Europe has made a suicide pact and decided to die

… claims security analyst Stanislav Krapivnik.

He was a commander in the U.S. armed forces.

“Germany is an incredible case. They started two world wars. They lost both. And now they want to go to war against Russia, which would completely destroy Germany if there were a war. It’s incomprehensible. The German leaders have gone mad. They don’t learn from history,” he says.

“Do you think the U.S. is going to go to war with a nuclear power like Russia? Anyone who thinks that is a complete ignoramus or their IQ just doesn’t stretch that far. The U.S. will never go to direct war against Russia, just as Russia will never go to direct war with the U.S., because they understand that would be the end of both countries. However, the current leaders of the European Union seem hell-bent on destroying Europe,” he adds.

“One thing is supporting Ukraine on Ukrainian soil, and another is giving Ukraine long-range missiles that strike inside Russia. Have they completely lost their minds? How do you attack the territory of a country that has nearly seven thousand nuclear warheads and could turn all of Europe into cosmic dust in fifteen minutes?” he wonders.

“It really escapes me. I don’t understand how the EU leaders can be so stupid and irresponsible,” he asserts.

“You know the U.S. invaded Mexico several times. Can you imagine the EU financing Mexico after an invasion and giving it long-range missiles that could reach Washington? Can you picture that? What do you think would happen after the first missile hit Washington? No need to think about it. I’ll tell you. What would happen is that Mexico would cease to exist. The U.S. would obliterate Mexico, whether conventionally or nuclear. What I can tell you with absolute certainty is that there wouldn’t be a second missile reaching Washington,” he points out.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Iran’s Foreign Ministry on the Outcome of Talks with JD Vance:

“We have established a Conflict Control Unit to stabilize the front lines in the Middle East, including Lebanon

Second, a hotline of communication has been formed which through Iran can be contacted if problems arise in the Strait of Hormuz

Third, a working group on nuclear file has been formed, which will begin its work as soon as the United States has fully implemented Clause 13 of the agreement

Fourth, we have signed agreements with Qatar regarding the release of Iran’s frozen assets

Fifth, we have received documents from the United States that allow us to sell Oil, Gas, and Petrochemical products without sanctions for a period of 60 days”

Za razumevanje političnih premikov, ki jih danes spremljamo v večini zahodnih demokracij – in ki so se pokazali tudi v Sloveniji na letošnjih parlamentarnih volitvah v obliki premika volilne podpore od tradicionalnih liberalno-demokratičnih strank proti bolj radikalnim in populističnim političnim opcijam – je treba najprej razumeti globlje družbene in ekonomske vzroke spreminjanja volilnih preferenc. Volivci se namreč praviloma ne obračajo proč od uveljavljenih političnih sil zgolj zaradi ideološkega prepričanja, temveč predvsem takrat, ko dobijo občutek, da obstoječi politični in institucionalni sistem ne zmore več učinkovito reševati njihovih vsakdanjih problemov, zagotavljati ekonomske varnosti ter oblikovati prepričljive vizije prihodnjega razvoja.

Prav to vprašanje – zakaj državljani v stabilnih demokracijah vse pogosteje izgubljajo zaupanje v tradicionalne politične elite in zakaj postajajo dovzetnejši za avtoritarne oziroma iliberalne alternative – predstavlja osrednje izhodišče nedavnega eseja Francisa Fukuyame in njegovih soavtorjev o pomenu sposobnosti demokratične države, da svojim državljanom zagotavlja konkretne rezultate.

Francis Fukuyama je skupaj s Chrisom Dannom in Beatriz Magaloni aprila 2025 v reviji Journal of Democracy objavil esej z naslovom Delivering for Democracy: Why Results Matter. Gre za enega najbolj neposrednih in podatkovno podprtih razmislekov o tem, zakaj se demokratični sistemi soočajo z upadajočo podporo in zakaj se v očeh dela javnosti zdijo avtoritarni režimi včasih bolj učinkoviti pri dostavi konkretnih rezultatov.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Jutro

Vieste

Pot

Palagruža

Gužva na Palagruži

Pot

Lastovo, Skrivena luka

_________

* Kaj pa slovstveni del poti? Ha, te nesmrtne konverzacije pa so ostale zapisane v nas.

Hasan Ahmadian, professor of Middle East Studies at the University of Tehran, laid out Iran’s view of the current negotiations during Al Jazeera’s discussion on the upcoming US-Iran talks in Geneva:

His main arguments:

Why close Hormuz:

Ahmadian said the closure came on the second day of peak “Israeli savagery” in southern Lebanon. Iran had actually shown restraint, he suggested, holding back from a larger military response it could have launched, and instead using the strait to make a point: the agreement “cannot be divided” into pieces that each side picks from.

Why not boycott talks with U.S.:

Asked why Iran didn’t simply refuse to attend the upcoming talks in Geneva, Ahmadian said that would have sent the wrong signal, letting Washington think “Hormuz is over and we’ve moved on.” Closing the strait, by contrast, makes clear that if one side reneges on any single clause, the other will suspend a clause too, before talks can advance.

The deal is binding:

Ahmadian pushed back on the idea that the MOU is just a loose statement of intent. He said it contains, in its Article 13, five specific steps both sides must complete before negotiations even begin, one of which is a ceasefire in Lebanon. The US, he acknowledged, had met some obligations, lifting its naval blockade and letting Iranian oil exports resume, but Israel’s attacks on Lebanon continued, so Iran responded by suspending another of the five steps: keeping Hormuz open.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Nedavni intervju s slovenskim ekonomistom Jožetom Damijanom o prihodnosti električne mobilnosti je bil oster glede industrijske ekonomije – prevlada kitajskih baterij, evropski proizvajalci, ki so bili presenečeni, vrzel med regulativnimi ambicijami in proizvodno realnostjo. Prav tako pa, podobno kot večina poročanja v glavnih medijih o prehodu na električna vozila, ni omenjal globljih strukturnih problemov. Romantična faza, ki jo je opredelil, je resnična. O tem, kar sledi tej romantiki, govori ta esej.

1. Odvisnost od baterij

Standardna razlaga kitajske prevlade na področju električnih vozil se osredotoča na proizvodne stroške. Kitajske tovarne so bolj avtomatizirane, delovna sila je cenejša, obseg proizvodnje pa večji. Vse to drži, vendar spregleda, kje dejansko leži prednost.

Položaj Kitajske v dobavni verigi baterij ni v prvi vrsti povezan s sestavljanjem. Gre za nadzor nad predelovalno stopnjo – industrijsko kemijo, ki se nahaja med surovinami v zemlji in končnimi celicami v vozilu. Za izgradnjo te stopnje je bilo potrebnih približno petnajst let premišljene, državno usmerjene industrijske politike: zaščiteni domači trgi med učenjem, potrpežljiv kapital državnih bank, zagotovljeno povpraševanje domačih avtomobilskih proizvajalcev, ki so bili pogodbeno zavezani k lokalnemu nabavljanju. Rezultat je, da podjetji CATL (Contemporary Amperex Technology, vodilni kitajski proizvajalec baterij) in BYD (največji kitajski proizvajalec električnih vozil) skupaj nadzorujeta približno dve tretjini svetovne proizvodnje baterijskih celic, kitajska podjetja pa nadzorujejo večino predelovalnih zmogljivosti, ki jih oskrbujejo.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Trump just turned on Netanyahu, and Alex Jones argues the shift is real, but the reasons behind it are darker and more dangerous than almost anyone is saying…

In this conversation, Alex makes his case that Trump was manipulated into the war with false intelligence promising the Iranian regime would collapse in 4 days, and that once it backfired on the economy and his midterm numbers, he started hunting for an exit ramp that Israel keeps blocking.

He points to JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and Joe Kent warning against the war from the start, and to the 2027 NDAA provision merging the US and Israeli militaries as the line that finally snapped.

The part that will get the most attention is his theory on the leverage.

Alex doesn’t think Trump is simply blackmailed over Epstein.

His more provocative claim is that Trump tied himself into that network for power and survival, and is now enraged that the people he partnered with refuse to take orders.

He also gets into Ben-Gvir’s “all of Lebanon must burn” rhetoric, the positioning of Marco Rubio as the next pro-Israel favorite, and his fear of a major provocation designed to keep America in the war.

His warning is one I keep hearing: a cornered Likud is at its most dangerous, and Israel is gambling everything on keeping the US in this fight.