Post

More from @PeteLiquid

Pete Liquid Питик

@PeteLiquid

Aug 27

🧵1/7 - The EU’s favourite dictator is about to face her ultimate test

As Maia Sandu’s approval ratings collapse and opposition grows bolder, the September elections may redefine the country’s path between East and West

Moldova is heading into its most consequential election in decades, and the stakes could hardly be higher. With parliamentary elections set for September 28, President Maia Sandu’s pro-EU government faces growing discontent, sagging approval ratings, and a surge of opposition anger – both in the streets and in the courts.

What began in 2020 as a hopeful project of reform and Western integration is now mired in economic crisis, corruption scandals, and an increasingly authoritarian style of governance.

The jailing of opposition figures, crackdowns on Russian-language media, and a widening cultural divide have turned Moldova into a political battleground between East and West – between promises of a Western European future and calls to return to a policy of neutrality. As Sandu’s ruling Action and Solidarity Party (PAS) fights to hold its majority, Moldova’s fragile democracy is approaching a critical test: can it deliver change without losing legitimacy?

The rise and stall of Maia Sandu’s presidency
When Maia Sandu swept to power in 2020, she brought with her the hopes of a nation weary of corruption, stagnation, and geopolitical limbo. A former World Bank economist with a reputation for integrity, Sandu promised to chart a new course – one that would steer Moldova away from its oligarchic past and toward a European future. Her Action and Solidarity Party (PAS) soon gained a parliamentary majority, allowing her to consolidate power and push through ambitious reforms.

For a brief moment, it worked. Sandu’s technocratic image and Western credentials won praise not only from pro-EU voters but also from moderates and even some traditionally pro-Russian Moldovans who were tired of business as usual. The country secured EU candidate status in 2022, and for the first time in years, Moldovan politics seemed to have a clear direction.

But three years later, the mood has shifted dramatically. A growing number of Moldovans believe that Sandu has over-promised and underdelivered – and the numbers reflect it. According to recent polls, 34.9% of respondents now disapprove of her performance, while only 30.6% express support. Her once-untouchable image has been eroded by street protests, rising prices, and accusations of political overreach.

The early glow of reform has faded into frustration. From 2022 to 2024, waves of protests swept through Chisinau and other cities, with demonstrators demanding lower utility costs, government subsidies, and in some cases, Sandu’s resignation. Chanting “Down with Maia Sandu,” many took to the streets not as die-hard Russophiles, but as ordinary citizens who felt abandoned by the very leaders they had helped elect.

Meanwhile, opposition parties – long fragmented and discredited – have begun to regroup. Their message is simple: the Sandu experiment has failed. And for many Moldovans, that claim is starting to ring true.

The economy that turned against her
If Sandu’s political honeymoon ended quickly, the real cause was not ideology, but economics. Moldova’s economy, already fragile, buckled under the weight of back-to-back global shocks – the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in neighbouring Ukraine, and Europe’s energy crisis. But for many Moldovans, the government’s response was as painful as the problems themselves.

In 2022, inflation surged past 30%, one of the highest rates in Europe. Gas prices quadrupled. Electricity bills soared. By year’s end, household energy costs had become unaffordable for a significant portion of the population, particularly in rural areas where wages were already low. Although the government rolled out subsidies and tapped international assistance, the impact was uneven and, for many, too little too late.

Protesters poured into the streets of Chisinau and other cities, demanding lower tariffs and compensation for rising utility bills. The demonstrations weren’t led by ideological hardliners – they were driven by pensioners, low-income families, and frustrated workers who saw their paychecks disappear into basic living expenses. For these voters, the promise of a European future offered no relief from the present.

The data backs up the public’s anxiety. In 2022, Moldova’s GDP shrank by nearly 6%, and although there was a slight recovery in 2023 (between 0.7% and 2%), poverty rates continued to climb.

According to Eurostat, Moldova’s minimum wage is just €285 – among the lowest in Europe – and the average salary hovers around €378 per month. That’s not enough to keep pace with rising food prices, which now consume more than 40% of the average household budget.

Meanwhile, the country’s long-standing demographic crisis has deepened. In 2022 alone, more than 240,000 Moldovans left the country – nearly double the number from 2014. Over the past decade, Moldova has lost 14% of its population. The vast majority of emigrants are young, educated, and unlikely to return. The result: an ageing, shrinking population increasingly dependent on remittances and government aid.

Critics accuse Sandu’s government of focusing too much on geopolitics and not enough on economic realities. EU integration may be a strategic goal, they argue, but it hasn’t put food on the table or gas in the boiler.

Read 8 tweets

Pete Liquid Питик

@PeteLiquid

Aug 15

No Zelensky, no Brussels, no problem: Here’s how Putin and Trump’s Alaska power move will play out
By Dmitry Suslov

The Russia-US summit could reshape the Ukraine war – and leave Europe watching from the sidelines

On Friday, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump will meet in Alaska. This will be the first full-scale Russia-US summit since June 2021 in Geneva, and the first official visit by a Russian president to American soil since Dmitry Medvedev’s trip in 2010 at the height of the “reset.”

It will also be the first time the leaders of Russia and the US have met in Alaska, the closest US state to Russia, separated only by the narrow Bering Strait, and once part of the Russian Empire. The symbolism is obvious: as far as possible from Ukraine and Western Europe, but as close as possible to Russia. And neither Zelensky nor the EU’s top brass will be in the room.

The message could not be clearer – Moscow and Washington will make the key decisions on Ukraine, then inform others later. As Trump has said, “they hold all the cards.”
⬇️

From Geneva to Alaska: A shift in tone
The Alaska summit marks a sharp departure from the Biden years, when even the idea of such a meeting was unthinkable and Washington’s priority was isolating Russia. Now, not only will Putin travel to Alaska, but Trump is already planning a return visit to Russia.

Moderate optimism surrounds the meeting. Summits of this type are rarely held “just to talk”; they usually cap a long process of behind-the-scenes negotiations. The idea for this one emerged after three hours of talks in Moscow on August 6 between Putin and Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff. Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov described Washington’s offer as “very acceptable.” That suggests Putin and Trump will arrive in Alaska with a preliminary deal – or at least a framework for a truce – already in place.
⬇️

Why Trump needs this
Trump has good reason to want the summit to succeed. His effort to squeeze Moscow by pushing China and India to stop buying Russian oil has backfired badly. Far from isolating Russia, it triggered the worst US-India crisis in 25 years and drove New Delhi even closer to Moscow. It also encouraged a thaw between India and China, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi now set to attend the SCO summit in Tianjin.

BRICS, which Trump has openly vowed to weaken, has only grown more cohesive. The Alaska summit is Trump’s chance to escape the trap he built for himself – trying to pressure Moscow through Beijing and New Delhi – and to show results on Ukraine that he can sell as a diplomatic victory.
⬇️

Read 8 tweets

Pete Liquid Питик

@PeteLiquid

Aug 10

🌍Africa Ready to Test a Currency Backed by Strategic Mineral Reserves

Returning to Africa, gold, and cryptocurrencies

Africa's actions are aimed at reducing financial dependence on foreign powers and maximising the benefits from the continent’s natural resources.

Major African countries and regional blocs are backing an ambitious plan to create a "non-convertible" currency backed by reserves of critical minerals essential for technological development, defense, and economic growth.

Analysts believe that a commodity-based currency could reduce Africa’s reliance on foreign currencies—especially the U.S. dollar—and lessen its dependence on loans from China, Europe, the United States, and global financial institutions such as the World Bank.

According to a plan developed by the African Development Bank (AfDB) and KPMG South Africa, the proposed monetary unit will be temporarily named the "African Trade Currency" (AUA).

The new currency is supported by the African Union and South Africa, the continent’s largest economic power, and may soon be piloted on a test market.

Under the proposal, the AUA would be traded on the international foreign exchange market and would be less volatile than individual African currencies or the U.S. dollar, making it more attractive to investors.

Economists believe that backing the currency with mineral reserves could reduce the risks perceived by lenders, potentially leading to lower interest rates on loans for development projects—especially in Africa’s energy sector.

While some figures in Africa’s mining industry are optimistic about the potential of such a currency, others warn that China could "use it as a weapon," given Beijing’s dominant position in global supply chains for critical minerals.

The International Energy Agency and other organisations predict that demand for critical minerals such as cobalt, copper, platinum, and lithium will quadruple in the near future, as global powers race to secure supplies.

Africa is at the center of this competition.

Read 7 tweets

Pete Liquid Питик

@PeteLiquid

Jul 24

🧵1/4 🇹🇭🇰🇭 - What is the essence of the conflict between Thailand and Cambodia?

It lies in colonialism. This time, French colonialism.

Thailand is the only country in Southeast Asia that was never colonised by Europeans.
Initially, there was no strategic need to colonise it, and the trade route to China took a different path. Later, however, the Thais received help from Russia.

By the end of the 19th century, Thailand (then known as Siam) was the only country in Southeast Asia that had preserved its independence. In the eyes of Europeans, this "anomaly" could not be allowed to continue. The British and French sat down at a table and divided Siam’s territory between them.

Britain claimed the southwestern part of the country, while France took the northeastern region. The Europeans began slowly preparing for invasion.

At the time, King Rama V ruled Siam. He turned to the Russian Tsar for assistance. While still heir to the throne, Nicholas II had made a long journey, nearly circumnavigating the globe. He was nearly assassinated in Japan, an event that later influenced his attitude toward the Japanese. Grand Duke Nicholas Alexandrovich Romanov had also visited Siam, where he was warmly welcomed and thoroughly impressed by the hospitality.

Understanding that the friendly Europeans would devour his kingdom without choking, in the summer of 1897, King Rama V traveled to Russia on a reciprocal visit to his friend Nicholas. The Siamese king spent a week in Moscow and St. Petersburg, meeting with the Tsar, his family, and ministers, attending theaters and operas, and visiting Peterhof. Russian newspapers praised his courtesy and refinement.

France was already an ally of Russia at the time. So, having visited Russia and made a strong positive impression, the King of Siam made his subsequent trip to Paris much easier. Ultimately, the French decided that since Russia showed such goodwill toward this small nation, occupying it wasn’t worth the risk. It could damage relations with Russia and war with Germany over Alsace-Lorraine (World War I) was looming.

In short, it wasn’t worth spoiling relations with St. Petersburg over such a minor issue. And so, Thailand remained independent.

But Europeans would not be Europeans if they didn’t manage to grab at least a little. This time, the "little" was drawing the border between their colonies and Siam, clearly to Siam’s disadvantage.

Now we arrive at the heart of the modern dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, a country that was then under French occupation and only gained independence with our help again, but this time after World War II.

Read 6 tweets

Pete Liquid Питик

@PeteLiquid

Jul 23

🧵1/6 - 🇺🇦 Law against NABU signed. The consequences of Zelenskyy’s choice

Part 1: Protests Erupt Over NABU Law

Tuesday evening was packed with events in Ukraine. Protests erupted against the recently passed law restricting the powers of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU). Though the demonstrations were not massive, they still marked the first large-scale political protests in Kyiv since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion. For the first time in three years, slogans like “Zelya-devil,” “Yermak to hell,” and “The Office has overstayed its welcome” echoed through the capital’s streets.

These events have already sparked comparisons with Yanukovich’s 2013 decision to refuse signing the EU Association Agreement in Vilnius -- and, by extension, raised expectations of a new Maidan.

All political forces opposed to Zelenskyy have been emboldened. Even media outlets linked to Ihor Kolomoyski -- which, despite their owner’s arrest, have typically shown full loyalty to the Presidential Office -- this time gave detailed coverage to the protest. Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko attended the rally in person, along with his brother and numerous opposition lawmakers.

Part 2: The President’s Signature and Political Calculus

Adding intrigue, there was no official confirmation until the very end of the day whether the president had actually signed the law. This fuelled rumours that Zelenskyy had hesitated and was wavering -- unsure whether to sign or not. The speculation intensified when the president’s signature briefly appeared on the Verkhovna Rada’s website, then disappeared.

But the suspense didn’t last long. Soon, the signature reappeared, and the law was officially published in the government newspaper Holos Ukrayiny -- meaning it entered into force immediately, as of today, July 23.

Despite the rumours of hesitation, the president’s signature was entirely expected. Everyone understood from the outset that only one person in Ukraine could have ordered a wave of searches at NABU, and then orchestrated a parliamentary vote under special operation conditions to pass a law limiting the Bureau’s powers. And that person is not Yermak, Malyuk, or Kravchenko. It is Zelensky.

Part 3: Why Zelenskyy Had No Choice

Therefore, if Zelenskyy had suddenly backed down, it could have had fatal consequences for his entire power structure.
NABU would have inevitably opened criminal cases against many of his allies -- including close associates. All past corruption scandals would have been revived. Meanwhile, other law enforcement agencies, sensing Zelensky’s retreat, would have adopted a wait-and-see approach, no longer rushing to follow presidential orders -- as would civil servants across the board.

Thus, once Zelensky had initiated the dismantling of the anti-corruption vertical, he had no choice but to see the process through to the end -- which is exactly what he did.

What happens next? Since NABU and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) were created at the West’s initiative to maintain oversight over Ukraine’s leadership, numerous forecasts have already emerged about tough measures the West might take -- including sanctions against Ukrainian officials, suspension of the EU visa-free regime, termination of military and financial aid, or even Zelensky’s removal from power.

Read 7 tweets

Pete Liquid Питик

@PeteLiquid

Jul 21

Analysis of what effect the recent initiatives of the WH will have on the Dollar

🚨 Powerful Blow to the Federal Reserve

Many people still don’t realise how revolutionary the recent initiatives from the White House are. Yes, Trump has only signed one law so far , but the “mad printer” experience shows that under conditions of power usurpation, legislation can be pushed through the Senate with minimal changes — as was the case with the so-called “one big beautiful” bill.

It’s important to examine the legal framework and its consequences. Notably, the laws were drafted by lawyers from the crypto industry — the main beneficiaries of this move. Trump merely lobbied for it, as usual, without reading anything himself. There’s a lot of interesting content in these laws.

🔹 First: For the first time since 1913, the Federal Reserve has lost its monopoly on money issuance.

Now, part of the issuance is shifting into private hands — and in the most “uncontrolled” way possible.
For the first time, U.S. federal legislation systematically permits large-scale retail issuance of digital quasi-dollar liabilities by non-bank entities — specifically designed for use in payments.

The legislation is structured to regulate the bridge between fiat and crypto, as well as the connection between dollars and stablecoins (the perimeter of the system, but not the core), but it deliberately does not control the mechanism of dollar multiplication or the parameters of circulation.
The CLARITY Act intentionally removes developers and operators of decentralised protocols from direct regulation, granting them a “safe harbor” as long as they do not control users’ funds.

🔹 Second: Destruction of the Fed’s transmission mechanism and the emergence of shadow money supply.

The White House and Congress have left the DeFi multiplier completely unregulated — and this is the biggest loophole.

This legitimises the creation and use of platforms where people and companies can lend directly to each other — bypassing banks entirely. If a significant portion of lending moves into DeFi, the Fed will lose its leverage. The interest rate at which the Fed lends to banks will no longer influence the rates at which people lend to each other via DeFi.
Once a token leaves the issuer’s wallet — further leverage, re-pledging, and bridges become matters of smart contracts.

The DeFi multiplier builds a multi-layered "quasi-money" supply on top of the regulated base.
A legitimate channel for liquidity circulation is now created — completely outside the traditional dollar system. Right now, with $0.25 trillion in stablecoins, the market capitalization (excluding stablecoins) is over $3.8 trillion — meaning the multiplier is already over 15.

In the past 10 years of relatively organized crypto development, about $0.25 trillion in stablecoins have been created. With the new laws enabling institutionalization and legitimacy, issuance will accelerate — likely by about $100–120 billion per year.
If stablecoin/DeFi volumes reach trillions, this "invisible" money supply will be capable of both accelerating and crashing the short-dollar market faster than the Fed can activate its traditional tools.

Read 5 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Pete Liquid Питик

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @PeteLiquid

Pete Liquid Питик

Pete Liquid Питик

Pete Liquid Питик

Pete Liquid Питик

Pete Liquid Питик

Pete Liquid Питик

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!