Voices on Peace and War

Moldova’s withdrawal from the Russian-led CIS marks a decisive geopolitical break that strips Moscow of a key lever in the post-Soviet space and heightens the risk that Russia will activate Transnistria as a pretext for escalation. The article argues that this move could open a short, high-risk window in which Russia seeks to destabilize Moldova and threaten Odesa, aiming to landlock Ukraine and reshape the war’s geometry before its own logistical limits force a halt.

The article argues that Russia’s war against Ukraine is a coherent, long-term strategy focused on territorial consolidation, maritime dominance, and economic strangulation—aimed ultimately at landlocking Ukraine by seizing or neutralizing its Black Sea access. It warns that Western political fragmentation and mixed signals, alongside Russia’s likely use of Moldova as a low-risk testing ground, could enable a decisive spring offensive that reshapes Eastern Europe’s security balance and tests NATO’s resolve.

This article argues that U.S. policy decisions across four administrations — ranging from Obama’s restrained response to Crimea, Trump’s inconsistent aid posture, Biden’s industrialized support during full‑scale war, and Trump’s current ceasefire diplomacy — collectively informed Russian strategy by signaling thresholds of American commitment.

The survival of free states has never depended solely on professional armies or foreign alliances. At the heart of republican resilience lies a deeper principle: the willingness of ordinary citizens to take up arms in defense of liberty. This tradition, articulated by Niccolò Machiavelli in the Renaissance and tested in countless struggles since, remains vital today.

For the purpose of accustoming the cadets to hardship and fatigue, and also for the purpose of instructing them more perfectly in the practical duties of the soldier, they will perform at least one march as a military corps, each year. – Captain Alden Partridge, Prospectus, 1825

The flashpoint where the U.S. and PRC are most likely to clash is Taiwan. Preventing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from taking control of Taiwan has been a cornerstone of U.S. Asia policy since the 1950s, but Washington has declined to endorse the island’s independence outright.

At the center of all of this is the inescapable imprint of the United States — entangled with every state and nonstate actor mentioned above, its role more complex and omnipresent than ever, even as Washington’s rhetoric insists on a desire to disengage from the Middle East.

Iran’s foreign policy toward Israel combines harsh anti-Zionist rhetoric with strategic ambiguity. While officials like Deputy Foreign Minister Araghchi claim Iran doesn’t seek Israel’s destruction, the regime continues to fund and arm militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. This contradiction reflects the use of Taqiyya and Ketman — strategic deception rooted in Shi’a theology — to mask true intentions. Despite diplomatic reassurances, Iran’s actions reveal an ongoing commitment to challenging Israel’s existence.

This article examines the growing disconnect between the European Union and the United States, particularly under Donald Trump’s second term, marked by aggressive rhetoric, ideological divergence and unpredictability in foreign policy. Trump’s actions — ranging from insulting allies to threatening annexations — have undermined international law and the global order the U.S. helped build. The EU faces a dilemma: while Trump’s erratic behavior may not last, deeper ideological divides over societal values persist, especially regarding immigration and social conservatism. In response, the EU is accelerating its efforts toward strategic autonomy, strengthening defense cooperation and preparing for scenarios where U.S. support may falter. However, the article argues that rather than abandoning NATO, Europe should reinforce its own security mechanisms while maintaining NATO as the primary defense framework, ensuring complementarity between the two.

This article explores the nuanced tension between religious freedom — the right to believe — and religious liberty — the right to act on those beliefs — highlighting how these concepts can conflict in pluralistic societies. It examines how governments, particularly in the U.S., have historically navigated and sometimes blurred these boundaries, especially when religious beliefs influence public policy or marginalize minority groups. Pinna advocates for clearer distinctions, stronger safeguards, and mutual respect to ensure that religious diversity is upheld without infringing on others’ rights.