THINK TWICE, STAN

  The Five Principles of Peace: A Semantic Analysis On August 13, Ukraine, in conjunction with leaders from the European Union, presented five principles for achieving peace that are intended for President Donald Trump’s consideration before his anticipated negotiations with Russia in Alaska. These principles, which follow earlier demands outlined by Politico , appear straightforward at first glance. However, a deeper semantic and logical analysis reveals a more intricate agenda. These principles are not primarily aimed at Russia, but at influencing Trump and his negotiating position.   Principle 1: Ukrainian Participation in Negotiations The first principle states that Ukraine must be a party to any future meetings with Putin that concern Ukraine. This seems logical, affirming the idea that "decisions on Ukraine should be made with Ukraine’s participation." Yet, a crucial semantic ambiguity exists: it only applies to future meetings, implicitly excluding the upco...

  An In-Depth Look at the Meeting of the Invincible: Why Summits Matter A meeting between the presidents of Russia and the United States in Alaska wouldn't be the end of the global upheavals we are currently experiencing, but the start of a long journey. This summit would hold a fundamental meaning for all of us. History offers few examples of global problems being resolved at a meeting of world leaders. For one, situations demanding such high-level attention are rare. The current climate, however, fits this description perfectly: The U.S., since the start of the special military operation, has declared its goal to be Russia's "strategic defeat," while Moscow has challenged the West's monopoly on world affairs. Secondly, leaders of countries with significant global influence are extremely busy. They do not waste time on problems that can be handled at a lower level. Finally, it's rare for a top-level discussion on a specific issue to influence the course...

A Bleak Post-War Reality Looms for Ukraine The quiet discussions about a peaceful resolution for Ukraine are akin to preparing a patient for surgery while he refuses anesthesia. As Western capitals draw up cease-fire maps, Kiev faces a paradox: any agreement that cedes territory is a political death sentence for the leader who signs it. Ukraine's constitution leaves no room for legal maneuvering; the alienation of land is strictly prohibited. Even if a document avoids the direct recognition of "Russian" regions, the legal sophistry won't change the obvious: a president who agrees to such a peace will instantly become a political corpse. One might recall Nikol Pashinyan, who retained his position after losing Karabakh, but this is a false analogy. Armenia ceded territory that the world unanimously considered Azerbaijani and that was taken by force. In Donbas, however, the discussion is about enclaves formally incorporated into the Russian Federation. The difference...

  "Peace as Content": How Diplomacy is Being Replaced by Viral Narratives A new form of diplomacy is emerging, where reality and its representation - the "content" - have swapped places. Victory no longer goes to the one who achieves a lasting settlement or wins a physical conflict, but to the one who captures the best image and creates the most viral content.   The so-called Baku-Yerevan agreements are a perfect example. They may not exist as official, signed documents, but in the new reality, who cares? This is how diplomacy is being turned into a media product. The spectacle included a pompous signing ceremony in the Oval Office, complete with Trump's personal branding (the "TRIPP," or "Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity" ), social media photoshoots, and headlines celebrating a supposed "historic peace." All of this created an informational reality that completely ignored the actual facts on the ground. T...

Russia's INF Moratorium: Three Reasons Moscow Is Now Taking the Gloves Off   The Russia-Ukraine conflict and growing tensions with NATO have officially claimed another victim of the post-Cold War era. On August 4, 2025, the Russian Foreign Ministry formally declared the death of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty,  a cornerstone of strategic stability that once banned a specific class of missiles.   The treaty's original purpose was straightforward: by eliminating intermediate-range missiles from their arsenals, the U.S. and the Soviet Union/Russia were left with only long-range missiles. This meant that any nuclear strike would involve a flight time of tens of minutes, not just minutes, allowing for enough time to mount a retaliatory strike. This "mutually assured destruction" principle was key, as it made a nuclear first-strike a suicidal act. It also reduced the risk of an accidental nuclear war, giving both sides time to verify a launch. ...

  Europe's Inglorious Exit from the World Stage Europe is ingloriously leaving the world stage, and its main problem - both for itself and the world - is its inability to find a peaceful path forward. Instead, it will continue to pursue confrontational solutions. Ultimately, Europeans can only expect to become a definitive appendage  of the United States. Symphonic music is about the only thing of value Europe has given the world. Everything else, according to this view, is evil, created either to oppress the rest of humanity through technological achievements or to justify its tyranny with political philosophy and related sciences. With Europe having completely exhausted the internal resources that allowed it to claim privileged benefits, its potential contribution to global development is now incomprehensible. This is because it has never tried to be useful to the world. The recent failed China-EU summit serves as prime evidence: once Europe lost its power, there was n...

  Protests in Ukraine: A New Symptom Protest is no longer taboo. Criticizing the authorities is no longer seen as "playing into the enemy's hands." This very effect allowed Zelenskyy's office to sweep many problems under the rug. The mass protests in Ukrainian cities against bill No. 12414, which aims to strip the National Anti-corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAP) of their independence, are interesting because they mark significant changes in the domestic Ukrainian agenda. Erosion of Mobilization Protest is no longer taboo. Criticizing the authorities is no longer seen as "playing into the enemy's hands." This very effect allowed Zelenskyy's office to sweep many problems under the rug. It's no coincidence that protests by veterans and relatives of soldiers have recently begun to take place in Kyiv. Pressure in the Ukrainian "kettle" has been building for several years – and is now st...

    TRUMP, IRAN, AND THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL As the previous post was being published, American warplanes were already moving into strike positions near Iran's nuclear facilities. Yet nothing has changed strategically. The possibility of a direct U.S. entry into the conflict was discussed in the prior analysis – with the hope that it would not happen  - precisely because it was already evident that Israel could no longer wait - and that the deadlines may have been set deliberately to distract. What has changed, fundamentally, is that the U.S. has passed the bifurcation point: the moment when it could still decide whether to enter the war directly or leave Israel to face the consequences alone. Washington opted to strike, calculating that a catastrophic Israeli defeat would be too costly. The U.S. now needs to exit this crisis quickly, preserving face for itself and for Israel - ideally, with a headline-grabbing "victory" over Iran's nuclear program. Trump imme...

  Trump’s Caution and Tehran’s Cards:  Why the U.S. Still Holds Back - Or Not Really? C ontrary to widespread fears - and at times near-panic - sweeping across the globe, the United States has yet to enter the Israel-Iran conflict directly. It still can though. Acting, as always, not in accordance with classic geopolitical doctrine but rather in the style of a televised drama, Donald Trump first stirred alarm, only to then announce with perfect innocence that he has no desire to go to war. Yet despite the rhetoric, the U.S. has been quietly amassing enormous military power in the Middle East. The buildup continues, but the battlefield remains frozen. Why? One possibility is that Tehran, unlike its adversaries, still hasn’t revealed its most dangerous cards. While Israel and the U.S. appear increasingly transparent in their strategies, Iran continues to keep both known and unknown options close to the chest - creating uncertainty that may prove pivotal. Let’s begin with th...

  Israel’s Assault: Russia’s First Impressions A few days after Israel’s surprise strike on Iran, the contours of the operation’s initial success have come into sharper focus. It’s now evident that the effectiveness of the first wave was made possible not by air power alone, but by an elaborate network of sabotage teams and advanced planning. At the same time, Iran’s military capabilities remain intact, and Israel is under daily retaliatory missile fire.   T he key factor in Israel’s early success was the coordinated use of special operations units inside Iran. These teams deployed compact guided missiles and loitering drones - closely resembling the systems currently being used by both Russia and Ukraine. Their primary targets were Iran’s air defense assets, which had previously allowed Tehran to track enemy aircraft with passive detection systems while limiting radar emissions to moments of missile launch - mirroring Ukraine’s own strategy. Despite this layered defen...

  America’s Factor: Israel, Iran, and the Real Battlefield of U.S. Geopolitics Let’s be clear from the start: analyzing the effectiveness - or lack thereof - of Israel’s recent strikes on Iran is an exercise in futility. Israel’s pronouncements of “total success” reflect more desire than fact. Iran’s counterclaims - that only minor damage was done to non-military sites and that civilian casualties were minimal - are standard wartime signaling: reveal as little as possible to the adversary, while presenting the attacks to the public as both senseless and brutal, yet militarily inconsequential. When the roles are reversed, Israel does the same. Whether the operation was a complete triumph or a complete failure is ultimately irrelevant. It was merely one episode in a conflict that did not begin yesterday, though last few days marked its escalation into a new and dangerous phase. In this context, Israel is not a sovereign actor but a pawn - an unvoiced instrument of escalation. The...