09 August 2018

MAIN POLITICAL AND MILITARY DEVELOPMENTS - WEEK 31 / 2018

Monitorul Apărării şi Securităţii

Image source: Mediafax

UNITED STATES

The Congress works new sanctions against Russia, while President Trump’s situation gets more complicated.

On August 2nd, an important bipartisan group of American legislators introduced a bill package called “Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act of 2018”. This includes measures meant to increase the economic, political and diplomatic pressure upon Russia, in response to its hostile actions. The goal of “defending American security from Kremlin aggression” implies a set of new financial sanctions against Moscow, as well as enforced support to NATO. According to this new bill, Russia would get punished for meddling in American elections, for its aggression in Ukraine and its interference on Syria, as well as for other hostile activities. The Republican Senator Lindsey Graham explained this fourth piece of legislation circulating on the Hill against Russia by pointing out that “the current sanctions regime has failed to deter Russia from meddling in the upcoming 2018 midterm elections”. This is why, the goal of the new bill package is to “change the status quo and impose crushing sanctions and other measures against [President Vladimir] Putin’s Russia until he ceases and resists meddling in the U.S. electoral process, halts cyberattacks on U.S. infrastructure, removes Russia from Ukraine, and ceases efforts to create chaos in Syria”.

The new laws would target “political figures, oligarchs, and family members and other persons that facilitate illicit and corrupt activities, directly or indirectly, on behalf of Vladimir Putin”. This course of action includes working on a report regarding V. Putin and his cronies’ properties. The two initiators of this new bill package, Senators Lindsey Graham and Robert Menendez, were very clear on July 24: “Just as Vladimir Putin has made clear his intention to challenge American power, influence, and security interests at home and abroad, the United States must make it abundantly clear that we will defend our nation and not waver in our rejection of his effort to erode Western democracy as a strategic imperative for Russia’s future”. In the same time, Senator Robert Menendez regrets that, “while Congress overwhelmingly passed a strong set of countermeasures last year, unfortunately the [Trump] administration has not fully complied with that legislation".  

Proposed legislation also includes a strong declaration in support of NATO, with a mandatory threshold of two thirds of the American Senate votes necessary to decide the US withdrawal from NATO.

Russia’s interference in the 2018 American federal midterm elections was confirmed by the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, who said that “warning lights are blinking red when it comes to Russian meddling in the 2018 election”, and “In regards to Russian involvement in the midterm elections, we continue to see a pervasive messaging campaign by Russia to try to weaken and divide the United States. These efforts are not exclusive to this election or future elections, but certainly, cover issues relevant to the election. We also know the Russians try to hack into and steal information from candidates and government officials alike”. This assessment is supported by the FBI director, Christopher Wray: “This threat is not going away. As I have said consistently, Russia attempted to interfere with the last election and continues to engage in malign influence operations to this day. This is a threat we need to take extremely seriously”.

Even if the final language of the law is not yet known, the bill announces harsher sanctions against Russia, i.e. against the Kremlin and associated oligarchs, all working against the President’s attempts to re-launch the US relations with this nation. The very proposal for such escalation in sanctions shows that the American legislators of both parties have a clear image of the Russian threat. For President Trump, this is a new defeat, especially considering that important Republicans count among the supporters of the bill. It seems that previous syndromes of “trumpization” in the GOP are no longer valid.

For America’s allies like Romania, most disturbing is the mere fact that American legislators feel the need to pass laws making the departure of the US from NATO hard to achieve. Hence the shocking question: why would they need this procedure? Unconceivable hitherto, did this development become possible? The most likely explanation is that the US legislators see clear signals about President Trump’s resentment regarding NATO, and decided to take supplemental measures to preclude such course of action, which would blow the transatlantic security up. Consequently, the Congress takes up a larger chunk of the American foreign policy, into its traditional mainstream, aiming to diminish the negative trend incoherently initiated by President Donald Trump. However, the Congress reaction made the President withdraw in his policy towards Russia, and the proof is his announcement that “U.S. sanctions against Russia, which were imposed near the same time as the EU's, also will stay for now”, and “Sanctions against Russia will remain as is”.

Meanwhile, Russia’s economic and social problems increase, and V. Putin’s popularity diminishes. It looks like the lack of bread cannot be substituted by the authority show performed by a self-proclaimed global superpower which initiates military aggressions. However, this situation does not jeopardize Putin regime’s stability: traditionally, the Russians preferred, over liberty, the certainty offered by a dictatorship able to provide national dignity in the chimeric shape of Russia’s great power status. The economic situation will probably inflict upon Russian armed forces procurement, and recent enthusiastic announcements by V. Putin and the new Black Sea Fleet Commander, Vice-Admiral Alexander Alekseevich Moiseev, are just a smokescreen meant to hide this stalemate. (President Putin announced that the Russian Navy would receive 26 new warships, and vice-admiral Moiseev announced that the Black Sea Fleet would receive six new various warships, by the end of this year. Yes, new warships promised for the Black Sea, where they face hardly any challenge, would just continue the bumpy previous programs: in the case of class “ADMIRAL GRIGOREVICH” frigates, breaking cooperation with Ukraine brought engine problems, and Moscow needs Turkey’s complicity to look the other way when Russian submarines transit the Straits, thus breaching the Montreux Convention.

Strategically, V. Putin made the same assumption as the Chinese leaders made, that the US goes downhill, based earlier on the prudent behavior of the Obama Administration, and now, based on the confusing behavior of President Trump. The autocrats forget a consolidated historical rule: the democracies regenerate, the dictatorships fall. Where Barack Obama was weak, Donald Trump charges in force – the trade war with China is in full swing, with tarrifs to be extended, but also the other way around – the unity and the fundamental establishment of the West are shaken by President Trump. However, the swan song of the west, so much heralded by dictatorship admirers, is far from being heard yet.

Back to Washington, on July 31, the Manafort process started. It is the first of the judicial streak triggered by the investigations led by Robert Mueller, regarding a possible collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign staff. This complicates President Trump’s domestic situation, which did not reach a critical phase, but it seems that it is getting there: the President asked the General Attorney Jeff Sessions to stop the investigation led by R. Mueller. However, this was explained by the White House as just an opinon, not a presidential request (probably for not being considered obstruction of justice and indicted as such). Let us add that D.Trump’s attorney declared that cooperation between Trump’s campaign staff and Russia is not a felony!  Although it doesn’t touch D. Trump yet, the investigation generates a permanent crisis athmospherics, which comes on top of the Trump Administration incoherencies. The silver lining for us though: the American power was united in voting the defense budget proposed by the White House, and the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act is done deal.

 

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

Using legal instruments, Vlad Plahotniuc prepares an illegal electoral victory, defying both the US and the EU.

Ignoring the negative reactions by the West, the power in Chişinău began a series of measures meant to secure their victory in the next parliamentary elections. Taken separately, they all look legal; but, all together, and considering the environment of a state captured by a devious person, these measures set the preconditions for a vicious electoral victory for that person’s party. This would also damage the chances of the democratic opposition, but not the chances of the political forces loyal to Moscow (Igor Dodon’s socialists). So, on July 26th, the Parliament in Chişinău voted, quickly and almost unnoticed, a fiscal amnesty law. Vlad Plahotniuc’s party, the Democratic Party of Moldova (PDM) issued this amnesty in order to please its accomplice constituency – the state and party pyramid, but also part of its businessmen and tax exempt constituency. The state and party employees make the “predator state”, as Francis Fukuyama defined it, those who pilfer the scarce resources and revenues this already bankrupt state still possesses. The “business community” operates confortable in tax evasion, hidden under the protection of the mobster power. The last class “favored” by this law is made up of the disadvantaged (under $95 per month income): they were brought there by the subsequent corrupt governments in Chişinău, but are happy to get tax exemption. The opposition rightfully accuses the power for laundering the dirty money, including the famous one billion, for which everybody points towards the very strongman in Chişinău, Vlad Plahotniuc.

However, V. Plahotniuc has to answer a question: how is “his state” going to survive financially, when there is almost no revenue collection in place, the custom tariffs and VAT are hardly collected, and the “international begging” no longer works – the US and the EU lost their patience with the present power in Chişinău. More dangerous for Plahotniuc though, even Bucharest will eventually have answers to questions like: Where is our money going, as well as the diplomatic efforts and others? Is it going towards a state bankrupted by an “elite” and a ruling class who steal for living (let alone that, by values, this class is anti-Romanian and anti-western)? Or does our money end up supporting the disenfranchised population, which is actually Romania’s main goal?

Another measure taken also very quickly was postponing the parliamentary elections, from November 2018 to February 2019[1]. These measures were interpreted by independent analysts in Chişinău[2] as a slack necessary for the Democratic Party of Moldova for two reasons: the fiscal amnesty will kick in, and the power will play the blackmailing game with the EU at geopolitical level, but having more maneuver space between the EU and Russia. On the other hand, “changing the date for the elections is correlated with Romania’s turn to chair the European presidency, at the beginning of 2019, thus, hopefully, with Bucharest government’s support in polishing the image of the authorities in Chişinău”.

The EU and the US, as well as the IMF protested against these measures. The EU reminded Chişinău about the Association Agreement, which the Moldovan government fakes implementing, but, in fact, Republic of Moldova drifts apart from the Union more and more every day. In a letter sent to the EU and US embassies in Chişinău, on July 30, Andrei Năstase, the leader of Moldovan opposition, asked these powers to require from the authorities in Chişinău the cessation of these measures, which are meant to “legalize the fraudulently acquired money”. Andrei Năstase has claimed he has evidence of Vlad Plahotniuc’s involvement in “the theft of the billion”, and he will provide this evidence to the judicial institutions in Moldova, when so required. Unfortunately, the Republic of Moldova’s judiciary will rather open a criminal file against Andrei Năstase, for these declarations or for anything else, than pursue the investigation in the case of „the theft of the billion”, as the Moldovan judiciary is illegaly de facto in service of Vlad Plahotniuc.

The parliamentary opposition, the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova (PLDM) responded on July 30th, by proposing a bill meant to implement the Magnitsky Act in Moldova. This would prevent middlemen in the Republic of Moldova help laundering money illegally made by the Russian elite, this country having the lead in this practice, with several dozen billion dollars laundered. The bill has the role of the indicator paper, to demonstrate the Chişinău authorities’ complicity in laundering Russian dirty money, as Vlad Plahotniuc’s party will probably reject this bill. Adrian Candu, Vlad Plahotniuc’s marriage godson and Speaker of the Parliament (in the real order of importance) already stated, on August 1st, that Magnitsky Act is not necessary in the R. of Moldova, because this country would be “object of sanctions imposed on the lines of EU or UN”, and half of this law is already implemented in Moldova anyway. It might be, but Magnitsky Act is working in the US, where Vlad Plahotniuc employed serious lobby to present himself as the only political option to keep Moldova safe from Russia. But this very law would strike hardest the financial power of the corrupt Russian elite. Hence the conclusion: although V. Plahotniuc will continue to manipulate the EU and seek geopolitical protection from the US, he will not close the door to Russia, because only a substantial political orientation towards Russia can provide him the guarantee that he will never suffer legal consequences for his deeds. However, it seems that Russia does not favor him yet.

Vlad Plahotniuc considers that what works in Ukraine will work in the Republic of Moldova too. In Ukraine, even if the authorities took large formal steps to combat corruption (President Petro Poroshenko signed the law which establishes the anti-corruption prosecuting board), the government did not actually do anything to stop corruption. The result is visible: Ukraine remains a black hole, dependent on western financial support (IMF loans and other western support packages), even with economic support: Boeing helped to save the Antonov airplane producer, the nuclear energy production in Ukraine runs on American fuel, Germany gets involved to secure the gas supply. However, different from Moldova, the Ukrainian elite works to consolidate the state, at least in areas not affecting their (legal or illegal) financial interests: they struggle to establish a Ukrainian autocephalous orthodox church[3], and the Ukrainian military is able to face the separatists and the Russian forces, preparing for the next round of Russian aggression, wherever it would be. In the Republic of Moldova though, there is no word about an autocephalous Moldovan orthodox church, independent from the Patriarchy in Moscow. As for defense, nice colors are flown in search for sponsors. It is conclusive that, even if western support is requested to obtain the removal of the Russian troops from Transnistria, the Moldovan government was not even properly represented at the NATO Summit.    

Bottom line, the Chişinău logic is flawed: if Ukraine is too big to be left by the west in bankruptcy or victim of the Russian aggression, the Republic of Moldova is too small to bother for a bankruptcy generated through systematic pilfering by its own “elite”, but also for being the object of political trade-offs with Russia. From this angle, accepting a new Kozak plan should not be a surprise. We will see what the file manager, Germany, will do, and where from Germany will get the expertise: from the docile Bucharest, or from the interested Budapest. Or, maybe, this is what Chişinău authorities actually want, because the fall of the country does not mean the fall of the elite which ruined the state. On the contrary, national bankruptcy might start a new phase full of profit under a banner like “Support reunified Moldavia!” (Where Russified Transnistria will control the Republic of Moldova in the benefit of Russia).

 

THE EUROPEAN UNION

 Political movements at European level are meant to avoid domestic crises.

This past week, the leaders of some EU nations tried to solve their domestic crises by raising them to European, or even transatlantic level. Thus, the Italian Prime-Minister, Giuseppe Conte, obtained American support in the issue of migration management in the Mediterranean Sea; the UK Prime-Minister, Teresa May, met the French President, Emmanuel Macron, aiming to get support for the British plan on Brexit; and the Hungarian Prime-Minister, Viktor Orbán, started a European campaign, based on the principle that the best defense against Brussels is the attack.

The visit of the Italian Prime-Minister in the US, on July 30th, was a success, as the two leaders agreed on all issues in discussion. Giuseppe Conti and Donald Trump congratulated each-other, and presented all previous situations when such harmony occurred: the meeting in Washington, the G7 and NATO Summits. This is no surprise, since their ideological basis - populism and anti-immigration, are shared by the two governments. Italy was declared the “privileged interlocutor“, in Europe and G. Conte announced that he would convey president Trump’s messages to his European colleagues, including the one regarding NATO defense spending, and the one regarding the trade deficit (“The European Union has totally taken advantage of the US”).

 The main issue discussed in Washington was the illegal immigration, and D. Trump even declared that this was the topic which brought G. Conte to Washington. The American President promised American support for the management of the situation in central Mediterranean Sea by Italy, more precisely the fight against migration and the efforts to solve the political situation in Libya, aiming to enhance this nation responsibility towards illegal migration. No wonder, in the same period, an Italian vessel which had rescued migrants at sea, disembarked them in Libya.

At the end of the day, beyond all worries, the meeting is most welcome, since an important European government finally appeared to communicate well with the Trump Administration. On one hand, Italy, which is the third European economy after Brexit, remains inside the European arrangement, where it can benefit from the support of the heavyweights to overcome its serious problems – the public debt and the budgetary deficit. On the other hand, in the migration issue, a more realistic approach is worth trying, especially since the soft approach, implemented by Spain, led to an immediate increase in the number of immigrants. However, the limits must be observed, because excesses popped up at once: the number of racist attacks in Italy rose significantly, and the fate of the migrants disembarked in Libya is not clear yet. Now about Libya: the authorities in Rome feel their involvement in Libyan domestic order is legitimate, because Italy is the frontline victim of the political instability in Libya. The question is if Italy will have the capacity to solve something where France failed, after generating the problem itself.

The British Prime-Minister, Teresa May, met with the French President, Emmanuel Macron, on August 4th, and tried to get a more advantageous Brexit by transferring the negotiations from a technical to a political approach.

In Britain, the political support for the May Cabinet is ebbing, as a „half Brexit” is on course, which caused negative reactions even inside the government. Confronted with such serious problems at home, Teresa May urgently needed the accept of the French President for her policy, as E. Macron is perceived as more intransigent than the German Chancellor, in opposing the British Brexit plan. London’s version implies serious concessions by the EU: the UK wants freedom of movement with EU for goods, but not for services, and a limited freedom of movement for citizens. This is why, the political approach needed by Teresa May means a political good will from the European leaders towards Britain, because the technical approach is clearly unconvenient: no free market in absense of free movement for individuals. In support of her captatio benevolentiae approach, Prime-Minister May argued with her domestic problems, which are Britain’s problems, not Europe’s. She pointed that a tough Brexit, with no agreement, would affect both countries. However, it would affect UK more than the EU.

The political promises diplomatically made on this occasion have little chance to replace technical discussions, because the EU cannot shoot its own foot: offering favors to Great Britain would cause economic and other losses for Europe, rewarding a consistent and arguable baseless anti-European attitude by the UK. In addition, such approach would encourage other populist governments to blackmail Brussels with a possible exit out of the Union, or out of the Euro Zone. The London authorities will probably utilize the whole range of haggle means, from the connection to European security, by offering to help in this respect in exchange for economic concessions, to dividing techniques, because a lack of political unity within the EU would certainly undermine the stamina of the technical negotiators. But the chances are slim, for the simple reason that one cannot have it both ways, which the Brits know very well, yet they still try. On the other side, a failure in negotiations – and the clock is ticking, would trigger a strong political reaction, seriously affecting the EU – UK relations, with possible ripples in NATO.

HUNGARY. On July 28th, during a private visit to Romania, the Hungarian Prime-Minister, Viktor Orbán, launched his European or, we should say anti-European campaign.  

Heralded by previous interviews, the Hungarian Prime-Minister’s speech followed the usual sheet of music: anti-liberalism, defense of the Christian identity in Europe by the illiberals (to read the anti-democratic autocrats), Hungarian nationalism and a condescendent vision towards Romania. What was new though, he announced he would focus his whole power towards the 2019 European Parliament elections, seen as „important and decisive”. Viktor Orbán’s narrative is that Europe has been ruled by liberals since 1968 and he suggested that the liberals degenerated, although the 1968 revolts were radical, not liberal – Mao was glorified at the Sorbonne, not Popper, Soros’s mentor: „Next May we can wave goodbye not only to liberal democracy ... but also to the entire elite of ’68”. This „1968 elite” would champion obsolete liberal values: defending the human rights, rule of law, open society. V. Orbán offered even ideological contributions: „the Christian-democracy[4] is not liberal, but illiberal”. He is encouraged by the Stephen K. Bannon’s landing in Europe, as S. Bannon aimes to encourage the mationalist-populist movements in all Europe. V. Orbán is also encouraged by the victory of the populists in Italy, even if the devil lies in details: the Italians are not happy that Hungary is the first to oppose the redistribution of immigrants. The list of encouragement factors for the Hungarian Prime-Minister continues with the fact that the migration problem is not yet solved, evenif Hungary is no longer stricken by migration, due to the agreement made by Angela Merkel’s liberal Germany with Turkey. However, V. Orbán has little in common even with S. Bannon and Donald Trump, as he supports the EU (who else finances Hungary’s development, if not Brussels’s money and German investments?), while the latter two have in mind the dissolution of the EU.

Viktor Orbán’s asset is the very German protection, especially at political and economic level: even if he has been identified as a European liability long ago, the Hungarian Prime-Minister continues to enjoy the support of the strong group of Christian-democrat European parties, based on the childish argument provided by the German conservative politician Manfred Weber: “Better to keep them in so we can talk to them directly", said M. Weber, head of the European Populist Party, last month. "He always listens at a certain point. He runs off and has to be told to stop, but he usually does".  With all due respect for a politician like Manfred Weber, who is balanced and fair by definition, from here, and we talk about the whole Central Europe, we see a different angle: Viktor Orbán does not stop, yet gets more encouraged by such attitude.

In the same speech, V. Orbán described the EU attitude towards Russia as being “primitive”, when the EU says Russia is a danger. The best description of V. Orbán’s ideas danger is provided by a Polish analysis: V. Orbán not only accepts, but seeks to justify Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and against the NATO frontline nations, and he also suggests the modification of borders in Europe. The conclusion of this analysis looks bad for Hungary: if Budapest questions the European security, what is left of the relations between Poland and Hungary, no matter how many things they share. Let us remember, here that V. Orbán described the Hungaro-Polish relations as being so good that they could go together horse steeling. Whose horses? For Hungary we know now: today it’s Ukraine, where Budapest supports the Russian federalization plan, actually leading to Kyiv losing control over certain regions; next it’s Slovakia or Romania. In reality, Poland and the Baltic States, but mostly Ukraine, must protect themselves from other “horse thieves”, less scrupulous and with a strong military.

In conclusion, in order to get rid of the danger of being chastised by Brussels, V. Orbán tries to conquer Brussels and, with a European Parliament controlled by the populists, will promote the illiberal ideas to secure a quiet sleep… in Budapest. Same as Angela Merkel, we do not understand what an illiberal democracy means. It is sad that, for a European ally, the warning in the previous paragraph needs to be repeated: democracies regenerate themselves, the dictatorships fall. In Budapest, sooner or later, we will have them both in the same time.

 

TURKEY. Damaging the relations with the US.

  On August 1st, the US decided sanctions against two ministers of the Turkish government (justice and home affairs), in response to the persistence of indictment and house arrest of reverend Andrew Brunson. Sanctioning a NATO ally is a first in American foreign policy, even if not surprising, for those who have watched the bilateral relations go south. This is the biggest crisis in bilateral relations since the 1974 war in Cyprus. The difference is that, after 1974, five years were necessary to restore bilateral relations to normal, but now we have only the beginning of a chilling between the two nations, actually between Turkey and the West.

Andrew Brunson, accused of supporting individuals involved in the coup, actually linked to Fethullah Gülen, is just a pawn in this game, being used by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as a bargain chip to get the extradition of his major enemy Fethullah Gülen, former ally in the process of islamization of Turkey. President Erdoğan persistently requests the extradition of F. Gülen, and failed to keep his end of the bargain in another trade, this time involving a third party: the American reverend was to be set free and transferred to US in exchange for a Turkish female imprisoned in Israel, under the accusation of collaborating with the terrorist organization Hamas. The mere existence of such trade between two NATO allies raises the question if we still see allies sharing common values, or just allies of circumstance.

On the US side, one can question why the reaction at tactical level, imposing sanctions instead trying to negotiate a deal with R.T. Erdoğan. Minding his own constituency, which includes the evangelist Christians, the US President, D. Trump reacted in force, maybe too strong, but President Erdoğan’s accusation, that evangelism and political Zionism are at play, doesn’t hold water.

Actually, between the two countries, major problems piled up until they became unsolvable: Turkey’s lack of loyalty to US in political and military cooperation; major differences in the Syrian conflict (US supports the Kurdish militias, the PYD, which are the most effective against ISIS, while Turkey treats PYD as terrorist organization, due to its alleged links to the Kurdish terrorist organization PKK, operating in Turkey); Turkey’s cooperation with Russia; Turkey’s failure to join the sanctions against Iran; American judges sentenced Turkish businessmen, with links to the government in Ankara, for sabotaging the sanctions implemented against Iran; opposite policies in the Middle East, from Egypt to Qatar, especially in Israel’s security problems (where Turkey has been accused for supporting the terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas; Turkey’s intentions to purchase Russian anti-aircraft systems S 400; the US Congress’s intentions to stop Turkey’s participation in the F 35 aircraft program, and the blocking of transport to Turkey of the first two F 35 aircraft already transferred to Turkey in a ceremony at the Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth, Texas, but still in American custody, being used at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, for the training of Turkish pilots.    

The string of such issues may continue, but the core is political: building an authoritarian Islamic political system, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey ceased to continue the secular and pro-western republic established by Kemal Atatürk. After taking the whole national power, by investing himself with extended presidential powers, Recep Erdoğan took a series of measures which finalized the construction of his authoritarian Islamic regime: he appointed a faithful general at the head of the military (Erdoğan being the supreme commander); he appointed his son-in-law, and potential next leader of Turkey, as finance minister. Of course, he abolished the state of emergency, no longer necessary, as all objectives were achieved. Such regime has no longer a common base of values, actually, nothing in common with the West (less the circumstantial interests). And the core of the West is the US, no matter Trump Administration’s vision. In addition, the complicated situation in the Middle East, where Turkey is directly affected, led to opposing approaches and solutions. The worst issue though - there is no more trust. Turkey hangs out with Russia, China and Iran, and President Erdoğan hugs the President of Venezuela.

Very likely, the situation will continue to slide towards a negative direction, even if the foreign ministers of the two nations met in Singapore, and agreed to find amiable solutions to the issues in hand. Actually, Recep Erdoğan has a far bigger problem than the relations with the US, that is the only rogue which neither dictatorship, nor a dysfunctional democracy can repress: the economy.

For us, in Romania, used with a traditional and predictable Turkey, “as we knew it”, an ally and a friend, all these are bad news.

 



[1] Previously, in league with Igor Dodon’s socialists, Vlad Plahotniuc had changed the electoral system, which led the Republic of Moldova to a mixt voting system, easier to manipulate by “the supreme leader in Chişinău”.

[2] Dionis Cenuşă.

[3] The Moscow Patriarchy is just a tool of the Kremlin. For example, the orthodox connection to undermine the state occurred in Greece, in the case of Russian espionage regarding the name of Macedonia: the Kremlin attempted to use its assets at Mount Athos!

[4] Viktor Orbán went so far to believe himself the disciple of Conrad Adenauer, the creator of the democratic and… illiberal Germany, although he excels in admiration for another dictator, Miklós Horthy.