Is Russia really losing the conflict in Ukraine?

The Western media (true for the Romanian media, also) ranges from suggesting this possibility to outright proclaiming it. Yet, on the battlefield, the Russians are very close to sieging Kramatorsk and Slavyansk, the only big cities in Donbas remaining under the Ukrainians.

But the battleground success can be very misleading. I noticed before, in several articles on this blog, including when analyzing the inane 28-point “peace” plan drafted by some Russian imbeciles living large and impersonating “elites” in a country that deserves much better, that Russia’s leadership’s frame of mind is not conducive to victory, but to self-defeat and self-ruin.

Russia set out to demilitarize Ukraine and that should still be the goal. Any fighting capability that remains in Ukraine is bound to be used by the West to attack Russia on and on in the future. Yet Russia is self-confiding itself to the narrow framework of a “measured response”, a reply, a “retaliation” in kind, instead of taking concrete actions to defeat and occupy Ukraine, the only outcome for them at this moment.

The Russians have come to accept attacks on their civilian targets as commonplace in this conflict. The Ukrainians do not hide that their drone campaigns are destined to terrorize the Russians into revolting against their rulers and force them into conceding. But the said rulers limit themselves to half measures and parodic actions.

The burning of Russia’s private logistics, such as Wildberries and Ozon is not a small matter. Russia has a huge territory and real difficulties in hauling merchandise from one place to another, due to geographical constraints. Any distortion further adds to such hardships. Moreover, the distribution chains and the industrial chains are fragile, if they break it could take years to rebuild, if ever. Russia, instead of turning into an economic autarchy, is more and more resorting to smuggling, which clearly is not the answer.

These are not postcard victories for Ukraine, images to be served by the propaganda for a stupid Western audience. These are feats that really bite the ordinary Russian, whom their cretin elites count on remaining docile… For how long?

Clearly, the weaknesses in Russia’s conduct of the war (“special military operation”, please…) that I alluded to before, have not subsided but have amplified.

Emil Boc, acest Nicanor Alvarado de Răchițele

Nicanor Alvarado este dictatorul arhetipal, inventat sau distilat – cine spune că nu e/a fost real?! - de Garcia Marquez în “Toamna patriarhului”, care guvernează prin puterea cuvântului său și, uneori, prin autoritatea incontestabilă a propriei sale prezențe fizice (ceea ce, evident, nu se aplică aici…).

Și Boc diktează verbal, ferindu-se de cuvântul scris, dar la modul parodic și pițigăiat care i se potrivește apariției sale lipsite de anvergură, de substanță și cu o competență incertă. Să ne amintim cum recent a interzis verbal arborarea sportivă a steagului Rusiei, operațiune pentru care nu are nici o competență, nici chiar dacă dădea interdicția în scris.

Acum, tot verbal, Nicanor prilejuiește untold folosința unor spații publice ultracentrale și masive, plătite cu zero lei.

De esența actului administrativ (contra arbitrariului) este caracterul scris, pentru a se putea verifica motivele și, cel mai important, temeiul legal, adică articolul, alineatul și actul normativ care dă voie emitentului să dispună ceea ce dispune.

Nu sunt singurele cazuri de comandament verbal (și neacoperit de lege). Îmi amintesc fapta, nu însă și circumstanțele concrete. Mi-a rămas în memorie pentru că atunci și acolo m-a frapat desconsiderarea flagrantă a funcționalității poziției de primar și am descoperit paralela cu Nicanor Alvarado (ceea ce transpune Clujul în postura de dictatură tipică sud-americană, de republică bananieră, de deficit imens de democrație…). Ei bine, Boc a venit în consiliul local să țină un substitut de conferință de presă, în care a anunțat un diktat verbal (primul pe care l-am remarcat, or fi fost anterior și altele, sunt sigur, dar nu-l urmăresc, puțin mă interesează individul) cum că de atunci încolo se face X. Cum am zis, nu-mi amintesc ce anume X urma să se facă, dar sunt convins că angajații l-au făcut ca și cum le era sub nas în scris, că doar a zis “șefu’ ăl mare” (așa îi zic ăștia, vă vine să credeți sau nu).

Tipic pentru Cluj, nici un presar nu a înțeles enormitatea diktatului verbal. Trist pentru Cluj, nici un consilier local nu a priceput enormitatea încălcării dreptului administrativ. Nici atunci, nici acum.

Cum asigură diminutivul dictator pentru untold folosința Splaiului Independenței (unde ăia își pun inclusiv scenă), Aleii Stadionului, str. G. Coșbuc, spațiilor publice din jurul polivalentei și stadionului și dintre ele, complet gratis, fără un ban? Simplu. Neasumânu-și în scris și în drept ceea ce le asigură verbal și în fapt.

Nicanor dă o dispoziție în scris, este cea descrisă în comunicatul primăriei intitulat “Reorganizarea circulației în zona stadionului Cluj Arena”, prin care se anunță unele “restricții de circulație”. În teorie, închiderea circulației este nediscriminatorie neexistând exceptări de la închidere, nici una, de nici un fel.

Dar această dispoziție nu constituie pentru untold (și pentru nimeni) un titlu locativ, un drept locativ (de folosință) transmis. Nu au nici un drept conferit, zero. De altfel nimeni nu poate da bunul public gratis, că ar fi delapidare.

Și totuși, în fapt untold folosește discreționar (și, repet, gratuit) câteva hectare de spații publice betonate, centrale, pe care le este interzis, ca oricărui alt cetățean, să se găsească…

Mai mult decât atât, în mod ciudat, jandarmeria și poliția locală le protejează folosința ilegală, folosul tras din patrimoniul public, fără contraechivalent, transferul de resursă. În plus, spațiile publice folosite fără titlu sunt îngrădite și apărate de PP Protect. Niște privați care pun în executare (selectiv) o deciziei administrativă? Nicăieri decât în Cluj.

De aici rezultă că există niște dispoziții verbale, precise, pentru ca sub prtextul străveziu al “interzicerii” circulație să se asigure în fapt folosința (gratuită) de către untold a hectare de spațiu public betonat.

Am insistat să întreb de ce anumite mașini trec de barierele PP Protect, deși nu există nici o exceptare asumată în scris și cu temei legal, și un funcționar de la locală mi-a arătat convins un panou pe care scrie tot ce trebuie. Este cel din fotografie, emană exclusiv de la untold și nu are nici o valoare juridică în afară de faptul că demonstrează înstăpânirea lor pe bunul public, ocrotită de forța publică deturnată de la menirea sa.

King of the Hill

Să susții un “protest” al grefierilor care nu are o bază legală și care împiedică avocații să își facă munca, când acest protest se bazează pe un presupus regim de incompatibilități care trebuie nelimitat și la nesfârșit compensat preferențial, ar fi o crimă față de avocați, care, la rândul lor, au o grămadă de incompatibilități și care nu iau pensii speciale, ci derizorii. De data asta, UNBR nu a făcut-o. Felicitări.

Ce le displace cel mai mult “protestatarilor” direcți sau indirecți, la vedere sau mai în umbră, este dispariția legilor separate de salarizare pentru magistrați și grefieri și includerea lor la troaca comună din care toți bugetarii își iau osânza. E un moment de turnură, fără îndoială. Pentru prima dată în istorie societatea este chemată, prin aleșii săi, să stabilească niște comparații între veniturile bugetarilor. Nivelul actual al veniturilor magistraților nu este consimțit de societate, ci este sustras prin mii sau poate chiar zeci de mii de procese frivole “judecate” încrucișat: eu îți admit acțiunea ta, tu îmi admiți acțiunea mea, iată ce merituoși suntem amândoi… Și ce bogați ne-am făcut!
De multe ori aceste procese vizau preluarea unor sporuri acordate unor alte familii ocupaționale bugetare pentru că și ei îl merită automat pentru că sunt, susțin ei fără rușine, cei mai importanți bugetari, totul li se cuvine. Literalmente, scris negru pe alb în “hotărâri judecătorești”. Deci dacă statul dă unui funcționar un spor, automat trebuie să i-l dea și bugetarului king of the hill, magistrat. Noaptea minții.
Deci dacă de exemplu statul i-a dat profesorilor de gimnaziu un mic spor, l-au pretins si magistrații pe motiv că și ei sunt bugetari și amărâtul de profesor îi discriminează?! Dar în același timp au refuzat și refuză să fie prinși cu toți bugetarii în aceeași lege de salarizare... Vor toate drepturile tuituror bugetarilor, dar ei să rămână în afara legii salarizării bugetare să nu cumva ceilalti bugetari să ceară sporurile și drepturile lor…
Desigur că există grefieri care lucrează, majoritatea chiar, după cum majoritatea lucrează și în avocatură, dar există și grefieri cu tratament preferențial (colaboraționiștii, agitatorii, prestidigitatorii care repartizează “aleatoriu” unde trebuie cauzele care trebuie), și cred că narațiunea “protestului” e construită mai ales de aceștia. Tot ei trollează nelimitat orice opinie contrară, pentru că au timp, au bani, au organizare și nu prea au altceva de făcut decât comentarii pe ici, pe colo, la care își fac norma cu asupra de măsură chiar.
Deci acum devin posibile întrebări precum: Cât câștigă un judecător față de un medic, de exemplu, și un grefier față de un asistent medical? De ce judecătorul să câștige de N ori mai mult decât un medic și să mai și ia pensie specială, chirie decontată, 35 de zile lucrătoare concediu de odihnă plătit pe an? De ce un grefier să ia dublu față de un asistent medical, și să mai ia și pensie specială, chirie decontată, 30 de zile lucrătoare concediu de odihnă plătit pe an? Grefierii și magistrații vor să elimine decizia societății asupra acestor dileme esențiale. Vor să dicteze ei corelațiile care le convin…
Pentru cine nu și-a pus problema și crede încă lamentările ipocrite cu care partea vocală a sistemului judiciar mitraliază publicul de fiecare dată, să ne amintim că și funcționarii publici au multe incompatibilități, nici un fel de PENSIE SPECIALĂ, dar nu le menționează deloc ca bază pentru o îndrituire perpetuă la porție triplă sau cvadruplă de lături.

Cum desfășoară Tribunalul Cluj adunările generale ale judecătorilor: iată pentru ce le plătim pensii speciale, salarii exorbitante, chirii și 35 de zile lucrătoare concedii de odihnă

La nivel aparent, Tribunalul Cluj a organizat o ședința a adunării generale a judecătorilor în urma căreia s-a emis o hotărâre (nr. 4) de amânare a unei multitudini de cauze pentru a sprijini “protestul” grefierilor.

Aparent. Pentru că se pretinde că această adunare s-ar fi desfășurat sâmbătă, 30 mai, “în sistem online whatsapp”, ceea ce legea nu prevede și, deci, nu permite…

În plus, nu rezultă de nicăieri vreun vot și vreo contabilizare a voturilor.
Această schema de dribling seamănă leit cu slalomul făcut de același președinte al tribunalului pentru alegerile locale, unde s-a autodesemnat președinte de birou electoral județean și și-a desemnat nevasta președinte de birou electoral al municipiului reșdință de județ, deși potrivit BEC ea nu putea face parte din birourile electorale, fiind la o instanță ce nu participă, iar el era prohibit de la autodesemnare de lipsa unui temei legal în acest sens și de regulile conflictului de interese. Ca să nu mai zic că nu a organizat o urnă unică, ci atâtea urne de o singură persoană câte funcții trebuia să împartă, cică, prin “tragere la sorți”…
Noaptea minții.

Rhys Sterling - The Riviera Caper, pe Youtube

Cartea mea, The Riviera Caper, scrisa sub pseudonimul Rhys Sterling, prezentata pe Youtube, la link-ul:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69_5e9BMyeM

TRANSCRIPT:

The Riviera Caper has the charm of a sunlit thriller with a restless, modern edge. It opens on the French Riviera with a near accident that turn into an unexpected meeting and from that point on the novel quickly builds an atmosphere of elegance, movement and intrigue.

There is something immediately cinematic about it. The winding coastal roads, the Mediterranean light, the expensive restaurants, the polished strangers, the sense that behind the glamour there is always something unstable waiting to surface. One of the book’s trends is precisely this contrast between surface and substance. On one hand, there is beauty, style, travel and seduction. On the other, a feeling of drift, unease, dislocation.

Jay is not a conventional hero. He’s intelligent, watchful, ruthless, and often at odds with the world around him.

His background, his choices, his wondering life give the story a contemporary feel because he embodies a kind of restless outsiderhood that feels very current. He’s not simply moving through places. He’s testing them, measuring what they can offer and trying to understand where, if anywhere, he belongs. Sophie, meanwhile, brings another layer to the story. She’s not there merely as a romantic counterpart, but as someone equally shaped by ambition, fatigue, private dissatisfaction.

Her presence adds intelligence and tension to the novel and the exchanges between the two characters have enough wit and spark to keep the emotional thread alive alongside the broader plot.

Their meeting has the right balance of accident and inevitability.

Improbable in the way fiction sometimes must be, but convincing in the way it develops. What also stands out is the novel’s eye for social detail. Beneath the Riviera sheen, the book keeps glancing toward bigger realities: economic precarity, modern loneliness, class difference, migration, professional exhaustion, and the instability of contemporary life. These elements are not pushed to the front as heavy commentary, but they give the story texture and make it feel more grounded than a simple escapiscaper.

That is part of what gives the novel its interest. It moves through stylish settings about becoming shallow. The writing has an expansive reflective quality. It likes to linger not only on events but also motivation, memory, and the small ways a life is shaped over time that gives the book a distinctive rhythm of its own. Rather than rushing headlong, it allows the reader to inhabit the character’s worlds, their desire, and their contradictions. For readers who enjoy stories where travel, attraction, reinvention, and risk are all closely intertwined, this will be part of the appeal.

The Riviera Caper offers more than its title initially suggests. Yes, it has the ingredients of a sophisticated coastal mystery, but also carries a broader sense of personal drift and social observation. The Riviera Caper written by Rhys Sterling is right now available in bookstores and available in digital platforms.

Așteptăm cu încredere dispariția unui privilegiu feudal

Deputatul de Sibiu în Parlamentul României, Adrian Echert, a anunțat pe Facebook că privilegiul feudal al judecătorilor de la Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție pe care și-l rezervă pentru pensie, acela de a trece în avocatură sau notariat FĂRĂ EXAMEN, este pe cale să dispară.

Zice Echert, cu mare dreptate:
“În România, dacă vrei să fii avocat sau notar, dai examen.
Toată lumea. Fără excepții.
Aproape.
Există un articol într-o lege — art. 290 din Legea privind statutul judecătorilor și procurorilor — care permite judecătorilor de la Înalta Curte să intre direct în avocatură sau notariat. Fără concurs. Fără examen. Fără aceleași reguli ca toți ceilalți.
Am depus un proiect de lege care abrogă acest articol.
A trecut deja de Camera Deputaților.
Regula trebuie să fie una singură. Pentru toți.
Nu poți cere cetățenilor să respecte legea dacă legea însăși face excepții pentru unii.
Egalitate înseamnă același examen pentru toți. Nu privilegii scrise în lege.”
Potrivit art. 290 din Legea nr. 303/2022 privind statutul judecătorilor și procurorilor, judecătorii de la Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, care au funcționat cel puțin 5 ani la această instanță și care au fost eliberați din funcție din motive neimputabile, pot opta pentru intrarea în avocatură sau notariat, fără examen sau concurs.

My interview with my publisher, Europe Books

Today we talk about The Riviera Caper, a book by Rhys Sterling published with our publishing house Europe Books.

Europe Books had the pleasure of interviewing the author Rhys Sterling to get to know him better, where he found the inspiration to write his novel The Riviera Caper, as well as how his passion for writing started.

Q: Where did you find the inspiration to write your novel?

 A: Ideas came to me naturally, and I find it easy to elaborate on them. I don’t find my inspiration in my own life, in the sense that the narrative it’s not derived from my actual life; it is a work of fiction. Nevertheless, one’s own real experiences have a way to seep into the fiction. Consequently, while remaining in the imaginary realm, the writer’s tastes, ideas, preferences, happenings, might permeate into the epic, although the intention was never to report on his own living. We thus can say that, inevitably, there is an inspiration coming from the body of knowledge obtained from what the writers experienced and lived. Apart from this, I drew my inspiration from reading. It doesn’t mean that I borrow ideas from other authors, but that the reading activity transposes me into a creative state of mind. When the mood sets in, the inspiration automatically enhances several-fold.

Q: What is the message you want to send out with your writing?

 A: I started out to write a book one could take to the beach during holidays to read it while getting a tan. Maybe even on the French Riviera, the locale of this novel. And have fun out of reading it. Of course, there is a message the book sends out. That is to be adventurous, live life to the fullest, get out of your shell and do not always seek the material side of life. Formally, the novel it’s an action book, a caper, but it is intertwined with a love story scrutinized with such minutiae that almost takes over as the main theme of the book. The book’s scope is even much larger than the caper and the love story. It encompasses aspects of coming of age, of finding the hero’s place in the world following university graduation, of lifestyle, ideas and dreams, the readers being presented with the main character’s microcosm, which is positive and full of hope.

Q: How did your passion for writing start?

A: The passion for writing – I guess I always had it in me. I thought of myself as a potential writer ever since the high school. I even fancied the thought of studying literature at the university. But pragmatism won, I went on to the law school instead and other activities took priority in life; I had to put off indefinitely the beginning as a writer. I went into various legal fields and built a career there. I did write occasionally, but only scientific papers. The thought of me becoming a writer still lingered on all these years. Much later I revisited my ambitions to become a writer and I ascertained I still had the drive. I decided to give it a go. So, I started writing without pressure, without a timetable, just to see where this new activity will get me. It led me to the completion of this first book, with which I am very satisfied. The journey was enjoyable and left me with the desire to repeat the feat.

Q: How was your publishing experience?

A: It was wonderful. I endorse Europe Books, my publisher, whole-heartedly. They gave me the opportunity to make my literary debut. Their approach does not involve an agent, but a direct one-to-one working relationship and comprehensive assistance throughout the publishing process. They do all the work usually expected from a literary agent on top of the publishing operations. It is a great plus for writers, whose only care remain to get the writing done. I could concentrate on this and I am very pleased with the publisher. I hope to continue the collaboration with my future novels. The timeframe they laid out was also advantageous and fast. All the steps involved were completed promptly, on time and professionally. Of course, none of these are of any use if the writer does not put in the hours, doesn’t do the hard work, doesn’t persist and doesn’t overcome the occasional hiccup and writer’s block. But if one commits to getting the job done, their expertise in publishing will prove a great help and very valuable.

Q: Are you planning to write more books? Can you tell us more about it?

A: Definitely. This book will have at least a sequel, I hope to finish it by autumn. The tables turn in the second book. The villain, let’s call him like this, Tanaka, seeks to get even with the hero of the current book and forces him to do a job in England. That’s why the prospective novel it’s called provisionally “The English Job”. Without unravelling too much of the plot, I can tell you that the story involves football, bet fixing and high stakes, has fast paced action and narrates some imaginative work from Jay. Maybe this first book will even turn into a series, as I envisage a third novel in which I’ll pitch the both of them, by then reconciled, against “the world” so to speak, flaunting the laws and trying hard to make their own luck. It hasn’t got a definitive plan yet so I can anticipate only with the title – “The Belgian Heist” – and the basic idea of the book: they get together to make a big and spectacular score.

Am debutat literar: mi-a aparut primul roman, “The Riviera Caper”

Debutul meu editorial s-a realizat in Vest, in limba engleza. Romanul este unul de aventuri si se intituleaza “The Riviera Caper”. L-am publicat sub pseudonimul Rhys Sterling (sugerat de IA). Actiunea se petrece pe Riviera franceza, scrierea facand parte din subgenul "caper" al genului "crime&mystery".

Iata rezumatul care se gaseste pe coperta cartii:
“On the sun-drenched edge of the French Riviera, chance is never accidental.
Jay Jones arrives in Southern France carrying little more than a backpack, a restless past, and a fierce desire for freedom. A former footballer, minimalist drifter, and reluctant law graduate, Jay is searching for a life untouched by debt, routine, and compromise. What he finds instead is Sophie Durant— an ambitious Nice-based lawyer whose ordered world collides spectacularly with his own when a roadside accident brings them together.
Their encounter ignites more than attraction. Against a backdrop of Mediterranean beauty, social inequality, and quiet disillusionment with modern life, their stories intertwine—two outsiders shaped by different systems, yet driven by the same hunger for meaning, independence, and adventure.
The Riviera Caper is a sharp, atmospheric novel about escape and reinvention, where romance meets social observation and idealism clashes with reality.
Moving from American highways to European coastlines, it explores freedom, class, ambition, and the seductive illusion of starting over.
Witty, reflective, and unapologetically human, this is a story about what happens when life veers off course—and why sometimes, that’s exactly where it’s meant to go”.
“Rhys Sterling is a lawyer from Cluj-Napoca, Romania, and The Riviera Caper is his debut novel”.
Romanul poate fi achizitionat de pe pagina de autor a editurii Europe Books. Se gaseste la link-ul: https://www.europebookstore.com/products/the-riviera-caper-rhys-sterling/

Beware of Witkoff, the feeler of the Emperor

Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s fixer, has entered the Iran mess and was recently talking to Iran’s leaders. That means Trump wants to feel the opponents and has sent his most capable feeler.
And the results were immediate. Iran renounced its position of force, gained with a lot of efforts, and is about to let the Mossad agents, the US agents and all kinds of turbulents go scat free, instead of hanging them. This is another goodwill gesture like many nonsense inactions offered by stupid Russian leadership who obeyed its own self-set constraints even when Ukrainians were openly pissing on these “overtures”.
But while Russia didn’t risk anything, apart from making themselves, encore, the laughing stock, the Iranians are at a serious peril. Their population perceives that the regime is trying to appease the Americans, Witkoff’s actions and Trump’s statements have a visible impact. The next color revolution will be much harder to tame; and this one was brought in a taming position with immense exertions.
“America helps us”, “America can help”, are tropes that inculcates themselves into the Iranian psyche as we write. This rises the bar a few notches. The secret subversion of Iran gains a new amplitude.
Cynically, the US blockades a country, squeezes its economy, pauperizes large masses and then suddenly they propose to lift the sanctions “if”. This fake promise dangled in front of starving hordes makes them revolt, most often violently. But: the US never actually lifts sanctions, no matter the concessions made.
America deprives the foreign population of food and all sorts of livelihoods and then they pose in saviors and stupid masses can’t tell the fakeness of the US’s playbook.
The Iranian regime now plays to the American tune. They defended well and with considerable effort, that they will not be able to replicate at the next uprising. The duped masses now firmly believe that their provoked revolt is 1. justified and 2. has good chances of succeeding courtesy of America. An America that has no qualms in shooting the protesters via agents on place and blaming the Iranian government (same as Maidan and other color revolutions).
Moreover, the Iranians are not shielded - by such supposed de-escalation measures – against an attack from America. Trump gave them a lot of assurances just before the previous huge bombings. Déjà vu. History is about to repeat itself? Watch out for Saturday, as Trump seems big on numerology; also, all his attacks were on non-trading days, i. e. the week-ends…
Witkoff, as we know, has been Trump’s diplomatic fixer, starting with Gaza (which is still unsettled and in limbo) and Ukraine. In Gaza, he got the hostages, alive and dead, freed, produced a fake peace in which Palestinians are killed and Israel acts with total impunity.
In Ukraine, he read Russians like open books.
Trump enjoys being considered erratic (“TACO”), quirky, capricious. His entourage also encourage this mis-perception. But they all act rationally and cunningly. They are not geniuses, but are not dupes.
Americans, especially frat-boys like Rubio and Hegseth, are adept at reading the other guys. All fraternity players play poker, that implies putting on a “poker face” (a mask) and trying to take out the mask of the adversary, i. e. to read it. Poker is a card game; Trump constant reference at having or not having cards denotes that they think in such terms among themselves.
When they graduate and move on to other things, their reflexes stay with them. Of course, they are just beer belching fraternity guys but they have these two dissimulative practices interiorized.
Furthermore, Witkoff is a businessman who made it in that tough world. He works also with masks and reading, but his job implies taking deception, theatrics and acting to a new level.
In a war, it’s paramount to read your opponent. Take Putin. You put out feelers, to feel the other party, the opponent, is really Putin the same idiot conned by nobodies Merkel and Hollande, or that was just an isolated self-defeat?
Witkoff was just a feeler. And he felt the crap out of the Russians. Out of the Europeans, too: they pay through their noses, they destroy their own industry like there’s no tomorrow and they will still suffer a huge loss: bye bye Greenland.
Now Nabiullina and Dimitriev come into play. Nabiullina lost 300 billion dollars out of sheer stupidity (and snobbism, she tried to ape the Westerners and sit at their table, just as all complexed Russians dream). Her pathetic attempts at “recovery” (stupid arbitrage request to be discarded on a forum non conveniens defense) didn’t help, but further undermined her, since they were absolutely pathetic. Idiot Putin kept her in her place, thus completely transferring all her errors to himself. He became the joke, instead of/along Nabiullina. Dimitriev also blundered galore. He was candid with Witkoff, sent to feel the Russians. Witkoff not only correctly read Dimitriev as being very stupid, but made him draft the 28-point moronic plan that self-declared Russia as heavily defeated and getting nothing while losing big. Thus Witkoff had a written proof to convince his principals that they deal with stupidity from Russia’s part.
These two events that are huge, colossal, we’re talking about events of epic proportions, that made the Russians the laughing stock of all the world.
After feeling the Russian idiocy, the Americans felt reassured and went on to grab assets and positions and better situate themselves: Venezuela, Iran, Greenland (soon Mexico?); meanwhile Russia is still quagmired in its precarious position in an existential war.

The Dimitriev Effect

America acts more rational than the Russians or Europeans. Even in regard with China, the US acts conscientiously and calculated.

The US has constantly probed the extent to which it can act and after finding the margins of their leeway, they acted accordingly. As a bonus, with every "crazy" act, America chips away from other spheres, be them territorial, commercial, military.

It's not about some TACO erratic impulsive capricious flexing of the muscles, it's about testing the boundaries.

America was instantaneously freed from any real need of sounding its permissible scope by the Russian redacted 28-points "peace" plan. I call it "The Dimitriev Effect". The effect was that for the US anything goes and that Russia has placed itself in the position of kowtowing to the Americans.

Nobody really read attentively the so-called plan. The only honest person in this regard was Kaja Kallas (stupid people are usually candid too) who admitted she hasn't read the plan but heard a lot of rumors it was bad...

Did Trump read the plan? Did he understand it? I believe yes, but it doesn't matter. He had Witkoff to read it for him and to give him first hand feedback.

The 28-point plan was calamitous for Russia, it included no recognition of territories in former Ukraine, an express precarious status (de facto) for all of them, the ceding of all 300 billion dollars lost by idiot Nabiullina (I guess nobody pretend anymore that Russia would ever see a dime from that) to America, implicit permission for the US (and other states I would say) to station troops and armament in Ukraine, rights of exploitation in Ukraine and even Russia.

Trump understood from this that he is the new Russian idol, to whom they were willing to strip themselves of everything that could be turned into offerings. Russia showed its hand and that hand indicated they were expected just to be servile and submissive in exchange on a pat on the back or a tiny smile from the big Don.

From there on, he correctly assessed that he has free hand in every matter Russia might have opposed.

So he captured the president of Venezuela, went along with the CIA+Mossad plan of a "revolution" for changing the Iranian regime, blockaded everyone everywhere (what a nice occasion was procured for him by the changing of the flag of the vessel seized to a Russian one), and, of course, will soon get - one way or another - Greenland. He made his overtures and just lets them sinks with the Europeans. Same as he did with the Russians.

It's not that Americans are great and intelligent, it's that the top Russian brass is that stupid (as personified by the consummate imbeciles Nabiullina and Dimitriev) and longing for the Don's validation.

The current Americans aggressiveness comes from Russia's gross mistakes.

Like any entity searching appreciation, of course the Russians could have a fit of hysterical outburst. That's very dangerous and untoward; they brought upon themselves this position they are in...

We, the world, can't be exposed to an immense peril just because they employed idiots in high positions.

Elvira Nabiullina, an idiot as the Russian central banker

So that’s the Russian response to European permanently freezing the huge amount of 300 billion USD equivalent of assets? To sue them? That’s on par with the situation that got them there, idiocy-wise...

On December 12, the European Union agreed to indefinitely freeze Russian central bank assets held in Europe, probably in view of using the cash to help Ukraine against Russia, with a major loan package for Kyiv. To do so, EU states aim to put to work some of the Russian sovereign assets they immobilized after Moscow's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

The EU governments agreed to immobilize 210 billion euros ($246 billion) worth of Russian sovereign assets for as long as needed instead of voting every six months on extending the asset freeze.

This sum is taken out of the approximately amount said to be over 300 billion dollars, most of it held by Euroclear, a private company with several branches, holding some assets for the Russians, among others, as a depository and for future transactions. They intermediate the buying and selling of bonds, stocks, hard currencies and gold, forming the bulk of Russian state assets.

Now, how did the Europeans get their hands on such a big Russian treasure? Through their fault, namely by the chief of their central bank. The governor of Russia’s central bank, Elvira Nabiullina, didn’t recall the assets when she knew the war was about to start. So, the debut of the war caught her with her pants down: over $300 billion of Russian assets in foreign hands…

Yet she is still the governor of the central bank, as if nothing happened, position from which she further undermines the Russian economy. By limiting to the extreme the money supply, and by maintaining the freedom of exchange versus the major currencies. People and businesses looking to borrow in Russia can only do so at enormous rates, close to 30% annually.

What was the Russian state response to this de facto expropriation? It was as lame as they come, and even this joke of a response didn’t come from the state itself, but rather from the central bank. Russia's central bank filed, the same day, a lawsuit in Moscow against Brussels-based Euroclear, which houses most of the frozen Russian assets that the EU wants to use to finance aid to Ukraine.

„Due to the unlawful actions of the Euroclear depository that are causing losses to the Bank of Russia, and in light of mechanisms officially under consideration by the European Commission for the direct or indirect use of the Bank of Russia’s assets without its consent, the Bank of Russia is filing a claim in the Moscow Arbitration Court against the Euroclear depository to recover the losses incurred,” the central bank said in a statement. Good luck too that, your chances are zero...

Thus, the imbecile Nabiullina, who got caught by the beginning of the war with 300 BILLION dollars of Russian money in enemy hands (money gone for good), wasn’t bothered by anybody in Russia for the huge loss for which she is directly responsible… I don’t think there is one single other country where a person losing 300 billion dollars would have kept his/her job.

The Russians hold little hope for the money to be returned. The Trump’s 28-point „peace” plan calls for ALL the money (300 billion dollars) to end up under American control, and be used partially for Ukraine (with the US sharing in the profits), partially in joint operations US-Russia. No Russian disputed this point as being ludicrous… They are ready to waive the money away.

This is not the single example of huge imbecility at the helm of the Russian state without any accountability.

Kiril Dimitriev, in full or partially, the inept 28-point Trump peace plan – tantamount to a Russian capitulation – and presented it to Putin, who was about to sign away ALL territories in former Ukraine, which would have received the status of occupied lands (“de facto“) legitimizing any future attempts to return them to the rightful, “de jure“, owner, Ukraine, and to give American mineral rights in Russia proper, to give all Ukraine to the US as guarantor, with the implied right of having armament and troops on Ukraine.

Miraculously, he too STILL has his job.

I can add another name of an impostor: Margarita Simonyan, head of RT, who splashed a lot of cash on American minor pseudo-influencers (but I mean A LOT of cash) with zero effect and zero rationale. Apparently, she paid 150,000 dollars participation fee (at a RT conference/event) to general Flynn, of all people. Some time ago, it’s true.
How can Russia have such brilliant engineers and technical people and such utterly incompetent dimwits in leading position of economics and management?

Asupra unei probleme de civil de la cel mai recent concurs de admitere în magistratură

Prezint o problemă de drept civil care a figurat ca subiect la lucrarea scrisă din cadrul Concursului de admitere în magistratură, organizat în perioada 25 iulie 2024 - 27 martie 2025, soluționată greșit de comisia de elaborare a subiectelor (greșeală menținută și de comisia de soluționare a contestațiilor la barem).

Enunț și cerință:

Subiectul 1 pct. 1. Arătați motivat dacă poate fi atrasă răspunderea civilă delictuală pentru fapta lucrului în sarcina propietarului unui magazin, față de un pieton care se împiedică accidental în fața vitrinei și o sparge, rănindu-se.

Soluție barem:

Nu poate fi atrasă răspunderea civilă delictuală a proprietarului magazinului (20% din punctaj) deoarece nu există obligația de reparare a prejudiciului pentru fapta lucrului, atunci când acesta este cauzat exclusiv de fapta victimnei înseși (80% din punctaj).

După contestație, se menține soluția, astfel:

„Candidatul a criticat subiectul de concurs din perspectiva inexistenței, în opinia sa, a posibilității ca o vitrină a unui magazin să fie construită, în prezent, din sticlă casabilă, motiv pentru care spargerea vitrinei în ipoteza subiectului denotă faptul că aceasta era impropriu fabricată.

Rezolvarea acestui subiect de concurs trebuia însă să pornească de la scenariul indicat: o vitrină a unui magazin s-a spart ca urmare a acțiunii victimei, care s-a împiedicat accidental și a lovit, în cădere, vitrina.

Datele subiectului de concurs nu furnizează informații cu privire la materialele de fabricație ale vitrinei sau la împrejurarea că aceasta ar fi fost proiectată și construită cu încălcarea unor dispoziții legale în materie; de altfel, aceste dispoziții legale nu au fost indicate, în concret, de către candidat și oricum nu făceau parte din cuprinsul tematicii aferente concursului.

De asemenea, în cuprinsul aceleiași contestații, candidatul a arătat că „din perspectiva victimei, e un caz fortuit, nu propria faptă”.

Cerința subiectului de concurs a constat în indicarea, în mod argumentat, dacă, în cazul expus, poate fi angajată răspunderea civilă delictuală pentru fapta lucrului, iar nu pentru fapta proprie. Prin urmare, rezolvarea subiectului de concurs impunea analiza condițiilor răspunderii civile delictuale pentru prejudiciul cauzat de lucruri, precum și a eventualelor cauze exoneratoare a unei răspunderi de acest tip.

Potrivit art. 1376 alin. 1 Cod civil, oricine este obligat să repare, independent de orice culpă, prejudiciul cauzat de lucrul aflat sub paza sa.

Acest text legal reglementează condițiile necesare angajării răspunderii civile delictuale pentru prejudiciul cauzat de lucruri, și anume: existența unui prejudiciu; existența unui raport de cauzalitate între prejudiciu și lucru (prejudiciul să fi fost cauzat de un lucru); cel a cărui răspundere juridică se pretinde a fi angajată să fie paznicul juridic al lucrului respectiv.

În conformitate cu art. 1380 Cod civil, în cazurile prevăzute la (...) art. 1376, (...) nu există obligație de reparare a prejudiciului, atunci când acesta este cauzat exclusiv de fapta victimei înseși ori a unui terț sau este urmarea unui caz de forță majoră.

Ca atare, fapta victimei nu constituie o condiție pentru angajarea răspunderii civile delictuale pentru prejudiciul cauzat de lucruri, ci o cauză exoneratoare a unei atare răspunderi. Ceea ce a determinat fapta victimei nu prezintă relevanță juridică sub aspectul existenței acestei cauze exoneratoare de răspundere”.

Am redat integral „motivarea” pentru că multa lume are încă iluzia că magistratura e apanajul celor inteligenți (și morali, dar asta e o altă poveste...). Nu e adevărat, aveți aici o mostră de cumplită imbecilitate; aceasta reprezintă norma în justiție, regula, nu excepția.

Din capul locului precizez că fapta victimei înseamnă aici intenție sau culpa lata, asimilată dolului (intenției). Să acuzi victima care alunecă și cade „accidental” de faptă proprie înseamnă să nu cunoști absolut deloc răspunderea civilă.

Nu e nici măcar neglijență, ci caz fortuit. Cum s-a specificat în contestație, din perspectiva victimei, e un caz fortuit, nu propria faptă. Rezultă din însuşi enunţ. „Se împiedică ACCIDENTAL în faţa vitrinei care se sparge” nu e „fapta victimei”. E un eveniment aleatoriu, un accident, accidental, ceea ce înseamnă un caz FORTUIT (a se vedea Dex online: https://dexonline.ro/intrare/accidental/243), din mii de indivizi ce trec pe stradă zilnic prin faţa vitrinei, statistic unul se loveşte de aceasta din când în când, verificaţi în calculele actuarilor de la societăţile de asigurare. Credeți că li se refuză despăgubirea de asigurator, dacă riscul era asigurat? Desigur că nu...

Să exagerăm ipotezele de lucru pentru a pune în evidenţă principiul. Este regula de interpretare reductio ad absurdum. Deci înlocuim sticla casabilă, din care zidul exterior al „lucrului” e format, cu un zid de suliţe sau ţepuşe metalice, foarte ascuţite, aranjate orizontal în zid şi la distanţa mică una de alta, în locul vitrinei. La orice atingere victima moare sigur. Să înţelegem că victima care se împiedică şi cade în suliţe moare din propria culpă şi nu dintr-un viciu/fapt al lucrului construit impropriu?!

Dar sunt și alte discuții de făcut – comparați ce spun cu „raționamentul” comisiei (astea motivează la fel și când admit și când resping, „motivarea” fiind identică, aceeași, la fel de ineptă întotdeauna).

Caracterul nepotrivit al lucrului – și ilegal – face ca subiect să fie nerealist, imposibil, greșit. NU EXISTĂ în practică. Vitrina la stradă din sticlă casabilă e un scenariu nu doar nerealist, ci chiar imposibil. Vitrina trebuie să conţină sticlă incasabilă. Enunţul este deficitar şi nerealist şi ignoră regulile de construire a unei vitrine stradale şi regulile de autorizare, PUG-urile şi regulamentele de urbanism locale. De oriunde din lume. Scenariul e nelegal, sigur sunt normative de construcţie în sensul acesta.

Lucrul e impropriu, ceea ce atrage răspunderea pentru acesta. Nu este vorba despre fapta victimei, ci despre un lucru impropriu, un defect de proiectare şi construcţie sau doar de construcţie, vitrină cu sticlă casabilă.

Construcția spațiilor comerciale și desfășurarea de activități comerciale în spații cu vitrină la stradă sunt activități supuse autorizării. Nu există nici măcar o singură vitrină la stradă cu sticlă casabilă în Bucureşti, în ţară sau în lume. Nici măcar un singur caz, nu se autorizează activități care pun în pericol trecătorii (și care invită spargeri).

Se reproșează de comisie că „aceste dispoziții legale nu au fost indicate, în concret, de către candidat”; este vorba despre dispoziții normative de rang inferior legii, care reglementează cum trebuie să fie un atare lucru. Nu se puteau indica regulamentele locale deoarece orașul nu era indicat. Dar acestea există peste tot, comisia trebuia să verifice dacă nu cunosc un lucru atât de elementar...

The 28-point “peace” plan is a monument of stupidity and most people missed its real meaning

The 28-point “peace” plan (Trump’s) is a big scam for Russia; it equals the biggest Russian capitulation possible. I argue here that this plan is so disastrous for Russia that is tantamount to a huge defeat. Russia is deprived of its money, a lot of the claimed territory, puts everything under the control of the US (arch enemy!) and gains absolutely nothing.
America emerges as the huge winner. After fighting for decades cold and hot wars to keep them afar, the Americans are suddenly on Russia’s doorstep. And Russia opens the door.
Europeans and Ukrainians initially misread this plan, might just yet begin to understand how stupid Russia really is in drafting and reading “deals” … See Minsk, whether in doubt.
The European big honchos, who would like to pull a fast one over the Russians, failed to recognize the wonderful opportunity this plan presents in this regard…
The Ukrainians also, were not able to discern the overall benefits for them (the plan makes them the victors of a lost war) and the multiple bad wording that allows them to procrastinate forever and backtrack on everything…
Most of the points are ambiguously formulated and no implementation of them is handy or even possible, but the plan can be summarized as follows:
- No money returned to Russia;
- No land recognized to Russia;
- Legitimizes American presence in Ukraine;
- Gives US a hefty foot in the mineral sectors of both countries;
- Makes America a pile of money from both belligerent sides;
- No significant changes otherwise.
About the nature of the plan
This plan is mandatory, it requires no further documents or negotiations. This is stated expressly in the 27th and 28th points:
“27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the Peace Council, headed by President Donald J Trump. Sanctions will be imposed for violations.
28. Once all parties agree to this memorandum, the ceasefire will take effect immediately after both sides retreat to agreed points to begin implementation of the agreement.”
Of course, as elsewhere in the plan, even here inconsistencies do appear. What is the Peace Council? Who make up this “council”? Who appoints it? What are its rules? What sanctions “will be imposed for violations”? By whom? Who enforces the “sanctions”? How?
Such ambiguities abound throughout the document, proving an ample scope for later revisionism. But this ceasefire and the retreat thing are final.
About its interpretation
We should only refer to the wording therein. At the moment there is no other extrinsic document in relation to which this plan should be construed. Nor it’s sure such an element would ever occur. We should not read it through the lens of our personal hopes, either. Just the written text.
In every agreement, the principal problem it’s the order of executing the obligations. What is the succession of the obligations, who does what first, and second, and third etc.?
Any contract puts such a problem, that’s why we have exceptio non adimpleti contractus as a valid defense to oppose to someone who asks our obligation to be executed. We can say: you first. That’s why stipulating such an order is paramount.
We don’t have such a step-by-step program here. We don’t know the order, the sequence of executing the obligations. Furthermore, there are provisions depending entirely on third parties. How could such a plan ever be implemented? What if, exempli gratia, NATO doesn’t include a special provision in its charter regarding Ukraine (prohibiting its accession). What if that amendment is voted against? The ceasefire was already implemented and the possession of the lands had long ago switched hands.
One example
To see just how stupid this document is, I will start with one clear example of incompetence. The point number 10 states that:
“10. The US guarantee:
- The US will receive compensation for the guarantee;
- If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee;
- If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked;
- If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow or St Petersburg without cause, the security guarantee will be deemed invalid.”
By this plan, Ukraine losses American guarantee (what if the US refuses to give up the guarantee?) only if they launch a missile at Moscow or St Petersburg (and even then, if the launching is “without cause”?!). Per a contrario, everything else is permitted?!
Under this plan, Ukraine can take missile pot-shots at any Russian city but Moscow and St Petersburg, be them with or without cause, and at Moscow and St Petersburg when the missile launching against these two targets are “with cause”, and the US security guarantee to Ukraine will still be valid. Ridiculous.
What is the “decisive coordinated military response” should Russia invade Ukraine? From whom and coordinated with whom? Europe?
What “guarantee” means here? What does the “guarantor” do before, during and after the “guarantee” is activated? Of course, this is the pretext for moving in US troops and ammunition (not NATO, but American).
Think about the US as “guarantor”, them being who started the conflict and fought it all the way through a proxy…
As for the tangible assets, the plunder, the spoils of war, land and lucre, money, let’s see who gets what:
Russian money, 300 billion USD, gone for good
The thoroughly incompetent governor of the Russian central bank managed to get caught by the beginning of the war with 300 billion dollars Russian assets in enemy banks. What happened to her after such an epic failure? Nothing, she is still in the same position, further undermining the Russian economy each passing day.
Regarding this money, the plan states that:
“14. Frozen funds will be used as follows:
- $100bn (£76bn) in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine;
- The US will receive 50% of the profits from this venture. Europe will add $100bn (£76bn) to increase the amount of investment available for Ukraine's reconstruction. Frozen European funds will be unfrozen. The remainder of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint projects in specific areas. This fund will be aimed at strengthening relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict.”
So, the funds will be used, but will not be returned! Never. Russia doesn’t get back any of its frozen money. Of that, 100 billion dollars goes to the US to administer and reap part of the benefits (50% of the “profits”), for reconstruction of Ukraine (who, probably, gets the other half of the profits). Europe is to add the same amount, implied from the same (Russian) money. Europeans only put forth one third of the Russian money, 100 billion, again under American supervision. The remaining 100 billion dollars again goes to be administered by the US as a mutual fund for projects involving both Russia and the US (presumably the Alaskan undersea tunnel, among others).
Land, not obtained by Russia
Russia at the moment holds territories in Kharkov (significant), Dnepropetrovsk, Sumy (to a lesser extent), after winning them on the battlefield. All these are to be retroceded to Ukraine, for good and de jure (in law).
Russia gets the remaining of the Donetsk and the tiny bit of Lugansk still in Ukraine’s hands. But only de facto and as a demilitarized zone. The territories exchanged are approximately equal quantitatively.
Also, Russia consents to broke their own Constitution by giving up the territories not yet conquered, but Russian according to the Russian law, in Zaporizhia and Kherson.
Moreover, Ukraine’s sovereignty is recognized, and guaranteed, whereas all Russian-held territories in former Ukraine (including Crimea!) get the status of occupied territories (de facto) and not territories held by virtue of law (de jure).
You have right here in this “peace” plan, the seeds of the future conflict, after Ukraine, Europe and America get a rest and set their agenda straight.
Military assets/bases
Point number 8 states that: “NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.”
NATO-related things were always promised multiple times before and each time the promise was broken. It’s no different this time, just a piece of paper signed, nothing.
Apparently, this corresponds to Russia’s aspirations. But just at the first cursory glance. In reality, the plan does not exclude all member state’s troops. The plan precludes only NATO troops in Ukraine. NATO is an international organization. Any reference to NATO understands the international organization, which is distinct from its components, and does not refer to each and every member. So, American troops are not prohibited; the US can station any troops or armament.
The member states are distinct from the organization and are subjects of International Law in their own individuality (as is NATO itself a – distinct - subject of International Law). The US has a lot of bases in the world without any connection with NATO. So has, exempli gratia, France.
Ukraine will be flooded with personnel and material from a lot of countries acting on their own, especially the US, the minute Russia withdraws from the territories it undertook to return. There will be no NATO in Ukraine, but there will be the US (guarantor!), France, the UK, Poland, Turkey and who not.
Furthermore, the NATO Treaty does not prohibit individual states to get involved in offensive wars, aiding a side to a conflict, providing military and economic aid etc. That’s why some NATO states organized themselves – in this conflict - in small groupings to lead an aggressive policy against Russia (for example, the coalition of the willing).
The plan also specifies that there will be no further NATO enlargement, again, many times promised before… If you trust these guys.
At the same time, NATO can’t station troops, but it can circulate them through Ukraine, at will. The movement of troops is not forbidden and is, thus, permitted.
As for Ukraine itself, it gets to keep a huge army, arguably more than it has at the current time. At the same time, Ukraine has no ban on re-armament. Ukraine is not prohibited to re-arm and gets to keep a huge army, that means a certain future war, to get the de facto foreign held territories under Ukrainian de jure control.
And 600,000 troops is more than Ukraine has at the moment. But how can you verify the size of the Ukrainian army? Can you tell if they are 600,000 or 800,000 or a million? No practical way of telling...
More absurd provisions in the military domain. Point 9 states: “European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.” Really? Poland is demilitarized at this moment? European fighter jets are prohibited up until now? What is this? Probably some provision to bulk up the accord to mask the huge Russian renunciations; smoke and mirrors. Another example:
“17. The United States and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation and control of nuclear weapons, including the START I Treaty.”
What has this to do with Ukraine? Why do you need Ukraine’s signature on it? Why Russia and the US don’t agree these between themselves?
It’s sad to realize just how stupid are the people in charge of planetary events that could eventually lead (a not so distant eventuality) to life extinction… We all have skin in the game. The whole skin, that is.