sounds familiar, right? This concept has become so ingrained that we sometimes forget to check its truthfulness. But in reality, it turns out that people are not as bloodthirsty by nature as we are led to believe.

Take, for example, the well-known story of anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, who claimed that killers among the Yanomami tribe were more successful in reproducing. The idea is clear and frightening: kill more, and you will have three times as many children! It sounds too harsh to be true, and indeed, it later turned out that Chagnon “stretched the truth” a bit—he was comparing elderly killers with young non-killers. And independent research showed that killers in tribal societies do not reproduce faster than others; in fact, to be honest, fewer of their children survive.

And in general, who said that wars are the norm? A famous myth from Steven Pinker goes like this: 15% of the prehistoric population constantly perished in wars until states emerged and brought order. Great advertising for the state, isn’t it? Except that archaeology shows something completely different: violent deaths in pre-cultural societies were no more than 2%. Moreover, the emergence of states did not reduce the level of violence at all. On the contrary, the first large structures often fueled conflicts and increased the percentage of killings to about 5%.

It is worth noting that anthropologists may unconsciously reinforce the notion of the inevitability of war. For example, researchers “record” groups as warlike that actually hardly ever fought, simply because of the presence of weapon images in rock paintings. But these images do not necessarily evidence actual aggression: weapons could have been used for hunting or symbolic ceremonies. As a result, a false impression is created that ancient people were constantly at war.

Data on so-called “simple” hunter-gatherer societies is also quite telling. Despite being depicted in many works as brutal and always ready to fight, in reality, they are the ones characterized by extremely low levels of aggression and violence. Real war is a rarity for them, not the norm. Conversely, societies with a complex social structure and a more developed hierarchy more often become participants in conflicts and wars. Interesting, isn’t it? It turns out that the more complex a society is, the more conflict and aggression it generates.

Furthermore, many proponents of the Hobbesian perspective fully acknowledge this fact, but they try not to emphasize it, seriously studying only cases of “complex” societies, as, for example, Lawrence Keeley did in the work “War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage.” Alternatively, they may simply categorize “complex” societies as “simple,” subsequently labeling the latter as warlike.

In general, peaceful coexistence is the norm for many peoples. Thus, a study of 590 cultures from around the world showed an absence of wars in as many as 64% of them. Of course, they might have defended themselves against attacks, but initiating attacks is something only a minority of cultures engage in.

So why do we continue to believe in the myth of a human nature doomed to eternal war? Perhaps the problem here is habit—this belief was passed from generation to generation without critical reflection. Or perhaps someone intentionally maintains this myth to justify the existence of a strong and powerful state “saving” us from ourselves.

Let’s admit it to ourselves: the idea that people are by nature inclined toward peace and cooperation sounds much more realistic, optimistic, and attractive. Perhaps it is time for us to stop considering peace a utopia and start seeing it as a natural part of human life. After all, as history and research show, peaceful communities are not the exception, but rather the rule. So is it worth continuing to cling to gloomy Hobbesian imagery? Probably not. It is time to stop allowing fears to dictate our view of humanity and start trusting each other a bit more!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Libertarian Theory of War. Chapter 2.5. Summing Up the War.

Writing a new chapter of my book about war happened to coincide by pure chance with another anniversary of the end of the European phase of World War II, as well as with the vibes in the air regarding the conclusion of the current Russian-Ukrainian one. The chapter turned out to be somewhat pensive and lyrical. Also, while creating it, I was occasionally plagued by imposter syndrome: what right do I have to write about such matters without having military experience? May those who do have it forgive me, or better yet—comment on my amateur fantasies from their expert perspective.

This concludes the main, theoretical, second part of the book. The third part is expected to feature the practical applications of the theory.