My political views

Zbigniew A. Nowacki

Lodz, Poland, January 2025

I rarely deal with politics on this website, so Internet users do not know what views I have in this field. Here I have decided to fix this neglect. I would like to say immediately that it will be difficult to classify me to a specific fragment of the political scene, because in my life I try to base on science and common sense.

Make it great again 

I have to admit that if I were an American, in the last election I would vote for Donald Trump, although not with all his views I agree (e.g., in the case of abortion, see my science fiction novel The Embryo's Diary). I am glad that he won definitely and will be able to realize his plans. I wish President Trump to do with America what I did with gravity, i.e. to make it great again.

 Climate 

Climate warming is an undeniable fact, of which I am very happy with a lot of other living beings cheerfully enjoying the beautiful sun. On the other hand, disasters have happened, are happening and will be repeated, so we need to protect ourselves against them, and not waste our strength and resources on a senseless fight against carbon dioxide.

The European Commission claims that in 2050, after many self-sacrifices, we will achieve climate neutrality. Will the catastrophes not occur then? I dare say, and I could even bet ten million dollars (if I had such an amount), that they will cause more damage, because by saving on more and more expensive energy we will neglect ordinary protective activities.

I would like to remind you that if energy from space stopped reaching the Earth, life on the planet would end in a short time. Therefore, in order to talk about climate, you need to have correct theories of space and gravity. You also need a good knowledge of quantum physics because, for example, neutrinos (particles produced abundantly by human organisms as well) easily penetrate through any barrier, including those formed from greenhouse gases, and transfer energy in both directions. Nevertheless, the theories used by climatologists are based on classical physics and contain fatal errors. Environmentalists have not made a balance of the energy received and given back by the Earth, as they are completely unfamiliar with it. 

Green New Deal

The European Commission called its program the "Green New Deal". This name is pretty but misleading. After all, most climatologists are very upset that due to global warming the size of green areas on Earth is still growing. They would like it to be gray and foggy. They are so fierce in defending their views that they care little about the welfare of humans and nature. 

Climatologists examine the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and claim that its growth results in climate warming. In fact, they confuse the effect with the cause. Higher temperature causes the processes that create carbon dioxide to be more easily initiated and more efficient. Below I give examples that are understandable to everyone.

The increase in the size of green areas entails an increase in the population of herbivorous animals and insects. The latter imply the increase in the number of birds, which, together with the former, lead to an increase in the number of predators. And all animals and plants (the latter at night) must breathe, which increases the concentration of carbon dioxide.

As in the case of animal life in the wild, animal breeding on farms is a source of a large amount of carbon dioxide (and if it is warmer, breeders can expand their activities incurring the same costs). Therefore, environmentalists – based on their misconceptions – would like us to reduce meat consumption. Let me remind you that in the course of evolution, we learned to eat meat, which apparently made us reach a level of intelligence unavailable to monkeys. I have to admit that I constantly eat meat for breakfast and dinner. If I were deprived of this, my activity would be much less effective. I think many humans can say something similar. 

What our children will really do 

Currently, people do not have technology that allows climate change on earth in any direction. The boastful people who claim otherwise do not have the faintest idea about the power of nature. On the other hand, our children will laugh at them until they burst with laughter, because future generations will be able to do this and not only on earth, but throughout the entire solar system. This will happen thanks to the development of new physics.

Ecoterrorists should be punished with all firmness. However, it should be noted that the nonsense slogan "Last generation" was not invented by those poor deluded people gluing themselves to the asphalt, but by a certain climatologist. And just as we prosecute ideologists of ordinary terrorists, we should somehow punish ideologists of ecoterrorists (e.g., through boycott). Because, in fact, they are responsible for what is happening.

 Europe

I am a great supporter of the integration of our continent's countries, which does not mean that I support the current actions of the European Commission. However, human mistakes cannot destroy a beautiful idea. I think that the transformation of the European Union into the European Federation is only a matter of time. New powers with huge populations are emerging, so we will have no other choice.

Individual countries included in the Federation will have independence similar to that possessed by the states of North America. I also want to calm the fans (whom I am also): national teams will remain. Since there are teams such as Scotland or Wales, despite the existence of the Federation, the national teams of, e.g., France, Poland or Germany will be able to take part in sports competitions (it will have to be clearly negotiated).

The Ukraine

I regret to observe growing animosities between the brotherly nations of Poland and Ukraine. If we want Ukraine to separate us from hostile Russia, we should not make an enemy from the former. Of course, the Ukrainian authorities should also consider whether they want to have an enemy from all sides and behave more diplomatically.

I believe that Ukraine should be as soon as possible, without conditions dependent on the painful history, admitted to the European Union, which should somehow to sweeten Ukrainians the bitterness of a very likely defeat in the war with Russia. Moreover, when the Union becomes a Federation, they will be able to say that Paris, Berlin, Warsaw and other beautiful European cities belong to Ukraine. All these territorial disputes will cease to be important.

War is not a basketball game

I assume that the data on huge Russian losses are true. However, this will not ensure Ukraine's victory, because in war, points gained or lost are of little importance. Let me remind you that in the Second World War the Soviet Union lost tens of million people, while Germany only less than eight. Nonetheless, it was the Soviets who entered the enemy's capital, not the other way around.

There is no soldier from a slave

Ukraine has a much smaller number of people than Russia, and many Ukrainians evade military service. I think that they are doing it not only out of fear of death, but they simply do not see the sense of this war and vote with their feet. To conscript them into the army by force is pointless, because you can't make good soldiers out of these people. We recently had an example of this: a large group of newly mobilized Ukrainians fled at the sight of the trenches themselves. If it goes on like this, there will be no one to operate the weapons we send.

A dangerous illusion 

Also NATO, despite its power, cannot win this war. Since the Russians have already lost so many people, now they can't go back. This means that if they really start to lose or only feel a significant threat, they will use nuclear weapons, according to their recently announced doctrine. Although some claim otherwise, they are based on the dangerous illusion that only Putin wants to use it, and other Russians are good and will hinder him (this was what the Decembrists had hoped for, but the artillerymen scrupulously carried out the Tsar's order.) 

The political principle of uncertainty 

I think that if peace is not concluded, the following scenario is likely. Let's assume that French and Lithuanian troops acting on behalf of NATO (these two countries are most eager to do so) arrive in Ukraine and group near Lviv. The Russians are not waiting for them to set off to the front and destroy them with the help of tactical nuclear weapons. They do not act with kid gloves, so Lviv also suffers damages. A frantic meeting is taking place at the NATO headquarters on what to do next. Some opt for withdrawal, but the commander-in-chief declares that NATO cannot lose.

In that case, we must also use nuclear weapons. The question arises whether to hit deep into Russia. After some thought, this option is rejected because it would threaten a Russian response to the airport in Rzeszów, where our troops are still landing. Finally, we are destroying enemy troops located in the Donbas region. By accident, Donetsk is also hit.

At this point, NATO would even like to make peace honorably, but the Russians no longer have any inhibitions. Since they have been attacked with the nuclear weapon, they are beginning to destroy Ukrainian troops throughout the country with it. Of course, we response to this and soon all Ukraine is in ruins. The question arises whether this is what we wanted.

Since I have been dealing with physics for a quarter of a century, I will describe this situation using an analogy with quantum mechanics. Its basis is the principle of uncertainty, which states, among other things, that we cannot observe the phenomena of the microworld in detail, because an attempt to do so most often leads to the destruction of the process we wanted to observe. On the other hand, the political principle of uncertainty says that we cannot defend certain countries at all costs, because the attempt to use all our strength will most likely lead to the destruction of the country we wanted to defend.

This does not only apply to Ukraine, this principle also worked, for example, after the Second World War, when the West did not manage to defend the countries forcibly included in the socialist camp, and in the case of Afghanistan, which we failed to defend against the Taliban (although the use of nuclear weapons was out of the question there).

Should Ukraine join NATO?

Above, I have described the situation in which only the destruction of Ukraine occurs, but the turning of this row into a global conflict is also likely. Then people in Alaska and Siberia can survive, but in medium-sized countries such as Ukraine or Poland everyone will die. I think that despite the great losses the West would win the Third World War and would regain Crimea, but there would be no one to return it to. This is why American politicians from both major parties repeat like a mantra that Ukraine cannot join NATO. 

The situation could change if Ukraine came to a permanent agreement with Russia on their border. Because NATO is a defensive pact and cannot be used to recover lands, even if it is right and fair. The Ukrainian authorities and some European politicians must understand that even in the name of a just peace we cannot risk the annihilation of humanity. 

It is a great pity that such an agreement was not thought of earlier, because then – as President Trump rightly emphasizes – this war could not have broken out at all. According to my assessment, Moscow (despite its aggressive rhetoric) would be sufficiently satisfied with controlling the areas around Mariupol, because this is the natural hinterland of Crimea. It was still possible to bargain from them, for example, ten-year free supplies of gas and oil. They have so much of it that – with mild persuasion from the US – they would agree. This would not be an dishonorable (according to President Zelensky) payment for land, but the money obtained in this way would go to compensation for the aggrieved Ukrainians. On the other hand, the territories could be donated, e.g., as a gift from the Ukrainian nation to the Russian nation (to show the culture of the nobility to the Russian simpletons). And now Ukraine would be safe in NATO and the European Union.

Two Satans 

Currently, Ukraine's situation is much worse. President Zelensky claims that he will try to regain the lands on a diplomatic path. To achieve this, he must have serious assets up his sleeve. Perhaps he is counting on sanctions, but I am very sceptical here too. I will repeat once again: since the Russians have already suffered such losses, they will bite the ground, but they will not retreat. Nor should one naively count on China's help, because they need Russia as a partner in the game against their main opponent, the United States. Similarly, President Nixon needed China in the game against the Soviet Union. By the way, as soon as the cunning Chinese got into the Security Council, they began to vote side by side with the Soviets. 

I would like to remind you that Russia is a country with the largest (currently) territory, and China with the largest number of people. If these two Satans join their forces, a small hell will arise. President Trump's decisions indicate that he is aware of the threat, unlike many other Western politicians.

Follow the example of the Poles

So what should Ukrainians do? I think that they should follow the example of the Poles. We have two sayings: "The wise give way to the fool" and "There is no point in kicking with the horse". We used them after the Second World War and thanks to this we are where we are, and maybe we even exist at all.

Let me remind you that Hitler attacked Poland with violation of international law. Although he finally lost, that violation has never been remedied, our current territory is almost 20% smaller than before the war. Like the Ukrainians now, many Poles initially could not imagine losing our eastern territories and claimed that a just peace had to be concluded, even at the price of the Third World War.

Later, however, we understood that in the real world fair decisions are not always possible. We set ourselves the goal of the peaceful overthrow of communism and we succeeded. We live calmly within the limits set to us by the great powers and we build Soft Power. This was also successful; we have received several Nobel prizes, and the refutation of all the most important theories of modern physics and the formulation of the foundations of new physics weighs more than ten Nobel prizes.

I wish the brotherly Ukrainian nation to have such achievements too. However, they have to understand that this is not possible under bombs when you keep losing the best people. Nonetheless, it should be emphasized that if Ukrainians want to continue fighting, they have the right to do so, and we should help them (on the basis of ethical norms that require us to defend the weaker).

The peace plans

I would also be happy if the Russians withdrew from the occupied territories and put their nuclear forces under the international control. Nevertheless, the signatures of even 90 countries under such a plan mean nothing, because Russia will not sign it. This is not a plan for peace (although it was presented at a peace conference), but for victory, i.e., a further devastating war. And if a just peace were in fact a war, it would not be true peace, despite the noble intentions of its advocates.

Recently, there have been voices that after the conclusion of the truce, our peacekeepers will be protected from the air by US aviation. It's a bit strange, because ordinary peacekeeping missions do not require such protection (observations can be carried out from satellites). Moreover, such missions require the consent of the feuding countries, and I doubt that Moscow will agree to NATO's participation. And if they agree, it will be probably not to attack us (this would be contrary to elementary logic). 

I think that the Ukrainians should come to terms with the temporary loss of their eastern lands. The sooner they do it, the worse it will be for Russia, and the better for Ukraine and Poland. Why for us too? Well, do we want the line separating free Ukraine from the occupied part to be close to Poland or far? I think it's clear that it should be as far away as possible. And if this line coincides with our border, it will be a tragedy. As long as the war continues, this is unfortunately still possible.

What might true peace look like? There is no doubt that Russia must pay for the war unleashed. Every Ukrainian who has been wounded, lost loved ones, had to flee, left property behind or lost it in a different way, should receive high compensation. It is rumored that Putin may agree to use frozen Russian assets for this purpose.

I dream that President Zelensky (or his successor) will turn out to be a statesman on the scale of General de Gaulle. Since many countries, including France and Poland, are not as big as they used to be, I think this can also be applied to Ukraine. And let us note (in the latter case) that no peacekeepers need to be stationed on both sides of the Bug River.

Slightly reduced but still large Ukraine is rebuilt, has no conflicts with neighboring countries and belongs to the European Union and NATO... This is a dream of a peaceful man. I would like it to come true, but I will not cry at any conference if this does not happen. This matter is not of this type, although of course I will regret the humans who perish.

Crimea

Can Ukraine exist without Crimea? Seemingly the answer is negative, because this peninsula is closely related to the former Soviet republic. However, let's try to imagine that in 1956 Gensek Khrushchev did not sign a decree connecting Crimea to Ukraine (he did not have to do it at all). In that case, would Ukraine attack Russia now? I hope not, because if we assume that all lands associated with Ukraine must now be included in it, then it can be expected that after the victory over Russia, the new regional power, whose valiant troops will replace American troops in Europe, will one day issue a polite note to the Polish government asking for the return of the Bieszczady Mountains. 

Seriously speaking, I repeat that the loss of territories by Ukraine will only be temporary. The question arises when this harm will be repaired. Unfortunately, this will not happen soon. No diplomatic means will help in this matter, and overthrowing Putin will not help either. What is needed here is a change in the Russian mentality, similar to the one that made the reunification of Germany possible. 

In 50 or 100 years, Russia will be gone without Putin and his clique. At the same time, the European Federation will flourish next door, finally governed by competent people. Seeing this, Russia will apply to join the Federation. After the online referendum, Europe will give its consent, but under certain conditions. One of them will be to ensure equal rights for all citizens of the Federation. In particular, they will have to have the right to settle in Crimea. And then the Ukrainians will be able to say that Crimea and even Moscow belong to them.

How to defend ourselves against Russia? 

This question seems very difficult (many NATO generals scare us with an imminent attack), but I give the answer. If you are afraid that the famous fifth paragraph of the NATO pact is not enough, it should be supplemented with a clause with the following (or similar) content:

In the event of an attack on a country belonging to the pact, the alliance reserves the right to immediately use nuclear weapons anywhere, including the territory of the aggressor.

This will put Russia in the situation we are in now. If it attacks, for example, Lithuania, our soldiers should not be brought in for two weeks, but we must hit the rear of the attacking troops on the Russian side of the border with tactical nuclear weapons. The resulting radiation will cut off these troops from aid and supplies, so they will have to surrender. And if Putin asks: "What, how, why?", you have to answer him: "Well, we have written." I guarantee that with the existence of such a clause, Russia will not attack any NATO country.

At this point, I would like to justify the President of Ukraine for the events of the last day of February 2025. This desperate man seeking help has a magic (in his opinion) formula that he repeats to everyone (some politicians readily agree because they don't know my clause). However, what he can say to Poland or even Great Britain is already offensive to the United States.

Return of censorship

In Poland, a law is being prepared, under which an official will be able to block websites after receiving a complaint from an allegedly aggrieved person. Until now, the court has been doing it and I think that such a solution was right, because these are often very delicate matters. Critics of the bill argue that this would be the return of censorship. I think so too, and I would also like to note that an official can be bribed much more easily than judges.

I have not hurt anyone, on the contrary, I have been harmed in a way never seen before, so I defend myself using the Internet, acting in the broadly understood public interest. All the facts I give are true. I also have the right to formulate my opinions, and then I do not give names or point out that this is my opinion. However, I can imagine that some clerk will close my website.

And more about censorship. If an opinion-forming magazine would like to prove to Americans that there is no censorship in Europe, it can print a polemics with my political views. I am just asking to provide the address of my website. I do not mean advertising, but about equal rights in the discussion so that everyone can get acquainted with my arguments at the source.

History of a certain habilitation

When I started working at the Lodz University of Technology in 1997, I signed a commitment that I would write my habilitation dissertation within 8 years. The professor who hired me was sure that a man over forty years old, who had never worked at the university before, would not fulfill this task. When I started coming to work with a thick notebook, he looked very dissatisfied. "What's up?" I asked myself. "He should be happy." Finally, I understood that in order to do this habilitation, I had to write such a good thesis that my academic supervisor would not be able to prevent me. And the first miracle happened; in 2005 I already had an important and very innovative work Quantum Nonlocality... ready. It contained the conditions for superluminal signal transmission, which physicists had long searched for.

Unfortunately, it turned out that I actually did not know the scientific community well. If it was only about Poland, maybe I would have managed, but foreign people (from the European Union) came against me. Since my works do not contain errors, they cannot criticize me officially. So they pretend that they know nothing about my existence, and they use their representatives in Poland to fight me. One of them is a very important professor from Warsaw, whose initials I am even afraid to give here.

I sent the above-mentioned work for publication in a Polish scientific journal with an international reach. If it had been printed there, I would certainly have done my habilitation. Initially, everything was going well, it was obvious that the editors were inclined to publish. They only asked for some shortening what I did. Unfortunately, at this point the very important professor entered the action. After his intervention, the frightened editors sent me a negative review, even though they knew well it was ridiculous. 

Then there was a series of further miracles. Nowadays, every physicist already understands that there are a lot of superluminal signals in Nature, so my habilitation thesis is super-important. However, if someone expects me to get a reward, I have to disappoint them. I have no chance of winning the Nobel Prize, but physicists will have to widely use my results (e.g., gravity theory).