Enter Syrsky, who had been ground commander under Zaluzhny and was now put in charge of all Ukrainian military forces. Syrsky is the same guy whose tactics led to the collapse of Bakhmut and very heavy casualties, earning that city the name “meat grinder.”

Syrsky immediately called up three or four brigades to save Avdiivka from collapse. But his planned rescue operation almost immediately got into serious trouble.

Some of Syrsky’s brigades were being assembled and organized in a small town around 15 kilometers from Avdiivka, called Selydove. The Russians discovered the Ukrainian army operations in Selydove and attacked with Iskander missiles and cluster weapons.

According to Russian sources blogging on various media networks (Telegram and X, for example), the Russian attack all but wiped out an entire brigade with heavy Ukrainian casualties.

Ukraine’s propaganda mill went into high gear, alleging that the Russian attack was aimed at a hospital’s maternity ward in Selydov. But the reality was that Ukraine lost around 1,000 to 1,500 soldiers.

Most western news sources parroted the Ukrainian line.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Smrt Alekseja Navalnega, najbolj znanega ruskega političnega zapornika, je seveda izjemno tragičen in žalosten dogodek. Nasploh dejstvo, da obstajajo politični zaporniki, je nezdružljivo s funkcionalno demokracijo. Zahodni politiki so skorajda brez izjeme, sploh pa takšne politične karikature, kot je Lindsey Graham, izkoristili smrt Navalnega za (bolj ali manj) upravičen napad na ruski režim in njegovega predsednika (in to kljub temu, da vzrok smrti še ni bil potrjen in da smrt Navalnega v oddaljenem arktičnem zaporu, pred katerim je bilo še skoraj dve desetletji prestajanja zaporne kazni, piarovsko Putinu nikakor ne koristi). Pri tem so tako zahodni politiki kot mediji predvsem potencirali pomen Navalnega za rusko demokracijo in dejstvo, da je bil politični zapornik.

In tukaj pridemo do hipokrizije z velikimi začetnicami. Prvič, Navalni že nekaj časa ni bil zelo priljubljen v zahodnih medijih, ker ti niso mogli spregledati nekaterih njegovih javno izraženih političnih pogledov, ki so bili izjemno nacionalistični in rasistični (sovražni do Arabcev in imigrantov, zavzemanje za njihovo deportacijo) in so mejili na fašistične. Drugič, Navalni je bil (podobno kot nesojeni “opozicijski predsednik Venezuele”, katerega ime smo že pozabili) politična marioneta zahodnih varnostnih služb. Ujet naj bi bil v video prisluhih, kjer agentu britanske varnostne službe ponuja organizacijo oranžne revolucije v Rusiji v zameno za letna financiranja v višini 15-20 milijonov dolarjev. Predstavljajte si, da v kateri izmed najbolj demokratičnih držav na svetu ujamejo domačega opozicijskega politika v prisluhih, ko denimo ruskim agentom ponuja organizacijo oranžne revolucije proti domačemu demokratično izvoljenemu vodstvu. Tak agent tujih varnostnih služb se ne bi izvlekel samo z 19 leti zapora, pač pa bi ga čakal dosmrtni zapor zaradi veleizdaje.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

War isn’t a 100-meter dash; it’s a marathon.

Months ago, as with Bakhmut, Avdiivka fell after intense fighting, but one thing remains common: the Russians can be delayed, but they never cease their advance. The fall of Avdiivka signifies that even in defensive positions and within strong fortifications, the Ukrainian army can at most delay the Russian progression. Now, only a few more such fortresses, perhaps 4 or 5, constructed years ago by Ukrainian forces, stand in the Russian path.

As I have reported for months, the Ukrainian army lacks a variety of resources—from personal equipment to ammunition, vehicles, and anti-air missiles. To be realistic, the Ukrainian army has not yet collapsed solely due to the heroism of some commanders and their men.

With an average age of 45, the Ukrainian army is now fighting a losing war, where there is an eminent risk of the Russians opening two new fronts, further complicating the already chaotic situation for Ukrainian forces.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Branko Milanović je izpostavil zelo dobro poanto glede demokracije. Prednost demokracije pred avtokratskimi režimi je v možnosti, da imamo različna mnenja in da jih lahko tudi svobodno izražamo, medtem ko ni empirične podpore v podatkih, da bi demokracije bile bolj uspešne glede razvoja, neenakosti ali korupcije. Toda prav to – pravica imeti različno mnenje in ga svobodno izražati – se zdi, da je danes na udaru. Tako prek političnih kampanj kot prek velikih mainstream medijev potekajo poskusi uniformiranja pogleda na svet. Težko je prodreti s pogledi, ki odstopajo od uradnih ali tistih, ki jih “usmerjajo” tehnološki giganti s svojimi orodji (iskalniki) in socialnimi omrežji. Spomnite se akcije Googla ob začetku vojne v Ukrajini, ki je v dopisu medijem zelo jasno dal vedeti, da ne bo monetiziral oglasov v medijih, kjer bo narativa glede vzrokov za vojno itd. odstopala od uradne. Glejte prepoved dostopa do vsebin v ruskih medijih. Glejte način poročanja o vojni v Gazi. Glejte usmerjanje diskusije o spolnih identitetah v smeri liberalne politično korektne verzije.

Milanović je sicer skeptičen, da lahko tak poskus uniformiranja – podoben tistem v času komunizma – tudi uspe. Jaz sem manj prepričan v to. Ekonomski interes zasebnih lastnikov je običajno bistveno bolj učinkovit način zatiranja svobodnega mnenja od avtoritarnih režimov.

What do you see as the main gain from democracy, as opposed to dictatorship?

[…] When I thought of that, my answer was: the freedom to read and listen to whatever I want, and to say whatever I want. And I think this is all. I do not believe that democracy leads to higher growth, less corruption, or less inequality. No evidence for any of these things. To put it perhaps too strongly, I think democracy has no effect on any real social phenomenon, but it does allow people, on a purely personal level, to feel better by accessing more diverse information, and to express any option they have. (Note that this freedom applies only to the political sphere,  not to one’s place of work which in capitalist democracies is ruled dictatorially.)   

Nadaljujte z branjem→

This is William C. Kirby, easily one of the most knowledgeable Western experts on the topic. He is Professor of China Studies at Harvard University and Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School. He serves as Chairman of the Harvard China Fund, and Faculty Chair of the Harvard Center Shanghai. In other words, when it comes to business and China, there are pretty much no academic figures in the West more qualified than he is.

Here the gist of what he says:

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Jeremy Rudd je tisti svetovalec boarda Federal Reserve, ki je septembra 2021, ko se je začel kuhati inflacijski šok v ZDA, objavil fenomenalno teoretično razpravo “Why Do We Think That Inflation Expectations Matter for Inflation? (And Should We?)”. Priznam, da že dolgo nisem tako užival ob branju teoretične ekonomske razprave (tukaj je moj takratni zapis “Petek, ko so ubili inflacijska (racionalna) pričakovanja“). Na kratko, Rudd je zapisal, da “je uporaba inflacijskih pričakovanj za razlago opazovane inflacijske dinamike nepotrebna in nesmiselna“. Oziroma da utemeljevanje ukrepanja monetarne politike glede inflacije na podlagi inflacijskih pričakovanj neustrezno, saj sloni na izjemno trhlih teoretičnih temeljih in empirično ni podprto, in “bi njegovo nekritično spoštovanje zlahka povzročilo resne napake politike.”

No, zdaj je tik pred objavo Ruddova knjiga “A Practical Guide to Macroeconomics“, ki napoveduje razbiti nekaj mitov v ekonomiji, predvsem pa pokazati, da je velika večina teoretičnih in empiričnih raziskav v makroekonomiji neuporabna pri snovanju makroekonomskih politik. Ker pač temeljijo na domišljijski predpostavkah o domišljijskem svetu, ki obstaja samo v glavah ene skupine ekonomistov, ki je odcepljena od kakršnihkoli značilnosti realnega sveta. Najbrž ne obstaja nič bolj nerealističnega in neuporabnega, kot so makroekonomske mainstream teoretske razprave in empirične študije.

Evo, kaj obljublja knjiga:

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Če bi kdo želel uničiti Evropo, bi prepustil, da to naredi sama. Prepustil bi jo njenim lastnim obsesijam, ideologijam in neumnostim, ki v medsebojni kombinaciji vodijo v strateške politične napake, gospodarsko stagnacijo in dolgoročni zaton.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

According to the German minister of the economy, the country’s economic situation is “dramatically bad”. That’s an exact quote!

He attributes the situation to 3 factors:

1. High energy prices
2. Increased military expenses
3. Reduced exports to China

And incredibly, when you think about it, all 3 are pretty much directly caused by the US.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Tja, od tega, da naj bi še pred letom in pol ruska vojska morala jemati čipe iz pomivalnih strojev za uporabo v vojaški industriji, do tega, da je ameriška adminsitracija zagnala preplah zaradi skrivnostnega novega ruskega vesoljskega orožja, je dolga pot, mar ne?

WASHINGTON WAS abuzz on February 14th with news of a mysterious Russian space weapon. Mike Turner, chairman of the House intelligence committee, urged the White House to declassify intelligence on a “serious national-security threat”. American broadcasters and newspapers said that it concerned a Russian space-related nuclear system, not yet deployed, that could endanger American and allied satellites. What could this be?

Much of the initial reporting is contradictory, with some outlets describing a nuclear-powered spacecraft and others a nuclear-armed one. There are essentially three options: a “pop-up” nuclear weapon designed to destroy satellites, which would be stationed on the ground and launched only when it was about to be used; a nuclear weapon that would be stationed in orbit; or a nuclear-powered satellite which would not be a bomb itself, but instead used nuclear energy to power some other sort of device.

If Russia plans to deploy a nuclear weapon in full orbit—rather than a “fractional” one in which it does not completely circle the Earth—it would be breaking the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Nuclear detonations in space are also banned under the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty, to which Russia is a signatory. Legality aside, it would be a destructive and indiscriminate weapon.

Nadaljujte z branjem→