Kot se reče – imena oseb so izmišljena, da bi zaščitili nedolžne. Lepo zapisana zgodba. Tudi če bi bila samo fikcija.

I have three monitors on my desk. The left one shows the order book. The middle one shows Truth Social. The right one shows the investigation queue.

On April 21st, the left screen moved first.

I am a Senior Surveillance Analyst at a commodities exchange. I have held this position for nineteen years. My job is to monitor trading activity for suspicious patterns and generate compliance reports. I am employee of the quarter. I have a mug.

At 19:54 GMT on April 21st, someone placed 4,260 sell orders on Brent crude futures. They did this during post-settlement. The window after the market closes when daily volume is typically in the dozens. Sometimes single digits. Sometimes I watch the screen and nothing happens for forty minutes and I think about whether my daughter is happy.

On April 21st, someone placed $430 million in directional bets in 120 seconds during that window. One hundred and twenty seconds. I timed it on my watch because the system clock rounds to the nearest minute and I have found, in nineteen years, that precision matters to no one but me.

At 20:10 GMT, the President posted on Truth Social that he was extending the Iran ceasefire.

Brent dropped from $100.91 to $96.83.

I flagged the trade. I flag a lot of trades. I want to tell you what happens to my flags.

My flags go into a system called TRACE. Trade Review and Compliance Evaluation. I did not name it. The system generates a report. The report goes to a committee. The committee has a name I am not allowed to share but I can tell you it meets quarterly and the conference room has a credenza with bottled water that is sparkling because someone once put still water in the room and a managing director sent an email about it that was longer than most of my surveillance reports.

The committee reviews my flags. The committee has reviewed all of my flags. Here is the complete record of actions taken on my flags in 2026:

Reviewed.

That’s it. “Reviewed” is a status. In compliance, a status is the absence of an action that has been given a name so it looks like one.

Let me show you my flags.

March 9th. Someone bet millions on oil falling at 18:29 GMT. Forty-seven minutes later, a CBS reporter posted that the President said the Iran war was “very complete, pretty much.” Oil dropped 25%. Forty-seven minutes. I flagged it.

March 23rd. Someone sold 5,100 lots of Brent and WTI crude futures between 10:49 and 10:50 GMT. Fourteen minutes later, the President posted on Truth Social about a “COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION” to hostilities. Oil dropped 11%. Over 13,000 contracts traded in sixty seconds after the post. Fourteen minutes. I flagged it.

April 7th. Someone established a $950 million short position in oil futures at 19:45 GMT. Three hours later, the President declared a two-week ceasefire. Nine hundred and fifty million dollars. I flagged it.

April 17th. Someone placed $760 million in bearish bets twenty minutes before Iran’s foreign minister confirmed the Strait of Hormuz would reopen. Seven hundred and sixty million. I flagged it.

April 21st. The $430 million. Fifteen minutes. I flagged it.

That is $2.1 billion in directional oil bets in April alone. Every one of them landed on the correct side of a presidential announcement. Every one of them was placed in a window so narrow you could measure it in bathroom breaks. I flagged every single one.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

After predicting the world’s biggest risks for over 25 years, Geopolitical Expert Ian Bremmer reveals the top 10 risks for 2026, and why the AI job threat is far bigger than people think!

Bremmer:

What are the most important subjects of the top 10 risks that you think we should talk about today? I think that there are three that are really big. Um, the first is that the United States has become the biggest driver of risk, the biggest driver of geopolitical uncertainty in the world. And we see that with the tariffs. We see that with Venezuela. We see it with Greenland. We see it with Iran. I mean, if there was that level of uncertainty in a smaller political system, and that happens all the time, we wouldn’t care as much because the global impact would not matter. But everyone out there is affected by even small changes in the United States. Suddenly, big changes in the United States. The Americans are saying, “We no longer want to play by the rules that we set up historically. We don’t want the free trade system that we put together. We don’t want to be the global policeman that is paying for the collective security. We don’t want the open borders that used to welcome so many people from around the world. We want a very different set of rules. It’s the American system is not being challenged by the Chinese saying we don’t want the Americans themselves and the leadership are saying we refuse to be the leader that we used to be.

Kot pišem v sosednjem komentarju, Trumpova odločitev, da 2-tedensko premirje z Iranom enostransko podaljša (v neskončnost), pomeni, da se bo energetska kriza zaradi vojne proti Iranu in dvojnega zaprtja Hormuza zdaj razvila v polni razsežnosti. V zadnjem komentarju glavni ekonomist IMF Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas predstavlja posodobljene napovedi IMF glede globalne gospodarske situacije in eksplicitno prikazuje učinke negativnih scenarijev zaradi vojne na Bližnjem vzhodu.

Če je globalno gospodarstvo ob koncu 2025 kazalo presenetljivo odpornost in je predvidena rast znašala 3,4 %, pa je ameriško-izraelski napad na Iran in razširitev vojne na Bližnjem vzhodu, zlasti zaprtje Hormuške ožine, to dinamiko prekinil. Gre za strateško ključno točko globalne oskrbe z energenti, zato motnje v transportu in uničenje infrastrukture neposredno vplivajo na svetovne energetske tokove. Gibanja cen energentov jasno kažejo izrazit skok cen, ki v osnovnem scenariju dosega približno 19-odstotno rast, kar predstavlja klasičen negativni ponudbeni šok.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Bom kratek:

• Trumpova odločitev, da 2-tedensko premirje z Iranom enostransko podaljša (v neskončnost), je posledica tega, da se predstavniki Irana niso niti hoteli pogovarjati z Američani.
• Ker ZDA nimajo nobene druge opcije (ne upajo si na polno napasti Irana, ne upajo narediti desanta na Hormuz ali na iranski naftni terminal na otoku Kharg, ker bi sicer Iran pognal v zrak vso energetsko infrastrukturo v zalivskih državah), ZDA ostane zgolj poskus pomorske blokade Hormuza iz varne razdalje.
• S pomorsko blokado želi Trump preprečiti Iranu, da bi izvažal nafto (Trump govori o izgubljenih 500 mio dolarjev dnevno za Iran).
• Vendar s tem ZDA ne morejo preprečiti Iranu izvoza nafte v Kitajsko, kajti Kitajska bo (je že) poslala vojaške ladje, ki bodo (že) spremljajo tankerje z iransko nafto za Kitajsko. Ameriške sile si ne bodo upale napasti teh ladij, ker si ne upajo tvegati vojaške eskalacije s Kitajsko. Iran torej v tej ameriški blokadi ne izgubi kaj prida.
• Hkrati pa ima ameriška blokada bistven in ogromen stranski učinek: deluje kot dvojna blokada za izvoz (in uvoz) za zavezniške države – za zalivske izvoznice energentov in surovin in uvoznice hrane ter za vse ostale države uvoznice zalivskih energentov in surovin. Trump je s podaljšanjem pomorske blokade samo dvakratno zaklenil Hormuško ožino. V škodo zaveznikov.
• In tudi v svojo škodo, kajti cene nafte se oblikujejo globalno. Nekega dneva tudi manipulacije na terminskem trgu trčijo na zgornjo mejo – pomanjkanje fizične nafte.
• To pomeni, da se bo energetska kriza zaradi vojne proti Iranu in dvojnega zaprtja Hormuza razvila v polni razsežnosti. Razvija se najbolj negativni scenarij IMF, Goldman Sachsa itd.
• To pomeni višje cene energentov, višje cene surovin, višje cene komponent in višje cene hrane – to pomeni inflacijski šok. In nekateri že pozivajo, da naj ECB preventivno začne dvigovati obrestno mero, da bi zajezila inflacijo (glejte spodaj).
• Toda kdor pozna osnove makroekonomije (in tisti del okrog Phillipsove krivulje in pričakovanj), ve, da je cena zniževanja inflacije na način, da centralne banke vodijo dezinflacijsko politiko prek dvigovanja obrestnih mer, recesija oziroma stagnacija. Ob visoki ravni inflacije to pomeni stagflacijo.
• Se lahko temu izognemo? Ja, vsaj v določeni meri se še vedno lahko. Vendar le, če Trump pristane na 4 temeljne iranske zahteve.
• Iran lahko preživi dlje časa izoliran kot lahko Trump in njegova baza zdržita visoke cene nafte, inflacijo in stagnacijo.

Charles Michel je sicer v intervjuju za The Brussels Times zelo diplomatski, je pa nanizal nekaj direktov. Spodaj je kratek povzetek direktov, celoten pogovor je dostopen tukaj.

Former European Council President and former Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel has attacked Ursula Von der Leyen and accused the European Commission of a power grab in a new interview with The Brussels Times.

Indeed, Michel sharply criticises the European Commission, accusing it of overreaching its powers while sidelining certain commissioners, accusing von der Leyen of “authoritarian governance”.

“Today, the Commission is trying to take control. That’s not in line with the treaty.”

…

On the broader breakdown of cooperation with von der Leyen, he is more measured. From early in their joint term, he says, he found it almost impossible to establish a functional working relationship. His proposal for regular, in-person coordination meetings on international affairs – designed to ensure the EU spoke with a unified voice – was, he says, “systematically refused” by von der Leyen.

“I have my own opinion about her personality,” he says carefully, “and it’s not my intention to make a comment today about personalities.” A beat. “But I can tell you: never in the past had I faced this level of difficulty in terms of collaboration with a colleague. Never. It’s not about personality. It’s about the substance of the European project.”

As for her leadership, Michel is scathing. “There is a super authoritarian governance,” he says. “Commissioners have absolutely no role anymore.” The fundamental error, in his view, is misunderstanding the job. “She is supposed to work on the defence of the single market. Nothing has been done. She is supposed to work on the financial markets. Nothing has been done,” he says. “In this field, the result is zero, and that is a tragedy.”

He pauses. “I’m severe. I’m cruel. Because I saw it from the inside.”

…

“Everyone knows and has seen how the Commission decided to instrumentalise this incident to try to grab more power, more institutional power, and to get involved in things that are not the responsibility of the Commission,” he says.

He sees it as part of a broader pattern: the Commission attempting to extend its reach into areas reserved for the Council. Defence, external representation, the External Action Service (EEAS). “Today, the Commission is trying to take control. That’s not in line with the treaty.”

As relations frayed, it led to chaotic splits. When the EU leadership was negotiating with the UK on post-Brexit ties, both Michel’s office and the Commission sent separate invitations to a meeting with then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson – prompting Michel’s chief of staff to quit his post.

At the time, German media, like Der Spiegel, said he was engaged in “a grotesque power struggle” with von der Leyen. Michel singles out Politico (owned by Germany’s Axel Springer) for its trenchant criticism. “Unfortunately, there is a powerful media in this bubble called Politico. systematically acting as an agent to destabilise, to use gossip to try to put me on the defensive,” he says.

Spodnji post postavlja pravo vprašanje: zakaj je po letu 2008  ameriško gospodarstvo zraslo skoraj dvakrat hitreje od evropskega? Njegovo nadaljevanje pa ne ponuja pravih odgovorov, pač pa zgolj simptome (manj inovacij, beg talentov itd.).

Odgovor se skriva v: preveč Evrope.  Velika večina Evropejcev ob tem zmaja z glavo. Ker ne razume. Odgovor se skriva v spodnjih treh slikah.

Prvič, evropsko zaostajanje za ZDA se je začelo sredi 1990-ih – po ustanovitvi enotnega evropskega trga (1993):

Skupni evropski trg pomeni skupne evropske politike. Denimo skupno politiko konkurenčnosti, skupno politiko državnih pomoči, skupno energetsko politiko, skupni kapitalski trg itd. Te pa pomenijo, da smo posameznim članicam odvzeli fleksibilnost v njihovih razvojnih politikah. Torej:

Nadaljujte z branjem→