It so happens that I like Cristoiu even when he's dead wrong on some subject, mainly because when he is right, he is precisely right, and out of competence rather than sheer luck.

Well, I mean... not really.

The man clearly knows his history on one hand, while on the other, he's two levels above the normie press that simply regurgitates stuff from the "source". I'll give him that: he doesn't just push some point of view, but he clearly launches speculation from an assumed point of view that he is prepared to change. I can at least sympathize with him on this.

Still, his perorations tend to get tiresome after a while, since it's quite clear that this "assumed point of view" is also assumed from some occult "source"; which is not much of a surprise, after all. After all, even Trump changes his discourse on a daily or even hourly basis nowadays, which at the end of the day seems to be merely a strategy for sowing confusion.

So I don't know, meh.