📑 Trump peace plan outlined by WSJ has ‘minimal’ chance of being realized without tweaks - analyst

“The chances” of the Trump peace plan purportedly outlined in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday becoming a reality are “minimal” in its current form, Russian political and military analyst Sergey Poletaev told Sputnik.

“Russia will not accept it in its current form, because one of its main goals – the elimination of the military threat emanating from Ukraine, is not dealt with, and on the contrary. Accordingly, the plan will not be suitable to us in this form. But it could be some kind of starting point for negotiations,” Poletaev said, referencing the plan’s points – which include freezing the frontline, creating a demilitarized zone, pushing Kiev to abandon plans to join NATO for 20 years, and in exchange, continuing to supply Ukraine with weapons.

For Russia, “the first military threat emanates from Ukraine joining a major military bloc, that is, NATO, and advancing NATO infrastructure. The second relates to the pumping Ukraine up with weapons. Our ideal goal [includes] the democratization of Ukraine – that is, disarmament,” Poletaev said, pointing to the terms of the Istanbul agreement, and Russia’s peace proposal from this past June – which he recalled included points on reductions to the size of the Ukrainian military.

Whatever agreement is ultimately reached, its implementation over the long term will always depend first and foremost on Russia’s military, economic and political strength, the observer stressed.

“No peace treaty is permanent. The results of a military conflict are safeguarded by the strength of the side that won. Accordingly, if in 20 years we are at least as strong as we are now, we will ensure that Ukraine does not join NATO in 20 years,” Poletaev said, emphasizing that it’s the balance of power between nations and their perception of threats, not pieces of paper on which agreements are written, that determine whether or not they are observed.

📌Subscribe to @SputnikInt

🐀 Russian scientists have connected a rat's brain to artificial intelligence, enabling it to answer scientific questions accurately.

Through electrical stimulation, the AI guides the rat to respond with "yes" or "no" answers.

This groundbreaking experiment could pave the way for neurointerfaces that allow humans to access vast AI knowledge directly.

📌Subscribe to @SputnikInt

❓Can Electoral College vote change the outcome of US election?

With Donald Trump breaking through the 270 Electoral College vote victory threshold to be declared president-elect on Tuesday, the next stage of the process is the result’s confirmation by each state’s electors. Appointed electors meet to vote for the president and vice president of the US. But what if they rebel?

Have electors ever voted for another candidate?

🔸 Yes: A "faithless elector" is one who votes for someone other than the candidate chosen by their state’s citizens, or abstains from voting.

🔸 There have been 157 faithless electors in US history who went against the will of their states’ voters. Of that group, 71 electors could not pick a candidate because he had died between election day and when the Electoral College convened.

🔸 The first faithless elector was Samuel Miles from Pennsylvania who cast his vote in 1796 for Thomas Jefferson, even though his state’s choice was John Adams.

🔸 Most recently in the 2016 election seven electors refused to vote for the candidate favoured by voters: two refused to vote for Republican candidate Donald Trump and five rejected Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Could presidential electors change the outcome of race?

🔸 No: On July 6, 2020, the US Supreme Court ruled that "a state may enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee – and the state voters' choice – for President,” and that “electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State’s voters have chosen."

Have faithless electors ever changed the outcome of election?

🔸 In every previous case the number of rebels has been too small to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

🔸 The National Constitution Center describes two cases in which faithless electors nearly changed the vice-presidential result:

🔹 After the 1832 election, 30 electors pledged for Martin Van Buren changed their minds, but he was still elected.

🔹 Richard Mentor Johnson was almost denied the second-highest office by a mass rebellion of electors in 1836, but he was appointed by the Senate under 12th Amendment rules.

📌Subscribe to @SputnikInt

Germany’s ‘Traffic Light’ coalition collapse signals uncertain fiscal path as Finance Minister Lindner sacked

Without the “thrifty” Finance Minister Christian Lindner, Germany may “go into debt to finance projects it cannot afford given the dire state of the national economy,” political analyst Dr. Gregor Spitzen told Sputnik.

“As finance minister, he did what he was supposed to do – spend the limited resources of the state budget rationally, categorically refusing to raise the national debt threshold and calling for cuts in the most odious political projects, including the green transition, the bloated social sphere and the reckless aid to Ukraine, which has already exceeded 40 billion euros,” Spitzen noted.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz’ now-minority government will be “severely restricted in its actions” until snap parliamentary elections expected early next year, he said.

“The collapse of the ‘traffic light coalition’ and early elections do not bode well for Scholz. Both the chancellor's personal popularity and that of his SPD party are far from qualifying him for the post of chancellor in the new government.” Spitzen said.

“However, after getting rid of Lindner, Scholz may try to pass a series of bills that require an increase in the national debt, thus sacrificing himself to the interests of a certain section of the German elite, and only then fall into political oblivion,” he added.

📌Subscribe to @SputnikInt

🇷🇺 The participants of the Valdai Forum are breathless with anticipation for Putin's speech.

📌Subscribe to @SputnikInt