Zanimiv pristop kontroverznega zgodovinarja konzervativne provenience Nialla Fergusona k dokazovanju, da bi v novi hladni vojni bile ZDA v vlogi Sovjetske zveze (glejte spodaj) – predvsem zaradi ekonomskih razlogov (predvsem deficita, povečanih stroškov servisiranja dolga in posledično manjših izdatkov za vojsko), pa tudi gerontokracije, splošnega družbenega nihilizma itd.

No, meni se zdi to precej za lase privlečena analiza, kar nekaj, čeprav naslovna poanta ni povsem neverjetna. Če že, bi bile v novi hladni vojni ZDA v vlogi Sovjetske zveze predvsem zaradi tehnološkega, industrijskega in trgovinskega zaostajanja za glavnim tekmecem – Kitajsko. V prejšnji hladni vojni je bila Sovjetska zveza trgovinsko izolirana s strani Zahoda in gospodarsko omejena zgolj na države Varšavskega pakta in nekaj neuvrščenih držav. Sovjetska zveza je kot velesila bankrotirala zaradi tehnološkega in gospodarskega zaostajanja. Tokrat pa se v izolacijo prostovoljno spravljajo ZDA in z njo njene zahodne sledilke, ki se s trgovinsko in tehnološko vojno ter sankcijami proti Rusiji in lastnim miniranjem dolarja kot globalne rezervne valute (z zaplembo monetarnih rezerv druge države) zapirajo znotraj 1-milijardnega trga, medtem ko Kitajska dela na gospodarski in trgovinski integraciji znotraj 7-milijardnega globalnega trga.

ZDA so prvo hladno vojno dobile zaradi globalne trgovinske integracije, Sovjetska zveza pa jo je izgubila, ker je bila izven te globalne integracije. Kitajska danes to novo hladno vojno dobiva zaradi globalne integracije, ZDA pa jo izgubljajo zaradi svoje dezintegracije iz globalnega gospodarstva.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Da je bil švicarski “Vrh o miru v Ukrajini”, bolj kot ne politična polomija, je praktično konsenz v zahodnih medijih:

• Russia’s ghost loomed over Ukraine peace summit – Politico.eu
• In Ukraine, soldiers and civilians shrug off Zelensky’s summit – AFP
• Ukraine’s Global Diplomatic Flurry Fails to Outflank Russia (archived) – WSJ
• Significant support for Ukraine at peace summit – but key nations hesitate – Sky News
• India opts out of Ukraine declaration at Swiss peace summit as Russia stays away – India Today
• Major Ukraine summit ends with fresh plea for peace but key powers spurn final agreement – CNN
• Disappointing end to Ukraine summit as allies agree to watered-down peace declaration – Telegraph

Ker je bilo že mesece pred konferenco jasno, da ne bo mogoče dobiti širokega političnega konsenza za trde sklepe, so države v Švico večinoma poslale politične drugokategornike (vključno z ZDA), ki so nato sprejeli močno razvodenele in povsem benigne sklepe. Dejansko načelne humanitarne narave.

Da se bo to zgodilo in da se je Zelenski s to “mirovno konferenco” ujel v lastno past, je pred desetimi dnevik pisala že ukrajinska Evropska Pravda na podlagi vpogleda v zaključni memorandum.

Še huje s političnega in piarovskega vidika pa je, da so na konferenci vsi pogrešali Rusijo oziroma da je dozorelo politično spoznanje, da se brez Rusije ne morejo pogovarjati o koncu vojne in miru v Ukrajini. Kar je že v naslovu (Russia’s ghost loomed over Ukraine peace summit) priznal tudi ameriški provladni medijski satelit v Evropi Politico:

But Russia’s ghost loomed over the summit, after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ultimatum of a peace proposal the day before the summit started. While that was quickly rejected by Ukraine and others, it reinforced the reality that the Kremlin eventually will have to be dealt with.

Iz političnega vidika je ruski predsednik Putin naredil politično genialno potezo, ko je en dan pred švicarsko konferenco javno objavil svoj predlog za vojno premirje, s čimer je zakoličil pogoje za konec vojne in pogovore o mirovnem sporazumu ter “mirovni konferenci” brez Rusije vzel smisel. Putin je svojo simultanko odigral že v letu in pol pred tem, ko je na svojo stran pridobil večino azijskih, afriških in južnoameriških držav. Nobena izmed velikih BRICS držav sklepov švicarske “mirovne konference” ni podprla, Kitajska pa jo je ignorirala kot brezpredmetno. Memorandum o Ukrajini je sprejelo 77 držav (od 160 povabljenih in od 92 držav, ki so se odzvale), ki pa predstavljajo le 20 % svetovnega prebivalstva (za boljšo predstavo sodobne geopolitične delitve v spodnji sliki posivite geografsko ogromno Grenlandijo (56 tisoč preb.) in tri geografsko ogromne severne kanadske province (Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut s skupaj 120 tisoč preb.).

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Morda se je komu Macronova poteza, ko je po porazu lastne stranke na evropskih volitvah razpustil parlament in razpisal predčasne volitve, zdela dobra. Toda kdor je stavil na preobrnitev trendov, se je uštel, saj je zanemaril vztrajne politične trende glede naraščajočega nazadovoljstva francoskih volilcev s političnim vodstvom. Zadnje ankete kažejo absolutno premoč skrajno desne stranke Le Penove (RN) ter zelo leve stanke Ljudske fronte.

Če se je Macron po porazu na evropskih volitvah zbal, da bi imel težave z obvladovanjem vlade, se mora po teh predčasnih volitvah bati, ali bo sploh lahko politično preživel v primeru visokega poraza.

Hkrati pa bi prevzem vlade s strani stranke Le Penove lahko ogrozil možnosti ponovne izvolitve sedanje predsednice Evropske komisije Ursule von der Leyen.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

V Nedelu je bil odličen intervju z Draganom Petrovcem, pravnim strokovnjakom in humanistom, ki ne potrebuje posebne predstavitve. Eden izmed ključnih poudarkov njegovega intervjuja je ta, ki se nanaša na evropski odnos do vojne v Gazi in Ukrajini:

Zakaj se vam zdi, da je za prihodnost EU ključen načina, kako se bomo lotili reševanja vojn v Ukrajini in Gazi?

Pri genocidu v Gazi gre za kolektivno slepoto, zaradi katere je ponekod celo prepovedano uporabljati izraz genocid. Če to dopuščamo, je samo vprašanje časa, kje se bo spet našel nekdo z dovolj premoči, da bo začel to izvajati še kje drugje. Po drugi strani gre pri napadu Rusije na Ukrajino za nenavadno in nevarno idejo, da je mogoče Rusijo vojaško premagati. Jedrske sile ne moreš vojaško premagati. Za evropsko politiko bo ključno za prihodnost, kako lahko izoblikuje politiko, ki ne pomeni izzivanja jedrske vojne in ne pomeni slepega sledenja ameriški politiki in v obeh primerih tudi podreditve kapitalu. To bo ključno, če se izrazim patetično, za prihodnost evropske civilizacije.

Vir: Nedelo

Zadnjič sem šel v kino z otroci, kjer so v filmu uporabili pesem Tine Turner “Better be good to me”. Kar je bila pravzaprav edina svetla točka filma. No, ampak to me je spomnilo, da je imela Tina precej izjemno dobrih pop pesmi. Te tri so meni najljubše.

“Private Dancer” (z istoimenskega (vrhunskega) comeback albuma po letih osamitve, trpljenja in poniževanja s strani njenega moža)

“Better be good to me” (meni najljubša pesem s comeback albuma v stilu “F… you, Ike!”)

“Simply the Best” (no, pač mega pop hit, in res dober začetek videa)

Kamor, hvalabogu, turistični navtičarji ne zaidejo niti pomotoma. Ker ne pogledajo desno, v srce bisera. In naj tako ostane.

In kjer vse niha v tem ritmu (in kjer rokenrol res ne paše v sceno)

Politična pokrajina (tudi) v Evropi se hitro spreminja. “Skrajna” desnica je na pohodu (v empirični analizi, ki jo delava s kolegom, se pokaže, da sta glavna dejavnika njenega porasta povečana neenakost (manj socialne države) in povečan delež tujerodnega prebivalstva, kar povzroča frustracije naraščajočemu deležu domačega prebivalstva). Vprašanje pa je, ali se – za razliko od socialistov – “skrajna” desnica lahko poenoti na evropski ravni (praktično: se eni rasisti lahko odpovejo svoji apriorni superiornosti nad drugimi rasisti?).

Spodnji intervju z Maximillianom Krahom iz nemške AfD ter dober Bertrandov komentar o fundamentalnih razlikah med nemško AfD in francosko RN odpirata pomembne perspektive.

Absolutely fascinating to read how profoundly different the AfD is to France’s Rassemblement National (RN).

The two key differences that I can see are:

1. The AfD, or at least @KrahMax, openly calls for a multipolar world order. RN, on the other hand, is for continued Western hegemony.

2. The AfD recognizes that attempting to convert other cultures to “Western values” should be abandoned. From the interview: “We must abandon the idea that the whole world must follow the same political and legal culture. Asia has its traditions, and they should govern themselves accordingly. The same goes for the Islamic world. Let Muslims follow their own order without trying to impose Western values on them. So, the first step is to accept that major regions in the world should govern themselves by their own ideas of political and legal order.” The RN on the other hand is course Western Supremacy par excellence, establishing a hierarchical order between cultures, with very little respect for other cultures, and even open hatred.

In fact Krah openly recognizes these differences in the interview: “Unfortunately, the European right is completely divided. You have a part of the European right, which in my view is the majority, that has a Cold War thinking, which has more to do with the 1980s than with 2024. So for them, international politics is not about the shift of power from the Atlantic to the Global South, etc. They still believe in the old rhetoric of war between the free world against the world of darkness. They are deep state agents when it comes to foreign policy, even more sometimes than the Socialists. We have a move to the right when it comes to questions of migration, etc, etc. But the front lines are completely different when it comes to foreign and global policy. And there we don’t have a shift to the right. Unfortunately.”

Funnily enough, listening to his positions Krah in a French context is much closer to a Mélenchon… Although undoubtedly their views on immigration would differ widely.

Anyhow this is why the broad brush “extreme right” makes very little sense. There are some absolutely fundamental and immense differences between these different parties’ positions.

Vir: Arnaud Bertrand

Vladimir Putin:

The danger for Europe does not come from Russia. The main threat to Europeans lies in the critical and ever-growing, now practically total dependence on the US: in military, political, technological, ideological, and informational spheres. Europe is increasingly being sidelined in global economic development, plunged into chaos by migration and other acute problems, and deprived of international subjectivity and cultural identity.

Sometimes it seems that ruling European politicians and eurobureaucrats are more afraid of falling out of favor with Washington than losing the trust of their own people, their own citizens. Recent elections to the European Parliament also show this. European politicians swallow humiliation, rudeness, and scandals involving surveillance of European leaders, while the US simply uses them for its own interests: making them buy expensive gas – incidentally, gas in Europe is three to four times more expensive than in the US – or, as now, demanding European countries increase arms supplies to Ukraine. By the way, there are constant demands here and there. And sanctions are imposed on them, on economic operators in Europe. Imposed without any hesitation.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

V vednost. Splača se pazljivo prebrati. Sploh konture in načela potrebne nove varnostne arhitekture v Evraziji.

Putin’s Full Speech: BRICS, NATO Expansion and Ukraine Peace Talk Conditions

Last year the Canadian intelligence analyst Patrick Armstrong published this sound advice:

“LISTEN TO WHAT HE’S SAYING”

I’m fond of quoting the Duke of Wellington on intelligence:

All the business of war, and indeed all the business of life, is to endeavour to find out what you don’t know by what you do; that’s what I called ‘guessing what was at the other side of the hill.’

“Find out what you don’t know by what you do“. It’s not easy, it’s not necessarily pleasant but it’s what you have to do in order to minimise your surprise when whatever it is actually comes over the hill at you.

Here’s former British Ambassador to Russia Laurie Bristowsaying the same thing:

My advice to all young diplomats and analysts [is that] if you want to understand Mr Putin’s foreign policy, listen to what he’s saying. You won’t like it, but you need to understand it, you need to listen to it. The place to start is the Munich speech in 2007.

“Listen to what he says”. It’s quite easy to. Putin has said a lot and most of it appears on the Presidential website in English as well as the original Russian. Never read what the Western reporters say he says – they almost always distort it – read the original. I’m sure that both Wellington and Bristow would agree.

And that’s what intelligence is all about. Try and understand how the other guy sees things.

Every few years Putin comes out with a speech or memorandum which explains – past, presence and future –  and argues for the position at large Russia is taking.

People who read these speeches will understand Russia. People who don’t won’t.

The later will miss the facts and come to false conclusions. Acting upon those they will weaken their own positions.

One can avoid doing so by reading Putin’s latest speech held yesterday at the Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs. It is quite long but has to be so as it necessarily touches on everything. It includes a kind of peace offer for Ukraine: Hand over the provinces Russia has recognized at its own and gain peace. It was and is not expected that the ‘West’ will move towards that direction. In consequence the aims of the war will have to change.

With nearly 10,000 words the speech is very long. No summarization will do it justice. I therefore urge you to read it in full.

The English language version was published in full by Sputnik. The authoritative official translation, which will soon appear on the Kremlin website, is not yet complete. As access to both sides may be limited a full copy of the speech is attached below.

What follows is a full reproduction of the English language version Sputnik put out.

Putin’s Full Speech at Foreign Ministry: BRICS, NATO Expansion and Ukraine Peace Talk Conditions – Friday, June 15 2024

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Tule je današnji ruski predlog glede “zaustavitve ognja” v Ukrajini. Ki seveda ne bo niti obravnavan na nasprotni strani in pri njenih sponzorjih. Pa čeprav je blizu temu, kar bo (zelo verjetno) nekoč tudi uveljavljeno v obliki uradnega mirovnega sporazuma. Ampak do takrat bo preteklo še nekaj vode. In se ne bo zgodilo, dokler Ukrajini ne bo zmanjkalo za orožje sposobnih moških. Takšne so pač zakonitosti vojne izčrpavanja med veliko in majhno državo.

Spodaj pa je finska izkušnja z vojno z Rusijo iz leta 1939 in s kakšnim sporazumom se je vojna končala.

Ni se treba strinjati ne z enim in ne drugim. Velja pa poznati.

Finland and Russia (Soviet Union) fought two wars between 1939 and 1944, where Finland eventually lost 12% of her landmass. First was an aggression by the Russian side and the second from Finland.

The aggression of Russia in the fall 1939 was based on the secret amendment of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, where Finland was placed on the “sphere of influence” of Russia. Russian leadership staged a ‘false flag’ attack, of Finland to Russia, in the village of Mainila.

Four days later, on 30 November 1939, Russia attacked Finland with an overwhelming force (in some parts of the front the ratio was 10:1 for Russia).

Finland kept her independence in the “Miracle of Winter War”, but lost 11% of her territory. War ended on 12 March 1940.

Nadaljujte z branjem→