Monthly Archives: May 2025

Military Affairs

Why Ukraine-Russia Peace Talks Are Doomed

Leave a comment

Why Ukraine-Russia Peace Talks Are Doomed – And This War May Last for Years or Decades – A Russian Perspective

The prospect of peace between Russia and Ukraine remains elusive—and according to Russian political analyst Vitaly Ryumshin, it may not just be elusive, but structurally impossible under current conditions. With new speculation around possible ongoing Istanbul talks—reportedly pushed by Trump allies and involving both Zelensky and Putin—the mainstream narrative briefly teased a potential breakthrough. But upon closer inspection, the likelihood of a meaningful or lasting ceasefire appears near zero.

  1. The Stage Is Set for Failure—Again

All eyes recently turned to Istanbul, where Russia and Ukraine were allegedly preparing to restart direct negotiations—the first since spring 2022. The hype escalated rapidly after Putin responded to a Western-backed proposal for a 30-day ceasefire. Zelensky initially rejected it, then reversed course under apparent pressure from Donald Trump—though only after attaching his own preconditions, demanding top-level talks “immediately or not at all,” while also threatening additional sanctions if Russia didn’t comply. It has played out like a Keystone Cops movie.

None of this signals genuine intent by any involved party to negotiate. Rather, it seems to be more political theatre—performative diplomacy meant to appease domestic audiences and allies, rather than advance actual de-escalation. The same disconnect that’s plagued previous efforts is firmly in place: both sides are posturing, and neither is engaging in good faith.

Russia, despite making slow but steady gains on the battlefield, is under no pressure to negotiate. Ukraine, despite weakening positions and morale, is defending it’s territory on the front lines inflicting casualties on the Russians, and continues to act ‘as if’ it holds the upper hand. Meanwhile, key NATO players like the UK, France, and Germany talk tough—insisting Russia must lose and Crimea be returned—but offer no coherent diplomatic exit ramp. While Trump continues to be an erratic blowhard of little consequence despite being a major party to this conflict-pretending he is a peacemaker instead.

Nothing will be progressed while all the parties continually deny the truth of what is involved and what has happened.

As Ryumshin points out, each side seems more focused on political optics than substance. Zelensky seeks to avoid Trump’s wrath without conceding anything meaningful. Putin sees little value in being a prop for Trump’s American Hero campaign. Neither side trusts the other, and both are only angling for short term tactical advantages rather than a sustained settlement or peace.

  1. Every Ceasefire Attempt Has Failed—This One Will Too

Recent history offers little hope. A series of failed ceasefires—on naval corridors, energy strikes, and symbolic occasions like Easter and Victory Day—have all collapsed under the weight of unrealistic expectations, ambiguous language, and an absence of monitoring mechanisms. Not to mention a total lack of commitment by everyone.

Even now, the so-called “Istanbul process” lacks a formal agenda, articulated unified goals, or any enforcement structure. The result? Each party defines “peace” on its own terms. The U.S. has juggled conflicting peace tracks for months, pretending to shape a compromise from irreconcilable positions it refuses to acknowledge. But without shared definitions or political will, it’s just talk.

In Ryumshin’s words, this is not diplomacy but brinkmanship—a cynical spectacle where each side hopes the other will walk away first. And if the Istanbul talks even happen, they are almost certain to end in the same deadlock.

  1. Why a Long War Is More Likely

Beyond the dysfunction of diplomacy lies a deeper structural truth: neither side appears capable of nor interested in ending the war soon. Ukraine lacks the military strength to reclaim its lost territories, and the political space to concede anything without collapsing internally. Russia, on the other hand, believes time is on its side, and is unlikely to accept any Western-brokered ceasefire that doesn’t reflect its battlefield momentum-and it’s original goals. Goals that go far beyond any ability for any government in Ukraine to provide. Ukraine cannot tell NATO or the U.S. what they must do to bring peace to this major Cold War civilisational conflict-nor how to settle nuclear arms disputes between the U.S. and Russia.

Some observers still believe a diplomatic breakthrough could be near. But for that to happen, several stars would have to align: an earth-shattering shift in U.S. leadership and policy, a recalibration of the Ukrainian strategy, and a recognition of Russia’s red lines that have been in place long before the 2022 invasion-going back to first 2014 and before that to at least 2007.

As it stands, none of that is on the horizon.

The result is a grim but necessary conclusion: a negotiated settlement is not only unlikely in the short term—it may be impossible for years. This war could drag on well into the 2030s, especially if neither side achieves a decisive advantage and Western powers remain committed to a zero-sum framework and their continued deceits.

Without significant global pressure on both sides to compromise, we are left with stalemate masquerading as strategy.

by: Roger

geopolitical issues

Zelensky Scores a Win

Leave a comment

Igor Strelkov on Zelensky’s demand to meet with Putin in Istanbul (machine translated)

In fact, Zelensky made a very clever move, putting Moscow in a very disadvantageous position. Both decisions that could be taken (at least from Zelensky’s point of view, and from any logical point of view) are losing for Moscow.

If Putin agrees to direct negotiations with Zelensky, then a barrage of mockery begins in the West, since Putin has so many times personally and through his close people declared Zelensky’s illegitimacy, that he has no one to negotiate with, that it is quite difficult for him to win back on this issue. In fact, his meeting with Zelensky is a recognition of Zelensky’s complete legitimacy and ability to act, that is, a loss.

Not to mention that Putin will in fact thus recognize Ukraine as a warring country, and it will be extremely difficult for him to communicate with Zelensky in all respects. Because Zelensky will ask him such questions during communication, including publicly, that our president will simply not be able to answer without losing face and without losing his position, without harming Russia’s negotiations. That is, all meetings with Zelensky are a disaster – both for Vladimir Vladimirovich personally and for the negotiating positions of the Russian Federation. It is unacceptable.

However , not meeting will not improve the situation in the Russian Federation either, since all the world’s media and not only the media will perceive this as a reason to accuse Russia of having proposed negotiations and of disrupting them. With all the corresponding conclusions, including in the area of sanctions, in the area of support for Ukraine, in the area of counteracting Russia, etc., etc.

That is, wherever you look, it’s a wedge, a defeat everywhere. As we have said many times, zugzwang has long been established in our “party” in Ukraine, when any move only worsens the position. The fact is that our opponent is by no means stupid, including Zelensky himself and his advisers. If fools were fighting against us on that side, we probably would have won long ago, but that is not even close.

What is needed are truly completely new, fundamentally different steps, far beyond the traditional Kremlin diplomacy, politics, military management, and so on, and so forth, and so forth. Steps that will be truly asymmetrical and unexpected for Russia’s “partners” in the West, and in Ukraine, and in general.

What is needed is truly new, innovative actions that do not fit into the framework of traditional Kremlin diplomacy (“neither here nor there, we’ll wait it out, sit it out, it will somehow resolve itself” – these are its main characteristics).

I recently joked here in a conversation with my fellow prisoners that the best thing for the Kremlin would be to send me to negotiate. That would be top-level trolling , about the same as and even surpassing Zelensky. Of course, that won’t be done, although I would have something to say to Zelensky to make him blush and run away.

Well, these are the kind of moves that are needed now to get out of the most severe systemic crisis we find ourselves in on the eve of military defeat. But, unfortunately, there is no one to expect this from.

Therefore, we will observe Moscow’s decision. And I bet three to one that Putin will not go to the meeting with Zelensky. And I allow one chance, that is, a quarter of the options, because Vladimir Vladimirovich just met with Chairman Xi, and I do not know what Xi told him. If Xi presented Vladimir Vladimirovich with the fact that the conflict must be ended at any cost, including the cost of a meeting with Zelensky with a complete loss of face, then perhaps the meeting will take place. And it will not bring anything good, including peace.

Now any actions aimed at concessions to Ukraine and Western pressure will only lead to a sharp increase in demands from Ukraine and the West . And stopping on this path of concessions will be much more difficult than at the moment (if at all possible).

geopolitical issues

No Peace in the Cards, just more Claptrap

Leave a comment

Igor Strelkov on upcoming talks in Istanbul

Contrary to general expectations, I, as usual, predict failure of any negotiations, simply based on ordinary logic, on ordinary common sense.

Ukraine has now secured the unconditional support of Europe, with continued support from the United States. The flow of weapons, ammunition, and mercenaries is constantly increasing. Four million drones have been promised this year alone, double the figures from last year.

Ukraine has prepared strong reserves and managed to preserve them during the fighting. Our offensive has long been stalled and stopped, despite the losses suffered. Now is the time from a military point of view, from a point of view of common sense, for them to launch a counterattack and try to at least improve, if we are talking about negotiations, their negotiating positions through successes on land, in the air and at sea, which they can at least try to achieve by using up the accumulated reserves.

Whether they will do it or not, I certainly do not know. However, I assume that they need a ceasefire to complete the concentration of troops, ships, to accumulate drones, ammunition in those places that can be fired upon by Russian artillery, missile forces, aviation and conventional drones. Having done this, they will most likely, under any pretext, naturally blaming Russia, break the ceasefire and strike.

Therefore, I believe that this proposal for a 30-day ceasefire is not a result of Trump’s pressure, but another tactical ploy, since it is very convenient for Ukraine to take advantage of the ceasefire to prepare for its offensive, for a new round of hostilities.

Unfortunately, even if these negotiations suddenly go smoothly and even if Ukraine does not launch an offensive, nothing will change either. Since its only main demand will be the return of Russia to the borders of 1991. And the Ukrainian side will stand extremely firmly on this, since it now feels significant strength and significant support behind it.

In addition, as far as I know, Mr. Witkoff is going to present us with 22 points that we must accept to begin negotiations (at least, this is what was mentioned in the news). If these 22 points still contain demands to transfer the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant and the Kinburn Spit under military control of Ukraine, then in fact we will be forced to make concessions without a fight, to give up strategic bridgeheads that are extremely important both for us (for the defense of the Dnieper line) and for the enemy (as a bridgehead for launching an offensive on Crimea).

I don’t really know how true this is – most likely, all this will be very highly classified. Nevertheless, I have such assumptions, and there are grounds for these assumptions.

In any case, having failed to defeat Ukraine on the battlefield, having failed to defeat its army, we do not have normal negotiating positions that would allow us to defend Russia’s state sovereignty over the annexed territories, even those that are currently held by our troops.

Therefore, only a fool or a saboteur, secretly assisting the enemy in the information sphere, can talk about a quick end to the war and some kind of compromise peace. I think we have more than enough of both.

I am not one of them, so I am sure that the war will continue until one of the sides wins completely. I hope that it will ultimately be Russia.

Source

Current Events

More on our Telegram

Leave a comment

Russia CANNOT accept European ‘peacekeepers’ in Ukraine


US Department of State
May 8, 2025
Russia Travel Advisory

Population Control

How the Establishment Is Domesticating Populism

Leave a comment

by Thomas Fazi via compactmag

How the Establishment Is Domesticating Populism

The victory of the right-wing candidate George Simion in the first round of Romania’s rerun presidential election has been celebrated by some on the right as a populist victory. By this account, the EU- and NATO-aligned forces that overturned the country’s previous election in November have failed to turn back the growing backlash against the establishment. But a deeper analysis suggests a more complex and troubling picture.

Simion’s rise comes in the wake of a series of events that have undermined Romania’s democratic credibility. Last November, the independent euroskeptic candidate Călin Georgescu won the first round of the presidential election in a surprise result. Before the runoff could take place, however, Romania’s constitutional court annulled the outcome, citing alleged but unproven Russian interference. In March, in an even more extraordinary move, the electoral commission disqualified Georgescu from running altogether. Though a lower appeals court temporarily reversed the decision, the High Court of Cassation and Justice ultimately upheld it. At that point, Georgescu’s political fate was sealed.

Elites, these developments suggest, no longer limit themselves to influencing electoral outcomes through media manipulation, censorship, and economic pressure. They now are willing to abandon even the veneer of democratic procedure—by barring potential candidates or even openly discarding electoral outcomes when they fail to produce the “correct” result. The potential legal disqualification of Marine Le Pen from future elections in France and the designation of Germany’s AfD as an “extremist organization” by the country’s security services can be seen as further examples of this new counteroffensive.

But events in Romania also point to another tactic being deployed in the war against the populist menace. Simion is the leader of the nationalist Alliance for the Unity of Romanians (AUR), which had previously backed Georgescu and pledged not to run against him. He launched his campaign after Georgescu was barred, portraying himself as a defender of democracy and national sovereignty and even suggesting he would appoint Georgescu as prime minister if given the opportunity. But the conclusion that Simion’s likely victory in the final round will be a defeat for the establishment may be premature.

Unlike Georgescu, Simion was allowed to run. Why? The answer may lie in the type of populism he represents. On the one hand, Simion holds much more radical positions than Georgescu on cultural and identity issues. He is known for his inflammatory anti-Hungarian rhetoric and for advocating policies that could jeopardize the rights of Romania’s ethnic Hungarian minority, including the abolition of Hungarian-language schools and the use of Hungarian in public institutions. He has also made irredentist statements about restoring Romania’s 1940 borders, which would include territories now in Moldova and Ukraine. In other words, Simion is a genuine ethno-nationalist whose positions arguably warrant the “far-right” label—unlike Georgescu, whose campaign focused primarily on economic policy and Romania’s geopolitical orientation.

On the other hand, Simion is significantly more aligned with establishment interests on crucial issues such as NATO, European integration, and the war in Ukraine. While he is critical of the European Union, his rhetoric stays within the boundaries of conventional conservative euroskepticism, focusing on reform rather than withdrawal. He has expressed disapproval of aspects of the handling of the Ukraine war, but remains openly supportive of NATO and the United States, and has repeatedly condemned Russia. His party, AUR, is part of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group in the European Parliament, which is known for its Atlanticist stance and full-throated support of Ukraine.

In this light, Simion represents a new and increasingly common type of political actor: the faux-populist who combines strident cultural nationalism with loyalty to the economic and geopolitical status quo. This dual identity makes him acceptable to the establishment, despite the “far-right” label often attached to him. The real red line, it seems, is not cultural rhetoric, but opposition to globalist economic policies and military alliances such as NATO.

The events in Romania, then, illustrate the establishment’s evolving strategy for neutralizing the populist threat: a dual approach of repression and co-optation. Candidates like Georgescu, who combine economic nationalism with foreign-policy positions at odds with Washington and Brussels, are met with institutional repression. Meanwhile, figures like Simion, who mimic the populist style but uphold key systemic pillars, are promoted or at least tolerated.

This tactic is not unique to Romania. Across Europe, we have seen similar developments. These moves are framed as defenses of democracy but are clearly aimed at eliminating—or domesticating—challengers who deviate from the consensus. The paradox is that faux-populists often espouse more radical cultural views than their more genuinely anti-establishment counterparts, as is the case with Simion and Georgescu. This inversion is no accident. The establishment is willing to accommodate cultural radicalism as long as it does not challenge the economic and geopolitical status quo.

This pattern echoes a historical precedent. In the early 20th century, liberal elites across Europe made tactical alliances with authoritarian and even fascist movements to contain the threat of socialism. Business leaders and centrist politicians often viewed fascists as useful tools to suppress labour unrest and revolutionary sentiment. British elites in the 1930s didn’t appease Hitler in a misguided attempt to avoid another global conflict with Germany, but because in many respects they viewed the Nazis as Western allies against a common enemy: the Soviet Union.

In this sense, fascism was not the antithesis of liberalism, but a distorted outgrowth of it—an extreme measure to defend the oligarchic order against systemic threats. Today, the threat is no longer revolutionary socialism but anti-globalist and anti-imperialist populism. The battleground is no longer class struggle, but sovereignty, foreign policy, and the legitimacy of supranational institutions.

Unlike historical fascism, today’s establishment-backed cultural nationalists don’t advocate for mass mobilization or corporatist economics. Instead, they promote culture wars while leaving intact the neoliberal economic structures that define the European Union. This suits Brussels just fine. Shifting political conflict onto the terrain of identity and morality offers a means of preserving the status quo.

This shift is already visible in the evolution of Europe’s right-wing parties. Groups like Italy’s Lega and France’s National Rally have gradually abandoned their once-radical critiques of European integration and the euro (although the barring of Le Pen suggests that the party’s old guard might still be considered too much of a risk). Their rhetoric now focuses less on monetary sovereignty or economic reform and more on issues like immigration, national culture, and the defense of traditional values. The European Union has played a key role in orchestrating this transition. By excluding all economic alternatives to neoliberal governance, Brussels ensures that dissent remains confined to the cultural realm. The populist right has adapted accordingly, trading demands for structural change for complaints about “wokeness” and cultural decline.

A parallel development is taking place in the United States. There, corporate and oligarchic elites first co-opted left-wing activism through wokeness and diversity politics. Now, they are doing the same with the right by embracing anti-woke narratives and nationalist branding. Beginning with Elon Musk’s 2022 takeover of Twitter, the oligarchy has rebranded itself as the victim of middle-manager wokeism, absorbing opposition to maintain control.

The success of this strategy reveals the right’s conceptual limitations. Many conservatives view the struggle against the establishment primarily in cultural terms, rather than as a battle over class power or structural inequality. This makes them especially vulnerable to co-optation by elite forces that offer symbolic victories while leaving the underlying system untouched.

It remains to be seen how Simion, if elected, will respond to the popular discontent that propelled him to prominence. While unforeseen events could push him toward adopting more genuinely populist policies, it is far more likely that he will serve as a textbook example of managed dissent. Ultimately, Romania’s recent electoral history illustrates the establishment’s two-tiered approach: suppress those who pose a real challenge, and elevate those who only pretend to. In doing so, it preserves its hold on power while adapting to an increasingly restive electorate. The question is whether voters will continue to fall for the illusion—or begin to see through it.

Thomas Fazi is a columnist for Compact.

EuroSlavia, Remember?

Russia Exudes Confidence at Parade Marking 80 Years since Nazi Defeat

Leave a comment

via Washington Post

Putin’s goal to subdue Ukraine has not changed, and while he has agreed to peace talks, he has also vowed to fight on if Ukraine rejects Russia’s terms. In a recent interview on state television to mark a quarter-century in power, he said, “We have enough forces and means to bring what we started in 2022 to its logical end.”

In the same interview, Putin also described his country as being involved in something greater than itself, a seemingly messianic higher calling to change the world. “Russian people have some differences from, say, Western societies: We think more about something eternal, something infinite, something higher.”

While President Vladimir Putin hosted several world leaders, European ministers gathered in Ukraine to announce the formation of war crimes tribunal targeting Russian officials.

By Robyn Dixon, Francesca Ebel and Ellen Francis

More on Telegram

 

Uncategorized

Romanian Conspiracy Theories – From Agent Petrov to Agent Krasnov

Leave a comment

Now that Romania is so much in focus due to the electoral tectonics shaking the country, shaking the European Union and more, there is renewed interest in conspiracy theories to explain who are the main protagonists in this incredible confrontation between agents of influence of all shades and allegiances. Below is one of those debates bringing together people who were in the loop and had first-hand knowledge of the top players’ backgrounds. But as one of the linked articles asks: Do we have irrefutable evidence? No. Do we have indications? Too many in order to ignore them.

Here are 3 (actually 4, if we include the dismissed Călin Georgescu) of the most important candidates in the presidential elections in Romania. Who are they/

1. Nicușor Dan. Was he an informant for the Securitate?  — CNSAS (Consiliul Național pentru Studierea Arhivelor Securității, i.e. The National Council for the Study of the Securitate Archives) has denied these accusations against Nicușor Dan since last year. 
2. George Simion. George Simion lost the case with the former Moldovan Minister whom (ironically!) Simion had sued for “slander”. The minister had stated that Simion was seen in the company of a Russian FSB agent, and the head of the Polish intelligence service confirmed the allegations, saying that they were actually following the Russian spy and thus came across Simion! Simion isn’t banned from entering Moldova and Ukraine for nothing! They know that he is connected with Russia’s FSB.
Simion is an old “băsist” (from the group led by Băsescu, controversial former Romanian president 2004 – 2014); and the snitch Petrov (that’s Băsescu’s alias) has been suspected since 1996 of being a Russian agent (like Krasnov– rhyming with Petrov…). Read “Accomplices of the Băsescu snitch – from Securitate to CNSAS” on the Observator Cultural, because there is the comment of the former SIE officer, Marin Cruceru, about the Russian agent Băsescu).
Those in the system have won the presidential elections since 2004, that is, since the disgusting snitch Petrov, a.k.a Băsescu, put his dirty claws on the Presidential Seat at Cotroceni. That bitch is still controlling the games even now, and Simion is an old fart too.

3. Georgescu also was sent by Băsescu to the UN in 2010, that is, he secured a two-year sinecure, from the money of the Boc government, just when the Boc government cut Romanians ‘ salaries by 25%, as well as children’s allowances and scholarships, over-taxed the poor pension of the elderly, closed 67 hospitals and drove out doctors to work in the West, closed hundreds of schools – and the result is that now Romania is 44% functionally illiterate, etc. Călin Georgescu is part of the system (i.e. the former Communist system under Ceaușescu) and has been ever since1985/8; otherwise he could not have traveled to England and the USA in 1987-1988, when only security men and nomenclaturists had this right. Călin Georgescu was part of the system even before 1989 and took full advantage of it by infiltrating all governments.

4. While Crin Antonescu was more in opposition to the power in Romania during his entire period of active politics.
geopolitical issues

India’s War Against Pakistan is Against China

Leave a comment

by Claudiu Secara

So, why India attacks Pakistan on the unsubstantiated accusation of a terrorist act by some groupie from Pakistan? A war between two nuclear powers, which, by the way, was in the air as most likely since the early 1980s.

One red flag is the open overtures made to Modi by the US, since day one of his presidency in 2014. The grandfather-looking Modi is in fact a quite vicious dictator of India. As the chief minister of Gujarat province he was complicit in the killing of some 2,000 Muslims, which set him immediately as a friend of Israel. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. In 2020 he caused more deaths among the Muslims, while his draconian “anti-Covid” measures caused, according to WHO, some 4.2 million deaths of Indians.

His demonetisation of banknotes in 2016 and introduction of the Goods and Services Tax in 2017 caused devastation among the Indian middle class, again, mostly Muslims.

So we have the illiberal Modi getting a special treatment by one American president after another. No accusations of undemocratic rule against him.

On the contrary, Trump is rewarding Modi with his first tariff waiving wand right in the middle of Modi’s unprovoked aggression against a stunned neighbor. It sets India against China, at the time when Apple was relocating all iPhone production from China to India.

This is now part of the war against China. It starts not in Taiwan, where everyone expected a military confrontation. The war is triggered in Pakistan, a strong China ally.

The war of India against Pakistan on fabricated pretends is the war of the US against China.

Economics/Statistics

China Steps Up Its Game In The Global AI Race

Leave a comment

LolAuthored by Pepe Escobar, via ZeroHedge

Late next month, Huawei will be testing its new powerful AI processor, the Ascend 910 D, even as by early May the previous 910C will start to be mass-delivered to scores of Chinese tech companies.

These serious breakthroughs are the next chapter of Huawei’s drive to counter Nvidia’s global monopoly in GPUs. The Ascend 910D is supposed to be more powerful than Nvidia’s extremely popular H100.

Huawei is pulling no punches in its race to manufacture a new generation of processors. Huawei has collaborated with SMIC – China’s largest semiconductor foundry – to apply Deep Ultraviolet Lithography (DUV) on what was previously only possible on EUV (Extreme Ultra-Violet technology). Once again, Huawei and SMIC defied the proverbial American “experts” with creative engineering solutions.

Huawei arrived at fabricating 5nm chips with DUV even as the process is more expensive than with EUV. If Huawei had access to EUV they would be already manufacturing 2-3nm chips. That will come, in short time, as both China and Russia, under permanent US high-tech blockade, must by all means develop their own EUV technology.

Shanghai geeks are convinced that Huawei will switch on 6G networksbefore the end of the decade. Their current breathless drive is not just aimed at the smartphone front – where Huawei is peerless; the new Huawei Mate 70 Pro + is by far the absolute top smartphone in the world, running on Harmony OS. Huawei is looking at cloud computing, AI and enterprise servers – and to become no less than the core player in the AI infrastructure race.

Ditching Any Reliance on American Technology

Earlier this month, Huawei introduced the CloudMatrix 384, a system connecting 384 Ascend 910C chips. The tech word in Shanghai is that this configuration, under certain conditions, and of course consuming much more power, already outperforms Nvidia’s flagship rack system – which is powered by 72 Blackwell chips.

Meanwhile, Huawei’s Kirin X chip is targeting the PC market, offering stiff competition to Apple, AMD, Intel and Qualcom while Harmony OS plus removes the necessity of using US software such as Microsoft and Android.

Shanghai geeks swear that China essentially doesn’t need to beat Nvidia or other US chips developers. After all, China already has the largest consumer market in the world – by volume and by value. If a parallel tech universe is the likely result of the Trump Tariff Tizzy (TTT), so be it. China already controls over 60% of the global gadget consumer market.

Kirin X may not – yet – match the power of Nvidia’s H100 GPUs. But Huawei chips are already the real deal for every Chinese company which is following the new Beijing-defined direction to reduce any reliance on American technology.

All of the above naturally brings us to the enormous AI elephant in the (digital) room: Nvidia.

A recent book, The Thinking Machine: Jensen Huang, Nvidia, and The World’s Most Coveted Microchip, is quite helpful to track not only the personal story of CEO superstar Huang, a Taiwanese who played the American Dream to the hilt and became a tech multi-billionaire, but Nvidia’s enviable tech accomplishments.

Huang does not interpret AI as emergent machine superintelligence, and firmly dismisses any direct analogy to biology. For this all-round pragmatist, AI is merely software – running on hardware that his company sells for a fortune.

Still, Nvidia has ventured into virgin territory way beyond the American biz-tech Valhalla, complete with holding the most valuable stock on the planet: arguably, when it comes to AI, Nvidia unveiled a new phase of evolution.

It’s crucial to understand how Huang sees China. It is indeed a key market for his AI chips – and he wants to keep selling them in droves. Trump’s tariffs though make sure that won’t happen.

And that’s what moved Huang to ditch his proverbial leather jackets and don a crisp business suit for a strategic visit to Beijing, where he affirmed the sacred importance of the Chinese market, whatever the new Trump-dictated gimmicks.

By 2022, the China market represented 26% of Nvidia’s business; this year, it has fallen to 13%, because of euphemistic “technology export controls”.

The problem is the US government, already by 2022, under the previous automatic pen administration, had blocked sales to China of advanced A100 and H100 chips. Nvidia started selling modified versions – and even after the ban chips continued to arrive in China. By June 2023, it was easy to find A100s for double their price in the black market in Shenzhen.

Huang is convinced that “no AI should be able to learn without a human in the loop” – even as he admitted, two years ago, that “reasoning capability is two or three years out”. Translation: according to Huang AI will start thinking for itself within the next few months.

Even as Nvidia prepares to invest billions of dollars to build AI supercomputers in Texas, the Chinese essentially are not losing any sleep on “thinking AI”: their focus is extremely practical, to conquer not only the Chinese market but also the supply chains of most of Eurasia.

The US National Security Council has concluded that it’s too dangerous for China to buy Nvidia’s high-end chips, even the H20 – designed for the Chinese market. Huawei, anyway, already produces chips somewhat comparable to the H20.

Huang is losing his sleep because, essentially, Nvidia is losing the immense Chinese market to Huawei – with Trump’s direct input. Nvidia has tens of thousands of H20s specially designed for China which they simply cannot sell. Each chip cost between $12,000 to $20,000.

How China Is Opening a Digital “Pandora’s Box”

Huawei’s new drive is yet another example of Chinese will capable of staring down any challenge – based on indigenous talent, tech expertise and national pride. The record, even before Trump 1.0 sanctions, shows that Huawei does eat massive uphill battles for breakfast. In fact Ascend in many aspects was ahead of Nvidia as early as in 2019 – and that’s why two different US administrations banned it.

China is already light years ahead of the US on chip research. Chinese universities amass most places in the global Top Ten for published papers on semiconductors and on citations – a distinction shared, among others, by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (number one), Tsinghua University (one of China’s top two universities), the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (number four), and Nanjing, Zhejiang and Pekin Universities.

Two weeks ago in Shanghai I first heard that Huawei would catch up with US semiconductor giants in maximum two years. Now, after the announcement of the Ascend 910D, the buzz shifted to only one year for China to overtake Nvidia and develop better lithography machines than the ones currently produced by ASML.

And the debate is fast switching to how far Huawei will be able to go within the next 2 to 3 years.

In several aspects we are already in the early stages of a US-China tech decoupling. For years Nvidia has dominated the AI hardware space. Their GPUS are the brains behind most contemporary advanced AI. The H100 chip is the gold/platinum standard for AI infrastructure worldwide. Nvidia’s chips had huge demand from Chinese tech giants – Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu, Bytedance.

Soon that may not be the case – and that goes way beyond Nvidia’s certified loss of market share in China. China is now all out focused on building a successful, self-sufficient AI hardware ecosystem. The coup de grace will be to restrict the export of all rare earth minerals to the US. Huaweii then will pull up in no time.

Everyone remembers how DeepSeek R1 wiped out over $1 trillion from Wall Street only three months ago. DeepSeek R2 will be released soon; training was a whopping 97% cheaper than OpenAI. And training happened on Huawei’s Ascend. No Nvidia.

Quantum Bird, a world-class physicist formerly with the CERN in Geneva, puts everything in much needed context. He stresses how indigenous chip development by China – and in a near future, Russia and probably India (Russia, India, that is just wishful thinking – n. ed.) – is “multi-faceted; what we are observing are the initial stages of a redefinition of the notion of recognizing patterns and machine learning, technologies that are popularly referred to as ‘AI’ by the media.”

Nvidia chips, Qantum Bird remarks, are indeed “computational beasts”, but they work better around “processing models and workloads typical of ‘AI’ models developed by Western scientists.” DeepSeek’s development, on the other hand, showed a transgression of established models: “The possibilities opened for performance leaps are huge, even using relatively modest hardware, with alternative approaches based on advanced math and different calculus flows.”

In a nutshell: “This is the Pandora’s box that Nvidia now fears the Chinese may have opened”. And that totally ties in with Huang’s red alert, prompting his visit to Beijing.

We may be heading indeed towards a serious tech decoupling. Or as Quantum Bird frames it: “A technological and scientific divergence medium and long-term. If the architectures that emerge from these developments are incompatible when it comes to their usage on specific ‘AI’ models, Nvidia will lose its global monopoly and will become just a company reduced to a corporate/scientific Western niche.”

Even as Huawei, from its privileged base in the Chinese market, will go on to win most markets across the Global Majority – from BRICS to BRI.

Sent from my iPad

geopolitical issues

The Summit In the Sand – Putin, Trump

Leave a comment

– PUTIN AGREES TO MEET TRUMP IN ABU DHABI ON MAY 15-16

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is twee-3-1024×831.png
by John Helmer, Moscow
@bears_with

After the Victory Day celebration later this week, President Vladimir Putin has agreed to hold a summit meeting with President Donald Trump. “The Americans have repeatedly asked for a summit and the Kremlin has finally decided,” according to a reliable Moscow source, “that there is no need to spurn the extended hand.”

The source believes Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), is the likely location. Preparatory discussions were held last week in Moscow when Putin telephoned the UAE President, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The Kremlin communiqué claimed “the current state of Russia-UAE relations…constitute a strategic partnership and…enables ongoing dialogue even on the most sensitive international issues.” That was on May 1. The next day Putin met with Saif bin Zayed Al Nahyan, one of the President’s sons and his personal security chief, titled deputy prime minister.

The Moscow source says “the messages have been sent that it will not be a conclusive deal, only a meeting. This is a climb-down from the previous, public Russian position that a lot of work needs to be done first, before a presidential summit, by specialists. The Russians have understood there are no specialists on the US side yet, and the opportunity is right to shake hands first, then work out the details later.”

The White House press spokesman has announced Trump “will travel to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates [in this order] from May 13th, until May 16th.”

“It’s a display of the Russian hand of friendship and mutual security,” the Moscow source adds. “The Americans are offering nothing concrete but we believe Trump is disposed to giving Russia the security steps it needs.”

The source says the Kremlin is “neither surprised nor disappointed” at Trump’s May 1 tweet declaring that “many of our allies and friends are celebrating May 8th as Victory Day, but we did more than any other Country, by far, in producing a victorious result on World War II.” “It shows you how foolish the Kremlin faction was which has advocated inviting Trump to Red Square for May 9. Putin will give Trump his PR opportunity – but in the sand, not in Red Square.”

The shift in the Moscow consensus – from resistance on the part of the General Staff, the intelligence agencies, and the Foreign Ministry – has followed remarks by Vice President JD Vance. “It’s going to be up to them [Russia and Ukraine] to come to agreement and stop this brutal, brutal conflict,” he said on Friday (May 2). “It’s not going anywhere right [now]. It’s not going to end any time soon…Look, I am optimistic, but it’s hard to say…confident because the Russians and the Ukrainians – they’re the ones who have to take the final step. We got ‘em talkin’. We got ‘em offering peace proposals. We got the minerals deal done. I think we’re in a place where they’ve got to say we’re done with the fighting…but only Russia and Ukraine can make that decision. That’s not something even President Trump can do for ‘em.”

In Moscow this is interpreted as acceptance by Washington that the war will continue on Russia’s terms – slow advance westward, no massed offensive – and that it’s now up to “direct” negotiations between Russia and Ukraine to reach an agreement. “This is a double signal prompting Putin”, another Moscow source says, “to agree to a summit meeting with Trump now without preconditions and without pressure to agree on the Kellogg or Witkoff term sheets. In all likelihood, this will be a feel-good summit. No negotiations at all.”

The source adds a caution. “The planned meeting may be derailed at the last minute if the Ukrainians violate the Victory Day ceasefire [between May 8 and 11], and if Trump is either shown to be incapable of controlling the Kiev regime, or duplicitous in aiding the violations. If the Ukrainians do not observe it, the Russians will hit back hard, very hard, and then ask Trump if he still wants to meet. It might go to the wire.”

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1oms_Yw9dM

What Vance said about the Ukrainian minerals deal is interpreted in Moscow to mean that Trump and his officials will back down and retreat from deal terms they start with, in order to accept instead the appearance of a deal Trump and Vance can announce. If Zelensky can do that to Trump, the Russian assessment is that Putin can do as much, or better.

Reports from Kiev and European capitals, where the secret provisions of the minerals deal have been disclosed, indicate a plan for nothing more than a national offshore zone free of taxes, tariffs and other charges by either the Ukrainian or the US governments. In this outcome, the Americans have abandoned Trump’s demand for the reparations clause – payback for past military and economic aid. They have also given up the US demand for first-refusal priority over British, French, German or Polish companies in the bidding for resource projects. Rare earth minerals, oil, and gas have also been abandoned as Trump targets. The only target of the proposed projects identified in the agreement text is “critical sectors of Ukraine’s economy.”

In return — although not yet publicly acknowledged — the Trump Administration has agreed to Zelensky’s request for release of a $500 million instalment of new military deliveries, with promises of more to come payable either in cash or in assignment to the US capital contribution of the new “US-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund.”

“From here on every faction has its own view”, says a Moscow source privy to current intelligence assessments. “In his conclusion Putin has decided there is nothing to be lost by meeting so long as Trump does not insist on a full ceasefire. The understanding now is that Americans — Vance – are stating the war will continue for a time. This gives the Russians an opening they want for a meeting. They have decided they will take it. It’s an unconditional meeting – a Teheran-type summit for the top dogs to sort things out”.

“Some consider it a trap but others consider that Trump is not playing the European tune and is set on different terms he’s calling peace with Russia. In the talks so far, Russians laid out their demands; Americans kept on saying let’s have ‘peace’ and then we will sort things out. Russians kept insisting there are too many issues and sticking points. Americans also understand that Russians cannot make significant military gains in the short to medium term – no big offensive across the Dnieper. But what they have gained has been costly and they are not giving it up. Nor do Ukrainians — they have tried to convince the Americans that this is a stalemate and this is where the lines should freeze. That leaves Trump in something of a stalemate. So, his people have expressed willingness to discuss ‘everything’ in Ukraine, in bilateral and in European issues. They have proposed to sort out the bigger issues and details ‘in time.’ This has forced on Russians a decision now on whether to end the conversations or extend them.”

“What they also see is the opportunity of a lifetime to deal with a president who represents a stubborn, loyal constituency of 25% to 35%, who is not charged up racially as Russophobes, and does not harbour hatred, at least not for Russians. So, the consensus now around Putin, with no illusions about the deep state, is that this is an opportunity Putin must not let pass. A breakdown in friendly communications is not desirable.”

“They are not giving away anything but they will talk and continue talking all through [Trump’s] presidency in good faith, with respect. The conclusion is there is nothing to be gained by not talking, not much to be gained by sticking to positions which cannot be significantly expanded on the battlefield right now. Moreover, even the smallest US withdrawal of support from Kiev will give Russians an edge. This is something Trump is not going to give unless Putin comes to meet him face to face.”

Undiscussed by the Russian military bloggers who know, or by the American podcasters who pretend to know but don’t, is the battlefield problem. Without discussing operational details, several Moscow sources in a position to know say the indicators are “obvious that things are not as they should be on the front and all the way back, up and down the ranks. One is the slowness of the advance of each of army groups westward. Another is the nine months it took to reverse the surprise success of the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk. Yet another is problems of command and control up and down, and coordination sideways.”

An unusual analysis confirming what the Russian sources are saying has just been published by retired Hungarian Army major, Mark Takacs. He identifies himself as pro-Ukrainian in sympathy; his analysis does not reflect this.

Basing himself on open Ukrainian and Russian sources, as well as on Hungarian army staff studies and his own field experience, Takacs has just issued this report on months-long military operations of the Russian West army group around Kupyansk, east of Kharkov (December-April 28), and the Centre army group around Toretsk. North of Donetsk. (April). Although the outcomes of the Russian operations have been tactical success and territorial gains, Takacs identifies battlefield problems slowing down the Russian advance because of Ukrainian reinforcement of men and arms, counterattacking drone and electronic suppression operations, and inflicting serious Russian losses of men, armour and electronic (jamming) stations.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt1QtEiTi0M

“Until reliable anti-drone air defence artillery will have been developed, the classic onward penetration is impossible to achieve if the defender has adequate drone capabilities,” Takacs says. The Ukrainians have these capabilities — with US and NATO intelligence-sharing and coordination with battlefield combat command and control.

Takacs also claims the Russian battlefield operations are hampered by excessive rigidity of their command and control lines. This makes for predictability of movement, which, in his analysis, has been exploited by the reconnaissance and counterfire resources of the combined Ukrainian, US and NATO drone operations.

According to independent military and Moscow sources, Takacs’s conclusions come far closer to the battlefield situation than the retired US majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels currently publishing on podcasts and substacks. A NATO veteran comments: “Yes, it’s hard to pull off a surprise attack in the transparent battlefield situation in which the Russians are fighting. This being said, how were the Russians caught by surprise in Kursk last August, and by the Ukrainian counter-attacks around Pokrovsk which Takacs has just described?”

“We can also be forgiven for asking why Ukrainian command and control, as well as the logistics which allow the movement of mechanized Ukrainian fire-brigade units, like the 33rd Assault shown in this Takacs report, continue to have the benefit of electricity? My hunch is there’s a correlation between Russian advances on the front and electric war strikes. So the question here is why the Russian electric war campaign has been restricted or suspended, allowing the Ukrainians to deploy resources to the front, blocking the Russians, when that would be impossible if the power was out in areas of production, distribution, command and control, and assembly/support.”

The selection of the UAE as the site for the Putin-Trump summit meeting has special significance in the financial calculations of both the Russian and US sides. An investment fund source in Dubai explains: “Abu Dhabi and Dubai have positioned themselves as major crypto currency hubs while most other countries, including the US, adopted a ‘wait and see’ approach for over a decade. Trump has now done a 180-degree change in policy on crypto. According to CNBC,
‘at the Office of the United States Comptroller of the Currency, Jonathan Gould [right], has signalled support for issuing new bank charters to crypto firms. During President Joe Biden’s
presidency, that was almost unthinkable.’

“The analysts quoted by CNBC say that ‘new banks [are] getting set up that are expressly focused on crypto and stablecoins.’ This should be seen against the backdrop of overt threats from Trump to the BRICS countries, which he repeated in January, against adopting a new currency for trade and halting the trade in US dollars. While there are no real signs of progress for the BRICS currency, the Russian Central Bank has begun implementing the financial infrastructure after the Duma passed a law in July 2024 allowing Russian companies to settle their foreign trade in cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin and stablecoins. The Trump Administration does not see the use of crypto currencies by the Russians as a threat to the US dollar and takes a positive view of this development.”

“While one of the key demands of Putin’s negotiator Kirill Dmitriev has been to restore Russia in the SWIFT messaging system, the US may not be able to make it happen because the system is operated by a Belgian cooperative in which the US, European, Swiss and Chinese banks collectively take decisions and European Union has significant influence through the German, Swiss, French and London banks in the cooperative. Getting the Trump Administration to acquiesce in Russian use of cryptocurrencies will be a significant relief for the Russians. The fact that the summit will take place in Abu Dhabi will reinforce market confidence in crypto for trade payments as an alternative to SWIFT, under the protection of the UAE.”

Dubai — the Russians also understand, according to a Moscow financial source — is the hub where Dmitriev’s oligarch constituents can negotiate large money transfers to the Trump family who have set up investment funds with family members of Trump’s advisors, Steven Witkoff and Howard Lutnick, as well as with other large campaign contributors and Trump influencers.

Left, Trump negotiator Steven Witkoff’s son Zach and Eric Trump of World Liberty Financial; for more on their business, read this. “The company’s dealings have created conflicts of interest with no precedent in modern U.S. history,” reported the New York Times. “Some of the investors who bought $WLFI coins are foreign nationals who have been barred from supporting a president via campaign contributions or donations to the inaugural fund. And many of the firm’s corporate partners have clear incentives to curry favor with the federal government as they seek to expand in the American market.”
Right, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and son Brandon Lutnick of the bitcoin investment fund, Twenty One Capital Group. For the Russian oligarch shopping list, click.

Cautions the Moscow source: “Dmitriev is there to say there is a lot of money at the end of this, and maybe along the way, too, for key US industrial bigwigs and oligarchs, but there is nothing Russia will give away on its core goals in Ukraine and in European security. Platitudes aplenty, talks on money (but not yet much) — no real surrender on any of Russia’s terms. So, a decision has been made that Putin will give Trump a break, try and win him over, give him something, and try and take as much as he can in the months to follow.”

“By the way, there is near-unanimity among Russian [decision-makers] that Trump is not certain to start a military conflict with China. It will remain a trade war which will get settled this year.”