by Claudiu Secara

My opinion? The Russians are craving ALL of the lost Soviet Union space, including the stolen part of other limitrofe countries, like Moldova. In fact, their ambitions, as explicitly spelled out in earlier statements, are for the so-called Eurasia from Lisbon to Vladivostok, of course, with Moscow at the center. How convenient. They are not willing to sign on to some crumbs like Donbas in a peace agreement. They are now all geared up to pursue a full assault on the next prize which is the whole of Ukraine, as made public by no other than Medvedev.

The US is crumbling under our eyes. All the accusations against Trump made by the democrats turned out to be too mild in describing the autocratic power grab planned by the Trump clan. And that includes cornering not only the US Dollar finances but, by the use of the cryptocurrency scam, to leverage the world finances in ways that we still could hardly imagine.

Is he going to succeed?

I think we are looking at uncontrolled escalation between two resourceful but unrestrained power centers, that is Russia and the US. A clash between the two is imminent as their manifest program is to stir up the national emotions for more conflict to come.

The Europeans are cool. What used to be an endless rivalry between England, France and Germany is turning into wise statesmanship. They are attacked by both, the Russians and the US as being inept, retrograde, losers, bad actors, undemocratic, etc. But I can see that the old continent quietly is rearming without going to war. It looks ahead and regroups while the two rivals exhaust themselves in endless adventures. With 500 million population, Europe should be able to reclaim its status, its historical towering power next to China.

Despite its showpiece, which is the modern Moscow, Russia remains a backward, almost a third-world nation of conquered colonies. But worst still, with a third-world mentality of “let’s steal from the rich neighbors, in this case the Westerns”. By contrast Europe is a free union of a multitude of nations all bound by the fear and the specter of falling prey to the Asiatic Slavs.

On the other hand, the US is a nation that is no longer a melting pot. It is, as the metaphor goes, a salad bowl of raw conflicts. There is no center anymore capable of stopping the anarchy and, like history teaches us, it can only end in a bloody civil war. That might bring, at the end of a long process, a new savior, as the final arbiter, the new Lord Protector. But that ain’t Trump, who turns out to be a world-class prestidigitator.

Russia is still a medieval state lording over fearful natives, while the US is controlled by a messianic minority. The elites of both are only concerned with preserving their privileges and of the rent seeking system. They are facing the thousand year old European civilization as well as the thousands of years old Chinese, and even Persian, civilizations.

The puberty growing pains of Russia and the US will consume both.

by Thomas Gallagher via Compactmag
Excerpts

On May 4, in the first round of voting, Simion got 41 percent, acquiring over 60 percent of the votes from the diaspora. Once again the ruling tandem were rejected and it was Nicusor Dan, the independent mayor of Bucharest, who won second place with 21 percent of the vote. To many it seemed a foregone conclusion that Simion would win.

But a strange thing happened. The anger of Romanians over having been cheated out of making their own choice in December began to abate. It was replaced by heart-searching about what would result from choosing a candidate angry with the West, from which overbearing supervision but also opportunities for prosperity had come. Despite the corruption, living standards had leapt ahead, at least in the cities, since the end of the 1990s.

Fears that Simion would lead the country over a cliff started to surface. He made it easy by promising to slash jobs in the urban bureaucracy. A decisive moment was the four-hour televised debate with Dan on May 8. Simion was short-tempered and arrogant and struggled to think on his feet in the face of clever jabs from an unflustered opponent. He abruptly canceled the remaining televised debates, with Dan turning up and answering questions next to an empty chair. The rest of his time was spent traversing Europe, speaking to émigrés while seeming blasé about the economic condition of the country.

At home, Simion’s strongholds are areas of the country with a high elderly population and few signs of foreign investment or EU funding. Urban dwellers appeared more concerned about economic issues including the slump in value of companies in which pension funds are heavily invested, and the sharp rise of interest rates on loans. Simion’s increasingly provocative attacks on the European Union and the promise to make Georgescu his prime minister also worried many in the diaspora who perhaps had not voted previously. They could be left in limbo if a confrontation ensued between the European Union and a weak but mutinous member like Romania over foreign policy and the rule of law.

By May 18, stinging memories of the December election cancellation were beginning to be superseded by worries about taking a bold leap into the political unknown. Turnout rose from 54 to 63 percent. Dan drew the bulk of votes from those who had previously backed other candidates, leaping from 21 to 54 percent while Simion managed a minor increase from 39 to 46 percent.

An underperforming establishment was lucky to face a low-grade opponent. As former President Basescu remarked on election night when fears arose that Simion wouldn’t recognize the result: “George Simion has remained at the level of a football gallery chieftain who swears, who is violent, who evades responsibility and who is always ready to fight with the gendarmes.”

It was naive of right-wing social-media influencers to bet so heavily on a Simion victory. They refused to factor in the fact that he was in the long line of Balkan outlaws, or haiduks, from whom the settled population normally sought protection. Similarly, the European Union foolishly assumed that as long as profits flowed from Bucharest and lip-service was paid to anti-Putin initiatives, then Romania’s slum-like political condition was of no consequence.

Thomas Gallagher is professor of politics emeritus at the University of Bradford and author of Romania After Ceausescu and Romania and the European Union.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. There are many more voices expressing similar views than just a few. While the alternative media and its contributors offer valuable perspectives, they are not the sole authority on these matters. Selective gatekeeping over which “Western sources” are acceptable—especially when outlets like the New York Times are routinely cited in such posts—risks turning discussion into narrow dogma rather than fostering open inquiry.

When approached with critical thinking and healthy skepticism, diverse sources provide meaningful insights. What’s needed is thoughtful analysis, not reflexive dismissal.

Some other Western Analyses

Brookings Institution: Brookings analysts have highlighted the entrenched positions of both Russia and Ukraine, suggesting that without significant shifts, the conflict is poised to continue. They note that while Russia had some momentum in 2024, it achieved only modest territorial gains and failed to dislodge Ukrainian forces from key regions. The institution emphasizes that a durable settlement requires both sides to move off deeply entrenched positions, and absent a well-conceived strategy, mediation attempts are likely to fail.
(Brookings)

RAND Corporation: In their report Avoiding a Long War, RAND explores potential trajectories of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and their implications for U.S. interests. They note that the war could continue for an extended period, emphasizing the need for the U.S. to consider strategies that avoid a prolonged conflict.
(RAND Corporation)

Royal United Services Institute (RUSI): RUSI’s analysis indicates that Russia has the capacity to sustain combat operations for several years, particularly in areas like artillery shell production. However, challenges remain in regenerating other military capabilities due to sanctions and supply chain issues.
(RUSI)

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS): CSIS highlights that the Ukraine war has evolved into a major political and economic conflict between the West and Russia, with long-term implications for global stability. They suggest that even if the war ends in a compromise or ceasefire, a decisive end to the fighting seems uncertain.
(CSIS)

Perspectives from the Global South and BRICS Nations

BRICS Nations: An expert discussion hosted by the Foreign Policy Centre notes that BRICS countries have largely abstained from taking definite sides in the conflict, repeatedly calling for a resolution through peaceful means. They emphasize the need for actual multipolarity in the world, a sentiment echoed by Russian President Putin.
(The Foreign Policy Centre)

China: China’s support for Russia has been comprehensive and enduring, aligning with its long-term strategic interests. However, China’s narratives about the war suggest a preference for a resolution that avoids prolonged conflict, balancing its support for Russia with its global economic interests.
Chinese analyses suggest that the Ukraine crisis has disrupted the current international order, revealing its coercive nature. They advocate for China to contemplate building a new international system parallel to the Western-dominated order, emphasizing the importance of “worst-case scenario thinking” in strategic planning.
(Tricontinental Institute)

African Union: The head of the African Union, Moussa Faki Mahamat, has remarked that Africa has become “the collateral victim of a distant conflict,” highlighting that many countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America do not see the Ukraine war as their conflict. This underscores the Global South’s desire to address broader dilemmas of humanity rather than being entangled in great power conflicts.
(Tricontinental Institute)

Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research: This Global South think tank critiques the Western narrative, arguing that the conflict is not solely about Ukraine but is emblematic of broader geopolitical tensions. As such, it seriously complicates the possibility of the parties reaching a settlement focused on Ukraine and it’s borders alone. The Institute emphasizes the need for a new international order that moves away from Western hegemony and advocates for nonalignment and peace.
(Tricontinental Institute)

These analyses underscore a broad consensus that the Russia-Ukraine conflict is likely to persist, with both military and diplomatic stalemates contributing to its prolonged nature. The conflict extends well beyond the immediate battlefield in Ukraine, reflecting deeper geopolitical rivalries that involve numerous global stakeholders. Achieving a lasting resolution will require more than negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv—it will demand broader international engagement and multilateral agreements.

The proxy-war dynamics, with both sides relying on strategic alliances and external support, inevitably extend the timeline for any enduring peace. Beyond their own populations, each party must also navigate the expectations and interests of key allies and partners. In this context, entrenched positions, competing global visions, and complex strategic calculations continue to make a swift resolution very unlikely.

“DJT believes additional sanctions will hasten Moscow to an unfavorable negotiation…”

I’d suggest that’s based on making a significant assumption there. The truth is, none of us actually knows what Donald Trump believes or why he says certain things. He’s a master of distraction and ambiguity — so why would we assume his statements reflect clear strategic thinking? More likely, it’s just typical bluster.

Also, this statement: “Sanctions have not, to date, had the intended impact on Russia financially” doesn’t mean they’ve had zero serious negative effects. Those two outcomes are not mutually exclusive. An impact less than intended is still a negative effect. And we are not privy to all the inside information that Putin has.

And when someone refers to IMF projections to support an argument, it’s interesting how that’s acceptable — even as others (like myself) are ridiculed for citing “unreliable Western sources.” Yet all alternative media and many others regularly quote Politico, NYTimes, The Economist, and Financial Times as sources without issue. That’s cherry-picking what matters and when.

As for Trump and his advisors — of course we all are familiar with them. No one here just “beamed in from a spaceship.” We all know the language, ideology, and narratives involved. Let’s not pretend it’s all new terrain. This isn’t Sesame Street.

I genuinely don’t understand what’s being argued anymore, or why some are so quick to dismiss reasonable, well-sourced analyses. No one can predict the future — but many respected analysts are offering plausible, evidence-based scenarios. Why reflexively attack those?

by Roger