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/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When your asset has been dead for two years and everyone has forgotten about him, what do you do? You devise a sensationalistic claim that guarantees pervasive media coverage. Death by Novichok? Naah, that's yesterday's news, you have been making that claim for years, you alleged Navalny had been poisoned by Novichok smeared on his underwear. And people laughed. When he died in jail years later and his body was returned to the family we sighed with relief hoping that he would finally be buried with all the lies that he spewed. Instead, his widow was invited to the Munich Security Conference. You couldn't pass the opportunity to score a few more propaganda points. Now, two years after that pathetic show, during the same conference, you break the news that the mystery of his death has finally been solved. Forget about Novichok. He was poisoned with a toxin derived from...drum roll...an Ecuadorian dart frog! Moscow could have kept him in a penal colony to sew uniforms for other convicts, but hey, that's too boring. The narrative demands that the hero dies a martyr. @LauraRuHK

The SCMP revealed connections between Jeffrey Epstein and Ben Goertzel, an AI researcher and transhumanism cheerleader who popularized the term "artificial general intelligence". Epstein provided seed capital (at least US$113,000) to Ben Goertzel's startups over five years (2010–2015).
This Epstein funding helped Goertzel secure HK$8.9 million (approximately US$1.14 million) in government grants from Hong Kong authorities, tied to his AI and robotics work at the Polytechnic University.
Goertzel, who led AI/robotics projects in Hong Kong during the 2010s (including as chief scientist at Hanson Robotics, developers of the humanoid robot Sophia), was based in the city at the time though he later returned to the US.
Email exchanges from Epstein's files show Goertzel currying favor with Epstein to access his wealth and connections, which in turn "unlocked" the Hong Kong government funding.
In 2015, Goertzel sought an additional US$25,000 from Epstein. He was well aware of Epstein's conviction for raping and procuring underage girls. In correspondence, Goertzel described these heinous crimes as "an occurrence among reasonably mature people who mutually consented at the time."
@LauraRuHK ➡️https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/society/article/3343645/epstein-funded-ai-pioneer-helped-him-get-hk89-million-hong-kong-government-grants?module=top_story&pgtype=homepage

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's keynote speech at the Munich Security Conference (MSC) on February 14, during a session titled "Conversation with China", emphasized the importance of practicing true multilateralism to reform global governance, opposing hegemonic monopolization of power and revitalizing the United Nations system.

On China-Europe relations, Wang described the two as partners rather than "systemic rivals," pointing to over 50 years of engagement, daily trade exceeding $2 billion, and hundreds of active cooperation mechanisms.

China's proactive push for deeper cooperation and stronger relations with European countries, amid perceived US unreliability under the Trump administration, is very appealing in the current economic climate, which is stagnant. Problem is, the leadership of most EU countries isn't exactly free or capable to explore these opportunities and pursue an independent course. As to Washington, it is unlikely to allow its vassals to get too cozy with China, viewing such closeness as a threat to Western unity and its own strategic interests. This stance was explicitly highlighted at the same MSC, where US Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered a speech stressing that the US and Europe "belong together" as part of a shared "Western civilization" bound by history, faith, culture, and ancestry, and urging joint efforts to confront "fundamental challenges" from China, including "misaligned national interests".

Rubio acknowledged the necessity of communicating with China to prevent "geopolitical malpractice" but within broader "Western concerns".

And by the way, it doesn't matter whether Trump or a Dem occupies the White House. Although a Democratic administration would create less ideological friction and better align with European globalists and their favourite causes, Washington would still milk its vassals to stay afloat, and would still frame China as a geopolitical rival. @LauraRuHK

Il discorso programmatico del Ministro degli Esteri cinese Wang Yi alla Conferenza sulla Sicurezza di Monaco (MSC) del 14 febbraio, durante una sessione intitolata “Conversazione con la Cina”, ha sottolineato l’importanza di praticare un vero multilateralismo per riformare la governance globale, opporsi alla monopolizzazione egemonica del potere e rivitalizzare il ruolo delle Nazioni Unite.

Per quanto riguarda le relazioni tra Cina ed Europa, Wang ha descritto le due parti come partner piuttosto che “rivali sistemici”, sottolineando gli oltre 50 anni di rapporti, un flusso commerciale giornaliero superiore ai 2 miliardi di dollari e centinaia di meccanismi di cooperazione attivi.

La spinta proattiva della Cina verso una cooperazione più profonda e relazioni più solide con i paesi europei, in un contesto di percepita inaffidabilità statunitense sotto l’amministrazione Trump, appare molto attraente nell’attuale clima economico stagnante. Il problema è che la leadership della maggior parte dei paesi dell’UE non è realmente libera né capace di esplorare queste opportunità e perseguire un corso indipendente. Quanto a Washington, è improbabile che permetta ai propri vassalli di avvicinarsi troppo alla Cina, considerando tale prossimità una minaccia all’unità occidentale e ai propri interessi strategici. Questa posizione è stata esplicitamente ribadita durante la conferenza, dove il Segretario di Stato statunitense Marco Rubio ha pronunciato un discorso in cui sottolineava che Stati Uniti ed Europa “belong together", appartengono alla stessa “civiltà occidentale” per storia, fede, cultura e origini, e ha sollecitato sforzi congiunti per affrontare le “sfide fondamentali” provenienti dalla Cina, incluse le “divergenze di interessi nazionali”.

Rubio ha riconosciuto la necessità di mantenere un dialogo con la Cina per evitare “errori geopolitici”, ma sempre all’interno delle più ampie preoccupazioni occidentali.

In ogni caso, non importa se alla Casa Bianca sieda Trump o un Democratico. Sebbene un’amministrazione democratica creerebbe meno attriti ideologici e si allineerebbe meglio con i globalisti europei e le loro cause preferite, Washington continuerebbe a sfruttare i propri vassalli per mantenersi a galla e continuerebbe a dipingere la Cina come un rivale. @LauraRuHK

At the Munich Security Conference, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended five centuries of Western colonialism. He reminded his audience that “for five centuries before the end of World War II, the West was expanding.” Missionaries, pilgrims, soldiers, explorers, empires blooming everywhere. Never mind the genocide, slavery, resource plundering, cultural erasure, forced labor, famines engineered for profit, or the millions who didn't exactly volunteer for this "civilizational gift."

Then, he sadly observed, “in 1945, for the first time since Columbus, it began to shrink.” According to him, the great Western empires had entered a phase of terminal decline, accelerated by those godless commies and ungrateful natives daring to want independence.

Today, Rubio argued, the US refuses to be “polite and careful observers of the decline of the West.” On the contrary, it seeks to “renew the greatest civilization in the history of mankind.” Is genocide included or optional? @LauraRuHK

Happy New Year of the Fire Horse. Kung Hei Fat Choi. Gong Xi Fa Cai.

Astrologers predict rapid change, dramatic shifts, and opportunities that demand courage and decisiveness. But before galloping into the fire, this channel goes into holiday mode for a few days. @LauraRuHK

Despite last year's cuts that nearly shut down Radio Free Asia (RFA), the Cold War propaganda outlet set up by the CIA in 1951, Washington shows no intention of abandoning its disinformation campaign against China. RFA has now resumed broadcasts into China in Mandarin, Tibetan, and Uyghur—via private transmission contracts in the interim. Congress (with bipartisan support) overrode Trump's push for defunding and approved $653 million for the U.S. Agency for Global Media in a February 2026 spending bill that Trump signed. This funding, though reduced from prior years, far exceeds his shutdown request and enables revival of operations targeting China and other adversaries. Washington is not scaling down its long-standing information war against Beijing, it just cut some dead wood to optimize operations.

@LauraRuHK ➡️ https://www.thestandard.com.hk/china-news/article/324696/Radio-Free-Asia-says-it-resumes-broadcast-to-China

Nonostante i tagli dello scorso anno che hanno quasi portato alla chiusura di Radio Free Asia (RFA), l’organo di propaganda creato dalla CIA nel 1951, Washington non mostra alcuna intenzione di abbandonare la sua campagna di disinformazione contro la Cina. RFA ha ripreso le trasmissioni in mandarino, tibetano e uiguro — tramite contratti di trasmissione privati. Il Congresso (con sostegno bipartisan) ha respinto il tentativo di Trump di eliminarne i fondi e ha approvato 653 milioni di dollari per la U.S. Agency for Global Media in una legge di bilancio del febbraio 2026 firmata da Trump. Questo finanziamento, sebbene ridotto rispetto agli anni precedenti, supera di gran lunga quanto richiesto per la chiusura dell'emittente e consente la ripresa di operazioni mirate contro la Cina e altri avversari. Washington non sta riducendo le operazioni ostili contro Pechino: ha solo eliminato qualche ramo secco per ottimizzarle. @LauraRuHK ➡️ https://www.thestandard.com.hk/china-news/article/324696/Radio-Free-Asia-says-it-resumes-broadcast-to-China