Laura Ru
15.4K subscribers
3.81K photos
753 videos
16 files
3.93K links
Researcher & writer based in Hong Kong. Former academic. Longform articles archived at https://lauraruggeri.substack.com and https://laura-ruggeri.medium.com. Email: lauraru852@yandex.ru
Download Telegram
La scadenza del trattato New START, che in passato limitava gli arsenali nucleari strategici di Russia e Stati Uniti, ha modificato in modo significativo il panorama della sicurezza globale. Il rappresentante permanente della Russia presso l’Ufficio ONU di Ginevra, Gennady Gatilov, ha dichiarato a Izvestia che l’estensione del “ombrello nucleare” statunitense all’Asia rappresenta una minaccia ulteriore per la sicurezza russa e mina la stabilità internazionale.

Ha sottolineato la crescente “pianificazione nucleare congiunta” tra Stati Uniti e Corea del Sud, con un possibile coinvolgimento del Giappone, nonché lo sviluppo di infrastrutture militari nucleari in Australia nell’ambito di accordi come AUKUS. Praticamente, si replicherebbe in Asia quanto avviene in seno alla NATO, in cui alleati non nucleari come Belgio, Germania, Italia, Paesi Bassi e Turchia già ospitano armi nucleari americane.

Come possibile risposta militare, la Russia potrebbe dispiegare missili a medio e corto raggio — incluso il nuovo sistema ipersonico Oreshnik — nel suo Estremo Oriente, ad esempio in Chukotka, secondo l’esperto Tigran Meloyan della Higher School of Economics. Meloyan ha aggiunto che il crescente coinvolgimento degli Stati Uniti nella regione potrebbe accelerare e rafforzare la partnership strategica tra Russia, Cina e Corea del Nord, portando a una maggiore prontezza nella deterrenza nucleare e a esercitazioni congiunte più frequenti.

In uno scenario estremo, Mosca potrebbe persino valutare il posizionamento di missili ipersonici a medio e corto raggio in Corea del Nord, sebbene abbia sottolineato che ciò rimane prematuro e che la Russia reagirebbe solo in base alle azioni delle altre potenze nucleari, senza avviare un’escalation. L’accordo di partenariato globale firmato nel 2024 tra Russia e Pyongyang, che include elementi nucleari, fornisce una base per tali considerazioni, ma Mosca privilegia la moderazione a meno di provocazioni.

Nel complesso, questi sviluppi evidenziano le crescenti preoccupazioni per una nuova corsa agli armamenti e per il mutamento delle dinamiche di deterrenza in Asia dopo la fine del trattato New START. @LauraRuHK ➡️ https://iz.ru/2038217/kirill-fenin/yadernyj-zond-rf-predupredila-o-novyh-ugrozah-v-azii
👍3393👏1😱1😢1👀1
An aerial drone photo shows calligraphers writing couplets and Chinese character "Fu" (meaning good fortune) for villagers at Houcuizhuang, in Henan Province. Fairs and events are held across the country, where people buy goods in preparation for the upcoming New Year.
43👍12💋1
The plan outlined in the Politico article for fast-tracking Ukraine's EU membership by 2027 is the epitome of wishful thinking. The Ukrainian-born journalist who presented it is as divorced from reality as the drugged up comedian in Kiev. The 2027 plan is predicated on accelerated reforms in Ukraine, phased "membership-lite," overcoming Hungary's veto, leveraging Donald Trump, and potentially suspending Hungary's voting rights. However, multiple structural, political, and practical barriers make this timeline unrealistic and improbable. Diplomats have dismissed the idea as "nonsense," noting Ukraine is "nowhere near ready". The plan relies on Orbán's electoral defeat in April 2026 which is far from certain. Even if defeated, a new government may not immediately shift stance. As a last resort, invoking Article 7 to suspend Hungary's voting rights over rule-of-law issues has never been fully implemented due to political risks and lack of consensus among other EU members. A "reverse enlargement" or phased membership would erode the merit-based process, creating double standards for other candidates (e.g., Western Balkans) and risking "second-class" membership perceptions. The vast majority of Europeans reject Ukraine membership and even Berlin expressed reservations.

Last but not least, the plan assumes Trump will tie EU accession to a Russia-Ukraine peace deal, but the conflict shows no sign of ending any time soon.
@LauraRuHK
https://www.politico.eu/article/5-steps-ukraine-eu-membership-2027/
🤬24👍15🤯4👎32
Il piano delineato nell’articolo di Politico per accelerare l’adesione dell’Ucraina all’UE entro il 2027 è l’epitome del pensiero magico-illusorio. La giornalista di origine ucraina che lo ha elucidato sulla base delle sue "fonti" è tanto scollegata dalla realtà quanto il drogato di Kiev. Il piano 2027 si fonda su riforme accelerate in Ucraina, su una fase di “membership-lite”, sul superamento del veto ungherese, sul ricorso a Donald Trump e sulla possibile sospensione dei diritti di voto dell’Ungheria.

Tuttavia, molteplici ostacoli strutturali, politici e pratici rendono questa tempistica irrealistica e improbabile. Molti diplomatici hanno liquidato l’idea come assurda, osservando che l’Ucraina è “ben lontana dall’essere pronta”. Il piano si basa sulla sconfitta elettorale di Orbán nell’aprile 2026, evento tutt’altro che certo. Anche se sconfitto, un nuovo governo potrebbe non cambiare immediatamente posizione. Come ultima risorsa, l’invocazione dell’Articolo 7 per sospendere i diritti di voto dell’Ungheria non è mai stata pienamente attuata a causa dei rischi politici e della mancanza di consenso tra gli altri membri dell’UE.

Un’ “espansione inversa” o un’adesione graduale eroderebbe il processo basato sul merito, creando doppi standard per altri candidati (ad esempio i Balcani occidentali) e rischiando di generare la percezione di una “membership di seconda classe”. La grande maggioranza degli europei respinge l’adesione dell’Ucraina e persino Berlino ha espresso riserve.

Infine, il piano presume che Trump inserisca l’accesso all’UE per l'Ucraina in un accordo di pace tra Russia e Ucraina, ma il conflitto non mostra alcun segno di conclusione a breve. E quando finira', quello che restera' del paese potrebbe essere molto diverso da quanto immaginano a Bruxelles. E nulla sappiamo di quali saranno le sue aspirazioni. @LauraRuHK https://www.politico.eu/article/5-steps-ukraine-eu-membership-2027/
👍34🤬18🤯53👎2
US Vice President J.D. Vance arrived in Armenia February 9 and is due in Azerbaijan on February 11–12 as part of a trip aimed at advancing the peace agreement between the two countries brokered in Washington last August. The US intends to accelerate development of the 27-mile strategic transit corridor running through southern Armenia along the Iranian border and linking Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave. The US is clearly seeking a geopolitical realignment across the South Caucasus and Eurasia to create a new geo-economic space controlled by the West stretching from Eastern Europe and the Black Sea through Türkiye, the South Caucasus, the Caspian, Central Asia, South Asia, and the Arabian Sea. I don't need to tell you that this extension of US influence in the region has serious implications for Russia, China and Iran. During Vance's visit, the US and Armenia announced the completion of a civil nuclear energy accord, known as a “123 Agreement,” which paves the way for US participation in Armenia’s nuclear projects.
Vance also confirmed the approval of $11 million in V-BAT reconnaissance drones for Armenia.
The two sides further explored opportunities for cooperation in strategic sectors, including the extraction and supply of critical minerals and rare earth elements. ➡️ If you want to dig deeper, last year I wrote about this strategic region and Washington’s plans to control it. With Armenian elections in June, the stakes couldn’t be higher. https://substack.com/@lauraruggeri/p-169432541
🤬365😡5👍2👎2🤨2😱1
Il vicepresidente degli Stati Uniti J.D. Vance è arrivato in Armenia il 9 febbraio e si recherà in Azerbaigian l’11–12 febbraio, nell’ambito di un viaggio volto a promuovere l’accordo di pace tra i due paesi, mediato a Washington lo scorso agosto. Gli Stati Uniti intendono accelerare lo sviluppo del corridoio strategico di transito lungo 27 miglia che attraversa l’Armenia meridionale lungo il confine con l’Iran e collega l’Azerbaigian con la sua exclave del Nakhchivan. È evidente che Washington mira a un riallineamento geopolitico nel Caucaso meridionale e in Eurasia, per creare un nuovo spazio geo‑economico controllato dall’Occidente che si estenda dall’Europa orientale e dal Mar Nero attraverso la Turchia, il Caucaso meridionale, il Caspio, l’Asia centrale, l’Asia meridionale e il Mare Arabico. Non occorre sottolineare che ciò ha serie implicazioni per Russia, Cina e Iran.

Durante la visita di Vance, Stati Uniti e Armenia hanno annunciato la conclusione di un accordo sull’energia nucleare civile, noto come “123 Agreement”, che apre la strada alla partecipazione americana ai progetti nucleari armeni.

Vance ha inoltre confermato l’approvazione di una fornitura all'Armenia di droni da ricognizione V‑BAT per un valore di 11 milioni di dollari.

Le due parti hanno infine esplorato ulteriori opportunità di cooperazione in settori strategici, tra cui l’estrazione e la fornitura di minerali critici e terre rare. @LauraRuHK
🤬37😡8👍73👎1😱1🤨1
Why J.D. Vance's nuclear promises to Armenia are ridiculous. To displace Russian peaceful nuclear energy the US vice president touted "US modular nuclear power plants". Problem is, they only exist on paper. While the US has invested billions (via DOE programs like ARDP, recent $800M+ awards), streamlined licensing, and pushed aggressively under recent administrations, no modular nuclear power plant has been physically built and made operational on American soil.
Meanwhile, prior to Vance's tour of South Caucasus, a USAID-funded disinformation campaign had tried to convince Armenians that their Soviet-era nuclear power plant (maintained and to be modernized by Rosatom) was unsafe. Read more ➡️
https://t.me/node_of_time_en/24054
💯33👍9🤬76🤣4
Russian media watchdog Roskomnadzor is taking action against Telegram after it repeatedly violated local laws. Users across Russia reported issues in Telegram’s functionality with videos and photos becoming virtually impossible to send due to the slowdown. The recommended alternative is MAX, but its reach outside Russia is still limited. The irony is that now people use Google's Meet in order to have a videocall with their contacts abroad. Isn't this solution worse than the problem? @LauraRuHK
💯57👍25🥴6🤬43😢3
China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said China “will do what it can” to assist Havana and again condemned “inhumane actions that deprive the Cuban people of their right to survival and development”. Beijing has pledged to continue supporting Cuba to the best of its ability.

Lin emphasized China’s firm position in defending Cuba's national sovereignty and opposing any form of external pressure or intervention.
Lin didn't mention any concrete programme, saying the next moves would “depend on bilateral consultations” with Havana. Any help is likely going to be pragmatic and under the radar. @LauraRuHK
👍4518👏9👀2🙏1
The EU has slapped a 79% duty on Chinese ceramic tableware—you know, those dual-use cups, mugs, plates, and bowls that can be easily weaponized if thrown at someone.

Joking aside, Brussels frames it as an anti-dumping measure to address exports sold below normal value. Who sets this "normal value"? Industry lobbyists like Cerame-Unie?

Consumers are expected to pay more for household essentials, while their purchasing power is already eroded by inflation. Lower Chinese prices stem from scale, efficiency, and lower energy costs, not "unfair" subsidies. Who deprived European producers of affordable Russian energy sources? Brussels!

Make no mistake, this is part of a wider EU pattern of escalating trade barriers against China. As to European producers and consumers, they should know who to blame. @LauraRuHK
👏31💯16🤬8👍42👀2
Bruxelles ha deciso: un dazio del 79% sulle stoviglie in ceramica cinesi. Tazze, piatti e ciotole — quegli oggetti quotidiani "dual-use" che, se lanciati, potrebbero fare male a qualcuno. Scherzi a parte, la Commissione Europea la chiama una "misura antidumping", per contrastare esportazioni vendute al di sotto del “valore normale”. Valore stabilito da chi? Da qualche lobby di settore, come Cerame‑Unie?

Il risultato è facilmente prevedibile: i consumatori europei pagheranno di più per beni essenziali, in un contesto già esasperato dall’inflazione. I prezzi bassi dei prodotti cinesi non derivano da sussidi “sleali”, bensì da scala produttiva, efficienza e costi energetici inferiori. E chi ha privato i produttori europei dell’energia russa a buon mercato? Sempre Bruxelles.

Non si tratta di un episodio isolato, ma dell'ennesimo tassello nel mosaico delle barriere commerciali che l’UE continua a innalzare contro la Cina. Quanto ai produttori e ai consumatori europei, sappiate a chi rivolgere i ringraziamenti. Un consiglio: maneggiate con cura i piatti. Sostituirli ora vi costerà molto di piu'. @LauraRuHK
🤬42👍17🔥4💯43😱2
Who gains the most from war? The instinctive response often points to weapon manufacturers, which indeed make enormous profits through government contracts and increased arms sales.

Yet, this view overlooks the main beneficiary: the financiers and bankers who underwrite the entire enterprise.
At its core, warfare demands vast sums of capital, far beyond what any government can muster from taxes, reserves, frozen assets as in the case of Russian ones. Nations turn to borrowing, issuing bonds and securing loans that balloon national debt. Here, money lenders—banks, investment firms, and bond dealers—step in as the enablers of war. They purchase these securities, earning steady interest payments over years or decades, irrespective of victory or defeat. The longer a conflict drags on, the deeper the debt sinks, and the richer these institutions become.

The EU is increasingly dependent on external credit and loans, with Brussels and other capitals seeking massive sums to sustain military spending and support for Ukraine.

The EU’s debt burden is unsustainable, exceeding 82% of GDP, and when European leaders talk of issuing Eurobonds, don't forget who the real beneficiaries are.

Remember how the Rothschilds and other banking dynasties enriched themselves over the centuries, keeping politicians firmly under their control. War is not merely geopolitics: it is an economic engine designed to enrich the chosen few, while citizens pay the price in lives, taxes, and austerity. @LauraRuHK
👏34💯274🔥3👌3👍2💋1
Chi trae il massimo profitto dalla guerra? La risposta istintiva sarebbe i produttori di armi, che in effetti accumulano enormi guadagni grazie a contratti governativi e a un aumento delle vendite di armamenti.
Ma questa visione trascura un beneficiario meno apparente: i finanzieri e i banchieri che sostengono l’intera impresa.
La guerra richiede somme di capitale immense, ben oltre ciò che qualsiasi governo può raccogliere tramite tasse, riserve o interessi su beni congelati, come nel caso di quelli russi. Le nazioni ricorrono al debito, emettendo obbligazioni e ottenendo prestiti che gonfiano il debito pubblico.
È qui che entrano in scena i prestatori di denaro — banche, fondi di investimento e operatori obbligazionari — come veri abilitatori della guerra. Acquistano questi titoli, incassando pagamenti di interessi regolari per anni o decenni, indipendentemente da chi vince o perde. Più a lungo dura il conflitto, più il debito si approfondisce e più loro si arricchiscono.

L’Unione Europea è sempre più dipendente dal credito esterno e dai prestiti: Bruxelles e altre capitali cercano somme enormi per sostenere la spesa militare e l’aiuto all’Ucraina. Il debito dell’UE è diventato insostenibile, superando l’82% del PIL (dati Eurostat al terzo trimestre 2025, con proiezioni che indicano un ulteriore aumento nel 2026). E quando i leader europei parlano di emettere Eurobond (o strumenti di debito comune, come nel recente pacchetto da 90 miliardi di euro per l’Ucraina approvato nel febbraio 2026), non dimenticate chi sono i veri beneficiari: proprio quei grandi istituti finanziari che sottoscrivono, gestiscono e incassano interessi su questi titoli. Ricordate come i Rothschild e altre dinastie bancarie si siano arricchite nel corso dei secoli, mantenendo i politici saldamente sotto il loro controllo. La guerra non è solo geopolitica: è un motore economico progettato per arricchire pochi "eletti", mentre i cittadini pagano il prezzo in vite, tasse e austerita'. @LauraRuHK
👏72👍17💯11🤬85😐1
Excerpt from the German chancellor's opening speech at the Munich Security Conference.

Merz, answering the question of whether it is necessary to establish contacts with Moscow, added: "We see that Russia is not yet ready for full-fledged peace negotiations. The war will end only when Russia finds itself in a state of economic and military collapse. Russia must stop fighting - and capitulate." The rhetoric sounds eerily familiar. Maybe before talking about Russian imperialism and Russia's capitulation Merz should take a refresher course in history. It is painfully obvious that he has forgotten its lessons. @LauraRuHK
🤬50🤣23💯864🙏4🤯3😡1
Forwarded from The Islander
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Starmer stood in Munich and said Russia made a “strategic blunder.”

Then in the same breath he admitted Russia is expanding its army and industrial base mid-war at breakneck speed.

Which is it Keir? A blunder… or a machine you can’t stop?

The truth is uglier than either answer. The strategic blunder wasn’t Moscow misreading Europe. It was Europe misreading Moscow.

Europe sanctioned its own energy backbone. Europe hollowed out its industry on command and only now at the 11th hour tries to reboot a broken military industrial complex. Europe convinced itself that theatrical press conferences could replace production lines and hard steel.

And now Merz with a straight face claims the EU economy is “ten times” Russia’s and yet Europe is not ten times as strong. I read this as more of a confession to Europe's humiliation.

Also... let’s not pretend the 10x number even means what they want it to mean. Industrial war isn’t fought in nominal GDP. It’s fought in purchasing power, energy costs, manufacturing throughput, and state capacity to mobilise. Even EU-level defence bureaucrats explicitly uses PPP conversions when comparing budgets, because everybody serious knows the sticker price doesn’t equal real output.

And they want applause for this?

Then Starmer delivers the real revelation... peace would not reduce danger, but would increase it.

Read that slowly. Peace is the threat. Not war. Not escalation. Not miscalculation.

Peace!

When peace becomes the threat, you are not defending Europe — you are preparing it for the final sacrifice.

So when Starmer says a peace deal would make Russia “rearm faster,” he’s telling you the quiet part out loud: they don’t actually want peace unless it preserves the mobilisation racket. Peace becomes the “threat” because it ends the fear pipeline that justifies a decade of spending, procurement Ponzi scams, and emergency politics.

And this is where it crosses from hypocrisy into something darker: Starmer is effectively volunteering Europe for escalatory posture “to the end of the decade” while pretending this is “stability.” That rhetoric is how you sleepwalk to the abyss. You don’t have to want catastrophe to steer toward it, you just have to normalise the language of inevitability: "be ready to fight, accelerate preparations, full response."

And let’s be clear about the escalation ladder he is playing near.

Europe is generations behind in the kind of unprecedented high-end strike and missile systems that now define Russia's deterrence. Russia’s signalling with systems like Oreshnik— an intermediate-range ballistic missile used at least twice since 2024, with speeds up to Mach 11 in terminal phase and MIRV-type payload dispersal, is a kinetic message: escalation ladders exist, and are controlled by Russia.

So spare us the moral cosplay. Europe didn’t stumble into this. It chose it, with economic self-harm, de-industrialization, energy sabotage, then the grand finale... selling the public a future where peace is dangerous and perpetual mobilisation is “responsible.” That is the strategic blunder on a Darwinian scale.

That asymmetry is not rhetoric. It is physics. And physics does not care about speeches in Munich.

So when Starmer speaks of “full responses” and “accelerated preparation,” he is not offering security for Europeans. He is offering a future in which miscalculation becomes statistically inevitable.

And that is the unforgivable part. Escalation dressed up as prudence is criminal recklessness.

And history is merciless with leaders who mistake delusional rhetoric for power.

🎙Subscribe @TheIslanderNews

Donate - Support Our Work
👍53💯3👏1🤬1