Tudi mediji, kot je The Economist, ki so tri leta in pol dan za dnem gobezdali o nujnosti in veliki verjetnosti ukrajinske zmage nad Rusijo (poglejte posebni meni, namenjen propagandi o vojni v Ukrajini), nekega dne obrnejo ploščo in propagirajo pozitivne plati ukrajinskega poraza. Zdaj je postal popularen model “finlandizacije Ukrajine” v skladu z mirovnim sporazumom med Finsko in nekdanjo Sovjetsko zvezo. Za osvežitev spomina: Začelo se je s sovjetsko invazijo na Finsko 30. novembra 1939 (zaradi sovjetskih “varnostnih razlogov”), končalo pa se je tri mesece in pol pozneje po “zimski vojni” z Moskovsko mirovno pogodbo 13. marca 1940. Finska se je v skladu s sporazumom morala odpovedati 9 % ozemlja in pristati na vojaško nevtralnost, in po novem sporazumu iz 1944 je bila brez omejitev (po 1945) glede finskega vključevanja v evropske integracijske procese.

Finski predsednik Alexander Stubb zdaj ta model priporoča Trumpu kot uspešen model rešitve ukrajinske vojne. Torej skoraj natanko to, kar Rusija zahteva od začetka vojne – vojaško nevtralnost Ukrajine, in kar Rusija eksplicitno dopušča – možnost Ukrajine glede vključitve v EU. Ključna razlika glede na “moskovski mirovni sporazum” iz marca 1940  je v tem, da Rusija v začetku vojne ni zahtevala ukrajinskega ozemlja (razen Krima, ki je bil vedno ruski) in da osnutek sporazuma iz Istanbula (iz marca 2022) tega tudi ni predvideval. Rusija je v začetku vojne zahtevala zgolj zaščito ruske manjšine v štirih vzhodnih regijah, ki tvorijo t.i. Novo Rusijo in osnutek mirovnega sporazuma je predvideval avtonomijo teh 4 regij. Ruske ozemeljske zahteve so prišle šele z ukrajinskim nasprotovanjem mirovnemu sporazumu iz Istanbula in s kasnejšo formalno aneksacijo teh regij (po referendumih septembra 2022) in ruskim vojaškim zavzetjem večine teritorija teh regij.

Torej finski predsednik Stubb predlaga “realpolitično opcijo” po vzoru Finske – da se Ukrajina odpove delu ozemlja, da pristane na vojaško nevtralnost in da ohrani avtonomijo in s tem dobi možnost vključitve v EU. To naj bi bil po njegovem temelj finske zgodbe o uspehu v danih realpolitičlnih okoliščinah.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Ko tudi v The Economistu priznajo, kar ve ves nezahodni svet – da je Kitajska uspešno zamenjala ZDA kot “globalno sidro stabilnosti”, bo najbrž nekaj na tem. Kasno Marko na Kosovo stiže.

In fact, as President Xi Jinping plays host to over 20 presidents and prime ministers in China, a new reality is taking hold.

…

For Mr Xi the gathering has a higher significance. It shows, he says, that China has become a global leader and the source of stability and prosperity. The origin of uncertainty today is America, he argues, which is unleashing trade wars with almost everyone, and undermining its own network of military alliances and security partnerships.

Mr Xi’s guest list is impressive. It is one of the largest get-togethers of autocratic regimes in living memory, with Vladimir Putin of Russia, Masoud Pezeshkian of Iran and Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus in attendance. Kim Jong Un of North Korea travelled by armoured train, in his first visit to China since 2019.

Even more striking is the presence of leaders of countries that have in recent decades leaned more to the West, including Turkey, Egypt and Vietnam. Most striking is Narendra Modi, signalling India’s shift from America towards China. That follows Donald Trump’s disastrous double-fault singling India out for sky-high tariffs and embracing its enemy, Pakistan, following a conflict in May.

Mr Xi’s claim to lead a global coalition of America-sceptic powers is not as fantastical as you might think. Regarding trade, where all countries want predictability, China’s boast to be an anchor of stability now rings true—at least in relative terms. The country is already the largest goods-trading partner of most of this week’s visitors, along with another 100-odd states around the world. As the Trump administration pursues a rolling campaign of economic warfare against its trading partners, China’s sins of mercantilism and state-capitalism look minor by comparison.

There is also a new-found unity opposing sanctions, including the extraterritorial threat America uses to sever individuals, firms and countries from the dollar-based financial system and tech platforms. Once these were mostly feared by pariahs and rogue states. Mr Trump wields them with ever less restraint and without a predictable legal process or institutional framework. Russia, and increasingly China, are already moving away from dollar payments. Building a trusted, efficient alternative international system is daunting, perhaps impossible, especially for regimes without the rule of law. But more and more countries are interested in exploring options other than America’s dollar system. Even Europe is promoting a “global euro”. And fewer countries will be interested in enforcing American sanctions on its behalf.

Vir: The Economist

Vendar tudi ameriška zunanja politika ni veliko boljša – niti Bidnova, niti Trumpova. Razen če je bil njun namen razmontirati ameriško hegemonijo. Potem pa – kar tako naprej!

To me spomni na Pink Floyd. Obe izvedbi – brez Rogerja Watersa in samo Watersova – sta fenomenalni.

.

Spodaj je zelo dobra razlaga razlik v energetski gostoti različnih virov energije – primerjava med sončnimi paneli, jedrskimi, plinskimi in premogovnimi elektrarnami. Energetska gostota energije iz sončnih panelov na kvadratni meter je pač za okrog 50-krat (1 proti 50) manjša od enegetske gostote električne energije iz jedrskih elektrarn. In to v pogojih, da bi sonce ves čas sijalo. Ker pa v naših krajih sonce sije samo eno osmino časa v letu, so potrebne ogromne baterije in ogromno nadomestnih energetskih kapacitet (iz fosilnih virov), da bi zagotovili enake količine električne energije kot iz jedrskih elektrarn na kvadratni meter.  Kar pomeni, da se to razmerje pridobljene elektrike iz sonca in jedrskih elektrarn na kvadratni meter iz okrog 1 proti 50 spremeni v približno 1 proti 500. Vsak fizik, vsak elektro inženir in vsak energetik to ve.

Avtor spodnjega teksta se sprašuje, kdo bo to razložil Elonu Musku. Jaz sem dodal še našega premierja Roberta Goloba. Toda to (naslovno) vprašanje je povsem napačno. Oba – Musk in Golob – vse to, kar ve vsak fizik, vsak elektro inženir in vsak energetik, tudi sama dobro vesta. Vprašanje bi se moralo glasiti – zakaj se delata, da tega ne vesta. Odgovor se skriva v komercialnem interesu. Tako kot so nekateri politiki, uradniki, strokovnjaki in novinarji plačani za to, da ne razumejo, imata Musk in Golob komercialni interes, da “ne razumeta”. Musk prodaja baterijske sisteme za sončne elektrarne, Golob pa je vodil podjetje, ki se ukvarja s prodajo električne energije (s fokusom na solarni energiji) in sončnih elektrarn.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Dejstvo je, da evropskim politikom ni v interesu, da se vojna v Ukrajini konča, čeprav ta vojna ob Ukrajini najbolj škodi prav EU državam. Kot so opazili tudi visoki predstavniki Bele hiše, živijo evropski politiki v pravljici in s strategijo maksimalnih zahtev, s katero futrajo Zelenskega, preprečujejo, da bi lahko prišlo do napredka v mirovnih pogajanjih. Zato naj  bi se Trump nagibal k strategiji, da ZDA dvignejo roke in pustijo, da se obe strani med seboj koljeta še naprej in počakajo, kaj se bo iz tega izcimilo. To seveda pomeni, da pustijo Rusiji, da doseže tako velik napredek na terenu, dokler ta ne bo postal toliko nevzdržen za Ukrajino, da bo morala pristati na realistična pogajanja o miru.

Vendar: prisotnost ZDA v procesu mirovnih pogajanj je edina garancija za Ukrajino, da ji ne bo treba kapitulirati. Brez ZDA ji bo ostala samo popolna kapitulacija.

________________

Senior White House officials believe some European leaders are publicly supporting President Trump’s effort to end the war in Ukraine, while quietly trying to undo behind-the-scenes progress since the Alaska summit, Axios has learned.

• The White House has asked the Treasury Department to compile a list of sanctions that could plausibly be imposed by Europe against Russia.

Why it matters: Two weeks after the summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, there has been little clear progress toward ending the war. Frustrated Trump aides contend the blame should fall on European allies, not on Trump or even Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Behind the scenes: White House officials are losing patience with European leaders, whom they claim are pushing Ukraine to hold out for unrealistic territorial concessions by Russia.

• Axios has learned that the sanctions the U.S. is urging Europe to adopt against Russia include a complete cessation of all oil and gas purchases — plus secondary tariffs from the EU on India and China, similar to those already imposed on India by the U.S.
• “The Europeans don’t get to prolong this war and backdoor unreasonable expectations, while also expecting America to bear the cost,” a top White House official told Axios. “If Europe wants to escalate this war, that will be up to them. But they will be hopelessly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.”

What they’re thinking: The Europeans are said to be pushing Zelensky to hold out for a “better deal” — a maximalist approach that has exacerbated the war, Trump’s inner circle argues.

• The U.S. officials believe British and French officials are being more constructive. But they complain that other major European countries want the U.S. to bear the full cost of the war, while putting no skin in the game themselves.
• “Getting to a deal is an art of the possible,” the top official said. “But some of the Europeans continue to operate in a fairy-tale land that ignores the fact it takes two to tango.”

The big picture: After his summits with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump repeatedly said the next step must be a Putin-Zelensky summit. So far, the Russians have refused.

• At the same time, the Ukrainians have rejected any discussion on possible territorial concessions unless the Russians come to the table.
• Trump was visibly frustrated about the situation during Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting. “Everybody is posturing. It’s all bullshit,” he said.
• Russia’s massive air strikes on Kyiv, plus Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil refineries, further signaled that peace wasn’t getting any closer.

What they’re saying: “Perhaps both sides of this war are not ready to end it themselves. The president wants it to end, but the leaders of these two countries need it to end and must want it to end as well,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Thursday.

• A senior White House official told Axios that Trump is seriously considering stepping back from the diplomatic efforts until one or both parties begin to show more flexibility.
• “We are going to sit back and watch. Let them fight it out for a while and see what happens,” the official said.
• Some U.S. officials have begun to see European leaders as a major obstacle, despite the fact that Trump held a friendly meeting with them and Zelensky less than two weeks ago.

The other side: A senior European official involved in the talks with the U.S. over the Ukraine-Russia war expressed surprise about the U.S. criticism.

• The official was puzzled by the suggestion that European leaders were playing one game with Trump and another behind his back, saying no such gaps existed in reality.
• The official also said European countries are already working on a new set of sanctions against Russia.

Vir: Axios

Branko Milanović je v izvrstnem komentarju podal eno najboljših razlagov, zakaj smo v razvitih državah v zadnjih štirih desetletjih dobili kopico “nepolitičnih”, “tehničnih” institucij. Zgodba se zdi na prvi pogled malce privlečena za lase, toda ko razmislite malce globlje, postane zelo logična. Vplivni neoliberalci naj bi v začetku 1980-ih podvomili v sposobnost sicer prokapitalističnih politikov, da bodo lahko zmagovali na volitvah in so se bali, da bodo oblast prevzele levičarske, socialistične ali populistične stranke, ki bi z boljšimi politikami lahko ostale na oblasti in tako ogrozile interese kapitala. Njihova rešitev je bila v postopi izločitvi ključnih funkcij države izpod nadzora zakonodajne in izvršilne oblasti ter prenos odločanja v roke neodvisnih tehničnih agencij. Na prvem mestu so bile seveda centralne banke, nato so prišle agencije za varstvo konkurence in fiskalna pravila. Zagovarjanje neodvisnosti agencij je bil način za preprečevanje “slabih izidov” v primeru prihoda “kapitalu neprijaznih” politikov na oblast.

Nova delitev oblasti v razvitih državah je, da ključne ukrepe ekonomske politike (monetarno, fiskalno, konkurenčno….) kontrolirajo pred politiko zaščiteni tehnični kadri, medtem ko politikom ostajajo zgolj simbolne funkcije brez realne moči.

Zdaj pa premislite  evolucijo institucij Evropske unije in kako so bile vse ključne ekonomske politike (monetarna, fiskalna, konkurenčna….) prenešene na nadnacionalno raven in da vse ukrepe na tem področju  kreirajo ali kontrolirajo neizvoljeni evropski kadri – guvernerji, komisarji in direktorji direktoratov. Nacionalne volitve v posameznih članicah so postale efektivno irelevantne, saj demokratično izvoljeni politiki nimajo veliko manevrskega prostora znotraj okvirja ekonomskih politik, ki jih definirajo neizvoljeni kadri v Bruslju, Frankfurtu…

No, in to, kar danes počne Trump (z odstavitvijo guvernerke Fed in odstavitvami šefov različnih vladnih agencij), v bistvu ni napad na neodvisne politične agencije, pač pa zgolj radikalizacija osnovne premise, da lahko oni (Trump in njegovi) bolje ščitijo interese kapitala od tehničnih institucij, ki so temu namenjene.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Nemški kancler Merz je ta teden, preden je odobril 9 milijard evrov za Ukrajino, povedal, da nemški model blaginje ni več vzdržen. No, japonski primer kaže, da to ni nujno: tudi visoko zadolžena država z zelo nizko gospodarsko rastjo lahko vzdržuje socialno državo … če jo financira centralna banka prek kupovanja državnih obveznic. To ne pomeni (nujno) visokih stroškov financiranja javnega solga ali inflacije. Na Japonskem je ravno obratno. Japonska s tem kaže model prihodnosti za ostale razvite države. V primeru persistentne nizke gospodarske rasti bodo centralne banke morale financirati socialno državo. In tak sistem je lahko vzdržen in zelo stabilen.

Vendar je pri tej analogiji velik problem – Japonska ima monetarno avtonomijo in svojo lastno centralno banko, ki v interesu države deluje kot varuh stabilnosti in (v skrajnih primerih) kot posojilodajalec v skrajni stiski (lender of last resort). Nemčija tega “luksuza” nima. Nima svoje valute in nima svoje centralne banke. Ne more računati na to, da bi ji ECB pomagala ali reševala. Kar vedo tudi finančni trgi, zato bi od Nemčije zahtevali višje donose na dolg v primeru višje zadolženosti. To, kar se zdaj dogaja v Franciji.

Evropska komisija se sploh ni pogajala z ZDA glede trgovine. Preporosto je pristala na vse Trumpove zahteve. Ker je popolnoma varnostno odvisna od ZDA in ker vojne v Ukrajini sama brez ZDA ne more peljati naprej.

Evropska komisija je (spet) izvedla nacionalno izdajo. Dela jih po tekočem traku.

Impeach!

As she puts its:

– “If you didn’t hear me say the word ‘negotiation’ – that’s because there wasn’t one.” => the U.S. dictated the terms

– “From the Commission’s perspective, this was a strategic compromise, not an ideal economic solution” => they’re aware this completely f*cks the EU economically

– “The European side was under massive pressure to find a quick solution to stabilize transatlantic relations – especially with regard to security guarantees” => the EU agreed to the “deal” under a protection racket

– “We have a land war on the European continent. And we are completely dependent on the United States. The member states were not prepared to take the risk of further escalation – that would have been the consequence of European countermeasures.” => Europe acted out of fear, choosing economic submission because of its total dependence on the U.S. (which ironically will only worsen the dependence)

There you have it, she said the quiet part out loud: the EU is in such a terrible strategic situation and EU leaders have so little courage that they’re unable and unwilling to say ‘no’ to even the most humiliating demands.