First of all, thank you for your detailed and well-researched work.
I am very concerned that this summit, scheduled for August 15, is acting as a smokescreen.
Either for Trump, at best, to try to sell the Kellogg Plan and its unconditional ceasefire in another way, or to lull Russia into submission, while NATO expansion and threats persist, as you demonstrate here.
Precisely, this summit, which is provoking a lot of confused chatter, is creating a fog of war, distracting from the war preparations you describe.
At the same time, the EU does not understand that the US is playing against Russia, admittedly by also trampling on the EU.
But most importantly, NATO continues to seriously advance its pawns in Transcaucasia and threatens to expand further (Armenia is engaged in a process of disappearance that will conclude its genocide begun in the 20th century), in the Baltic Sea, not to mention Kaliningrad.
While Ukraine continues to receive weapons and money, even though J.D. Vance declares that the US is tired and will no longer pay for this war. Not to mention intelligence and Wiesbaden, still orchestrating the conflict.
I am really wondering if Romania will bet her very existence on a US/NATO victory in Ukraine. In less than a century this would be the second time if they send an army into Ukraine. In 1945 they backstabbed their allies (Germany and Hungary), joined the Red Army and avoided an occupation by Stalin. If they miss again, Russia will be likely less forgiving. There are a few nations around Romania who are just drooling over this possible outcome.
“I am really wondering if Romania will bet her very existence on a US/NATO victory in Ukraine.”
By denying Russia a full victory in Ukraine, NATO has already achieved a major aim—given that the Ukraine is integral to Russian civilization, both culturally and territorially. Russia *should* have been able to take all of left-bank Ukraine by now (even though it never aimed to do so), not to mention the five regions it claims. Yet Ukraine has largely eviscerated Russian armor and mobility since 2022, so ongoing Russian advances are quite meager to date. NATO’s audacity shows that Russia is not even close to achieving its goals.
Also, the Russian DIB is a lot more vulnerable than the AMC assumes. Per Kellogg, Russia is now offering Ukraine Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts’, owing to the threat of U.S. secondary sanctions, in return for Crimea. (Russia is also willing to accept a LoC freeze and some territorial exchanges in the east.) Trump, unlike his predecessors, is more willing to impose meaningful costs on the Russian economy, and given Russian losses, Putin is once again showing signs of weakness; Russian finance is still very much linked to the USD.
So, yes, NATO can and is going to act with impunity in Moldova. It already has.
Russia can take the left bank of the Dnieper any time it wants. That is not a question that anyone asks, even in NATO.
The reason Russia doesn't simply rush forward with overwhelming force is that it bypasses it's number one goal in the operation - the demilitarization of Ukraine. Simply taking the territory doesn't do that. Russia is systematically destroying Ukraine's ability to fight again for a very long time.
And when they are done with that, they will take the territory they determine. I would expect that to be the East and South and leave the West of Ukraine, which is full of Russian hating NAZIs, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians. The areas Russia will take are largely Russian anyways.
NATO/EU will want to continue the fight they started. They have wrecked Ukraine. They will wreck Moldova, then Romania and probably Armenia and Azerbaijan when it is all said and done. Those countries will all cease to exist on the map. The NATO/EU will walk away, broke, cold and entering their newest self inflicted dark age. IMHO
“Russia is systematically destroying Ukraine's ability to fight again for a very long time.“
So far Russia does not seem to have crippled Ukrainian infrastructure, electricity, or manpower. If Russia were winning, Ukraine and its handlers would not be continuing to fight. One of Russia’s aims was to deter NATO from direct involvement (of course, NATO has been secretly at work for years in Ukraine). If anything, NATO is now more inclined to intervene than before; even the Trump ‘Détente’ is over.
“NATO/EU will want to continue the fight they started.”
...which means that Russia has not deprived them of the means to do so.
Russia has destroyed Ukraine's manpower. They have destroyed much of Ukraine's, and NATO equipment, which cannot be easily replaced in any near time frame, if at all. And at the price the West uses for it's weapons, the entirely of NATO and the EU will go even broker trying to replace it.
Russia hasn't destroyed Ukraine's infrastructure because it doesn't want to create a humanitarian crisis. Russia has been perfectly capable of destroying all the bridges over the Dnieper, all the electric power, almost everything, but they haven't.
NATO always planned to intervene. They are intervening. And in the near future they will use Moldova as the excuse when they do there, what they did in Ukraine - end neutrality, use Moldova to attack Transnistria and the ethnic Russians there.
This thing is far from over, but when it does finally end, Russia will have been the victor because they hold all the logistical and manpower cards.
“Russia has destroyed Ukraine's manpower. They have destroyed much of Ukraine's, and NATO equipment, which cannot be easily replaced in any near time frame, if at all.”
Then why are Ukraine and NATO refusing to accept Russia’s terms? Moreover, if NATO, as planned, is about to intervene, then how is it able to do so if its defence-industrial base, including stockpiles, is no longer up to the task? Surely NATO cannot use imaginary weapons to attack...
“Russia hasn't destroyed Ukraine's infrastructure because it doesn't want to create a humanitarian crisis. Russia has been perfectly capable of destroying all the bridges over the Dnieper, all the electric power, almost everything, but they haven't.”
This is precisely the ‘strategy’ that has given NATO and Co. hope. (Even Russian officials have acknowledged that their ‘humanitarian’ approach has led to higher losses on their side.) This has allowed Ukraine to maintain sizeable numbers of troops and heavy infrastructure east of the river for years.
People call Putin’s approach ‘Christian’. I call it a militarily and morally unsound strategy that, when applied by Western armies in the Third World, lead to defeat. One should give military commanders the means and leeway to prevail, rather than impose suicidal political considerations (‘terms of engagement’).
Ukraine and NATO are refusing because they want and need a big war with Russia. Do you really think that overthrowing Ukraine's govt in 2014, arming Ukraine to the teeth and creating the 2nd largest army in Europe (behind Russia) was for fun and games and "protection"?
It was about provoking Russia until they cannot sit by and allow it to happen any longer. The people running the EU and NATO hate the West (and Russia too since they are a Christian country). They will start the war to destroy everything and try to usher in their Communist Utopia.
“Not yet, but the Ukraine forces and society are showing signs, a will to depart from the war effort.”
I don’t think this is going to happen. It is also beside the point.
A country at war should never depend on the other side’s morale. Besides, most Ukrainians in the western two-thirds of the country have continued to loyally support the war-effort. Many of them are involved in vital industries and services, so at this point they are arguably legitimate targets, too. After all, German and Japanese civilians who worked in critical sectors were hit by the Allies during World War II. (I am speaking of the Russian point of view.)
Furthermore, after a decade of war, neither side wants to give up leverage for uncertain benefits. Both sides are fighting for survival at this stage; both, justly, are entitled to compensation. Russia needs to disarm and neutralize Ukraine; Ukraine needs to rebuild its economy and receive its own form of security. Peacekeepers, if any, must not be tied to either side, but current U.S. plans more or less sanction NATO troops, with Russia’s de facto acquiescence.
Any ‘solution’ right now will be very difficult to implement.
You should see the polls on supporting the war effort in Ukraine. It's sunk to lows that mean capitulation, if they are allowed to do so.
But the West will certainly fight to the last Ukrainian. Ukraine will drop the age of conscription to wipe out another generation of young people for no good reason other than NATO and the EU want to try to break up Russia and partition it.
Romania only turned around after the collapse of the Moldovia front on Aug 23, 1944. Which was kind of late in the game - Finland went out of the war in Aug 1944 too. Unlike Finland, Romania ended up being occupied by Stalin though.
Taking into account that Finns (and Swedes) retained diplomatic relations with the USA, there may have been a gentlemen's agreement between Mannerheim and FDR on how far Finns may go. Nevertheless, Finns went far beyond the old border. Since Estonian and Karelian ar Finnish-aligned languages, they could have justified taking the whole Karelia and Estonia. Only, they didn't attempt to take Murmansk, Arkhangelsk or Leningrad.
Diplomatic correspondence from the time confirms this. The U.S. extended credit, arms, and humanitarian aid to Finland during the Winter War (1939–40)—something Finland expressly thanked it for during BARBAROSSA. The U.S. also promised to recognize Finland’s pre-1940 boundaries, at the risk of upsetting the Soviets, so long as Finland held back on claiming Soviet territory (in Karelia and eastern Lapland) Hitler had allotted it in return for Finnish aid. I think the Allies were looking ahead to a post-Stalin USSR.
(FDR is often accused of selling out Eastern Europe to Stalin, but for a long while he also pushed Stalin to recognize Poland’s prewar boundaries, while Eden and Churchill were more willing to ‘bait’ Stalin in return for cooperation. During the war the U.S., at least officially, refused to sanction the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet–Finnish treaty of 1940, and so on, all of which either codified or sanctioned wartime territorial changes in Eastern Europe. I suspect the West wanted a post-Stalin Russia as a UN partner.)
Anyway, the present circumstance is in no way comparable to World War II...
'But in what would translate Russia being less forgiving?'
IF Russia develops a taste for a more serious war effort and takes Odessa and Moldova - then Romania can be placed under serious pressure. This is especially true if the Romanians make the mistake of intruding into Ukraine. Romania, as it stands today, was created a century earlier by funny looking men jumping around in little aprons in Versailles. The country is hiding from the world a horrifying demographical timebomb, millions of fast multiplying uncounted gypsies. And three nations around are closely watching all developments.
It will be difficult to hold Transnistria until Russian forces get there. Dropping parachutists is highly risky and unlikely to stop the heavier NATO ground forces. Amphibious support is also difficult, if possible at all. However, the area will not settle for the long term until Russia reaches Odessa, whatever peace treaty or armistice can ever come out.
Kharkov to Moscow distance is the shortest among other NATO-reachable starting points. Once NATO is kicked out or suppressed in Ukraine, the same computation would lead to closest points to St Petersburg, Kaliningrad, and Crimea. Expect more US forces along the Finland-Russia border.
You didn't mention the imprisonment of Yevgenia Gutsul to seven years in prison for funnelling Russian money to finance a political party, in a landmark case that will further fuel tensions with Moscow. In the USA and UK the pro-Israel lobbies do this openly - and in the US/UK billionaires give huge sums to the Tory Party.
Thanks for catching the typo! As for why I didn't mention Gutsul, I already published a full analysis on that a week ago and don't consider her jailing to be a relevant factor in shaping this potential near-term scenario (only the 2028 presidential election):
Russia never cared about Moldovan neutrality, as it has always openly violated it by stationing troops on Moldovan soil.
The Russian leadership also shot itself in the foot multiple times by showing disdain for the local culture: Maria Zakharova used the Soviet-invented concept of a “Moldovan” language to downplay the Moldovan–Romanian brotherhood, and the Kremlin’s media apparatus began snubbing independent analysts and writers when they rightly started pointing out Russia’s harmful decisions—after having done the same with the US and the EU. Now, Russia finds itself alone again, facing only pro-NATO moldovan hotheads.
You are on solid ground. Moldova is culturally and linguistically closer to Romania than to Russia. The real problem, as you suggested, is a combination of Western imperialism and Russian historical revisionism. A sound deal would take Romania out of NATO while affirming its rule over Moldova. (Of course, Ukraine would have to be neutralized in this case as well.)
The globalists’ obsession with ‘Nazism’ and ‘fascism’ is poisoning the well on all sides. If anything, both Russia and the West need more ‘right-wing extremism’ than ever before, to counter existential threats such as low fertility-rates, mass migration, and so on. Putin and his liberal-leftist foes need to drop their fixation on the ‘evils’ of Hitler and Co., the so-called ‘Holocaust’, etc.
Unfortunately, each side continues to demonise the other’s ‘nationalism’, in effect buttressing globalist agitprop.
My personal view is that co-ethnics can eventually come to have different identities, histories, philosophies, etc. after some time of being apart, just like the South Yemenis, Somalilanders, and Thailand's Isan (Lao) people have vis-a-vis (North) Yemen, Somalia, and Laos, but if they sincerely want to unify with their co-ethnics (i.e. it's not the result of propaganda or meddling), then it should be supported.
Putin's summer 2021 magnum opus "On the History Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" is relevant here:
"Things change: countries and communities are no exception. Of course, some part of a people in the process of its development, influenced by a number of reasons and historical circumstances, can become aware of itself as a separate nation at a certain moment. How should we treat that? There is only one answer: with respect!
You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome!"
That said, I also agree that the Soviets played historical revisionist games such as when they "gave" centuries-long majority-Polish Lwow ("Lvov"/"Lviv") and Wilno ("Vilnius") to Ukraine and Lithuania respectively and then "encouraged" a "population exchange" between those Soviet Republics and (occupied) Poland.
I understand why it did all four: Lwow was "given" to Ukraine because it was historically part of "Old ('Kievan') Rus", Wilno was "given" to Lithuania because it was the Grand Duchy's capital, populations were "exchanged" for political-security reasons, and Poland was occupied because the Red Army reached (what became East) Germany and there was no way that the Kremlin was going to let a truly independent country emerge in the middle of its military logistics corridor to there.
A lot of Non-Russian Pro-Russians (NRPRs) in Alt-Media can never bring themselves to acknowledge these reasons though, nor can some influential Russian (or purportedly Russian) accounts that post in English on social media, because they think that it "discredits" the Soviets/Russia or whatever even though it simply explains the reasons behind those controversial decisions. I've been canceled by the aforementioned accounts for bringing this up so I know this first-hand.
On that note, observant folks will also notice that NRPRs and (at times purportedly) Russian accounts on social media will justify certain foreign policy moves on the basis of uniting the lands of "Old ('Kievan') Rus" but at the same time inexplicably justify disuniting historically Polish lands that were inhabited by people who consistently identified as Poles (unlike was the case with some in Belarus and Ukraine) through "population exchanges".
In the same breath as them smearing these Poles as "colonizers", they'll then justify the large-scale migration of ethnic Russians and other Slavs into the former Baltic Soviet Republics where they were never indigenous. I hate their hypocrisy and dishonesty, they could calmly and cogently explain these processes from the Soviet/Russian perspective without discrediting themselves like this but they lack the historical-political insight to do so.
By the same token, the Soviets also gifted Poland with Pomerania and Silesia (former Piast territory), thereby giving it access to Germany’s onetime industrial–agricultural heartland. In the meantime Poland ‘lost’ the Kresy, but no longer had to rule over unruly Ukrainian nationalists in Galicia, for instance. And it still had Gdynia.
Its new boundaries were ethnographically contiguous and thus more reflective of organic reality (i.e., Polish majority). Obviously Wilno is a big exception, as you noted, but otherwise Poland’s 1945 borders do not seem to be especially unfair, given that prewar Poland had, as you probably know, flirted with Nazi Germany.
You mention Polish majorities in Galicia, but I see that prewar Polish claims acknowledged that the Polish majority only existed in urban areas like Łwów, while the countryside was either ethnically mixed or dominated by ‘Ukrainian’ (or Rusyn) majorities. The ‘Curzon Line’ and prewar data were in part based on this.
Nevertheless, I think the Russian side does not take into account Polish opposition to historical Soviet (communist) rule and is too dismissive of those peoples who sided with Nazi or other fascist movements for protection against Soviet expansionism. (A lot of your enemies are ‘former‘ or actual Stalinists, I think.)
The left, as usual, tries to provoke World War III by stirring up extremists—*any* extremists—and ‘midwifing’ a cataclysm that will lead to *its* rule over the planet. As Lenin and Co. knew well, only wars can overthrow the old social order and lead to a new kind of (pseudo-)‘society’.
Alsace and Lorraine are very closer culturaly of Germany, but it's France: it already cost 3 millions deaths.
Corsica is closer of Italy but it's France.
Roussillon is absolutely Cathalan, but it's France.
There are also Bretons, Savoyards, Occitans, Basques.
If you want, in these place, you can find frustrated people who can again open hell's gate in fiddling history.
All those place were nations, but they melt in French nation.
Leftists, like oligarchy, hate strong nation-state and they promote all is possible to weaken them.
In big nation-state where no nation discriminate other and where each citizen is treated equally those separatism falsely based on History are bloody bullshit and deserve contempt.
Moldova is another artificial construct that has no place on this earth. Let them come and see what happens. I'd strike NATO bases in Moldova and Romania with Oreshnik. Give NATO a head up or not, who cares.
10 seconds after a "ceasefire " is agreed to in Ukraine, NATO will move into western Ukraine. Russia needs to take Odessa to secure the safety of its port at Sebastopol. Sebastopol is key terrain to protect its access to the Black Sea.
Russia must retake it's historical City of Odesa, than join with the Gaguaz Republic, which had a referendum to join the Russian Federation. Then a linkup with Transnistria will be a defacto outcome. At this point, Hungary or Serbia may make a play for the Romanian oil region.
First of all, thank you for your detailed and well-researched work.
I am very concerned that this summit, scheduled for August 15, is acting as a smokescreen.
Either for Trump, at best, to try to sell the Kellogg Plan and its unconditional ceasefire in another way, or to lull Russia into submission, while NATO expansion and threats persist, as you demonstrate here.
Precisely, this summit, which is provoking a lot of confused chatter, is creating a fog of war, distracting from the war preparations you describe.
At the same time, the EU does not understand that the US is playing against Russia, admittedly by also trampling on the EU.
But most importantly, NATO continues to seriously advance its pawns in Transcaucasia and threatens to expand further (Armenia is engaged in a process of disappearance that will conclude its genocide begun in the 20th century), in the Baltic Sea, not to mention Kaliningrad.
While Ukraine continues to receive weapons and money, even though J.D. Vance declares that the US is tired and will no longer pay for this war. Not to mention intelligence and Wiesbaden, still orchestrating the conflict.
I am really wondering if Romania will bet her very existence on a US/NATO victory in Ukraine. In less than a century this would be the second time if they send an army into Ukraine. In 1945 they backstabbed their allies (Germany and Hungary), joined the Red Army and avoided an occupation by Stalin. If they miss again, Russia will be likely less forgiving. There are a few nations around Romania who are just drooling over this possible outcome.
“I am really wondering if Romania will bet her very existence on a US/NATO victory in Ukraine.”
By denying Russia a full victory in Ukraine, NATO has already achieved a major aim—given that the Ukraine is integral to Russian civilization, both culturally and territorially. Russia *should* have been able to take all of left-bank Ukraine by now (even though it never aimed to do so), not to mention the five regions it claims. Yet Ukraine has largely eviscerated Russian armor and mobility since 2022, so ongoing Russian advances are quite meager to date. NATO’s audacity shows that Russia is not even close to achieving its goals.
Also, the Russian DIB is a lot more vulnerable than the AMC assumes. Per Kellogg, Russia is now offering Ukraine Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts’, owing to the threat of U.S. secondary sanctions, in return for Crimea. (Russia is also willing to accept a LoC freeze and some territorial exchanges in the east.) Trump, unlike his predecessors, is more willing to impose meaningful costs on the Russian economy, and given Russian losses, Putin is once again showing signs of weakness; Russian finance is still very much linked to the USD.
So, yes, NATO can and is going to act with impunity in Moldova. It already has.
Russia can take the left bank of the Dnieper any time it wants. That is not a question that anyone asks, even in NATO.
The reason Russia doesn't simply rush forward with overwhelming force is that it bypasses it's number one goal in the operation - the demilitarization of Ukraine. Simply taking the territory doesn't do that. Russia is systematically destroying Ukraine's ability to fight again for a very long time.
And when they are done with that, they will take the territory they determine. I would expect that to be the East and South and leave the West of Ukraine, which is full of Russian hating NAZIs, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians. The areas Russia will take are largely Russian anyways.
NATO/EU will want to continue the fight they started. They have wrecked Ukraine. They will wreck Moldova, then Romania and probably Armenia and Azerbaijan when it is all said and done. Those countries will all cease to exist on the map. The NATO/EU will walk away, broke, cold and entering their newest self inflicted dark age. IMHO
“Russia is systematically destroying Ukraine's ability to fight again for a very long time.“
So far Russia does not seem to have crippled Ukrainian infrastructure, electricity, or manpower. If Russia were winning, Ukraine and its handlers would not be continuing to fight. One of Russia’s aims was to deter NATO from direct involvement (of course, NATO has been secretly at work for years in Ukraine). If anything, NATO is now more inclined to intervene than before; even the Trump ‘Détente’ is over.
“NATO/EU will want to continue the fight they started.”
...which means that Russia has not deprived them of the means to do so.
Russia has destroyed Ukraine's manpower. They have destroyed much of Ukraine's, and NATO equipment, which cannot be easily replaced in any near time frame, if at all. And at the price the West uses for it's weapons, the entirely of NATO and the EU will go even broker trying to replace it.
Russia hasn't destroyed Ukraine's infrastructure because it doesn't want to create a humanitarian crisis. Russia has been perfectly capable of destroying all the bridges over the Dnieper, all the electric power, almost everything, but they haven't.
NATO always planned to intervene. They are intervening. And in the near future they will use Moldova as the excuse when they do there, what they did in Ukraine - end neutrality, use Moldova to attack Transnistria and the ethnic Russians there.
This thing is far from over, but when it does finally end, Russia will have been the victor because they hold all the logistical and manpower cards.
" Russia hasn't destroyed Ukraine's infrastructure because it doesn't want to create a humanitarian crisis "
You sound like you belong on moon of alabama .
You tell us why Russia hasn't destroyed Ukraine's infrastructure? Start with all the bridges over the Dnieper then the power plants, dams.......
They are fully equipped to do so and could at any point they want, but they haven't. So tell us why?
“Russia has destroyed Ukraine's manpower. They have destroyed much of Ukraine's, and NATO equipment, which cannot be easily replaced in any near time frame, if at all.”
Then why are Ukraine and NATO refusing to accept Russia’s terms? Moreover, if NATO, as planned, is about to intervene, then how is it able to do so if its defence-industrial base, including stockpiles, is no longer up to the task? Surely NATO cannot use imaginary weapons to attack...
“Russia hasn't destroyed Ukraine's infrastructure because it doesn't want to create a humanitarian crisis. Russia has been perfectly capable of destroying all the bridges over the Dnieper, all the electric power, almost everything, but they haven't.”
This is precisely the ‘strategy’ that has given NATO and Co. hope. (Even Russian officials have acknowledged that their ‘humanitarian’ approach has led to higher losses on their side.) This has allowed Ukraine to maintain sizeable numbers of troops and heavy infrastructure east of the river for years.
People call Putin’s approach ‘Christian’. I call it a militarily and morally unsound strategy that, when applied by Western armies in the Third World, lead to defeat. One should give military commanders the means and leeway to prevail, rather than impose suicidal political considerations (‘terms of engagement’).
Ukraine and NATO are refusing because they want and need a big war with Russia. Do you really think that overthrowing Ukraine's govt in 2014, arming Ukraine to the teeth and creating the 2nd largest army in Europe (behind Russia) was for fun and games and "protection"?
It was about provoking Russia until they cannot sit by and allow it to happen any longer. The people running the EU and NATO hate the West (and Russia too since they are a Christian country). They will start the war to destroy everything and try to usher in their Communist Utopia.
“NATO/EU will want to continue the fight they started.”
...which means that Russia has not deprived them of the means to do so.
Not yet, but the Ukraine forces and society are showing signs, a will to depart from the war effort.
“Not yet, but the Ukraine forces and society are showing signs, a will to depart from the war effort.”
I don’t think this is going to happen. It is also beside the point.
A country at war should never depend on the other side’s morale. Besides, most Ukrainians in the western two-thirds of the country have continued to loyally support the war-effort. Many of them are involved in vital industries and services, so at this point they are arguably legitimate targets, too. After all, German and Japanese civilians who worked in critical sectors were hit by the Allies during World War II. (I am speaking of the Russian point of view.)
Furthermore, after a decade of war, neither side wants to give up leverage for uncertain benefits. Both sides are fighting for survival at this stage; both, justly, are entitled to compensation. Russia needs to disarm and neutralize Ukraine; Ukraine needs to rebuild its economy and receive its own form of security. Peacekeepers, if any, must not be tied to either side, but current U.S. plans more or less sanction NATO troops, with Russia’s de facto acquiescence.
Any ‘solution’ right now will be very difficult to implement.
You should see the polls on supporting the war effort in Ukraine. It's sunk to lows that mean capitulation, if they are allowed to do so.
But the West will certainly fight to the last Ukrainian. Ukraine will drop the age of conscription to wipe out another generation of young people for no good reason other than NATO and the EU want to try to break up Russia and partition it.
That is a possible outcome.
Yes, Russian advances are slow but the industrially most valuable 20% of Ukraine already is in Russian hands.
Romania only turned around after the collapse of the Moldovia front on Aug 23, 1944. Which was kind of late in the game - Finland went out of the war in Aug 1944 too. Unlike Finland, Romania ended up being occupied by Stalin though.
Finnish forces stopped around the old border before the Winter War. Romanian forces went all the way to Stalingrad.
Taking into account that Finns (and Swedes) retained diplomatic relations with the USA, there may have been a gentlemen's agreement between Mannerheim and FDR on how far Finns may go. Nevertheless, Finns went far beyond the old border. Since Estonian and Karelian ar Finnish-aligned languages, they could have justified taking the whole Karelia and Estonia. Only, they didn't attempt to take Murmansk, Arkhangelsk or Leningrad.
Diplomatic correspondence from the time confirms this. The U.S. extended credit, arms, and humanitarian aid to Finland during the Winter War (1939–40)—something Finland expressly thanked it for during BARBAROSSA. The U.S. also promised to recognize Finland’s pre-1940 boundaries, at the risk of upsetting the Soviets, so long as Finland held back on claiming Soviet territory (in Karelia and eastern Lapland) Hitler had allotted it in return for Finnish aid. I think the Allies were looking ahead to a post-Stalin USSR.
(FDR is often accused of selling out Eastern Europe to Stalin, but for a long while he also pushed Stalin to recognize Poland’s prewar boundaries, while Eden and Churchill were more willing to ‘bait’ Stalin in return for cooperation. During the war the U.S., at least officially, refused to sanction the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet–Finnish treaty of 1940, and so on, all of which either codified or sanctioned wartime territorial changes in Eastern Europe. I suspect the West wanted a post-Stalin Russia as a UN partner.)
Anyway, the present circumstance is in no way comparable to World War II...
Stalin's occupation of Romania was for the short term only, the Red Army departed fast.
Nobody will ask Romania or Romanians.
they will be sacrificed just like Ukraine and Moldova before them.
'But in what would translate Russia being less forgiving?'
IF Russia develops a taste for a more serious war effort and takes Odessa and Moldova - then Romania can be placed under serious pressure. This is especially true if the Romanians make the mistake of intruding into Ukraine. Romania, as it stands today, was created a century earlier by funny looking men jumping around in little aprons in Versailles. The country is hiding from the world a horrifying demographical timebomb, millions of fast multiplying uncounted gypsies. And three nations around are closely watching all developments.
It will be difficult to hold Transnistria until Russian forces get there. Dropping parachutists is highly risky and unlikely to stop the heavier NATO ground forces. Amphibious support is also difficult, if possible at all. However, the area will not settle for the long term until Russia reaches Odessa, whatever peace treaty or armistice can ever come out.
Kharkov to Moscow distance is the shortest among other NATO-reachable starting points. Once NATO is kicked out or suppressed in Ukraine, the same computation would lead to closest points to St Petersburg, Kaliningrad, and Crimea. Expect more US forces along the Finland-Russia border.
In penultimate paragraph annual should be annul.
You didn't mention the imprisonment of Yevgenia Gutsul to seven years in prison for funnelling Russian money to finance a political party, in a landmark case that will further fuel tensions with Moscow. In the USA and UK the pro-Israel lobbies do this openly - and in the US/UK billionaires give huge sums to the Tory Party.
Thanks for catching the typo! As for why I didn't mention Gutsul, I already published a full analysis on that a week ago and don't consider her jailing to be a relevant factor in shaping this potential near-term scenario (only the 2028 presidential election):
https://korybko.substack.com/p/moldovas-jailing-of-the-gagauz-leader
Russia never cared about Moldovan neutrality, as it has always openly violated it by stationing troops on Moldovan soil.
The Russian leadership also shot itself in the foot multiple times by showing disdain for the local culture: Maria Zakharova used the Soviet-invented concept of a “Moldovan” language to downplay the Moldovan–Romanian brotherhood, and the Kremlin’s media apparatus began snubbing independent analysts and writers when they rightly started pointing out Russia’s harmful decisions—after having done the same with the US and the EU. Now, Russia finds itself alone again, facing only pro-NATO moldovan hotheads.
You are on solid ground. Moldova is culturally and linguistically closer to Romania than to Russia. The real problem, as you suggested, is a combination of Western imperialism and Russian historical revisionism. A sound deal would take Romania out of NATO while affirming its rule over Moldova. (Of course, Ukraine would have to be neutralized in this case as well.)
The globalists’ obsession with ‘Nazism’ and ‘fascism’ is poisoning the well on all sides. If anything, both Russia and the West need more ‘right-wing extremism’ than ever before, to counter existential threats such as low fertility-rates, mass migration, and so on. Putin and his liberal-leftist foes need to drop their fixation on the ‘evils’ of Hitler and Co., the so-called ‘Holocaust’, etc.
Unfortunately, each side continues to demonise the other’s ‘nationalism’, in effect buttressing globalist agitprop.
My personal view is that co-ethnics can eventually come to have different identities, histories, philosophies, etc. after some time of being apart, just like the South Yemenis, Somalilanders, and Thailand's Isan (Lao) people have vis-a-vis (North) Yemen, Somalia, and Laos, but if they sincerely want to unify with their co-ethnics (i.e. it's not the result of propaganda or meddling), then it should be supported.
Putin's summer 2021 magnum opus "On the History Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" is relevant here:
"Things change: countries and communities are no exception. Of course, some part of a people in the process of its development, influenced by a number of reasons and historical circumstances, can become aware of itself as a separate nation at a certain moment. How should we treat that? There is only one answer: with respect!
You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome!"
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181#sel=48:7:Wll,49:12:6j8
That said, I also agree that the Soviets played historical revisionist games such as when they "gave" centuries-long majority-Polish Lwow ("Lvov"/"Lviv") and Wilno ("Vilnius") to Ukraine and Lithuania respectively and then "encouraged" a "population exchange" between those Soviet Republics and (occupied) Poland.
I understand why it did all four: Lwow was "given" to Ukraine because it was historically part of "Old ('Kievan') Rus", Wilno was "given" to Lithuania because it was the Grand Duchy's capital, populations were "exchanged" for political-security reasons, and Poland was occupied because the Red Army reached (what became East) Germany and there was no way that the Kremlin was going to let a truly independent country emerge in the middle of its military logistics corridor to there.
A lot of Non-Russian Pro-Russians (NRPRs) in Alt-Media can never bring themselves to acknowledge these reasons though, nor can some influential Russian (or purportedly Russian) accounts that post in English on social media, because they think that it "discredits" the Soviets/Russia or whatever even though it simply explains the reasons behind those controversial decisions. I've been canceled by the aforementioned accounts for bringing this up so I know this first-hand.
On that note, observant folks will also notice that NRPRs and (at times purportedly) Russian accounts on social media will justify certain foreign policy moves on the basis of uniting the lands of "Old ('Kievan') Rus" but at the same time inexplicably justify disuniting historically Polish lands that were inhabited by people who consistently identified as Poles (unlike was the case with some in Belarus and Ukraine) through "population exchanges".
In the same breath as them smearing these Poles as "colonizers", they'll then justify the large-scale migration of ethnic Russians and other Slavs into the former Baltic Soviet Republics where they were never indigenous. I hate their hypocrisy and dishonesty, they could calmly and cogently explain these processes from the Soviet/Russian perspective without discrediting themselves like this but they lack the historical-political insight to do so.
By the same token, the Soviets also gifted Poland with Pomerania and Silesia (former Piast territory), thereby giving it access to Germany’s onetime industrial–agricultural heartland. In the meantime Poland ‘lost’ the Kresy, but no longer had to rule over unruly Ukrainian nationalists in Galicia, for instance. And it still had Gdynia.
Its new boundaries were ethnographically contiguous and thus more reflective of organic reality (i.e., Polish majority). Obviously Wilno is a big exception, as you noted, but otherwise Poland’s 1945 borders do not seem to be especially unfair, given that prewar Poland had, as you probably know, flirted with Nazi Germany.
You mention Polish majorities in Galicia, but I see that prewar Polish claims acknowledged that the Polish majority only existed in urban areas like Łwów, while the countryside was either ethnically mixed or dominated by ‘Ukrainian’ (or Rusyn) majorities. The ‘Curzon Line’ and prewar data were in part based on this.
Nevertheless, I think the Russian side does not take into account Polish opposition to historical Soviet (communist) rule and is too dismissive of those peoples who sided with Nazi or other fascist movements for protection against Soviet expansionism. (A lot of your enemies are ‘former‘ or actual Stalinists, I think.)
The left, as usual, tries to provoke World War III by stirring up extremists—*any* extremists—and ‘midwifing’ a cataclysm that will lead to *its* rule over the planet. As Lenin and Co. knew well, only wars can overthrow the old social order and lead to a new kind of (pseudo-)‘society’.
A very logical move for NATO.
Since Zelensky refuses to cede ground,its likely to happen.
If Russia pushes and takes Odessa , Moldova would fall quickly.
But I doubt that Russia can do so.
Its lost too many assets to get a win.
Alsace and Lorraine are very closer culturaly of Germany, but it's France: it already cost 3 millions deaths.
Corsica is closer of Italy but it's France.
Roussillon is absolutely Cathalan, but it's France.
There are also Bretons, Savoyards, Occitans, Basques.
If you want, in these place, you can find frustrated people who can again open hell's gate in fiddling history.
All those place were nations, but they melt in French nation.
Leftists, like oligarchy, hate strong nation-state and they promote all is possible to weaken them.
In big nation-state where no nation discriminate other and where each citizen is treated equally those separatism falsely based on History are bloody bullshit and deserve contempt.
Moldova is another artificial construct that has no place on this earth. Let them come and see what happens. I'd strike NATO bases in Moldova and Romania with Oreshnik. Give NATO a head up or not, who cares.
What nation isnt an "artificial construct" ?
10 seconds after a "ceasefire " is agreed to in Ukraine, NATO will move into western Ukraine. Russia needs to take Odessa to secure the safety of its port at Sebastopol. Sebastopol is key terrain to protect its access to the Black Sea.
Russia must retake it's historical City of Odesa, than join with the Gaguaz Republic, which had a referendum to join the Russian Federation. Then a linkup with Transnistria will be a defacto outcome. At this point, Hungary or Serbia may make a play for the Romanian oil region.
So what does Russia propose to do about it?
If Moldavian people want to live what Ukrainians have been living for three years, nobody can prevent them to be completely dumb .
F...them.
I will not die for them and I will not let die my kids for those...