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→

Palantir sta ustanovila Peter Thiel in Alex Karp, dva zelo različna, a v ključnem pogledu ideološko sorodna akterja: prepričana sta, da tehnologija ne sme ostati nevtralna, temveč mora aktivno služiti interesom države in geopolitične moči. Thiel, eden najvplivnejših vlagateljev Silicijeve doline, že dolgo zagovarja idejo močne države in skeptičen odnos do liberalne demokracije, medtem ko Karp Palantir pozicionira kot podjetje, ki naj bi Zahodu pomagalo ohraniti tehnološko in vojaško premoč. Ta kombinacija kapitala, ideologije in dostopa do državnih aparatov je ključ za razumevanje, zakaj Palantir ni zgolj še eno IT podjetje.

Še širše pa je Palantir kontroverzen zaradi svoje vizije “tehnološke države”. Alex Karp zagovarja tesnejšo zvezo med tehnološkimi podjetji, državo in nacionalno varnostjo ter trdi, da bi se moral tehnološki sektor manj ukvarjati s potrošniškimi aplikacijami in bolj z “urgentnimi izzivi”, vključno z obrambo in tekmo na področju umetne inteligence. Za privržence je to realistična vizija sveta geopolitičnega rivalstva; za kritike pa nevaren model, v katerem zasebna tehnološka podjetja postajajo sooblikovalci državne moči, nadzora in vojne. Prav ta ideja — da naj bi demokratične države svojo prihodnost gradile na tesnem zavezništvu z obrambno-AI industrijo — je verjetno najgloblja in najbolj sistemska kontroverza, povezana s Palantirjem.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

If governments were actually doing their job, this Palantir document 👇 wouldn’t be a manifesto they proudly boast about, but a clear sign of the urgent need to purge its software from the public institutions it has infiltrated.

What are they saying, essentially?

They basically promote a clash of civilization worldview in which there exists a “they” – the supposed enemies of Western civilization, whose cultures the document codes as inferior – and a “we” who must stop indulging in decadent restraint and invest massively in AI weapons and defense software (which conveniently makes Palantir’s product catalog the civilizational cure).

Look at point 4 for instance. They write that “the limits of soft power, of soaring rhetoric alone, have been exposed. The ability of free and democratic societies to prevail requires something more than moral appeal. It requires hard power, and hard power in this century will be built on software.”

It all rests on a pretty massive assumption: that coexistence is impossible. Why would “free and democratic societies” (by which they obviously mean Western-style liberal-democracies) need to “prevail”? Why can’t they simply coexist with other civilizations or political systems out there?

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Marko Golob

Sredi noči se očitno pijan moški plazi pod cestno svetilko. Mimoidoči ga vpraša, kaj se dogaja. »Ključe iščem, spodaj na cesti sem jih izgubil,« pravi pijanec. Mimoidoči začudeno vpraša: »Če si izgubil ključe spodaj na cesti, zakaj jih pa iščeš tukaj?« Nakar pijanec odgovori: »Tukaj se bolje vidi.«

Zgornja anekdota je začetek odmevnega članka šefa urada za planiranje nemškega ministrstva za obrambo med letoma 1982 in 1988, Hansa Rühleja, objavljenega v Asia Times davnega leta 2020. Rühle v njem trdi, da je Iran namenoma vlekel ves Zahod za nos s svojim jedrskim programom. Za kaj naj bi šlo? Za to, da naj bi Iran Mednarodni agenciji za atomsko energijo ponudil nadzor nad deklariranimi jedrskimi objekti v Isfahanu, Fordowu in Natanzu, medtem pa skrivoma razvijal vojaško jedrsko tehnologijo v tajnih podzemnih vojaških objektih. Nadzor nad deklariranimi objekti naj bi bil popolnoma transparenten in Iran se je v zvezi z dogovorom Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) popolnoma držal njegovih določil. Prost nadzor nad ostalimi vojaškimi objekti pa je zavrnil. Kar bi seveda naredila vsaka država in njena vojska, ki ima kolikor toliko ponosa in samostojnosti.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Po volitvah se je v Sloveniji ponovno razplamtela diskusija o znižanju davkov. Res je, da je obdavčitev dela v Sloveniji visoka. Toda diskusija o znižanju davkov mora biti postavljena v bistveno širši – razvojni kontekst. Znižanje obdavčitve dela samo po sebi še ne pomeni nujno večje konkurenčnosti ali višje gospodarske rasti, niti ne more zagotoviti trajno višjih plač.

Prvič, učinki nižjih davkov na plače niso enakomerno porazdeljeni. Denimo če bi splošno olajšavo pri dohodnini povečali za 4.000 evrov, bi osebam z najvišjimi dohodki to prineslo okoli 167 evrov dodatnega mesečnega dohodka, zaposlenim s povprečno plačo približno 80 evrov, zaposlenim z minimalno plačo pa nič. Podobno bi razvojna kapica z omejitvijo socialnih prispevkov koristila predvsem približno 27 tisoč zaposlenim z najvišjimi plačami. Kot kaže študija IMF iz leta 2015, pa ima za gospodarsko rast največji pomen rast dohodkov spodnjih 60 % prebivalstva, saj ti dodatni dohodek praviloma porabijo, medtem ko ga najvišji dohodkovni razredi večinoma privarčujejo. Zato davčne razbremenitve pogosto nimajo tako močnega vpliva na gospodarsko rast, kot se predpostavlja.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

In some of his first public comments on the war, Xi lamented the “crumbling” world order in a meeting with Spain’s prime minister, proposed a four-point peace plan for the Middle East with Abu Dhabi’s crown prince, and vowed to deepen ties with Moscow in a meeting with Russia’s foreign minister.

The rush of diplomatic traffic to Beijing underscores a quiet but growing expectation among international players that Xi should play a more active role in calming a world edging deeper into conflict.

His potential as a stabilizing force was thrown into sharp relief by President Donald Trump, who spent the week berating one-time allies in the UK and Italy, not to mention the American pope.

But Xi’s diplomatic efforts have so far fallen short of the more concrete initiatives pressing ahead elsewhere. France and the UK are convening talks on opening up the Strait of Hormuz to shipping, while Japan is offering a $10 billion financial package to help Southeast Asian nations hit by soaring oil prices.

China’s position is more complex.

Beijing wants to be seen as a credible force for peace — building on past wins like brokering a détente between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023 — yet remains reluctant to fully step into volatile conflicts.

Tellingly, state media pushed back against claims that China nudged Tehran to the negotiating table.

As Trump talks up a deal to end the Iran war, the question for China isn’t just whether it can convene power — but whether it’s willing to use it.

Vir: Bloomberg

Trumpove izjave so seveda kategorično bizarne in sramotne – tako iz vidika njegove preteklosti, iz vidika njegovih sedanjih početij, kot iz vidika vrhunske nesramnosti njegovih izjav. Toda kar je v celotni zgodbi o sporu med papežem Leonom in Trumpom onstran izjemnosti, so odzivi papeža Leona – ta kombinacija njegove ponižnosti, duhovne veličine, humanizma, sočutja in državljanskega poguma. Postal je moj junak. 

Spodnja zgodba je navdihujoča. Zanimivo bo videti, komu bodo sledili desni politiki cerkvene povenience tako v Sloveniji kot v Evropi – svojemu duhovnemu pastirju papežu Leonu ali brezvestnemu in brezvernemu nasilnežu Trumpu?

Donald Trump believed he could score easy political points by calling Pope Leo XIV “an insult to Jesus,” after the spiritual leader once again spoke out in defense of peace, compassion, and human dignity. However, he was challenging a voice rooted not in politics, but in moral authority.

Standing before a solemn gathering at the Vatican, Pope Leo XIV did not respond with anger. Instead, he delivered a powerful and deeply moving message grounded in faith, responsibility, and truth.

“The President of the United States has said that I insult Jesus,” Pope Leo XIV began, his voice calm yet firm. “But let us reflect honestly — what truly insults the teachings of Christ?”

Then, with quiet intensity, he answered:

“You want to know what truly insults Jesus? It is when we turn away from those who suffer, when we close our hearts to the poor, and when we choose power over compassion while others cry out for mercy.”

Nadaljujte z branjem→