These five trends are considered to be the most significant grand strategic ones that are expected to have the greatest impact on the global systemic transition across the coming year.

* Sino-US Bi-Multipolarity Has Given Way To Tri-Multipolarity

The Sino-US bi-multipolar system that characterized the years before the SMO has since evolved into tri-multipolarity as a result of India’s successful rise as a globally significant Great Power. The emerging world order is now shaped by the interplay between the US-led West’s GoldenBillion, the Sino–RussoEntente, and the informally Indian-led Global South within which are several independent Great Powers. With time, the system will reach the stage of complex multipolarity (“multiplexity”), its final form.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Izjemno dober slovenski rock. Če bi to pesem izdali v ZDA za major label, bi bila globalni hit.

Z malce zlobe in kreativnosti lahko ameriški načrt za ošibitev Rusije primerjamo z mirovnim sporazumom iz Versaillesa (1919), ki je Nemčijo obsodil na gospodarsko stagnacijo in ultimativno čez desetletje privedel na oblast Hitlerja. Tokrat je Nemčija glavna kolateralna škoda pri poskusu ošibitve Rusije (z njo pa vse države, ki so trgovinsko in prek proizvodnih verig močno navezane nanjo, tudi Slovenija). In vzpon AfD kaže prve konture bodoče politične polarizacije v Nemčiji. Vprašanje je le, kdaj se bo pojavil podoben populist, kot je bil Hitler, ki bo zlorabil to situacijo.

In seveda, vračamo se k ustanovnim temeljem Nata, ki jih je tako lepo formuliral njegov prvi generalni sekretar Lord Ismay: “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down“. Zgodovina bo povedala, če ameriško sprovociranje vojne v Ukrajini kot temeljni cilj ni imelo razbitja energetsko – trgovinske naveze med Nemčijo in Rusijo in okrepitev ameriškega vpliva v Evropi.

Otrokom v prvih razredih osnovne šole je jasno, da je strategija sankcij za uničenje ruskega gospodarstva grdo propadla in da je rezultat diametralno nasproten – rusko gospodarstvo raste hitreje od vseh zahodnih držav in se industrializira, evrsko gospodarstvo je na robu recesije (Nemčija, Avstrija, Češka itd. so v recesiji) in se pospešeno deindustrializira. Politični botri te “strategije” sankcij seveda ne bodo nikoli priznali svoje zmote, pač pa so prišli z alternativnimi “strategijami” podobne kvalitete. Ker je zmanjkalo proračunskega denarja, je treba “mobilizirati” bančne prihranke ljudi za spodbujanje vojaške industrije (za pošiljanje orožja v Ukrajino) in tudi za zeleni prehod. To pomeni, da bodo vlade začele pospešeno izdajati t.i. ljudske obveznice in nas prepričati, da vanje vložimo naše prihranke.

Toda pri tem velja ne pozabiti na dvoje: (1) tudi z zadolževanjem na domačem trgu se javni dolg povečuje enako, kot bi se z zadolževanjem na tujih trgih, in (2) kljub morda nobel proklamiranim ciljem ob izdaji ljudskih obveznic  (“zeleni prehod”, “evropska varnost”, “spodbujanje razvoja”) se je treba zavedati, da od tega velikih učinkov za evropsko gospodarstvo ne bo, saj velika večina ključnih produktov v zelenem prehodu (solarni paneli, inverterji, vetrnice, baterije, elektrolizerji itd.) prihaja iz Kitajske in večina dodatnega denarja bo šla za nakup ameriškega orožja in za pošiljanje tega orožja v Ukrajino. Torej z ljudskimi obveznicami bomo financirali prevsem razvoj kitajskega in ameriškega gospodarstva, bolj malo pa evropsko.

____________

This is Bruno Le Maire, France’s Minister of the Economy. You might know him as the genius strategist who said he was going to “cause the collapse of the Russian economy”…

Now he is straight out declaring that Europe has run out of money (it “does not have sufficient financial reserves”) and that they need to “mobilize all the savings of Europeans” that are “currently dormant in European bank accounts” in order to finance the future, including Europe’s “defense effort”.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Lekcije namibijskega predsednika nemškemu diplomatu glede nadaljevanja zahodnega kolonialnega odnosa do Afrike – podcenjevanja in poniževanja Afričanov in brez resne razvojne pomoči. Za razliko od tega jih Kitajci obravnavajo z več spoštovanja in jim gradijo infrastrukturo, ker bo omogočilo bodoči gospodarski razvoj. Nakar spet pridejo zahodni politiki in diplomati in Afričanom pridigajo, kako je Kitajska slaba in kako je sodelovanje afriških držav s Kitajsko slabo. Torej ne premorejo niti trohice elementarne inteligence in elementarne intelektualne poštenosti, da bi prepoznali, zakaj je kitajska verzija sodelovanja za afriške države neprimerno boljša alternativa kot nadaljevanje zgodovine 300-letnega kolonialnega odnosa zahodnih držav.

V naslovu ne gre za dilemo, pač pa za dve glavni obtožbi ameriških oblasti proti Julianu Assangeu: (1) da pri njegovem delu ni šlo za novinarstvo, ker naj bi aktivno iskal zaupne informacije (???) in (2) da je z objavami teh informacij na WikiLeaks ogrožal ameriško nacionalno varnost. Gre seveda za sfabricirane obtožbe, ki ne vzdržijo elementarne presoje. Thomas Fazi jih v spodnjem tekstu zelo učinkovito izpodbije.

I’d like to go over both claims, as well as other myths surrounding WikiLeaks’ work and Assange’s legal ordeal, expanding on my recent article in UnHerd. Let’s get started.

Myth n. 1: WikiLeaks’ work is not journalism

Much of the American case rests on the argument that Assange’s and WikiLeaks’ work is not journalism — and therefore does not enjoy the protections afforded to the latter by the US Constitution. I suspect many people out there would probably instinctively agree: the decade-and-a-half-long smear campaign waged against Assange and WikiLeaks has been instrumental in depriving Assange of public support by painting him as a reckless narcissist, a hacker-spy, a cyber-criminal — anything but a journalist. But the reality is that WikiLeaks’s work is no different from that of traditional media organisations. As the New York Timeswrote:

Though he is not a conventional journalist, much of what Mr Assange does at WikiLeaks is difficult to distinguish in a legally meaningful way from what traditional news organizations like The Times do: seek and publish information that officials want to be secret, including classified national security matters, and take steps to protect the confidentiality of sources.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Nadaljujte z branjem→

A former U.S. Colonel opines in The Hill:

Ukraine can no longer win – The Hill, Feb 22 2024

 Welcome to the club, I’d say, but its nearly two years to late for that. Ukraine lost the war on February 24 2022, the day the Special Military operation had started.

There never was a chance for Ukraine to win.

I will first let the Colonel recap the established narrative to then add my observations to it:

Two years ago, the Ukrainian Armed Forces defied expectations immediately. Days before Russia’s massive combined arms incursion, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley spoke for the U.S. military when he predicted to Congress that Kyiv would fall within 72 hours.

Many military analysts similarly predicted the Russian Armed Forces would quickly rout the overmatched Ukrainians. American leaders encouraged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to leave the country, lest Russian troops assassinate him.

These projections of immediate success for Russia misread the progress Ukraine had made in capability and readiness since Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea. They also overestimated the Russian forces’ readiness, air superiority, and command cohesion.

That is all – somewhat – true.

There were expectations that the Russian forces would quickly conquer Kiev and overthrow the sitting government. However, the Russians never applied the necessary manpower to do so. Pacifying and holding an enemy city in modern times generally requires abound 1 soldier per 40 inhabitants. When the war started Kiev had about 3 million inhabitants. Taking and holding the city would have required some 75,000 troops. But the Russian forces never deployed more than 40,000 troops into the general direction of Kiev.

Thus the military aim was not to take the city. It was to apply pressure to achieve a political aim.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Maks Tajnikar, kot najbolj kvalificirani ekonomist za področje zdravstva pri nas in na osnovi številnih strokovnih analiz, je pripravil – po mojem mnenju – odličen program sanacije slovenskega zdravstva (na primarni, sekundarni in terciarni ravni). Program, ki omogoča hkrati ureditev razmer v zdravstvu in da zdravstvo ostane javno.

V nadaljevanju poobjavljam prvi del, ki se nanaša na sanacijo razmer v primarnem zdravstvu, preostali del programa pa lahko preberete na Tajnikarjevem blogu.

__________

Slovensko zdravstvo potrebuje sanacijski program v smislu podjetniškega preobrata. Z njim ne spreminjamo glavnih sistemskih lastnosti in zdravstvenega sistema tudi ne opredeljujemo na novo. S takim sanacijskim programom zgolj »popravljamo« tiste dela organiziranja slovenskega zdravstva, ki so bili v zadnjih letih nesistematično spremenjeni in ki jih je potrebno posodobiti glede na spremenjeno transakcijsko in kontekstualno okolje zdravstva v Sloveniji. Tak sanacijski program omogoča tudi opredelitev iztočnic za strateški načrt razvoja slovenskega zdravstva, v praksi pa vzpostavlja red, ki omogoča realizacijo strategij.

Gre za naslednje ukrepe, ki so v celoti organizacijske oziroma poslovne narave. Prvi del ukrepov se nanaša na organiziranje primarne ravni.

Prvič, timi splošne in druge medicine na primarni ravni (ne glede na lastnino izvajalcev) morajo zajemati 1700 uporabnikov (opredeljenih). Normo 1400 opredeljenih iz leta 2019 je potrebno v celoti opustiti. Nova norma bi restavrirala stanje iz leta 2019, ko je bilo 1100 timov splošne medicine (okoli 350 zasebnikov – koncesionarjev) ob 2,1 milijona prebivalcev.

Drugič, tim splošnih zdravnikov je treba razširiti iz 1 zdravnika in 1,2 medicinske sestre na še enega administratorja z vsaj srednjo ekonomsko diplomo, ki mora biti obvezni element tima. S tem bi razbremenili zdravstveno osebje administrativnega dela.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Dober komentar Davida Goldmana. Čeprav je pretirano optimističen glede možnosti, da lahko ZDA še zmagajo v tehnološki in industrijski vojni s Kitajsko. V vojni glede obroževanja so ZDA že izgubile.

Whether it was right for America to go abroad seeking monsters to destroy in Moscow and Beijing, the way we went about it was abominably stupid. “If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared,” Machiavelli advised. Washington has wounded Russia and China but not disabled them, setting in motion a tragic sequence of responses that in the worst case will lead to war, but more likely will leave the United States with vastly diminished strategic standing.

The rise of China and the resilience of Russia have persisted through serried waves of tech restrictions, $125 billion of NATO support for Ukraine, and an unprecedented sanctions regime against Russia, including the seizure of $300 billion in reserves, among other measures.

The Black Legend propounded by the Blob states that China is on the verge of invading Taiwan because its Communist leaders hate democracy, and because it wants to distract its citizens from their economic misery. It claims that Vladimir Putin wants to revive the Russian Empire and invaded Ukraine because it “is a country that for decades has enjoyed freedom and democracy and the right to choose its own destiny.”

Nadaljujte z branjem→