V vednost:

1. There was an outcry against the shocking and illegal overseas activities of the CIA overseas in the second half of the 1970s. Investigatory commissions wagged disapproving fingers, and wholesale reform was promised.
2. But instead of halting the black ops, the US held a series of meetings in the early 1980s which concluded that they should continue them under a nicer-sounding name. Thus the National Endowment for Democracy was born on November 18, 1983, in Washington DC.
3. The US public and the wider world were told that the NED was designed to “support democratic institutions throughout the world through private, nongovernmental efforts”. This was misleading: the organization was and is funded by the US government.

FIRST STOP, MANILA

4. An early NED target was the Philippines. When socialist groups were becoming popular and troublesome in the mid-1980s, NED used classic CIA techniques to steer funds to private organizations and media to artificially change political outcomes.
5. At the time, journalists were allowed to print that NED was a CIA scam. The famous Allen Weinstein quote (“A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA”) actually came from a 1991 interview, after about eight years of NED political interference ops.
6. The NED got larger and busier. Intelligence historian William Blum reported: “NED successfully manipulated elections in Nicaragua in 1990 and Mongolia in 1996 and helped to overthrow democratically elected governments in Bulgaria in 1990 and Albania in 1991 and 1992.”
7. The CIA-style illegality was often shocking. For example, the NED handed US$250,000 to an anti-Castro Miami group which in turn financed a Cuban terrorist named Luis Posada Carriles who was involved in groups which bombed hotels in Havana and blew up an aircraft.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Michael Roberts je napisal točno to, o čemer sem premišljeval včeraj, ko je Trump za en mesec prestavil uvedbo carin za uvoz iz Kanade in Mehike. Večini ljudi se je zdelo norost najprej predlagati carine in jih nato umakniti. Vendar ne gre za norost, pač pa za pogajalsko taktiko. Trump z brutalnim prvim dejanjem nasprotno stran pritisne ob steno in ta je nato v strahu pripravljena narediti karkoli, da bi se izognila brutalnosti večjega nasprotnika. Kanadčani bodo tako nenadoma pripravljeni začeti preprečevati ilegalno trgovino s fentanilom, Mehičani pa sami bolje poskrbeli, da se val migrantov proti ameriški meji zmanjša.

Trumpova norost je metoda, da iz žrtve iztisne maksimalne koncesije. In Trumpova metoda je, da vsako žrtev (državo) izolira. Izolirana žrtev je pripravljena na večje koncesije, v bistvu na maksimalne koncesije, ki jih bo Trump zahteval.

Zato je potreben združen odpor proti Trumpovim pritiskom in izsiljevanjem. Države bi se morale povezati v okviru WTO ali neformalnih interesnih združenj (G20 brez ZDA, BRICS) in skupno nastopiti proti Trumpovi administraciji s skupnim dvigom carin oziroma omejitvijo dostopa ameriških (tehnoloških in finančnih) podjetij na njihove trge. O tem sem sicer že večkrat pisal, vendar naj ponovim: oligarhe okrog Trumpa bo najbolj bolelo, če zahodne države združeno ali vsaj države EU zase omejijo dostop ameriških tehnoloških in finančnih podjetij (pa tudi avtomobilskih) na njihov trg. Predstavljajte si Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, X itd., ki bi izgubili možnost prodaje na evropskih trgih.

Trumpovi norosti kot metodi je treba zoperstaviti metodo skupnega nastopa. Treba je udariti preventivno, preden Trump izvede svoje grožnje. In udariti je treba preventivno še dvakrat bolj, kot napoveduje Trump. Šele nato se bomo lahko začeli pogovarjati. In na koncu prišli do ugotovitve, da se vsem najbolj splača, če ostane trgovina prosta, kot je bila do sedaj.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Yesterday we held the first EU-summit in Brussels since President Trump was inaugurated. It was a strange gathering. Everyone in Brussels can see the Trump tornado coming, but most still think they can get away from it. They won’t.

In 14 days, Donald Trump has already turned the world upside down with a few measures. The gender madness in America is over, the financing of globalist Soros organizations is over, illegal migration is over, and support for the Russian-Ukrainian war is also over. In other words, everything that the bureaucrats in Brussels have tried to force down our throats in recent years is over.

But there is something else here. We can also say goodbye to the rules of world trade as we know them. President Trump will stand up for American interests, even against Europe. The European Union faces difficult months ahead and the bureaucrats in Brussels are going to have a tough time.

We need to make an agreement, a deal, to preserve our economic relations with the United States. And a really good deal can be made by those who not only know but also respect each other.

We always knew that President Trump would return, so we were prepared. We are constantly negotiating and we will make a good deal with the new administration of the United States.

And what about the bureaucrats in Brussels? You’ve made your bed, now lie in it!

Vir: Viktor Orban via X

USAID in NED (National Endowment for Democracy) sta v svojem bistvu dve izpostavi ameriškega State departmenta, ki počneta iste stvari kot CIA, vendar na bolj “subtilen način”. Obe organizaciji s skupaj več deset milijardnim proračunom (USAID 42.8 mlr $ v FY 2025  in NED 330 mio $ v FY 2023)) se pretvarjata, da pomagata državam tretjega sveta z razvojno pomočjo oziroma pri “vzpostavljanju demokratičnih institucij”, v bistvu pa prek financiranja projektov in prek financiranja nevladnih organizacij in medijev izvažata ameriški vpliv na politike in politične režime tretjih držav, vključno s spodbujanjem nemirov in prevratov. USAID ima dolgo zgodovino političnega vmešavanja širom držav v razvoju, vključno z Afganistanom, Ukrajino, Gruzijo, Perujem, Kubo, …, Srbijo (več kasneje). NED, katerega poslanstvo je “assists those abroad who are working to build democratic institutions and spread democratic values“, se fokusira predvsem na medije in težko boste našli državo, kjer NED ni financiral različnih medijskih projektov (tudi pri nas jih) z namenom vplivanja na “pravilen način poročanja” oziroma “širjenje demokratičnih vrednot”. V Grayzone je dobra analiza delovanja NED.

Da sta se Musk in Trump spravila nad USAID in NED (USAID je že praktično zaprt, NED sledi), je dobra novica za tiste, ki si ne želijo ameriškega političnega vmešavanja. Vprašanje je le, zakaj sta se spravila na njiju in zakaj ju hočeta uničiti. Razlagi sta vsaj dve. Prva je, da se se Trumpova administracija ni odpovedala vlogi globalnega hegemona, čeprav to trdi, pač pa je zgolj spremenila način uveljavljanja svoje moči. Te ne namerava več uveljavljati “subtilno” prek financiranja nevladnih organizacij, medijev in novinarjev, pač pa neposredno prek Trumpovega “bully” pristopa oziroma neposrednega izsiljevanja “ena na ena”. Trump meni, da bo tako privarčeval nekaj deset milijard dolarjev letno. In Musk je zadolžen za kleščenje stroškov.

Druga razlaga pa je, da bi Trump rad izgnal demokratski duh iz ameriških politik. USAID in NED sta po njegovem mnenju (ob tem, da jima očita kriminal in koruptivnost) širila demokratsko ideologijo, vključno s feminizmom in woke kulturo. In Trump si je zadal kot enega izmed ciljev, da prekine z vsemi afirmativnimi akcijami, ki kakorkoli dišijo po kulturnem liberalizmu.

Spodaj je dober komentar v MoA na to temo.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Večina sveta to vidi, razen nas, ki živimo v ameriških vazalnih državah

Spodaj je zanimiva in sploh prva smiselna racionalizacija Trumpovih politik, kar sem jih videl. Arnaud Bertrand podaja racionalno razlago na videz norih politik Donalda Trumpa: zakaj so se ZDA odločile demontirati enopolarni hegemonistični svet, ki so ga vodile 35 let (glejte intervju z Marcom Rubiem) in zakaj so se odločile najprej odpovedati svojim najtesnejšim vazalnim zaveznikom (carine, Nato)? Bertrandova razlaga je logična in smiselna.

Prvič, ZDA so zgolj vnaprej enostransko priznale, da niso več globalni hegemon in da je svet multipolaren s še dvema močnima igralcema (Rusija in Kitajska), preden bi to drugi de facto ugotovili. In si s tem zmanjšale stroške, ki so jih imele za vzdrževanje globalne hegemonije.

In drugič, v tem multipolarnem svetu vsak igra zgolj zase in v skladu z lastnimi interesi. Karikiram Trumpa: K vragu z vazalnimi državami, ki se zgolj šlepajo name in za katere jaz plačujem stroške. Če želijo dostop na moj trg, naj plačajo vstopne carine! Če želijo mojo vojaško zaščito, naj plačajo zanjo! Če ne želijo, pa naj gredo k vragu!

It’s the end of the world as we know it (R.E.M)

(Ta skrajni egoizem bo sicer slejkoprej priletel na trda tla, ali o tom potom)

_________

It’s becoming clearer and clearer that we’re looking at a seismic shift in the US’s relationship with the world, between:

1. The US dismantling its foreign interference apparatuses (like USAID)
2. Marco Rubio stating that we’re now in a multipolar world with “multi-great powers in different parts of the planet” (https://state.gov/secretary-marco-rubio-with-megyn-kelly-of-the-megyn-kelly-show/) and that “the postwar global order is not just obsolete; it is now a weapon being used against us” (https://foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/6df93f4b-a83c-89ac-0fac-9b586715afd8/011525_Rubio_Testimony.pdf)
3. The tariffs on supposed “allies” like Mexico, Canada or the EU

This is the US effectively saying “our attempt at running the world is over, to each his own, we’re now just another great power, not the ‘indispensable nation’.”

It looks “dumb” (as the WSJ just wrote) if you are still mentally in the old paradigm but it’s always a mistake to think that what the US (or any country) does is dumb.

Hegemony was going to end sooner or later, and now the U.S. is basically choosing to end it on its own terms. It is the post-American world order – brought to you by America itself.

Even the tariffs on allies, viewed under this angle, make sense, as it redefines the concept of “allies”: they don’t want – or maybe rather can’t afford – vassals anymore, but rather relationships that evolve based on current interests.

You can either view it as decline – because it does unquestionably look like the end of the American empire – or as avoiding further decline: controlled withdrawal from imperial commitments in order to focus resources on core national interests rather than being forced into an even messier retreat at a later stage.

In any case it is the end of an era and, while the Trump administration looks like chaos to many observers, they’re probably much more attuned to the changing realities of the world and their own country’s predicament than their predecessors. Acknowledging the existence of a multipolar world and choosing to operate within it rather than trying to maintain an increasingly costly global hegemony couldn’t be delayed much further. It looks messy but it is probably better than maintaining the fiction of American primacy until it eventually collapses under its own weight.

This is not to say that the U.S. won’t continue to wreak havoc on the world, and in fact we might be seeing it become even more aggressive than before. Because when it previously was (badly, and very hypocritically) trying to  maintain some semblance of self-proclaimed “rules-based order”, it now doesn’t even have to pretend it is under any constraint, not even the constraint of playing nice with allies. It’s the end of the U.S. empire, but definitely not the end of the U.S. as a major disruptive force in world affairs.

All in all this transformation may mark one of the most significant shifts in international relations since the fall of the Soviet Union. And those most unprepared for it, as is already painfully obvious, are America’s vassals caught completely flat-footed by the realization that the patron they’ve relied on for decades is now treating them as just another set of countries to negotiate with.

Vir: Arnaud Bertrand via X

Po svoje je ta absurdnost začete trgovinske vojne zanimiva, ker smo ekonomisti o tem lahko predavali zgolj na podlagi zadnjega tako velikega primera, to je ameriškega Smooth-Hawley zakona iz leta 1930. Skoraj sto let kasneje pa lahko to opazujemo v realnem času. Sekvence, kako poteka trgovinska vojna ad absurdum.

1. ZDA v petek uvedejo 25% carine na uvoz iz Kanade in Mehike in 10 % carine na uvoz iz Kitajske

2. Kanada in Mehika se v nedeljo maščujeta s povračilnimi 25 % carinami na uvoz ameriških proizvodov (Kitajska še čaka)

3. ZDA že v soboto zagrozijo z dodatnimi, povračilnimi carinami, če bosta Kanada in Mehika uvedli povračilne carine

4. In tako ad absurdum, dokler se trgovina ne zmanjša na minimum ali dokler politikov ne sreča pamet.

V 1930-ih letih politikov pamet ni srečala. Po ameriškem Smooth-Hawley zakonu iz leta 1930, ki je enostransko povečal uvozne carine do 50 %, je v zgolj 3 letih svetovna trgovina upadla na zgolj eno tretjino tiste izpred ameriškega enostranskega ukrepa (tole spodaj je moj najljubši graf na področju trgovinske politike).

Prednost kitajskega jezikovnega modela DeepSeek je v tako močni poenostavitvi algoritmov, da je treniranje modela s podatki na sicer starih nvidijah terjalo le 3 % stroškov, ki jih je imel ameriški OpenAI na najbolj naprednih nvidijah. Zdaj pa poglejte spodaj: ko so inženirji DeepSeeka model pognali na Huawei procesorjih, se je performans modela zmanjšal samo za 5 %, strošek pa je upadel za 70 %!. To je umetna inteligenca po kitajsko na steroidih.

In to pomeni, da ameriški razvijalci umetne inteligence kmalu ne bodo več imeli za burek, saj se bodo v to področje množično zapodili kitajski razvijalci in delali jezikovne modele za bakšiš. Kajti najhujše je, da DeepSeek je open source koda in je zastonj za uporabo. Zakaj bi kdo še plačeval 20 dolarjev na mesec za AI ChatGPT?

Deset dni po prevzemu oblasti je Donald Trump začel z “izpolnjevanjem obljub” glede uvedbe carin. V prvem koraku je uvedel splošno 25 % carinsko stopnjo na uvoz vseh proizvodov iz najbolj prijateljske sosede Kanade (znižana 10 % stopnja velja za uvoz energentov) in manj prijateljske sosede Mehike. Glede Kanade so uradne navedbe, da sta povod za carine nekontroliran tranzit fentanila v ZDA in trgovinski primanjkljaj, pri Mehiki nekontroliran tranzit migrantov v ZDA in trgovinski primanjkljaj.

Ameriški politiki, vključno z Elonom Muskom, napovedujejo, da te carine in napovedane bodoče carine na uvoz iz Kitajske in držav EU ne bodo imele negativnega učinka na inflacijo.

No, učinki carin so dokaj kompleksni in z njimi se bomo po nekaj desetletjih zatišja zaradi skorajda popolne liberalizacije trgovine spet morali bolj aktivno ukvarjati. Zaenkrat zgolj dve hitri reakciji. Prvič, carine so v svojem bistvu uvozni davek, ki podraži uvožene izdelke, zaradi česar pa se (zaradi potuhe uvozne zaščite) dvignejo tudi cene domačih uvozno nadomestnih izdelkov. Najbolj “podmukle” so carine na inpute za domačo proizvodnjo (surovine, polizdelki, energenti), ker podražijo domačo proizvodnjo (z njimi se efektivna zaščita domače industrije zmanjša in ne poveča !). Zato so v pogajanjih o liberalizaciji trgovine v 1960-ih in 1970-ih države članice GATT izjemno pazile, da so najprej liberalizirale trgovino z inputi, šele nato trgovino s končnimi izdelki.

Torej, lahko uvedba carin povzroči inflacijo?

Nadaljujte z branjem→