I was speaking on possibility of DeepSeek moment in lithography for many months with much ridicule from Twitter lithographers. I am sad to be proven correct but since truth is now out I will confess.

The United State is slowly realizing there is no way to stop Chinese lithography industry. Sanctions have been misapplied and the industry has reached escape velocity. ASML sees writing on wall and this why they open service facility in Beijing. They have no choice but to service older machines or risk being shut out of the market forever. TSMC is aware of this for many months and all senior leadership has been a warning of risk we may lose competitiveness on mature nodes. As for EUV light generation the progress Beijing has made has been astonishing… The DeepSeek moment in lithography I hinted before is sooner than many realize. I try not to cause panic before but I say this now with hope my voice gets heard by those who can influence government:

Taiwanese & U.S. government have been aware for many months that Beijing is developing an EUV mega source. This source is called the “High Energy Photon Source” (HEEPS) it is a storage ring synchrotron particle accelerator and is planned to provide 1000x more power than a single ASML High NA machine. There are plans to distribute the light to multiple semiconductor fabrication plants similar to the way a power plant distributes electricity. The construction of the facility is  estimated to reach completion soon and is the CCP and Chinese Academia of Sciences top priority. I am attaching images for reference.

It is time for United States to start a similar effort and treat high power EUV light source as national security priority! We need a Manhattan project for lithography!  The move of TSMC R&D facility and members to Arizona was not coincidence! It is the first step of a long road to self sufficiency for USA semiconductors.

Vir: Dr Kim

I explain my hypothesis of this thermodynamics-based natural climate change mechanism in an interview at the Inst. of Earth Phys. & Space Sci., Sopron (Hungary). Among those who also favor a heat-transport theory of climate change is Prof. Richard Lindzen.

Books:

Solving the Climate Puzzle. The Sun’s Surprising Role.

Climate of the Past, Present and Future. A Scientific Debate

I know it’s the norm nowadays but it’s still amazing to see flat-out lies like this in major media outlets.

Putin didn’t in the least “endorse Trump’s Greenland takeover”, in fact he called it “concerning” because it shows that “NATO countries are increasingly often designating the Far North as a springboard for possible conflicts.” And he added that Russia needed to “proceed from current realities and respond to all this.”

I’m using the exact same Putin speech The Guardian references in their article, which he made “at an Arctic policy forum in the northern Russian city of Murmansk”.

Anyone can verify this for themselves: read Putin’s speech and then read The Guardian article and you’ll see it’s a complete misrepresentation.

The Guardian then uses this supposed “endorsement” by Putin to make the case that he is an “enthusiastic ally” of “Trump’s transactional view of the world, as well as his deep suspicion of transnational organisations set up after the second world war,” like “the United Nations.”

But this is of course shockingly wrong too, as Russia, together with China and Global South countries in general keep emphasizing that they actually want a much bigger role for the UN in a future multipolar world order.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Ambassador Jack Matlock speaks about how he and President Reagan negotiated an end to the Cold War, and how NATO expansionism instigated a new Cold War.

Matlock speaks about the great opposition that had to be countered within the US as it was believed that Moscow could not be trusted, and military pressure was believed to be the only approach. Working against war hawks on both sides, disarmament became the skeleton structure to develop mutual trust and end the Cold War. The Cold War eventually ended through negotiations in 1989 that produced a common peace. However, the Soviet Union collapsed two years later, and the neocons hijacked the narrative by claiming the Cold War was won. Peace was believed to have been created through military dominance, which lent support to the policy of NATO expansionism that destroyed the post-Cold War peace. Ambassador Matlock explains how we have, yet again, ended up in a situation where dangerous war narratives are elevated above reality, and military pressure is yet again believed to be the only path to peace.

Update na Novi ameriški predlog “mineralnega sporazuma” z Ukrajino je še bolj brutalen:

Pričakovan odgovor – za javnost – na brutalno novo verzijo ameriškega predloga “mineralnega sporazuma”. In vso srečo z Evropo in njenimi obljubami.

Vendar nato pride nov teden. In nov krog pogovorov z Ameriko. Vsak naslednji predlog sporazuma bo slabši. Brutalno slabši. Putinove čete pa bodo vse bližje Kijevu in obljubljene evropske pomoči od nikoder.

Spodaj je avtor pozabil omeniti ključni razlog za ameriško sekularno deindustrializacijo: globalizacija, poganjana s pohlepom velikih ameriških korporacij. Korporacije so forsirale prosto trgovino in vključitev Kitajske v WTO, da so lahko preselile svojo proizvodnjo iz Amerike v države z nizko ceno delovne sile in uvažale poceni narejene izdelke nazaj v Ameriko. Ostalo je zgodovina.

Marko Golob

Težko je priznati, ampak Europa pospešeno pluje proti razpadu. Političnemu, gospodarskemu in vojaškemu.

Zame, ki sem strasten privrženec združene Evrope, je to težka ugotovitev. Težka je tudi zame kot slovenskega nacionalista (v najboljšem pomenu te besede, se razumemo, ki izključuje kakršenkoli šovinizem).

Gre za polom ene od dveh vizij Evrope. To je trenutni globalistični multikulturalni projekt evropskega talilnega lonca – Evrope multikulturalizma, katerega impliciten cilj je uničenje nacionalnih držav, kasneje pa razvodenitev evropskih narodov. Ključno orodje pri tem je uničenje tradicionalnih kultur kar omogoča najprej demografsko krizo, kasneje pa sprejemanje civilizacijsko nekompatibilnih imigracij. Razvodenitev narodov skozi kulturne spremembe in migracijo formira amorfno maso ljudi, ki omogoča manipulacijo množic in onemogoča kakršnokoli koncentracijo politične moči na osnovi naroda ali kulturnih vrednot. Zato tudi identitetna politika – ta temeljito deli populacijo in jo atomizira na osnovi rase, spolne pripadnosti,…samo ne na osnovi politične ideje.

Modus operandi te ideje je EU, kjer prevladuje “mission creep” pristojnosti oktroirane Evropske komisije na račun suverenih držav, ki čedalje bolj ostajajo brez orodij za upravljanje svojega razvoja. Slogan te evropske ideje je: “Več Evrope”, več buseljske birokracije, več centralnega pritiska na čedalje manj suverene nacionalne države. Evro kot “španski škorenj” za evropsko socialno politiko. Nosilec te ideje je nadnacionalna globalistična “liberalna” finančna elita. Ta se neugodnega razvoja akutno zaveda, zato je tako živčna. V parih letih so perspektive in aspiracije te elite padle od ideje globalne dominacije do boja za obstanek.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Ko izgubljaš, je po pravilu vsaka naslednja verzija “sporazuma” zate slabša. Dlje časa kot odlašaš, v večjo katastrofo se pogrezaš. To se očitno sedaj dogaja tudi Ukrajini. Če bi se izognila vojni (če ne bi verjela ZDA, da bo lahko postala članica Nata, če premaga Rusijo), bi ostala celovita (brez Krima) in vojaško močna. Če bi sprejela mirovni sporazum iz Carigrada marca 2022 (če ne bi verjela “zaveznikom”, da ji bodo pomagali, da bo premagala Rusijo), bi ostala celovita (brez Krima), vendar nevtralna in z omejeno vojaško močjo. Če bi sprejela prejšnjo verzijo “mineralnega sporazuma” z ZDA in če se Zelenski ne bi vpletel v besedni boj z ameriškim predsednikom in podpredsednikom, bi bila cena oziroma plačilo za preteklo “ameriško pomoč” za Ukrajino nižja. Ta nova verzija “mineralnega sporazuma” z ZDA je bistveno slabša – izgleda kot vreča brez dna, saj Ukrajina ne bo nikoli mogla te vreče napolniti, da bi se lahko “odkupila” za preteklo “ameriško pomoč”. Glejte spodaj obris “sporazuma”.

Zadeva je brutalna. Ameriško izsiljevanje je abotno do amena. Ne najdem besede za to pokvarjenost. Moj prvi instinkt, če bi bil na mestu Zelenskega, je, da bi ta “deal” z gnusom zavrnil. Toda nato se zavem, da Zelenski nima dobrih kart. Ničesar nima v rokah. Če reče ne, ga lahko Trump vrže volkovom – pusti Putinu, da počasi melje in pride z vojsko do Dnjepra in Kijeva. Evropski zavezniki Ukrajini tukaj ne morejo pomagati, ker – razen z odločnimi besedami – nimajo s čim. In če reče ne zdaj ter si nato po enem mesecu – ko se bodo ruske čete pomikale proti Dnjepru – premisli, bo Trump zahteval še več za poplačilo pretekle “pomoči”. Grozne izbire.

Je pa res, da če Zelenski sprejme “Trumpov deal”, s tem “kupi” mir za Ukrajino. Ukrajina se v zameno za mir odpove ekonomski avtonomiji in velik del svojega BDP premanentno transferira ameriškim korporacijam. No, če smo pošteni, za “navadne Ukrajince” to ne pomeni velike razlike glede na situacijo pred vojno – takrat so rente pobirali lokalni oligarhi, zdaj jih bodo pa Američani. Ukrajina je bila pred vojno kljub velikim naravnim bogastvom najmanj razvita nekdanja sovjetska republika. Ker so rente pobirali lokalni oligarhi, cveteli pa sta korupcija in prostitucija.

Kljub vsemu je grozno gledati, v kaj so Američani potegnili Ukrajino in kako jo bodo v naslednjih desetletjih kot kolonijo zlorabljali.

____________

There’s a new draft of the U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal.

It’s a sharp break from the version agreed on the day talks collapsed in the Oval Office.

And it stuns with what Washington demands.

Zelensky didn’t comment, except saying nuclear plants are out of the deal.

MP Zhelezniak claims the conditions are:

1. A joint U.S.-Ukraine investment fund Co-managed, but not equally. Five board members—three U.S., two Ukrainian. No decision without U.S. approval.
2. Who pays what

The U.S. says it’s already paid in—$100 billion since 2022. Ukraine must contribute future royalties and profits from gas, oil, minerals, and more. The agreement is open-ended.

Only the U.S. can walk away.

3. Who gets paid first

The U.S. gets its full “contribution” back—plus 4% annual interest. Ukraine sees no profit until that’s done.

The U.S. can pull money out freely. Ukraine cannot.

4. What Ukraine gives up

All resource revenues, public and private, across all territory—even occupied. Private firms like DTEK are not exempt.

Funds are to be converted into hard currency and wired abroad to an account controlled by the U.S.

5. Who gets the minerals

The U.S. gets first rights to buy what’s extracted—state or private.

6. Who builds what

All new infrastructure projects in Ukraine must be offered to the fund first. Only if the fund declines can other investors be considered.

Even private-sector initiatives may be bound by this, though the language is unclear.

7. What’s missing No security guarantees. No defense clause. Just resource control.

Zhelezniak says this isn’t a partnership. It’s full leverage and financial control of Ukraine.

Vir: Tymofiy Mylovanov

Napovedi predsednice Evropske komisije Ursule vdL, da bi načrt Komisije o oboroževanju (ReArm) lahko mobiliziral 800 milijard evrov investicij evropskih držav v orožje, je umrl, še preden je bil potrošen prvi evro. ReArm namreč temelji na načrtu, da bi se državer članice EU lahko zadolžile pri Komisiji do skupaj 150 milijard evrov, preostalih 650 milijard evrov pa bi se lahko “mobiliziralo”, če bi se države članice odločile, da povečajo deficite za do 1.5 % BDP z namenom investicij v oboroževanje. V slednjem primeru bi bile upravičene do odstopne klavzule glede fiskalnega pravila. Problem tega načrta je seveda v tem, da predvideva, da (1) imajo države članice fiskalni prostor (nizke deficite oziroma javni dolg) in (2) da imajo preferenco po hitrem oboroževanju namesto po financiranju ostalih javnih zadev (od zdravstva, šolstva, pokojnin do infrastrukture). Zgolj dva tedna kasneje se je pokazalo, da sta obe predpostavki nerealistični. Južne oziroma mediteranske članice EU (Francija, Italija, Španija) se namreč soočajo z visokim javnim dolgom, hkrati pa so daleč od Ukrajine in Rusije in s tem je njihova preferenca po dodatnem masivnem oboroževanju zelo omiljena.

Zato ne čudi, da – kot poroča Politico – so te tri države pod vodstvom Francije izvedle manjši upor proti načrtu Komisije. In ta upor se nanaša ne samo na splošen program oboroževanja, kjer te države želijo skupno financiranje (evro obveznice) namesto dodatnega zadolževanja v breme posameznih držav, pač pa tudi na predlog Komisije o generiranju dodatne vojaške pomoči Ukrajini. Slednji predlog je iz začetnih 40 milijard že uplahnil na zgolj 5 milijard evrov, pa tudi tukaj se te tri države zavzemajo za individualne pomoči Ukrajini z orožjem, ki ga imajo na voljo, kot da se v ta namen dodatno zadolžujejo, da bi nato s skupnimi nabavami zagotavljali vojaško pomoč Ukrajini.

Torej tipičen razvoj dogodkov za EU. Komisija napove tresenje gore, iz česar se nato rodi majhna miška. Če bi se Ursula in Kaja, preden sta bombastično razglasili oba načrta (ReArm in vojaško pomoč Ukrajini) posvetovali s članicami, bi si tako oni kot celotna EU prihranili to sramoto.

____________

Southern European states are rebuffing a European Commission plan to turbocharge defense spending with cheap loans, fearing it would add to their already heavy debt burdens.

The resistance, led by France, Italy and Spain, deals a significant setback to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s drive to boost Europe’s military autonomy.

Her proposal, which includes a €150 billion loan package and an emergency clause to loosen EU fiscal rules, was intended to unlock major new investments in defense and reduce the bloc’s reliance on U.S. protection.

But the stalemate now risks derailing Brussels’ plan to funnel more weapons from Europe to Ukraine. 

“Some countries have serious doubts on the feasibility or even the possibility of indebting [themselves] to these levels,” said a senior EU diplomat.

Nadaljujte z branjem→