Problem izraelskega genocida nad Palestinci ni zgolj v Netanjahuju in njegovi (skrajni) vladi, problem je v absolutnem večinskem odobravanju tega genocida med izraelskim narodom.
To, kar danes Izraelci počnejo s Palestinci, je primerljivo ali še hujše od tega, kar so nacisti počeli z Židi v drugi svetovni vojni. Izraelci uporabljajo bistveno ostrejše metode stradanja, kot so jih nacisti. Nemci (kot narod) so takrat gledali stran, Izraelci (kot narod) pa danes to eksplicitno podpirajo.
Kolikokrat sem že rekel, da sem bil (stoletja nazaj) zaljubljen v Margot Timmins oziroma v njen glas? To je glas, to je muzika, ki jo lahko poslušam dneve in tedne.
Dosedanji zelo goreči opravičevalci izraelskih vojnih in genocidnih zločinov v Gazi počasi zapuščajo to izraelsko genocidno ladjo. Očitno so si preračunali, da se jim zdaj splača zamenjati stran. Piers Morgan je med njimi. V kratkem času je, prvič, dovolil Jeffreyu Sachsu, da brez poseganja v besedo brutalno jasno opredeli izraelsko politiko glede Palestine kot gnusni genocidni zločin in da Sachs neovirano opredeli, da brez neodvisne Palestine ne bo miru na Bližnjem vzhodu. Sachs je izjemen v svoji analizi in obsdodbi Izraela:
In drugič, Morgan je javno priznal, da “ni imel prav” glede genocida v Gazi in da se zdaj strinja s kritiki zločinskega ravnanja izraelskih oblasti. Priznal je, da “ni imel prav”. Po letu in pol prenosa v živo izraelskega genocida v Gazi.
Zgolj podajam informacije in se držim nazaj, da ne povem kaj grdega o podganah tipa Piers Morgan.
Tak je bil naslov članka Kyla Chana izpred dveh dni v New York Timesu. Pravi preprosto to, da je KItajska prevzela globalno industrijsko in tehnološko dominacijo in da je ZDA pri tem ne morejo zaustaviti. Vsekakor pa ne s Trumpovimi politikami, ki so diametralno nasprotne od kitajskih. S carinami ne moreš zaustaviti države, za katero tvoj trg pomeni le 2.7 % njenega BDP in katere BDP raste po stopnji 5 % letno. Kitajske ne moreš zaustaviti tako, da poskušaš s carinami vrniti industrijo iz sredine 20. stoletja. Ne moreš zaustaviti Kitajske tako, da zmanjšuješ sredstva za izobraževanje, raziskave in razvoj in tako da ukineš ministrstvo za izobraževanje. Če nekdo zaradi hitrejše rasti produktivnosti raste 2 do 3-krat hitreje od tebe, je stvar zgolj matematike, v koliko letih bo večji od tebe. Kitajsko lahko “držiš pod kontrolo” le tako, da tečeš hitreje od nje. Da ustvarjaš razvoj in industrije prihodnosti hitreje od Kitajske. No, s carinami na izdelke iz 20. stoletja, z zmanjševanjem sredstev za razvoj in brez ciljne industrijske politike tega ne moreš doseči.
Zato se nam obeta grd boj ZDA, da ne bi prehitro padle v irelevantnost vsem na očeh.
_____________
For years, theorists have posited the onset of a “Chinese century”: a world in which China finally harnesses its vast economic and technological potential to surpass the United States and reorient global power around a pole that runs through Beijing.
That century may already have dawned, and when historians look back they may very well pinpoint the early months of President Trump’s second term as the watershed moment when China pulled away and left the United States behind.
It doesn’t matter that Washington and Beijing have reached an inconclusive and temporary truce in Mr. Trump’s trade war. The U.S. president immediately claimed it as a win, but that only underlines the fundamental problem for the Trump administration and America: a shortsighted focus on inconsequential skirmishes as the larger war with China is being decisively lost.
Mr. Trump is taking a wrecking ball to the pillars of American power and innovation. His tariffs are endangering U.S. companies’ access to global markets and supply chains. He is slashing public research funding and gutting our universities, pushing talented researchers to consider leaving for other countries. He wants to roll back programs for technologies like clean energy and semiconductor manufacturing and is wiping out American soft power in large swaths of the globe.
Bloomberg prinaša malce bolj realističen pogled na zadnje dogajanje glede Ukrajine in včerajšnji dejanski “dosežek” v pogovoru med Trumpom in Putinom. In sklep je približno takšen, kot pravi naslov. Tisti bolj rahločutni bi sicer najbrž uporabili izraz, da je Trump “Ukrajino podal kot vroč kostanj evropskim sosedam in odkorakal domov“. Toda resnica je bližje naslovu. ZDA so Ukrajino nakurile, uporabile in zlorabile, nato pa jo odvrgle kot … smeti. Ukrajina danes nima za nikogar več, razen za Rusijo, strateške vrednosti. In Rusija ima čas, voljo in sredstva, da si vzame, kar je vrednega zanjo. In evropske sosede ji tega z ničemer ne morejo preprečiti, niti nimajo dovolj sredstev in volje za kaj takega. Brez Amerike je EU zgolj fasada okrog ničesar.
The impression formed after the much-anticipated conversation between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, their third in three months, was that the US president is walking away from Russia’s war in Ukraine.
The manner in which Trump extricated himself was telling. He started off in a Truth Social message by saying how well the phone call had gone. As he went on, it became clearer that he may be leaving Ukraine to it.
The Europeans had thought they might influence the outcome if they got to Trump first. They reminded him of his threat to hit Russia with secondary sanctions.
But Trump didn’t follow through and without the US joining them, the measures have much less bite. Putin knows it.
What was apparent is that Trump values the prospect of doing business with Putin’s Russia and is tired of the messy process of trying to broker peace. He conveyed the same message last week on his tour of the Gulf region — that he could turn a blind eye to geopolitical issues for the sake of a deal.
Robin Brooks says the EU should “shut down Putin’s shadow fleet” in the Baltic to earn a seat at the peace table.
Let’s walk through why this idea is not just wrong — it’s dangerous.
First: there is no such thing as a Russian “shadow fleet.”
That’s a media term for tankers not insured in London — not mysterious Kremlin ships with black sails.
These are mostly old vessels, flagged to countries like Panama or Liberia, operated by third parties.
They’re used to carry Russian oil under sanctions — yes — but they are not controlled by the Russian state.
Second: how would the EU “shut them down”?
That would require interdicting ships in international waters or blocking access to Russian ports.
In plain language: a naval blockade.
And under international law, a naval blockade — unless authorized by the UN Security Council — is an act of war.
There’s no ambiguity here. Blocking those ships would mean opening a military conflict with Russia.
Third: the EU can’t do it — even if it wanted to.
The EU is not a sovereign state. It cannot declare war. It has no navy. It has no authority to order military action.
Only individual member states can act — and none are likely to launch a blockade of Russia in the Baltic Sea. It would be absolute madness.
So let’s be clear:
- There is no “Putin fleet”
- There’s no legal way to “shut it down”
- And the EU has no mandate, force, or authority to try
If EU leaders followed Robin Brooks’ advice, it wouldn’t get them “a seat at the table.”
It would put them at war — a war they’re neither prepared for nor legally able to start.
Ena zgodba je kupovanje ruskega utekočinjenega plina prek Kitajske in transporta po morju, zaradi česar je zaradi operacij komprimiranja / dekomprimiranja plina in transporta s tankerji ruski plin za EU 3-krat dražji, kot če bi ga uvažala neposredno iz Rusije po cevovodih …
… drugi način pa je kupovanje “azerbejdžanskega” plina, kjer gre v bistvu za ruski plin, ker ga Azerbejdžan sploh nima za izvoz in mora zato kupovati ruski plin, da zdosti domači porabi. Pri tem Azerbejdžan in drugi posredniki poberejo provizijo, ker “azerbejdžanski” plin v EU kupujejo po tržnih cenah. Politico in ostali so pisali o tem.
Analyses have suggested that Azerbaijan might be involved in re-exporting Russian gas to Europe under the guise of Azerbaijani origin. For instance, a report from Politico in December 2024 highlighted that Baku was in talks to acquire Russian gas and pump it through Ukraine into Central Europe, a move that could essentially “launder” Russian gas for Europe. Energy market specialists have pointed out that such arrangements would not represent genuine diversification of energy sources.
Neumnost se drago plačuje.
O tem letalskem obračunu pred dvema tednoma sta tako indijska vlada kot francoski dobavitelj bojnih letal Rafale raje čim bolj tiho (da se jim ne zgodijo odpovedi pogodb, kot je ta indonezijska (glejte spodaj). Prva je po zračnem porazu pristala na premirje, drugi pa čakajo, da sramotni poraz izgine v pozabo in da ne prizadene reputacije njihovih letal. Toda obračun je pokazal na gromozanske razlike med kitajskimi in francoskimi bojnimi letali. Ne toliko v tehniki, kot predvsem v sistemski (integrirani) uporabi letal.
China didn’t just sell Pakistan jets. It handed them a smart warfighting package.
Think of it like this:
India bought a DSLR (Rafale) – but needed to learn the manual, tweak the lens, and pick the right filter.
Pakistan got a smart camera (J-10C) – auto-calibrated, data-linked, pre-configured with real-time support from Chinese satellites and air defense.
One was a product.
The other was a system.
That’s why Pakistan outperformed India despite the paper specs. The jet didn’t fly alone – it flew with China’s entire kill-chain behind it.
Now even India’s Ministry of Defence admits it:
- You’re not just fighting Pakistan.
- You’re fighting China’s ecosystem.
And ecosystems don’t crash as easily as press releases.
DAMIJAN blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.