The purpose behind publishing their report is to inform the Western public of Sandu’s alleged plans, signal that Russia isn’t interested in sparking a conflict there (no matter how she might spin its response to her potential provocations in Transnistria), and indirectly encourage her patrons to stop her.
Pragmatically, should Russia take command of all the main supply routes into Kyiv and knock out anything going in or out, AFU forces would be unable to re-supply, leaving them vulnerable to running low on ammunition forcing Ukraine to abdicate.
Russia could pierce through AFU defensive lines, control and attack with air and artillery support whatever moves on main highways into Kyiv, with forces at the ready to counter any attempt by AFU forces to link up. Whatever money is spent on weapons by NATO would be fruitless because you can't just print weapons into the field of battle. They must be mobilized.
Time matters for Russia to do something before AFU forces attempt to build a new army. Lowering the draft age in Ukraine would become meaningless without a supply of weapons if Russia took the initiative. Neutralize Ukraine's ability to have the war material it needs to prolong the fight and con Russia into settling for a lesser deal.
The only way to de-nazify Ukraine is to kill its ability to sustain itself. A strategic offensive to cut off Kyiv by controlling the major highways into it could force Ukraine to abdicate. Then Putin should warn NATO that if they enter Ukraine counter to the UN charter they will be obliterated since Russia controls all the main supply lines where what goes in never makes it out. So who wants to attack first?
It is time for the coup de grace Russian checkmate of Ukraine for all the right reasons and there is no nice way to go about it.
I have read that Russia has been compromised by Zionist elements within its government. Some say Putin is Zio. Apparently, these Zios are connected to Western Zios with common ideological and financial interests. This could explain the pockets of opposition by some Russian citizens who have spoken out about the enemy within its borders controlling its government and its lack of resolve to defeat Ukraine. Something doesn't fit. Any ideas here, Feral?
The Russian leadership do not want to make war on what they still think of as their misguided brothers in Ukraine.
Nor do they want to make war on the West - they want to be allowed to join it, and refuse to admit to themselves that, no matter how reasonable they act, the West sees this, not as humanitarianism, but as contemptible weakness, that, no matter how many symphonies and novels they write, the West hates and fears them, that Russia never will be allowed to join The Club, The Golden Billion.
This is a real problem for Russia. If Transnistria comes under threat, they will have to secure the complete Black Sea coast, along with Odessa. Ukraine (more importantly the “west”) won’t be happy with having the Black Sea isolated.
It’s one thing to abandon military outposts in Syria, but there are ethnic Russians, isolated in Transnistria. It’s a geographic aberration, but I don’t see Putin abandoning Russian citizens again.
At least Transdnistria already has Russian military there and I am sure the Transdnistrians themselves are preparing for this conflict. Like everybody else, they are being swept into this war cauldron that was inevitable when NATO decided to turn what should have been neutral territory into its weapons platforms. I think most of us see what is so clearly emerging: an all-front push by NATO, fearful of Trump, to provoke the Russians at every point in hopes of some miracle, like Assad! (Of course, the same groups that ran out Assad -- MI6 and CIA -- are also running the oppo in the targeted countries such as Georgia.) They will only succeed in starting a war they can't control.
also, Russia is headed to Odessa. It will control that area, not Ukraine or NATO. I have been sure of this since the start, when it was clear that NATO had engineered this conflict.
Recently there are reports of Russian preparation to cross the Dnieper River and retake Kherson. Perhaps this is preparation for a deeper strike against Odesa and ultimately form a road to Transnistria.
Just to clarify the "deep state", scholars such as Aaron Good and Peter Dale Scott have described the Deep State as the part of the 'tri-partite' state that is unelected and holds immense political power. The tripartite state is composed of the surface government of elected and unelected bureaucrats, the 'security state', such as the military and intelligence agencies, and the oligarchs of business and crime. Our Deep State is simply those aspects of government that the public can neither observe nor control, but that actually prescribe and enforce policy that preserves or enhances modern neoliberal financial capitalism.
I've always taken issue with the notion of an American "deep state."
The concept was borrowed from Turkey where Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) built a "basement" for his quasi-authoritarian state in which the security and intelligence services lurked while the business of the country was performed on the upper floors. When leftists or Islamists threaten to burn down the house, up they issue out of their cellar-fortress, take over the house and then, when things were ship shape, return to their subterranean stronghold. (Edrogan has now basically dismantled this apparatus.)
The US is nothing like that. There is nothing similar to the 20th century Turkish model even with the massive security state that has grown up in the last century. Of course, there are hidden centers of power. But they exist outside of and, in some sense, above the mechanisms of government.
In contrast to Turkey, these outside power centers have always been able to reach into the government and manipulate it--mainly through the force of money.
So the US is characterized not by a "deep state," but actually a very shallow state that is pushed and pulled this way and that by external power centers.
Now you could argue that this is all a distinction without a difference. Bottom line is that there is hidden power everywhere in the modern world.
From the article you cite: "Eisenhower allowed the flying of two more missions before the Four Power Paris Summit, scheduled for 16 May. The final two missions before the summit were to be flown by American pilots." (The second of these two missions, flown on 1 May 60, was the one that was shot down.
Eisenhower was the ultimate decision maker in all this. He was never circumvented by any imagined "deep state."
From some other articles and documentaries I have seen on this, Esienhower didn't know, but admitting that it would have looked even worst than it was. Plus Wiki is not that a reliable source. I posted the link because was the first popping up, to give the gist of it, but it doesn't have the sordid details...
>>"Sandu talked at a recent government meeting about taking out her rage at Ukraine’s plans to cut off Russian gas to Europe at the start of the year on her country’s separatist region,..."
I don't begin to understand that. Is that supposed to be a diversion from the approaching energy problems that directs public anger towards Moscow rather than Kiev?
>>"These perceptions are important when analyzing SVR’s warning about Moldova’s impending attack on Transnistria. The way that they framed everything suggests that this isn’t what the West wants but that Sandu might still go through with it anyhow for her own reasons."
Sounds pretty implausible to me. Little Moldova gets itself involved in a shooting war likely to involve Russia without heavy Western backing?
Or is this all just a nationalist melodrama for Romanian consumption to spin up the specter of a series of events that leads to a Romania vs Russia scenario. "Hey, forget that guy Georgescu! The Russians are threatening to kill ethnic Romanians in Moldova! To arms, Romania!"
Romanians do not care for Transdnistria except as a payback for North Bucovina, Budgeac and Snake Island taken by Russians in 1940 and given to Ukraine after WWII.
But do you find it plausible that Sandy is going to respond to the upcoming Ukrainian cut-off by attacking Transnistria? Or that Sandy would conduct such an attack on her own without the backing of NATO?
It doesn't make sense at all. What the game might be, with all this sound and fury is to somehow shift the focus on the idea that it is Russia's fault. Same way German Chancellor kept repeating that Russia cut the gas to NS1&2...
Romania should be careful joining any military confrontation on Moldova’s side. It gives RU an excuse to bomb RO (along with nato bases, infrastructure , etc).
Is that a good reason enough for Russia to start a war with NATO...? Romania is in NATO, you know that... Moldova is not part of Russia, neither Transdnistria and the ethnic Russians in both of those places are not actually persecuted...
Now, now. By international law, and given that even Moscow recognizes that Transdnitria is part of Republic of Moldova, this would be an internal problem, no? Even if Sandu's excuses are not only lame but outright stupid, and unbelievable. She doesn't need excuses in fact to re-establish Chisinau's control over Transdnistria.
And the claim that R of Moldova is part and parcel of Roumanian cultural and historical space is not a claim, it is a fact, no matter how much Maria Zakharova, who's expertise is in Sinology, would like to be otherwise.
RSS Moldova was the stain on the USSR face, since it was taken from the flesh of another country, which became a socialist country itself. So, in order to resolve this conundrum, that would have obliged the Soviet Union to relinquish that ethnic group to where it belonged, but still in the big socialist brotherhood, they invented a new ethnicity, different from the general Romanian ethnicity.
The question is, what would Russia do if Moldova and Romania re-unite, overnight, and take over Transdnistria (this would be only fair since Northern Bucovina and Budgeac and Snake Island went to Ukraine)? Why would that be a "defeat" for Russia and not a restoration of justice? Next thing I would like to see is US troops being kicked out of S Korea and the two Koreas reunited.
However, for the sake of overall peace, I would prefer peace if the price of the re-unification of Romanians were to be a generalized war. But that, that would be Russia's fault. Because Moldova is not Russky Mir. Never was and never will be.
1. That's misleading since it ignores Russia's right to retaliate in response to possible attacks against its peacekeepers.
2. Again, misleading: while factually true, it implies territorial claims that not all Romanian-descended Moldovans are comfortable with.
3. Sure, you can think that, but that's not relevant to the question of whether or not Sandu might launch an attack against Transnistria that could draw in Russia and Romania.
4. It's unclear what it would do, it might withdraw from Transnistria, or it might stay put and defend its troops there. This uncertainty is why nothing of the sort has yet happened.
5. You sound angry about something and it appears that you're using me and my article as a strawman for sounding off. If that's the case, then I won't continue the discussion.
1. Sorry, it is not peacekeepers, but occupation forces, like US were in Syria propping the Kurds.
2. A majority of them or just some, even a plurality? Also, let us not forget the 70 years of gaslighting of Moldovan population performed by the Soviets and then continued by Russia, that Moldovans are not Romanians. Now that was truly Russian propaganda.
3. Sandu's decision to attack or not will definitely not be just "her" decission. She will be just the cat's paw. It depends also how far down the path of contingencies such a plan and preparations and resources are alocated to it.
4. This uncertainity is also steming from the fact that, as opposed to the Ukrainian situation, the Russian and Ukrainian speaking population in Moldova has not been persecuted. Cannot sell this as well to the Global South. Given the precedent of keeping Moldovans separated from their Moldovan bretherns from Romania and the rest of Romanians separated for that long, especially since there were no ideological reasons (like the two Germanies or the two Koreas) to do that.
5. I am not angry at all, quite calm, albeit in two minds. Considering myself a Romanian patriot, I do wish for re-unification (and yes, I do know the many ills of Romanian polity and especially the bad habits of the political class there) seeing it as an act of historical justice. On the other hand I don't want a third world war to start because of it, while I also want Russia to win in Ukraine which is the anvil on which western oligarchic hegemony is being cracked. The other anvil where the US power will be finally shattered will be Taiwan.
Let us not forget the 70 years of gaslighting of Moldovan population performed by the Soviets and then continued by Russia, that Moldovans are not Romanians. Now that was truly Russian propaganda.
Compared to that, what is a bit of vote rigging, eh?!
Yeah Sandu was rigging the vote for the right reaosns at least. Stupid ass Moldavians falling for Russian propaganda like Americans did 2016 and letting themselves get tricked into not voting for Sandu. I blame Brezhnev and the Russian troops stationed in Transnistria against the will of the Romanian government. Or Moldavan Government. Whoever. But definitely not the Moldavan people who according to you are too stupid to vote for the correct pro Western candidates.
I did not call Moldovans stupid. Most of the people would rather die than to think. And shaking off imprints since infancy is really hard.
Personally I would love Romania to be neutral, me also being imprinted with Ceusescu's words, "for a Romania free, independent and sovereign, etc, etc, etc...". These have the right ring to them and this is why Calin Georgescu got first in the first round of Romanian Presidential elections.
I am very much against the globalist plutocracy pushed onto the world by the US.
Pragmatically, should Russia take command of all the main supply routes into Kyiv and knock out anything going in or out, AFU forces would be unable to re-supply, leaving them vulnerable to running low on ammunition forcing Ukraine to abdicate.
Russia could pierce through AFU defensive lines, control and attack with air and artillery support whatever moves on main highways into Kyiv, with forces at the ready to counter any attempt by AFU forces to link up. Whatever money is spent on weapons by NATO would be fruitless because you can't just print weapons into the field of battle. They must be mobilized.
Time matters for Russia to do something before AFU forces attempt to build a new army. Lowering the draft age in Ukraine would become meaningless without a supply of weapons if Russia took the initiative. Neutralize Ukraine's ability to have the war material it needs to prolong the fight and con Russia into settling for a lesser deal.
The only way to de-nazify Ukraine is to kill its ability to sustain itself. A strategic offensive to cut off Kyiv by controlling the major highways into it could force Ukraine to abdicate. Then Putin should warn NATO that if they enter Ukraine counter to the UN charter they will be obliterated since Russia controls all the main supply lines where what goes in never makes it out. So who wants to attack first?
It is time for the coup de grace Russian checkmate of Ukraine for all the right reasons and there is no nice way to go about it.
Russia should have done this in the first day of the war.
I have read that Russia has been compromised by Zionist elements within its government. Some say Putin is Zio. Apparently, these Zios are connected to Western Zios with common ideological and financial interests. This could explain the pockets of opposition by some Russian citizens who have spoken out about the enemy within its borders controlling its government and its lack of resolve to defeat Ukraine. Something doesn't fit. Any ideas here, Feral?
Nothing so silly is needed.
The Russian leadership do not want to make war on what they still think of as their misguided brothers in Ukraine.
Nor do they want to make war on the West - they want to be allowed to join it, and refuse to admit to themselves that, no matter how reasonable they act, the West sees this, not as humanitarianism, but as contemptible weakness, that, no matter how many symphonies and novels they write, the West hates and fears them, that Russia never will be allowed to join The Club, The Golden Billion.
This is a real problem for Russia. If Transnistria comes under threat, they will have to secure the complete Black Sea coast, along with Odessa. Ukraine (more importantly the “west”) won’t be happy with having the Black Sea isolated.
It’s one thing to abandon military outposts in Syria, but there are ethnic Russians, isolated in Transnistria. It’s a geographic aberration, but I don’t see Putin abandoning Russian citizens again.
At least Transdnistria already has Russian military there and I am sure the Transdnistrians themselves are preparing for this conflict. Like everybody else, they are being swept into this war cauldron that was inevitable when NATO decided to turn what should have been neutral territory into its weapons platforms. I think most of us see what is so clearly emerging: an all-front push by NATO, fearful of Trump, to provoke the Russians at every point in hopes of some miracle, like Assad! (Of course, the same groups that ran out Assad -- MI6 and CIA -- are also running the oppo in the targeted countries such as Georgia.) They will only succeed in starting a war they can't control.
also, Russia is headed to Odessa. It will control that area, not Ukraine or NATO. I have been sure of this since the start, when it was clear that NATO had engineered this conflict.
Recently there are reports of Russian preparation to cross the Dnieper River and retake Kherson. Perhaps this is preparation for a deeper strike against Odesa and ultimately form a road to Transnistria.
Will Putin get a choice?
This will be fun to watch. Revanchist Europe Rampant. I see the statue now, a horse rearing up and throwing off the fool riding it.
Just to clarify the "deep state", scholars such as Aaron Good and Peter Dale Scott have described the Deep State as the part of the 'tri-partite' state that is unelected and holds immense political power. The tripartite state is composed of the surface government of elected and unelected bureaucrats, the 'security state', such as the military and intelligence agencies, and the oligarchs of business and crime. Our Deep State is simply those aspects of government that the public can neither observe nor control, but that actually prescribe and enforce policy that preserves or enhances modern neoliberal financial capitalism.
I've always taken issue with the notion of an American "deep state."
The concept was borrowed from Turkey where Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) built a "basement" for his quasi-authoritarian state in which the security and intelligence services lurked while the business of the country was performed on the upper floors. When leftists or Islamists threaten to burn down the house, up they issue out of their cellar-fortress, take over the house and then, when things were ship shape, return to their subterranean stronghold. (Edrogan has now basically dismantled this apparatus.)
The US is nothing like that. There is nothing similar to the 20th century Turkish model even with the massive security state that has grown up in the last century. Of course, there are hidden centers of power. But they exist outside of and, in some sense, above the mechanisms of government.
In contrast to Turkey, these outside power centers have always been able to reach into the government and manipulate it--mainly through the force of money.
So the US is characterized not by a "deep state," but actually a very shallow state that is pushed and pulled this way and that by external power centers.
Now you could argue that this is all a distinction without a difference. Bottom line is that there is hidden power everywhere in the modern world.
Aparently this was done without presidential knowledge with the hope to spike a raprochment between US and USSR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident
From the article you cite: "Eisenhower allowed the flying of two more missions before the Four Power Paris Summit, scheduled for 16 May. The final two missions before the summit were to be flown by American pilots." (The second of these two missions, flown on 1 May 60, was the one that was shot down.
Eisenhower was the ultimate decision maker in all this. He was never circumvented by any imagined "deep state."
From some other articles and documentaries I have seen on this, Esienhower didn't know, but admitting that it would have looked even worst than it was. Plus Wiki is not that a reliable source. I posted the link because was the first popping up, to give the gist of it, but it doesn't have the sordid details...
>>"Sandu talked at a recent government meeting about taking out her rage at Ukraine’s plans to cut off Russian gas to Europe at the start of the year on her country’s separatist region,..."
I don't begin to understand that. Is that supposed to be a diversion from the approaching energy problems that directs public anger towards Moscow rather than Kiev?
>>"These perceptions are important when analyzing SVR’s warning about Moldova’s impending attack on Transnistria. The way that they framed everything suggests that this isn’t what the West wants but that Sandu might still go through with it anyhow for her own reasons."
Sounds pretty implausible to me. Little Moldova gets itself involved in a shooting war likely to involve Russia without heavy Western backing?
Or is this all just a nationalist melodrama for Romanian consumption to spin up the specter of a series of events that leads to a Romania vs Russia scenario. "Hey, forget that guy Georgescu! The Russians are threatening to kill ethnic Romanians in Moldova! To arms, Romania!"
Romanians do not care for Transdnistria except as a payback for North Bucovina, Budgeac and Snake Island taken by Russians in 1940 and given to Ukraine after WWII.
Understand.
But do you find it plausible that Sandy is going to respond to the upcoming Ukrainian cut-off by attacking Transnistria? Or that Sandy would conduct such an attack on her own without the backing of NATO?
Neither makes a lot of sense to me.
It doesn't make sense at all. What the game might be, with all this sound and fury is to somehow shift the focus on the idea that it is Russia's fault. Same way German Chancellor kept repeating that Russia cut the gas to NS1&2...
So, what does Russia propose to do about it?
Romania should be careful joining any military confrontation on Moldova’s side. It gives RU an excuse to bomb RO (along with nato bases, infrastructure , etc).
Is that a good reason enough for Russia to start a war with NATO...? Romania is in NATO, you know that... Moldova is not part of Russia, neither Transdnistria and the ethnic Russians in both of those places are not actually persecuted...
Now, now. By international law, and given that even Moscow recognizes that Transdnitria is part of Republic of Moldova, this would be an internal problem, no? Even if Sandu's excuses are not only lame but outright stupid, and unbelievable. She doesn't need excuses in fact to re-establish Chisinau's control over Transdnistria.
And the claim that R of Moldova is part and parcel of Roumanian cultural and historical space is not a claim, it is a fact, no matter how much Maria Zakharova, who's expertise is in Sinology, would like to be otherwise.
RSS Moldova was the stain on the USSR face, since it was taken from the flesh of another country, which became a socialist country itself. So, in order to resolve this conundrum, that would have obliged the Soviet Union to relinquish that ethnic group to where it belonged, but still in the big socialist brotherhood, they invented a new ethnicity, different from the general Romanian ethnicity.
The question is, what would Russia do if Moldova and Romania re-unite, overnight, and take over Transdnistria (this would be only fair since Northern Bucovina and Budgeac and Snake Island went to Ukraine)? Why would that be a "defeat" for Russia and not a restoration of justice? Next thing I would like to see is US troops being kicked out of S Korea and the two Koreas reunited.
However, for the sake of overall peace, I would prefer peace if the price of the re-unification of Romanians were to be a generalized war. But that, that would be Russia's fault. Because Moldova is not Russky Mir. Never was and never will be.
1. That's misleading since it ignores Russia's right to retaliate in response to possible attacks against its peacekeepers.
2. Again, misleading: while factually true, it implies territorial claims that not all Romanian-descended Moldovans are comfortable with.
3. Sure, you can think that, but that's not relevant to the question of whether or not Sandu might launch an attack against Transnistria that could draw in Russia and Romania.
4. It's unclear what it would do, it might withdraw from Transnistria, or it might stay put and defend its troops there. This uncertainty is why nothing of the sort has yet happened.
5. You sound angry about something and it appears that you're using me and my article as a strawman for sounding off. If that's the case, then I won't continue the discussion.
1. Sorry, it is not peacekeepers, but occupation forces, like US were in Syria propping the Kurds.
2. A majority of them or just some, even a plurality? Also, let us not forget the 70 years of gaslighting of Moldovan population performed by the Soviets and then continued by Russia, that Moldovans are not Romanians. Now that was truly Russian propaganda.
3. Sandu's decision to attack or not will definitely not be just "her" decission. She will be just the cat's paw. It depends also how far down the path of contingencies such a plan and preparations and resources are alocated to it.
4. This uncertainity is also steming from the fact that, as opposed to the Ukrainian situation, the Russian and Ukrainian speaking population in Moldova has not been persecuted. Cannot sell this as well to the Global South. Given the precedent of keeping Moldovans separated from their Moldovan bretherns from Romania and the rest of Romanians separated for that long, especially since there were no ideological reasons (like the two Germanies or the two Koreas) to do that.
5. I am not angry at all, quite calm, albeit in two minds. Considering myself a Romanian patriot, I do wish for re-unification (and yes, I do know the many ills of Romanian polity and especially the bad habits of the political class there) seeing it as an act of historical justice. On the other hand I don't want a third world war to start because of it, while I also want Russia to win in Ukraine which is the anvil on which western oligarchic hegemony is being cracked. The other anvil where the US power will be finally shattered will be Taiwan.
Meanwhile the most rabidly anti Russian Moldovan politicians need to use Biden 2020 tactics to get elected lol.
Let us not forget the 70 years of gaslighting of Moldovan population performed by the Soviets and then continued by Russia, that Moldovans are not Romanians. Now that was truly Russian propaganda.
Compared to that, what is a bit of vote rigging, eh?!
Yeah Sandu was rigging the vote for the right reaosns at least. Stupid ass Moldavians falling for Russian propaganda like Americans did 2016 and letting themselves get tricked into not voting for Sandu. I blame Brezhnev and the Russian troops stationed in Transnistria against the will of the Romanian government. Or Moldavan Government. Whoever. But definitely not the Moldavan people who according to you are too stupid to vote for the correct pro Western candidates.
I did not call Moldovans stupid. Most of the people would rather die than to think. And shaking off imprints since infancy is really hard.
Personally I would love Romania to be neutral, me also being imprinted with Ceusescu's words, "for a Romania free, independent and sovereign, etc, etc, etc...". These have the right ring to them and this is why Calin Georgescu got first in the first round of Romanian Presidential elections.
I am very much against the globalist plutocracy pushed onto the world by the US.
If Russian wants, they can oversleep like they did in Syria. Every oversleeping is Russian diminish. Russians can end up like during Yeltsin time.