And that pivot does not serve American national interests.

By MICHAEL MCFAUL

Professor of Political Science, Director of Freeman Spogli Institute & Hoover Senior Fellow all at Stanford University. U.S. Ambassador to Russia, 2012-2014.

https://michaelmcfaul.substack.com/p/trump-is-once-again-acting-as-putins

I admit I made a mistake. I thought President Trump had finally realized that placating Vladimir Putin had not served either American national interests or his own reputation. The details of a new “peace plan” for Ukraine, endorsed by Trump and his team, confirm that I was wrong in this assessment. Trump has once again shunned the role of neutral mediator and is again taking Russia’s side. This pivot back to the old, pro-Putin Trump is bad for Ukraine, bad for Europe, and bad for the United States.

As my readers know, I have written and commented critically about President Trump’s embrace of Vladimir Putin for over a decade. During his first presidential campaign, Trump went out of his way to praise the Russian dictator. This enthusiasm for Putin continued throughout his first term, including a shocking moment at their summit in Helsinki in 2018 when Trump sided with Putin against his own intelligence community, falsely claiming there had been no Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. (Incidentally, it was in Helsinki that Trump volunteered to hand me over to Moscow for interrogation regarding crimes I allegedly committed against Russia while working at the National Security Council! Read about it here.) At the beginning of his second term, Trump continued to praise and support Putin. Most embarrassingly, the United States under Trump joined Russia, North Korea, Belarus, and a bunch of other rogue nations in voting against a UN resolution criticizing Russia for invading Ukraine. Even China abstained.

More recently, however, there were signs that Trump was beginning to understand Putin. After Trump and his aides offered Putin all sorts of concessions to end his war in Ukraine, Putin just asked for more. Trump seemed frustrated by that. In April, Trump questioned in a Truth Social post whether Putin was “tapping me along.” Putin was. Most encouragingly, in October—for the first time in 2025—the Trump administration finally implemented new sanctions on two Russian oil companies. I thought optimistically that Trump might be changing his mind about Putin.

The publication this week of a so-called new “peace plan” has undermined that optimism. Trump and his team are right back to appeasing Putin and undermining Ukrainian sovereignty. This reversal is dramatic and tragic.

Ukrainian and Western leaders had no say in the drafting of the plan, which requires extreme concessions from Kyiv and demands nothing from Moscow. It is not a “peace plan.” It is a Russian proposal for Ukrainian capitulation endorsed by the Trump administration. Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev reportedly leaked the plan to the American press to tie Trump’s hands. (I hope the president and his aides realize what a sinister move this was by Dmitriev.)

There is little new in the plan. The proposal simply repeats all of Putin’s maximalist demands from years ago. Most outrageously, this new Russian plan calls on Ukraine yet again to abandon territory still held by its soldiers in Donbas. Putin has been trying to seize this area of eastern Ukraine since 2014; it seems he has now given up on his soldiers and is just asking Trump to hand it over to him. Equally egregious are the provisions in the plan that place limits on Ukraine’s sovereignty, including caps on the size of the army and a prohibition on joining NATO. Most arrogantly, the proposal states that Ukraine will be “eligible” to join the European Union—as if Russia had any say in this matter. Trump apparently also decided unilaterally to speak on behalf of the other G-7 countries – all of which are democratic allies of the United States—when agreeing in this document to invite Russia to rejoin what would become the G-8. And, of course, in a pattern now consistent with other Trump-backed deals, the plan offers all sorts of ways for Americans to make money. One bullet point even describes how “$100 billion in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine,” with the important caveat that the US “will receive 50% of the profits”! Finally, there is nothing in this document identifying Russia as the instigator of this barbaric war.

A Trump-led pressure campaign on Zelenskyy to accept this deal—the Ukrainians reportedly have only until Thursday to say yes—will not advance American national interests. Here’s why:

First, this Russian plan rewards imperialism and acknowledges annexation. Acquiescing to such an agreement will not produce long-lasting peace but only result in a temporary pause in Putin’s aggression, much like that which followed Putin’s first attack on Ukraine in 2014. And an emboldened Putin will escalate his threats to our NATO allies in Europe. Just as appeasement in the run-up to World War II eventually resulted in large-scale war, the same tactics could produce more conflict, not less—again in Europe, and in the near future.

Second, the very publication of this “peace plan” has already exacerbated tensions with our European allies. Pursuing its implementation will do even further damage to our relations with our NATO allies.

Third, the provision in the plan that weakens Ukraine, such as a cap on the size of the Ukrainian military, is antithetical to American national interests. To deter war between Russia and NATO countries, NATO—an alliance that includes the United States, in case some in the Trump administration forgot—needs a strong Ukrainian military. Right now, even after fighting the Russian army for over three years, the Armed Forces of Ukraine remain the most effective military in Europe. NATO needs that army to stay strong to deter any future aggression from Russia. Eventually, to enhance deterrence, that army should be fully integrated into NATO. The United States benefits from a strong Ukraine, not a weak Ukraine.

Fourth, acceding to the erosion of norms regarding sovereignty sends a terrible signal to Beijing that Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party can also use force for territorial gain. Such a signal could wrongly tempt Xi into trying to seize Taiwan by force, a military action that would destroy the global economy and easily drag the United States into war with the People’s Republic of China.

Fifth, supporting this Russian proposal aligns the United States with the autocratic, imperial aggressor in this war. How does that enhance our international reputation? As I wrote about in my new book, the United States needs to be firmly on the side of the free world in the fight between autocrats and democrats unfolding over the next century. Trump’s siding with Putin blurs our commitment to freedom and undermines our once iron-clad reputation as the leader of the free world.

Finally, this Russian plan, as published, will not work. It will not end this war. Even if Zelenskyy wanted to accept it, his citizens and warriors would not. Trump, therefore, will look like a weak and failed negotiator if he tries to force Ukraine to capitulate.

The only path forward is a serious amendment to this draft document that removes the most egregious violations of Ukrainian sovereignty and calls upon Putin to make concessions, too. Most importantly, Putin cannot have a say in Ukraine’s sovereign affairs, be it the size of the army, Ukraine’s agreements on security guarantees with European and American partners, or relations with multilateral organizations such as NATO and the EU. NATO leaders did not seek Stalin’s permission when they established the alliance in 1949. And no one phoned up Khrushchev and asked for his blessing to bring part of Germany into the alliance in 1955. Asking for Moscow’s permission now—giving Putin a veto over how Ukraine conducts its own foreign policy—harkens back to earlier centuries of “spheres of influence”. We all know how poorly that system ended.

Hopefully, in the coming days, our European allies will engage with Trump and his team to propose substantive amendments to this Russian plan. After Trump’s failed summit with Putin in Alaska in August, which produced no tangible gains for American security or meaningful steps to end the war in Ukraine, the Europeans came to Washington a few days later to help get us back on course. Let’s hope they will so again in the coming days.

A strong, democratic, and independent Ukraine advances American security and values, both in Europe and around the world. A weak Ukraine subjugated to Russia undermines American security and values, both in Europe and around the world. Standing up to Putin makes the United States look strong. Appeasing Putin makes the United States look weak. It’s just that simple.

I hope Trump’s reversal to his old Putin-admiring self is just a temporary relapse. But I will not be fooled again by any changes in what Trump says, I will judge the president’s policies only by changes in his actions.

The Republicans and Democrats have almost agreed to end the Shutdown — a situation where the budget is not passed and the government is not funded. Several aspects are important here.

1. This is the longest Shutdown in US history. This indicates the growing overall crisis in the USA.
2. The Shutdown was initially beneficial to Trump — to cut those government programs previously adopted by the Democrats. And Trump provoked the Shutdown.
3. But then the Shutdown began to be very disadvantageous to Trump because it started causing many problems for ordinary people.
4. The main problem — due to lack of funding for air traffic controllers and airports, 10% of flights were canceled. But there are also dozens and even hundreds of other various minor problems.
5. The main politically public reason for the Shutdown: Trump wants to cut funding for healthcare for the poor. And the Democratic Party is sharply against it.
6. The actual main reason: at first, Trump wanted to use the Shutdown to destroy programs adopted under Biden and Obama.
7. Then the Democratic Party wanted to use the Shutdown to reduce Trump’s popularity in the November elections in various states.
8. As a result, the Democratic Party won.
9. Trump’s ratings fell. Trump risks losing the majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
10. The Democrats achieved their goal and technically made concessions. Trump realized his problems were growing and also made concessions.
11. The Shutdown will apparently end now. But the growing dysfunctionality of the US government’s work will continue.

via S. Markov

by Mark Brolin via The Telegraph

Mark Brolin is a geopolitical strategist and the author of ’Healing Broken Democracies: All You Need to Know About Populism’

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/comment/2025/10/28/putin-is-losing-the-weirdest-war-in-150-years/

The Ukraine conflict has descended into farce. But behind the fog, Russia’s desperate state is becoming ever clearer

Lord Palmerston is famously said to have joked of the 1864 Danish-German war that only three people ever understood the reason behind it: one who had died, one who went mad, and the third who had forgotten. If that conflict once felt like the apex of strategic absurdity, the Russia-Ukraine war has somehow raised the bar.

Consider the behaviour of the main parties.

First up is team Putin, which hoped to showcase strength and strategic mastery by seizing Ukraine. So how did that turn out? Well, the bubble of 19th century Kremlin yes-men turned out to know so little about the ways of the real world that Moscow’s sphere of influence has contracted across the Middle East, Central Asia and Europe, with Finland and Sweden joining Nato, and Russia drifting closer to becoming a de facto Chinese vassal state. Moscow has been losing its Western oil markets, while its supposedly mighty army has only managed to gain control of a fraction of Ukrainian territory. This has come at vast human and economic cost, with no persuasive case as to why the world’s largest country needed those extra square miles.

Then there is Ukraine and president Zelensky. There is, of course, nothing bizarre about Kyiv’s heroic fight to drive back the Russians. If only the same could be said about its efforts to keep America in the fight. Ukraine has tended to frame the case urgently: help now, or the consequences would be dire, including the threat of Moscow starting a world war. But today’s Russia is a dwarf next to the US in every respect besides the nuclear bombs that even Putin knows he cannot use. Exaggerating Russia’s strength has not helped Ukraine in the court of American opinion.

Next comes Europe. For years, many European countries disarmed while deepening energy dependence on one of their main adversaries, while ignoring explicit warnings from countries like Poland and Ukraine. They lectured about principles while buying Russian oil, thereby funding the very war machine they condemned. Despite the war in Europe and their own sclerotic economies, European leaders continue to moralise as if they are somehow sitting on top of the best recipe for peace and prosperity on the planet.

Finally, there’s the US and its president. Donald Trump’s opening gambit in his attempt to achieve peace in Ukraine was to push for Moscow’s desired end-state (telling Ukraine to cede stolen ground and ditch its hopes of joining Nato even before sitting down at the negotiating table). Then came the Tomahawk episode: for a few days, Trump brandished the threat of giving Ukraine these long-range missiles. Just as the threat seemed to work – when the Kremlin reached for the phone – it was oddly withdrawn. So leverage was first applied and then removed in a heartbeat.

All of this makes this conflict feel so odd that it can drive anyone who prizes logic and consistency a little mad.

Yet despite all the frustrating backsliding, the forces of reason might just be winning out. Inch by inch, Europe and the United States are, for the first time, pushing back in concert in a significant way. Europe is rearming; its energy dependence on Russia is falling; frozen Russian reserves are being explored as a way of funding for Ukraine; and recent US policy moves have tightened the oil squeeze. Chinese and Indian energy firms appear to be acting more cautiously than before while, seemingly not without reason, afraid of second tier sanctions. The West continues to supply Ukraine with crucial technological, logistical and intelligence support.

Perhaps most significantly, the myth of “Great Power” Russia may at least be about to be punctured. This myth let the Kremlin swagger, and encouraged Europe to act like cowards. It allowed appeasers and Russian apologists to demand that Ukraine “adapt to the facts” – conveniently ignoring the equally important facts about Russia. Here are a few:

Russia’s war-economy is overheating

Year-on-year inflation ran about 8pc in September (Russian source), with prices re-accelerating into the autumn. This is a classic symptom of a state-directed wartime splurge, not durable strength. The Russian central bank has set interest rates at almost 17pc – a banana-republic number.

Guns are crowding out butter

Moscow’s 2025 plan lifted defence to roughly a third of total spending and around 6pc of GDP – levels that squeeze everything else and lock in future austerity.

Moscow is bleeding manpower

Estimates vary, but some credible sources put Russian deaths at more than 200,000 (Feb 2022 – Aug 2025), while total casualties (deaths and wounded) are thought to have exceeded 1.1 million by October 2025; Nato has estimated that around 100,000 Russians have died in 2025 alone. However you slice it, losses are highly likely to be dwarfing sustainable replacement.

Economic growth is an illusion built on war outlays

Russia has been posting positive GDP figures, but these have been driven by state orders and price spikes, fuel for today’s inflation and tomorrow’s hangover. Even senior Russian bankers are now warning about the economic situation, as softer oil assumptions and Ukrainian refinery strikes erode profits from Russia’s core asset.

The labour supply is being squeezed

Unemployment sits at historic lows because workers are scarce; almost a million Russians are thought to have left after 2022, deepening shortages.

This has exacerbated the brain drain

The Russian people are among Europe’s poorest and unhealthiest (the average life span for males is around ten years lower than within EU countries). Freedom of expression? A joke that is not only a human but also an economic tragedy. Understandably many of the brightest and richest have left the country for greener pastures – taking both their brains and capital with them.

Russia’s dependence on China is deepening

Around 35-40pc of Russia’s trade now runs through China; Beijing is by far the top buyer of Russian energy, but trade growth has been hampered by Chinese payment hurdles, underscoring Moscow’s weaker hand. The fact that Russian business has no straightforward access to any competitive market economy is another hardly envious position. This is starting to hit home in all sorts of respects. For example, aviation safety has deteriorated as carriers “cannibalise” grounded planes for parts; more than half of Western-built aircraft could be parked by 2026 without spares. That is what high-tech isolation looks like.

Return fire is now hitting deep inside Russia

Even without Tomahawks, Ukraine’s deep-strike capabilities – long-range drones, Storm Shadow/SCALP, Atacms – are now regularly hitting air bases, refineries, logistics hubs and the Black Sea coastline. The Russian Black Sea Fleet has been degraded, dispersed, and pushed east; Crimea, once a sanctuary, is a firing range. The war has been brought to the Russians.

None of this argues for rewarding aggression with land – or for the idea that Russia can “comfortably fight for years”. It argues for tightening the screws that actually matter: enforcing the oil price cap and hitting shippers/insurers, choking off machine-tool and dual-use inputs, and allowing even deeper Ukrainian strikes on Russia’s logistics aorta. Thankfully, all this is finally happening.

The real danger for Ukraine is that the Russian situation is so dire that Putin might personally want to prolong the war, regardless of the cost. When focus returns to the domestic situation, the spotlight will swing to a mess of his own making: inflation, shortages, a shrinking workforce, and a kleptocracy that cannot modernise. If he keeps fighting, the bill might grow, the body count might climb and the backlash might be even greater once the guns stop firing, but he can at least postpone the problem for another day.

In short, Putin may no longer be living in reality, but in a bizarre version curated by the yes-men around him. That is why pressure must be kept up: to make the reality of his situation impossible to ignore.

via MoonofAlabama

Back in 2012 U.S. foreign policy analysts were concerned about a possible nuclear alliance between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Scholars from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and the Stimson Center wrote an essay about it:

The Pak-Saudi Nuke, and How to Stop It – The American Interest, March 2012

The opening paragraph:

One morning, perhaps in the not too distant future, the President of the United States may wake up to an announcement that, given new dangers in the Middle East, the Saudi government has requested the stationing of Pakistani troops on Saudi soil. The announcement might go on to explain that these troops will also bring with them the full complement of conventional and strategic weapons necessary to ensure their security and that of Saudi Arabia. Word would quickly follow from Islamabad that Pakistan has accepted a generous aid package and low-priced oil from Saudi Arabia. Both parties would stress that the agreement simply reaffirms their decades-long special relationship.

As Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state one had to assume that any such a pact would supply Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons. It was something that the U.S. and its sidekick Israel were very concerned about.

It was assumed at that time that the reason for such a move by Saudi Arabia would be its concern over Iran and its nuclear program:

Over the past decade, Saudi Arabia’s threat perception has sharpened as the dangers from Iran have grown along with doubts about the reliability of U.S. protection.

The time to wake up to a new Saudi-Pakistani alliance has finally come today:

Saudi Arabia signs ‘strategic mutual defence’ pact with Pakistan (archived) – Financial Times

But the strategic circumstance under which the alliance happens are very different from those that had been envisioned in 2012 essay:

Saudi Arabia has signed a “strategic mutual defence” pact with Pakistan, signalling to the US and Israel that the kingdom is willing to diversify its security alliances as it looks to bolster its deterrence.

The agreement with the nuclear-armed south Asian state comes a week after Gulf states — traditionally reliant on the US as their security guarantor — were deeply rattled by Israel’s missile strikes targeting Hamas’s political leaders in Qatar.

“We hope it will reinforce our deterrence — aggression against one is aggression against the other,” a senior Saudi official told the Financial Times. “This is a comprehensive defence agreement that will utilise all defensive and military means deemed necessary depending on the specific threat.”

This is a NATO Article 5 like pact. ‘All means deemed necessary’, as empathized, undoubtedly includes Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

The U.S. was, the FT say, not at all involved in it:

Riyadh is believed to have informed Washington about the Pakistan defence agreement after it was signed.

Saudi Arabia already has a strategic missile force which is armed with Chinese DF-21 missiles which have a range of up to 1,700 kilometer. They can hit Tehran, but also Tel Aviv. The missiles are conventionally armed but can be fitted with nuclear warheads.

Pakistan’s development of nuclear weapons had largely be financed by Saudi Arabia. The two countries have a long history of military cooperation:

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have a defense relationship stretching back decades, in part due to Islamabad’s willingness to defend the Islamic holy sites of Mecca and Medina in the kingdom. Pakistani troops first traveled to Saudi Arabia in the late 1960s over concerns about Egypt’s war in Yemen at the time. Those ties increased after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution and the kingdom’s fears of a confrontation with Tehran.

Pakistan developed its nuclear weapons program to counter India’s atomic bombs. However, there long have been signals of the kingdom’s interest in the program. Retired Pakistani Brig. Gen. Feroz Hassan Khan, in his book on his country’s nuclear weapons program called “Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb,” said Saudi Arabia provided “generous financial support” for its effort.

Today Saudi Arabia no longer fears a confrontation with Iran. In 2023, with the help of Chinese mediation, the two countries did bury their hatchets. The move was an early sign that the U.S. was losing ground in the Middle East.

The reasons why the is being closed these days is obvious:

The agreement was signed by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in Riyadh. Sharif’s office’s reiterated that the agreement “states that any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both”.

The Israeli attack on Doha, one of the US’s major non-Nato allies, exacerbated Gulf leaders’ long-running concerns about Washington’s unpredictability and its commitment to their defence, as well as fears about Israel acting unrestrainedly with its military across the region.

The Saudis had worked on, and hoped for, a deeper alliance with the U.S. But the genocide in Gaza, and the unlimited U.S. support for it, have made such an alliance impossible:

Riyadh had been hoping to seal a defence pact with the US, as well as co-operation with Washington’s nuclear plans, as part of a grand deal that would have led to it normalising diplomatic relations with Israel.

However, those plans were upended after Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, triggering the war in Gaza and conflict across the region.

Riyadh has become increasingly outraged by Israel’s 23-month war in Gaza and the conduct of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right government.

Prince Mohammed accuses Israel of committing genocide, and has made it clear that normalisation is off the table unless Netanyahu ends the conflict and moves to establish a Palestinian state.

China, which is allied with Pakistan, will be happy about the deal. So will be Iran. It was likely already informed about it:

Before the defense pact was signed, Iran dispatched Ali Larijani, a senior political figure who now serves as the secretary of the country’s Supreme National Security Council, to visit Saudi Arabia. That may have seen the kingdom acknowledge the pact to Tehran, with which it has had a Chinese-mediated détente with Iran since 2023.

India will be concerned about the deal. A lot of the oil it purchases is coming from Saudi Arabia. With a Saudi-Pakistani alliance in place any conflict with Pakistan will likely cause it additional difficulties with the purchase of energy.

The U.S., and Donald Trump, are the big losers in this. The unrestricted support for Israel is coming at an ever increasing price. The Gulf countries are – slowly, slowly – moving away from it.

via Zero hedge

At least three people were killed and two others injured overnight in western Russia due to Ukrainian drone strikes, according to regional governors, with one signifcant attack sparking a fire at an oil refinery in central Russia after it was hit.

Ukraine’s military confirmed it Russia’s Ryazan and Novokuibyshevsk oil refineries, triggering large fires. It also said it struck the Annanefteprodukt oil storage site in the Voronezh region, which was likely a long-range drone attack, but few details were disclosed.

Moscow Times: Screengrab of the Novokuibyshevsk refinery, operated by the state-owned oil giant Rostneft, in Russia’s Samara region.
In the Penza region, Governor Oleg Melnichenko reported that a woman was killed and two others injured following a drone strike, and in the Samara region, Governor Vyacheslav Fedorishchev said an elderly man died after drone debris ignited a fire in a residential building.

In Rostov, a security guard at an industrial site was killed when a drone attack caused a fire in one of the buildings, per regional authorites. This was amid Russian trying to intercept the large-scale drone assault which went on for many hours into the morning, downing drones across seven districts.

Additionally, Ukraine’s SBU intelligence agency said its drones hit the Primorsko-Akhtarsk military airfield, known as a launch site for Russian drone attacks on Ukraine. The SBU also claimed responsibility for striking a Penza factory involved in supplying electronics to Russia’s military-industrial sector.

In total, Russia’s milmitary said it shot down 112 Ukrainian drones over Russian territory, including 34 over the Rostov region. In all, the attack reportedly lasted at least nine hours.

“Last night, SBU drones continued targeting Russian military infrastructure deep in enemy territory. The first target of our long-range UAVs was the military airfield in Primorsko-Akhtarsk (Krasnodar Krai), which stores and launches Shahed drones used to attack Ukraine. A fire broke out in the area following the SBU drone strikes,” the SBU said.

“This facility manufactures equipment for digital networks in military command systems, devices for aviation, armored vehicles, naval vessels, and space systems. SBU drones successfully struck the site, and smoke was observed following the explosions,” the agency said.

Ukraine’s military said these stepped-up attacks are in response to the heightened deadly Russian attacks on Ukrianian cities, including one this week on Kiev which killed at least 31 people after nine-story apartment building was directly struck.

Via EUOobserver

On 28 September, parliamentary elections will be held in Moldova.

While this may seem like a minor event on the EU’s periphery, its implications for Europe’s security and political cohesion are far-reaching.

Moldova, sandwiched between Romania and Ukraine, signed an association agreement with the EU in 2014, symbolising a commitment to reform and integration and the ruling Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) has vigorously pursued European integration since it came to office in 2021.

However, the PAS government led by president Maia Sandu is projected to lose significant ground in the upcoming parliamentary elections. This decline stems from domestic dissatisfaction with the party’s attitude and policies as well as ongoing interference by Russia.

This interference aims to undermine trust in Moldova’s institutions through corruption narratives and hybrid threats and increase electoral support for pro-Russian political parties.

The likely outcome is that PAS will be forced into a coalition with one of the pro-Russian opposition parties, groups that advocate distancing Moldova from Europe and often exhibit autocratic tendencies.

Such a coalition would almost certainly shift Moldova’s trajectory away from European alignment. This potential shift threatens the European Union’s interests on three key fronts: digital security, regional stability, and political cohesion.

1. Testing ground for hybrid warfare

Moldova has become a laboratory for Russian hybrid warfare tactics, including cyberattacks and large-scale disinformation campaigns.

This was evident in previous election cycles, where attempts at manipulation and foreign influence were widely documented.

We can expect similar, if not more, interference in the upcoming elections.

Should a pro-Russian party gain power, efforts to counter such threats are likely to weaken, or worse, be co-opted. A government with little incentive for transparency will likely tolerate or may even facilitate Russian influence operations.

As a result the focus of these destabilising tactics are likely to migrate westward, EU member states will increasingly become the target and we will see a rise in cyber intrusions, disinformation targeting democratic institutions, and interference in national elections.

2. Strategic buffering and support for Ukraine

Moldova plays a vital role in supporting Ukraine, both morally and practically, serving as a critical humanitarian and logistical corridor.

Even though it is Europe’s poorest country, it has hosted over 1.5 million refugees and absorbed over 100,000 for long-term stays. It also helped reroute grain shipments through its Danube ports, alleviating pressure on Ukraine’s blocked Black Sea routes.

Should Moldova pivot toward Moscow, Ukraine’s support structure will be weakened, undermining the EU’s eastern resilience.

More importantly, an ambivalent Moldova will erode the eastern buffer between the EU and hostile actors, increasing the risk of military provocations near EU borders.

This not only raises the stakes for Nato but also increases the likelihood that EU member states, especially those with Nato commitments, will be drawn into more direct responses.

3. Erosion of democratic norms and EU cohesion

Moldova’s democratic trajectory is also a symbolic battleground for the values underpinning the European project: democratic governance, rule of law, and respect for human rights.

A shift toward autocratic governance in Moldova would contribute to the broader erosion of these values in the EU’s neighbourhood.

This will further weaken the EU’s credibility as a global advocate for democracy and human rights and will complicate enlargement policy.

The EU’s failure to prevent democratic erosion in candidate countries like Georgia and Serbia has already dampened public enthusiasm for enlargement.

A similar trajectory in Moldova would not only complicate accession talks but could also bolster eurosceptic narratives in western Europe, where support for further expansion is increasingly fragile.

Moreover, such a shift will send a damaging message that democratic principles are negotiable, even in states that aspire to EU membership.

This narrative emboldens not only autocratic regimes abroad but also anti-democratic actors within EU borders. This will increasingly threaten internal cohesion.

Despite its internal challenges, the Moldovan population remains broadly supportive of European integration.

The upcoming elections are a decisive moment, not only for Moldova’s future but for the EU’s ability to safeguard its values and interests at a time of global democratic backsliding.

The EU must therefore continue to provide as much political and financial support as it can to fight Russian interference and ensure free and fair elections in Moldova.

Not just through election-monitoring and support for civil society watchdogs but also through its fights against disinformation and cybersecurity support.

A democratic, European-oriented Moldova is a stabilizing force on the Union’s eastern flank that helps safeguard our digital space, supports our geopolitical resilience, and defends the normative foundations of the European project.

The rise in insolvencies is attributed to high borrowing costs and shrinking demand

via RT

The Russian infrastructure construction sector is expected to see a wave of bankruptcies this year, according to CEO of National Projectstroy, one of Russia’s largest construction firms.

Aleksey Krapivin, whose firm oversaw the construction of the Crimean Bridge as well as key motorway projects, pointed to high interest rates and a drop in orders as key drivers of the oncoming challenges.

Three years ago the Bank of Russia raised its key rate from 9.5% to a high of 21% to stabilize the ruble and contain inflation in response to Western sanctions.

Last month, the regulator cut its key interest rate by 100 basis points to 20%, citing a slowdown in inflation, the first rate reduction since 2022.

About half of the companies in Russia’s civil construction sector are nearing insolvency, Krapivin told RBK in an interview published on Monday. National Projectstroy, he said, is already under pressure from borrowing costs and had tightened financial discipline and delayed investment plans.

Infrastructure projects are particularly exposed due to their high capital intensity and long execution timelines, Krapivin claimed, adding that new developments are not viable. “Building today is always cheaper than building tomorrow,” he said.

Smaller firms in the sector are especially vulnerable due to risky investments in non-core activities or allocating profits from future projects in advance while virtually all construction companies are feeling the burden of “expensive money.”

Krapivin acknowledged that the government and private sector are exploring ways to mitigate the impact of high rates, including expanded use of public-private partnerships, and expressed confidence that the situation would gradually improve.

Bank of Russia Deputy Governor Aleksey Zabotkin has also claimed that key rates could be cut by over 100 basis points at the bank’s upcoming July 25 meeting, adding the move depends on inflation trending toward the 4% target by 2026.

by Evi Kiorri , via EUObserver https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar56575dcd

On 25 December last year, Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 took off from Baku, headed for Grozny in Russia but it never made it. The plane crashed near Aktau, in Kazakhstan, killing 38 of the 67 people on board.

Seven months later, Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev has gone public with an accusation: that the plane was shot down by Russian air defences, specifically, a Pantsir-S missile system. But why is this crisis between the two countries escalating just now?

On December 25th last year, Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 took off from Baku, headed for Grozny in Russia but it never made it. The plane crashed near Aktau, in Kazakhstan, killing 38 of the 67 people on board. Seven months later, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has gone public with an accusation: that the plane was shot down by Russian air defences, specifically, a Pantsir-S missile system. But why is this crisis between the two countries escalating just now?

So, according to Aliyev, this allegation isn’t a suspicion. It’s a fact. “We know what happened, and we can prove it, we know that Russian officials know what happened,” he said.

So far, Moscow’s line is that the incident was a “tragedy” – yes. But their investigation is still ongoing and crucially, no one in Russia has accepted responsibility.

Aliyev isn’t waiting around. He’s preparing lawsuits in international courts, demanding compensation, prosecution of those involved, and a formal acknowledgment from the Kremlin.

But the real story is: why now? Why is this crash, tragic as it is, triggering such open hostility between Baku and Moscow?

Well, because this is about a changing regional order. And it’s about two strongmen who no longer need, or trust, each other.

But, let’s rewind.

For decades, Russia and Azerbaijan maintained warm, even strategic ties. Trade, energy, diaspora links, Moscow was a key partner. But since Russia invaded Ukraine, things have shifted.

Russia has become overstretched, distracted. Azerbaijan saw the opportunity and took it. So, with backing from Turkey, it won back control of Nagorno-Karabakh, ending decades of conflict with Armenia. Russia, officially the peacekeeper in the region, barely lifted a finger. which left both Armenia and Azerbaijan questioning Moscow’s reliability.

Now, Baku is growing bolder. It’s drawing closer to Kyiv. It’s arresting Russian nationals, it’s raiding Kremlin-backed media outlets, and is openly challenging Moscow’s version of events.

Meanwhile, Russia has responded with police raids on ethnic Azerbaijanis, detentions, and what Azerbaijan calls extrajudicial violence. The crash of Flight 8243 didn’t cause this crisis, it just exposed it.

And let’s not forget the politics behind the scenes: a transit corridor through Armenia that Azerbaijan desperately wants, growing Turkish influence in the region, and the Kremlin’s increasing paranoia about losing control in its post-Soviet backyard.

So, what we’re seeing is the public unraveling of a geopolitical relationship and it’s getting messy.

But, what can we expect now?

Aliyev says Azerbaijan is prepared to take its case to international courts. And he’s also made it clear that this is now a matter of national dignity. As I mentioned, Baku is demanding compensation, prosecutions, and a public admission of guilt from Russia, something the Kremlin is rarely in the habit of doing.

Whether this escalates further remains to be seen. But relations are at their lowest point in decades with open diplomatic snubs, tit-for-tat arrests, and accusations of state-sponsored violence.

And while Russia may be used to operating from a position of strength, in the South Caucasus, that dominance is crumbling.

Comments from the internet:

Contained within the Epstein court filings is a land mine… linking Epstein and JPMorgan to the GFC.
At Bear Sterns Epstein “Pioneered” CDOs…
And, while the bailout was being handed out in 2008, Epstein was texting and emaling the CEOs of JP Morgan and the largest financial institutions on the planet. At one point he brags about pulling in over 44 BILLION in tax payer bailout cash in just two weeks.

… CEO of JP Morgan also brags about the 44 billion dollars in bailout cash, while WAMU goes under, and they buy it up for pennies on the dollar.

At Bear Sterns, Epstein was the president of Liquid Funding Ltd between 2000 and 2007. The company was an early pioneer of CDOs

https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/82004676

From at least 2000 to 2007, Epstein chaired a company registered in Bermuda called Liquid Funding Ltd. This entity was partially owned by the investment bank Bear Stearns, where Epstein had worked, according to the report.
The bank’s collapse would help set in motion the 2008 financial crisis.

Epstein’s offshore company was loaded up with some of the financial products — like mortgage-backed securities and collateralized loan obligations — that would become synonymous with the financial excesses leading to the financial crisis.
According to the Miami Herald and McClatchy, Liquid Funding had commercial mortgages and investment-grade residential mortgages bundled into complex securities.
“The three main credit rating agencies — Standard & Poor’s, Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Investors Service — all helped Bear Stearns create the securities in a way that would allow the creative product to get a gold-plated AAA rating,” the Miami Herald and McClatchy reported.

Epstein was the president of the company Liquid Funding Ltd. between 2000 and 2007.[64][65] The company was an early pioneer in expanding the kind of debt that could be accepted on repurchase, or the repo market, which involves a lender giving money to a borrower in

Liquid Funding Ltd., which was initially 40 percent owned by the Wall Street investment bank Bear Stearns.”

by Dmitry Trenin:
In the West’s eyes, Russia must be destroyed. That leaves us no choice.

Dmitry Trenin is a research professor at the Higher School of Economics and a lead research fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He is also a member of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).

RIAC

Many now speak of humanity’s drift towards World War III, imagining events similar to those of the 20th century. But war evolves. It will not begin with a June 1941 Barbarossa-style invasion or a Cuban Missile Crisis-style nuclear standoff. In fact, the new world war is already underway – it’s just that not everyone has recognized it yet.

For Russia, the pre-war period ended in 2014. For China, it was 2017. For Iran, 2023. Since then, war – in its modern, diffuse form – has intensified. This is not a new Cold War. Since 2022, the West’s campaign against Russia has grown more decisive. The risk of direct nuclear confrontation with NATO over the Ukraine conflict is rising. Donald Trump’s return to the White House created a temporary window in which such a clash could be avoided, but by mid-2025, hawks in the US and Western Europe had pushed us dangerously close again.

This war involves the world’s leading powers: the United States and its allies on one side, China and Russia on the other. It is global, not because of its scale, but because of the stakes: the future balance of power. The West sees the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia as existential threats. Its counteroffensive, economic and ideological, is meant to put a halt to that shift.

It is a war of survival for the West, not just geopolitically but ideologically. Western globalism – whether economic, political, or cultural – cannot tolerate alternative civilizational models. Post-national elites in the US and Western Europe are committed to preserving their dominance. A diversity of worldviews, civilizational autonomy, and national sovereignty are seen not as options, but as threats.

This explains the severity of the West’s response. When Joe Biden told Brazil’s President Lula that he wanted to “destroy” Russia, he revealed the truth behind euphemisms like “strategic defeat.” Western-backed Israel has shown how total this doctrine is – first in Gaza, then Lebanon, and finally Iran. In early June, a similar strategy was used in attacks on Russian airfields. Reports suggest US and British involvement in both cases. To Western planners, Russia, Iran, China and North Korea are part of a single axis. That belief shapes military planning.

Read more Dmitry Trenin: Why the next world order will be armed with nukes
Compromise is no longer part of the game. What we’re seeing are not temporary crises but rolling conflicts. Eastern Europe and the Middle East are the two current flashpoints. A third has long been identified: East Asia, particularly Taiwan. Russia is directly engaged in Ukraine, holds stakes in the Middle East, and may become involved in the Pacific.

The war is no longer about occupation, but destabilization. The new strategy focuses on sowing internal disorder: economic sabotage, social unrest, and psychological attrition. The West’s plan for Russia is not defeat on the battlefield, but gradual internal collapse.

Its tactics are all-encompassing. Drone strikes target infrastructure and nuclear facilities. Political assassinations are no longer off-limits. Journalists, negotiators, scientists, and even their families are being hunted. Residential neighborhoods, schools, and hospitals are not collateral damage – they are targets. This is total war.

This is underpinned by dehumanization. Russians are portrayed not just as enemies but as subhuman. Western societies are manipulated to accept this. Information control, censorship, and historical revisionism are used to justify the war. Those who question the dominant narrative are labelled traitors.

Meanwhile, the West exploits the more open systems of its adversaries. After refusing to interfere in foreign politics for decades, Russia now finds itself on the defensive. But those days must end. As our enemies coordinate their attacks, we must disrupt their unity. The European Union is not a monolith. Hungary, Slovakia, and much of southern Europe are not eager for escalation. These internal fractures must be widened.

Western strength lies in unity among its elites and their ideological control over their populations. But this unity is not invulnerable. The Trump administration presents tactical opportunities. His return has already reduced US involvement in Ukraine. Yet Trumpism should not be romanticized. The American elite remains largely hostile to Russia. There will be no new détente.

Read more Fyodor Lukyanov: The West mocked BRICS for years but now it’s paying attention
The war in Ukraine is becoming a war between Western Europe and Russia. British and French missiles already strike Russian targets. NATO intelligence is embedded in Ukrainian operations. EU countries are training Ukrainian forces and planning attacks together. Ukraine is just a tool. Brussels is preparing for a wider war.

What we must ask is: Is Western Europe preparing to defend or attack? Many of its leaders have lost their strategic judgment. But the hostility is real. The goal is no longer containment, but to “solve the Russian question” once and for all. Any illusion that business as usual will return must be discarded.

We are in for a long war. It will not end like in 1945, nor settle into Cold War coexistence. The decades ahead will be turbulent. Russia must fight for its rightful place in a new world order.

So, what must we do?

First of all, we must strengthen our home front. We need mobilization, but not the rigid models of the Soviet past. We need smart, adaptive mobilization across all sectors – economic, technological, and demographic. Russia’s political leadership is a strategic asset. It must remain steady and visionary.

We must promote internal unity, social justice, and patriotism. Every citizen must feel the stakes. We must align our fiscal, industrial, and technological policy with the realities of a long-term war. Fertility policy and migration control must reverse our demographic decline.

Secondly, we must consolidate our external alliances. Belarus is a strong ally in the west. North Korea has shown reliability in the east. But we lack a similar partner in the south. This gap must be addressed.

Read more Dmitry Trenin: The West’s war on Russia will go beyond Ukraine
The Israel-Iran war offers important lessons. Our adversaries coordinate tightly. We must do the same. Not by copying NATO, but by forging our own model of strategic cooperation.

We should also pursue tactical engagement with the Trump administration. If it allows us to weaken the US war effort in Europe, we should exploit it. But we must not confuse tactics with strategy. American foreign policy remains fundamentally adversarial.

Fellow European powers like Britain, France, and Germany must be made to understand they are vulnerable. Their capitals are not immune. The same message should reach Finland, Poland, and the Baltics. Provocations must be met swiftly and decisively.

If escalation is inevitable, we must consider pre-emptive action – firstly with conventional arms. And if necessary, we must be ready to use ‘special means’, including nuclear weapons, with full awareness of the consequences. Deterrence must be both passive and active.

Our mistake in Ukraine was waiting too long. Delay created the illusion of weakness. That must not be repeated. Victory means breaking the enemy’s plans, not occupying territory.

Finally, we must penetrate the West’s information shield. The battlefield now includes narratives, alliances, and public opinion. Russia must once again learn to engage in others’ domestic politics, not as an aggressor, but as a defender of truth.

The time for illusions is over. We are in a world war. The only path forward is through bold, strategic action.

This article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.