Drama in panika:

HE END OF NATO AS WE KNEW IT

Tomorrow, December 3, NATO foreign ministers gather in Brussels.

America’s seat will be empty.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is skipping the summit. First time in over two decades a U.S. Secretary of State has refused to attend.

But here is what no one is telling you:

Today, December 2, Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff meets Vladimir Putin in Moscow.

Read that again.

The day before NATO convenes to discuss European security, America is in Moscow negotiating directly with Russia. Without Europe. Without consultation. Without permission.

Who is Washington sending to Brussels instead? Deputy Secretary Christopher Landau. The same official who wrote “NATO is still a solution in search of a problem” before deleting the post.

The message could not be clearer.

Since 1949, NATO operated on one principle: collective decision-making. Thirty-two nations, one voice.

That architecture died this week.

The new hierarchy:

Track One: Washington and Moscow decide.

Track Two: Washington informs Kyiv.

Track Three: Europe learns what was agreed.

European diplomats are already complaining they have been “cut out” of Ukraine negotiations. The leaked 28-point peace plan was drafted by American and Russian negotiators. Brussels was not consulted.

America funds approximately 70% of NATO’s operational capacity. He who pays, dictates.

What happens next will define the next fifty years of global order.

Either Europe accepts its new role as a funding mechanism for American-designed security arrangements.

Or the Atlantic fractures.

There is no third option.

The post-1945 world order is being rewritten.

Not in Brussels.

In Moscow.

While NATO ministers wait in an empty room.

Vir

Realnost:

No. 1: ZDA pokrivajo skoraj 70 % vojaških izdatkov Nata. Torej v Natu in o Natu odločajo v Washingtonu. Če želijo EU države več glasovalnih pravic, morajo ne samo plačati več kot ZDA, pač pa tudi operativno prevzeti vodenje Nata (ne zgolj prek ameriške lutke iz EU na mestu generalnega sekretarja zveze)

No. 2. EU se je sama izločila iz pogajanj z Rusijo, ker se z njo sploh ni želela in se ne želi pogovarjati. Če se ne želiš pogovarjati z nasprotno stranjo, pač ne moreš jokati, da te ni za pogajalsko mizo.

The European Central Bank has refused to backstop a €140bn payment to Ukraine, dealing a blow to an EU plan to raise a “reparations loan” backed by frozen Russian assets.

The ECB concluded that the European Commission proposal violated its mandate, according to multiple officials, adding to Brussels’ difficulties in raising the giant loan against Russian central bank assets immobilised at Euroclear, the Belgian securities depository.

It comes amid pressure on the EU to finance Ukraine for the next two years, as Kyiv faces a cash crunch amid a renewed Russian military onslaught and a US peace initiative.

Under the European Commission plan, EU countries would provide state guarantees to ensure the repayment risk on the €140bn loan to Ukraine is shared.

But commission officials said the countries would not be able to raise the cash rapidly in an emergency, and this could put markets under pressure.

The officials asked the ECB whether it could act as a lender of last resort to Euroclear Bank, the lending arm of the Belgian institution, to avoid a liquidity crisis, according to four people briefed on the discussions.

ECB officials told the commission this was impossible, three of these people said.

The ECB’s internal analysis concluded that the commission proposal was equivalent to providing direct funding to governments, as the central bank would cover the financial obligations of member states.

This practice, called “monetary financing” by economists, is banned in EU treaties because of evidence it results in high inflation and loss of central bank credibility.

The ECB said “such a proposal is not under consideration as it would likely violate EU treaty law prohibiting monetary financing”.

Vir: Financial Times

Čez vikend so se na tviterju (X) pojavile špekulativne teorije o tem, da naj bi evropske države načrtovale silovit povračilni udarec ZDA  zaradi Trumpovega barantanja s Putinom glede priznanja osvojenega ozemlja v Ukrajini v korist Rusije (glejte spodaj enega izmed teh zapisov). EU države naj bi se odzvale tako, da bi začele pospešeno prodajati ameriške državne obveznice (UST) in s tem povzročile velik dvig zahtevanih donosov na ameriške obveznice ter posledično poslale ameriško gospodarstvo v recesijo. 

Ta špekulacija  je ena najbolj bizarnih in butastih teorij. Iz nekaj preprostih razlogov.

Njegova muzika ni (bila) skladna z mojim glasbenim okusom. Toda njegova dobrodelnost me je presunila.

He died on Christmas morning, and only then did the world discover the truth: he had been secretly giving away millions with one rule:

No one could ever know it was him.

December 25, 2016. 

George Michael, one of the defining pop icons of the 1980s and 1990s, was found dead at age 53. The world mourned the voice behind Faith, Careless Whisper, and Freedom. Tributes flowed, celebrating his talent, his cultural impact, his brilliance.

But then, quietly, another story began to emerge.

Not about his concerts. 

Not about his fame. 

But about his kindness.

One by one, strangers stepped forward with memories that had never made headlines: stories of compassion, generosity, and life-changing gifts from a man who made them swear to silence.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Democracy Shield je pobuda Evropske komisije, predstavljena leta 2024 kot del širšega evropskega okvira za zaščito demokratičnih procesov pred domnevnimi tujimi informacijskimi manipulacijami, dezinformacijami in izzivi, ki jih prinaša umetna inteligenca. Projekt je pripravila Evropska komisija v sodelovanju z različnimi evropskimi agencijami, akademskimi centri in nevladnimi organizacijami, njegova uradna vloga pa je krepitev odpornosti EU pred zunanjimi vplivi na demokratične volitve in javno razpravo. Kljub temu številni kritiki – med njimi Norman Lewis – opozarjajo, da gre za instrument, ki presega namen zaščite demokracije in predstavlja obliko sistematičnega upravljanja informacijskega prostora v EU. Democracy Shield je bil javno objavljen kot ključni element evropske strategije za leto 2024 in vključuje tako zakonodajne kot nezakonodajne ukrepe, usmerjene v digitalne platforme, medije, izobraževalni sektor in državljane.

Norman Lewis je v analizi, objavljeni pred nekaj dnevi, seciral ta nov Ursulin mehanizem in ugotovil, da dejanski cilj tega Ursulinega mehanizma ni zavarovanje demokracije, temveč zaščita Evropske komisije pred političnim nezadovoljstvom evropskih državljanov. Za razliko od zgolj orwellijanske cenzure obstoječe javne diskusije Ursulin “demokratični ščit” prek prediktivnih algoritmov umetne inteligence prinaša preemptivno kontrolo bodočega narativa. Enostavno rečeno, želi preprečiti, da bi v Evropi sploh vzniknila diskusija o nekaterih temah. Ursula je glede totalitarizma naredila velik korak naprej od tega, kar je dopuščala domišljija Orwella v 1948.

Spodaj je kratek povzetek dokumenta.

Lewis pravi, da je Democracy Shield mehanizem, ki je zasnovan precej širše, kot je predstavljeno javnosti. Čeprav se pobuda sklicuje na zaščito volitev in demokratičnih institucij pred zunanjimi grožnjami, Lewis opozarja, da njen dejanski cilj ni zavarovanje demokracije, temveč zaščita Evropske komisije pred političnim nezadovoljstvom evropskih državljanov. Democracy Shield tako po njegovem ne služi kot obrambni zid pred vplivi iz tujine, ampak kot politični ščit, ki zmanjšuje demokratično odgovornost evropskih institucij.

Lewis trdi, da pobuda radikalno preoblikuje temeljne demokratične pojme. Koncepti, kot so odpornost, pluralnost, zaupanje in neodvisnost, so v okviru Democracy Shield redefinirani kot razlog za razširjeno regulacijo političnega govora in nadzor nad informacijami. Evropska komisija naj bi si prizadevala ustvariti koordiniran, centraliziran informacijski sistem, ki deluje kot »operacijski sistem resnice«: ta določa, katere informacije so dovoljene in kako jih je treba prikazati državljanom, s čimer se bistveno omejuje svoboda javne razprave.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

On November 12th, Brussels pulled down a curtain. A digital Iron Curtain, not aimed at Moscow, not at Beijing, but at its own citizens. This “Democracy Shield” isn’t protection. It’s containment. And for the first time in its history, the EU has admitted publicly, though not intentionally, that the human mind has become its greatest security threat.

The Shield is the culmination of years of quiet groundwork laid by Brussels technocrats like Thierry Breton, Vera Jourova, and Ursula von der Leyen, the same trio who have spent half a decade insisting that “disinformation” is more dangerous than poverty, war, or the political class itself. And now, under the Digital Services Act, they’ve constructed a continent-wide speech‑policing architecture that reaches into every feed, every platform, every conversation.

At its centre is the newly created European Centre for Democratic Resilience, a name so sterile it almost conceals its purpose: real-time surveillance and neutralization of “emerging narratives.” This is the institutionalization of narrative pre-crime. Not what you said, but what you might say. Not what is false, but what is unapproved.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Francoski Le Monde objavlja kratek intervju z Nicolasom Guilloujem, francoskim sodnikom Mednarodnega kazenskega sodišča (ICC), ki so ga ZDA sankcionirale, potem ko je sodišče odobrilo izdajo nalogov za aretacijo izraelskega premierja Benjamina Netanjahuja in nekdanjega obrambnega ministra Yoava Gallanta zaradi vojnih zločinov v Gazi. Sankcije, prvotno ustvarjene za boj proti terorizmu, trgovini z mamili in hudim kršitvam človekovih pravic, so zdaj razširjene na šest sodnikov in tri tožilce ICC, vključno z glavnim tožilcem Karimom Khanom. Guillou, ki zaradi postopkov ne komentira vsebine primerov, opozarja, da sankcije močno vplivajo na njegovo delo in osebno življenje ter poziva evropske oblasti, naj uporabijo mehanizme za zaščito evropskih državljanov pred zunanjimi političnimi pritiski.

Guillou pojasnjuje, da sankcije močno presegajo prepoved vstopa v ZDA. Izključujejo ga iz dostopa do storitev ameriških podjetij, kar vodi v zapiranje računov na platformah, kot so Amazon, PayPal in Airbnb, ter celo v preklic hotelskih rezervacij v Evropi. Najhujše pa so posledice na finančnem področju, saj številne banke – tudi neameriške – zapirajo račune sankcioniranim osebam, medtem ko transakcije v ameriških dolarjih ali prek ameriških plačilnih sistemov postanejo nemogoče. Ker imajo Visa, Mastercard in American Express v Evropi skoraj popoln monopol, sankcionirani posameznik čez noč ostane brez bančne kartice in brez dostopa do osnovnih storitev, kar ustvarja trajen občutek nemoči in pritiska, namenjenega zastraševanju sodnikov.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Andrew Korybko

Zelensky might be next after Yermak was just taken down unless he complies with Trump’s demands for peace, in which case it’s not unforeseeable that he too could be formally implicated in this scandal as the catalyst for a US-backed regime change carried out in collusion with his domestic allies.

Zelensky’s warmongering grey cardinal Andrey Yermak, who formally serves as his Chief of Staff, submitted his resignation after his apartment was raided as part of the investigation into Ukraine’s $100 million energy graft scandal. Russian Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik believes that he was fired, however, to protect Zelensky as the walls close in on him amidst this investigation. Whatever the truth may be, Miroshnik might be onto something, which will be elaborated on throughout this analysis.

It was earlier assessed that “Ukraine’s Corruption Scandal Might Pave The Way For Peace If It Takes Yermak Down” since “his downfall could undo the already shaky alliance between the armed forces, the oligarchs, the secret police, and parliament that keeps Zelensky in power.” Zelensky held off on getting rid of him for that reason, which emboldened Yermak to declare on his behalf that Ukraine won’t cede any territory to Russia, thus spoiling one of the main proposals in the US’ draft peace framework.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

.