Sekėjai

Ieškoti šiame dienoraštyje

2021 m. birželio 1 d., antradienis

How the World Ran Out of Everything


"Global shortages of many goods reflect the disruption of the pandemic combined with decades of companies limiting their inventories."

This is one of the market failures that government has to fix while not distorting the market too much. One of the ways to go - refuse to save businesses who get into trouble during each of the crises in the system, and, conversely, to put an end to troubled greedy businesses through heavy taxes. Knowing that the owners can loose everything can make the bosses think twice before going too lean. Only then will doctors not be forced to meat their death during the next pandemic due to a lack of protective equipment in hospitals, and there will be no need to stop the car industry due to a shortage of chips.
 

"In the story of how the modern world was constructed, Toyota stands out as the mastermind of a monumental advance in industrial efficiency. The Japanese automaker pioneered so-called Just In Time manufacturing, in which parts are delivered to factories right as they are required, minimizing the need to stockpile them.
Over the last half-century, this approach has captivated global business in industries far beyond autos. From fashion to food processing to pharmaceuticals, companies have embraced Just In Time to stay nimble, allowing them to adapt to changing market demands, while cutting costs.
But the tumultuous events of the past year have challenged the merits of paring inventories, while reinvigorating concerns that some industries have gone too far, leaving them vulnerable to disruption. As the pandemic has hampered factory operations and sown chaos in global shipping, many economies around the world have been bedeviled by shortages of a vast range of goods — from electronics to lumber to clothing.
In a time of extraordinary upheaval in the global economy, Just In Time is running late.
“It’s sort of like supply chain run amok,” said Willy C. Shih, an international trade expert at Harvard Business School. “In a race to get to the lowest cost, I have concentrated my risk. We are at the logical conclusion of all that.”
The most prominent manifestation of too much reliance on Just in Time is found in the very industry that invented it: Automakers have been crippled by a shortage of computer chips — vital car components produced mostly in Asia. Without enough chips on hand, auto factories from India to the United States to Brazil have been forced to halt assembly lines.
But the breadth and persistence of the shortages reveal the extent to which the Just in Time idea has come to dominate commercial life. This helps explain why Nike and other apparel brands struggle to stock retail outlets with their wares. It’s one of the reasons construction companies are having trouble purchasing paints and sealants. It was a principal contributor to the tragic shortages of personal protective equipment early in the pandemic, which left frontline medical workers without adequate gear.

Shortages of personal protective equipment early in the pandemic left frontline medical workers without adequate gear. Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times
Just In Time has amounted to no less than a revolution in the business world. By keeping inventories thin, major retailers have been able to use more of their space to display a wider array of goods. Just In Time has enabled manufacturers to customize their wares. And lean production has significantly cut costs while allowing companies to pivot quickly to new products.
These virtues have added value to companies, spurred innovation and promoted trade, ensuring that Just In Time will retain its force long after the current crisis abates. The approach has also enriched shareholders by generating savings that companies have distributed in the form of dividends and share buybacks.
Still, the shortages raise questions about whether some companies have been too aggressive in harvesting savings by slashing inventory, leaving them unprepared for whatever trouble inevitably emerges.
“It’s the investments that they don’t make,” said William Lazonick, an economist at the University of Massachusetts.
Intel, the American chip-maker, has outlined plans to spend $20 billion to erect new plants in Arizona. But that is less than the $26 billion that Intel spent on share buybacks in 2018 and 2019 — money the company could have used to expand capacity, Mr. Lazonick said.
Some experts assume that the crisis will change the way companies operate, prompting some to stockpile more inventory and forge relationships with extra suppliers as a hedge against problems. But others are dubious, assuming that — same as after past crises — the pursuit of cost savings will again trump other considerations.
Chaos on the Seas
The shortages in the world economy stem from factors beyond lean inventories. The spread of Covid-19 has sidelined port workers and truck drivers, impeding the unloading and distribution of goods made at factories in Asia and arriving by ship to North America and Europe.
 
The pandemic has slowed sawmill operations, causing a shortage of lumber that has hampered home building in the United States. Credit...Octavio Jones for The New York Times
The pandemic has slowed sawmill operations, causing a shortage of lumber that has stymied home building in the United States.
Winter storms that shut down petrochemical plants in the Gulf of Mexico have left key products in short supply. Andrew Romano, who runs sales at a chemical company outside Philadelphia, has grown accustomed to telling customers they must wait on their orders.
“You have a confluence of forces,” he said. “It just ripples through the supply.”
Dramatic increases in demand made pet food scarce and Grape-Nuts cereal all but disappear from American store shelves for a time.
Some companies were especially exposed to such forces given that they were already running lean as the crisis began.
And many businesses have combined a dedication to Just In Time with a reliance on suppliers in low-wage countries like China and India, making any disruption to global shipping an immediate problem. That has amplified the damage when something goes awry — as when an enormous vessel lodged in the Suez Canal this year, closing the primary channel linking Europe and Asia.
“People adopted that kind of lean mentality, and then they applied it to supply chains with the assumption that they would have low-cost and reliable shipping,” said Mr. Shih, the Harvard Business School trade expert. “Then, you have some shocks to the system.”
An Idea That Went ‘Way Too Far’
 
Toyota relied on suppliers near its base in Japan, making the company less susceptible to events far away. Credit...Toshifumi Kitamura/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Just In Time was itself an adaptation to turmoil, as Japan mobilized to recover from the devastation of World War II.
Densely populated and lacking in natural resources, Japan sought to conserve land and limit waste. Toyota eschewed warehousing, while choreographing production with suppliers to ensure that parts arrived when needed.
By the 1980s, companies around the globe were emulating Toyota’s production system. Management experts promoted Just In Time as a way to boost profits.
 “Companies that run successful lean programs not only save money in warehouse operations but enjoy more flexibility,” declared a 2010 McKinsey presentation for the pharmaceutical industry. It promised savings of up to 50 percent on warehousing if clients embraced its “lean and mean” approach to supply chains.
Such claims have panned out. Still, one of the authors of that presentation, Knut Alicke, a McKinsey partner based in Germany, now says the corporate world exceeded prudence.
“We went way too far,” Mr. Alicke said in an interview. “The way that inventory is evaluated will change after the crisis.”
Many companies acted as if manufacturing and shipping were devoid of mishaps, Mr. Alicke added, while failing to account for trouble in their business plans.
“There’s no kind of disruption risk term in there,” he said.
Experts say that omission represents a logical response from management to the incentives at play. Investors reward companies that produce growth in their return on assets. Limiting goods in warehouses improves that ratio.
“To the extent you can keep reducing inventory, your books look good,” said ManMohan S. Sodhi, a supply chain expert at the City, University of London Business School.
From 1981 to 2000, American companies reduced their inventories by an average of 2 percent a year, according to one study. These savings helped finance another shareholder-enriching trend — the growth of share buybacks.
In the decade leading up to the pandemic, American companies spent more than $6 trillion to buy their own shares, roughly tripling their purchases, according to a study by the Bank for International Settlements. Companies in Japan, Britain, France, Canada and China increased their buybacks fourfold, though their purchases were a fraction of their American counterparts.
Repurchasing stock reduces the number of shares in circulation, lifting their value. But the benefits for investors and executives, whose pay packages include hefty allocations of stock, have come at the expense of whatever the company might have otherwise done with its money — investing to expand capacity, or stockpiling parts.
These costs became conspicuous during the first wave of the pandemic, when major economies including the United States discovered that they lacked capacity to quickly make ventilators.
“When you need a ventilator, you need a ventilator,” Mr. Sodhi said. “You can’t say, ‘Well, my stock price is high.’”
When the pandemic began, car manufacturers slashed orders for chips on the expectation that demand for cars would plunge. By the time they realized that demand was reviving, it was too late: Ramping up production of computer chips requires months.
“The impact to production will get worse before it gets better,” said Jim Farley, the chief executive of Ford, which has long embraced lean manufacturing, speaking to stock analysts on April 28. The company said the shortages would probably derail half of its production through June.
The automaker least affected by the shortage is Toyota. From the inception of Just in Time, Toyota relied on suppliers clustered close to its base in Japan, making the company less susceptible to events far away.
‘It All Cascades’
 
Shipping companies have played a crucial role in Just in Time manufacturing by effectively shrinking the expanse of oceans. They have added to their fleets and piled containers atop increasingly humongous vessels.Credit...Coley Brown for The New York Times
In Conshohocken, Pa., Mr. Romano is literally waiting for his ship to come in.
He is vice president of sales at Van Horn, Metz & Company, which buys chemicals from suppliers around the world and sells them to factories that make paint, ink and other industrial products.
In normal times, the company is behind in filling perhaps 1 percent of its customers’ orders. On a recent morning, it could not complete a tenth of its orders because it was waiting for supplies to arrive.
The company could not secure enough of a specialized resin that it sells to manufacturers that make construction materials. The American supplier of the resin was itself lacking one element that it purchases from a petrochemical plant in China.
One of Mr. Romano’s regular customers, a paint manufacturer, was holding off on ordering chemicals because it could not locate enough of the metal cans it uses to ship its finished product.
“It all cascades,” Mr. Romano said. “It’s just a mess.”
No pandemic was required to reveal the risks of overreliance on Just In Time combined with global supply chains. Experts have warned about the consequences for decades.
In 1999, an earthquake shook Taiwan, shutting down computer chip manufacturing. The earthquake and tsunami that shattered Japan in 2011 shut down factories and impeded shipping, generating shortages of auto parts and computer chips. Floods in Thailand the same year decimated production of computer hard drives.
Each disaster prompted talk that companies needed to boost their inventories and diversify their suppliers.
Each time, multinational companies carried on.
The same consultants who promoted the virtues of lean inventories now evangelize about supply chain resilience — the buzzword of the moment.
Simply expanding warehouses may not provide the fix, said Richard Lebovitz, president of LeanDNA, a supply chain consultant based in Austin, Texas. Product lines are increasingly customized.
“The ability to predict what inventory you should keep is harder and harder,” he said.
Ultimately, business is likely to further its embrace of lean for the simple reason that it has yielded profits.
“The real question is, ‘Are we going to stop chasing low cost as the sole criteria for business judgment?’” said Mr. Shih, from Harvard Business School. “I’m skeptical of that. Consumers won’t pay for resilience when they are not in crisis.”"




You are naive, gentlemen beavers

  Entrepreneurs who took the aid but bought Rolls Royce, Maserati, Lamborghini do not understand what caused the scandal: state money was used for employees, and company money was used to buy luxury goods. Understand, in Lithuania, the company's employees are not part of the company. In Lithuania, the state must feed company's employees during the crisis. The company is just a toy in the hands of the owner to satisfy the whims of the owner.  

Do you still wonder why young people emigrate from such Lithuania? Wondering why normal people don’t go to work for you?

Jūs esate naivūs, ponai bebrai

 Paramą ėmę, bet „Rolls Royce“, „Maserati“, „Lamborghini“ pirkę verslininkai nesupranta, dėl ko kilo skandalas: valstybės pinigai naudoti darbuotojams, o prabangos prekėms pirkti buvo naudoti įmonės pinigai.

Suprask, Lietuvoje įmonės darbuotojai nėra įmonės dalis. Lietuvoje darbuotojus maitinti krizės metu privalo valstybė. Įmonė yra tik žaisliukas savininko rankose, skirtas savininko įnoriams patenkinti. 

Jūs dar stebitės, kodėl jaunimas emigruoja iš tokios Lietuvos? Stebitės, kodėl normalūs žmonės neina jums dirbti?


 

2021 m. gegužės 31 d., pirmadienis

Konservatorių elgesys, dabar esant valdžioje

 "Leftizmo Šaukliai - Atsiprašau, bet ar jūs rimtai? Tokio žiniasklaidos lindimo valdžiai į užpakalį neteko matyti nuo komunistų laikų. Vyriausybė nusipelno būti kritikuojama dėl savo idiotiškų sprendimų, tačiau vietoje to spengianti tyla ir politologų pagyros, ir tik dabar, po truputį, absoliuti Vyriausybės nekompetencija pavadinama "bloga komunikacija". 

Bandymas įvesti cenzūrą, 

dvikalbystės įstatymą, 

karas su Prezidentu, 

neadekvatus partnerystės įstatymas, 

slaptos ES fondų dalybos ir melavimas dėl to į akis, 

SAM nekompetencija pandemijos valdyme, 

valymai Genocido tyrimų centre, 

bandymus nusivalyti kojas į Konstituciją bei bandymus pakeisti rinkimus sau naudinga linkme, 

o vardinti galima toliau. Apie arogantišką Šimonytės rinkėjų pasiuntimą ant trijų raidžių net kalbėti neverta. Ir visa tai - vos per pusę metų! Jei tai būtų ne konservatorių, o valstiečių ar bet kokia kita Vyriausybė tiek pridirbus, jau seniai būtų nušvilpta."



Tie, kurie juos mums išrinkote - kvailiai paskutiniai esate.


„Masinių informacijos priemonių grupinis mąstymas“ ir „koronaviruso pasklidimo iš laboratorijos“ teorija

 „Jei paaiškės, kad Covid pandemiją sukėlė nutekėjimas iš laboratorijos Wuhane (Kinija), ji bus priskiriama prie didžiausių mokslinių skandalų istorijoje: pavojingi tyrimai, galbūt susiję su etiškai abejotinomis technologijomis, dėl kurių virusai tampa pavojingesni, buvo atlikti prastai saugomoje įstaigoje, kurią slogiai pridengė režimas, labiau besidomintis propaganda, o ne žmogaus gyvenimu, katastrofiškas visam pasauliui. 

Bet šis galimas dar neįrodytas skandalas užgožia tikrąjį skandalą, kurį dar reikia suvirškinti. Turiu omenyje ilgą per daug žiniasklaidos vartų sargų (tiek socialinių, tiek pagrindinių) atsisakymą rimtai vertinti laboratorijos nutekėjimo teoriją. To priežastys - rangų partizanavimas ir patikimas pranešimas - ir metodai, kuriais ji buvo vykdoma - cenzūra ir niekinimas - yra priminimai, kad kartais labiausiai griaunantys mokslo priešai gali būti tie, kurie tvirtina kalbantys jo vardu. Persukite juostą į praėjusių metų vasarį, kai tokie žmonės, kaip senatorius Tomas Cottonas, ėmė rodyti nerimą keliantį faktą:  pandemijos pradžios sutapimas su to paties miesto, kur Kinijos laboratorija vykdė aukščiausios klasės šikšnosparnių virusų eksperimentus vietove; nerimą keliantis pranešimas, kad kai kurie pirminiai Covid pacientai neturėjo kontakto su maisto rinkomis, kuriose tariamai kilo pandemija; faktas, kad Kinijos vyriausybė melavo ir blokavo kelią per krizę. Pagalvok, ką nori apie Arkanzaso respublikoną, tačiau tai buvo pagrįstos pastabos, dėl kurių reikėjo atlikti nešališką tyrimą. 

Bendra elito liberalų ratų reakcija? „Washington Post“ žurnalistas tai pavadino „krašto teorija“, kurią „ne kartą ginčijo ekspertai“. Atlanto taryba apkaltino Cottoną „infodemijos“ suvedimu, „verčiant paneigti teiginį, kad naujasis koronavirusas galėjo būti sukurtas Wuhano laboratorijoje“. „Vox“ rašytojas teigė, kad tai buvo „pavojinga sąmokslo teorija“, kurią plėtoja konservatoriai, „kurie, žinoma, reguliariai švaisto nesąmones (ir žiauriai skriaudžia Kiniją)“. 

Tokių pavyzdžių yra daug daugiau. Tačiau bendra žiniasklaidos pasakojimo forma buvo aiški. Vienoje pusėje buvo ekspertai tokiose vietose kaip Pasaulio sveikatos organizacija: išmanantys, nepaperkami, autoritetingi, kilmingi. Kita vertus, būrys dešiniojo sparno „apkvaitusių“ atstovų, stumiančių ryškią fantaziją su ksenofobinėmis užuominomis, kad nukreiptų dėmesį nuo neteisingo D. Trumpo administracijos krizės valdymo. 

Vis dėlto tai buvo ir pasakojimas su skylėmis, didesnėmis už Donaldo Trumpo burną. Ar buvo piktinanti mintis, kad virusas galėjo pabėgti iš Wuhano instituto? Ne, jei klausėtės evoliucijos biologo Breto Weinsteino kantraus, aiškaus, moksliškai turtingo laboratorijos nutekėjimo hipotezės paaiškinimo, kurį jis pateikė beveik prieš metus neabejotinai ne pagrindinėje Joe Rogano tinklalaidėje. Ar mokslo žurnalistams buvo protinga priimti 27 mokslininkų pasirašyto ir „The Lancet“ paskelbto 2020 m. vasario laiško autoritetą, karštligiškai reikalaujantį „natūralios Covido kilmės“? Ne, jei tie žurnalistai būtų išbandę pagrindinio laiško autoriaus ir Wuhano laboratorijos ryšius (faktas, kaip mokslo rašytojas Nicholasas Wade'as pažymi orientyrinėje esė „Atominių mokslininkų biuletenyje“, kuri jau kelis mėnesius buvo vieša). 

Ar buvo protinga manyti, kad Pasaulio sveikatos organizacija, kuri buvo Kinijos režimo propagandos ruporas, turėtų būti autoritetas tuo, kad „Covid laboratorinę kilmę“ laikė „klaidinga“ „Facebook“, vasario mėnesį uždraudusia laboratorijos nutekėjimo teoriją iš savo platformos? Ne, jei tokių kompanijų kaip „Facebook“ tikslas yra suartinti pasaulį, o ne Kinijos vyriausybės dezinformacijos plovimas, modeliuojant jos neliberalius metodus. Savo garbei „Facebook“ praėjusią savaitę pasikeitė. Naujienų organizacijos tyliai taiso (arba slapta redaguoja) praėjusių metų ataskaitas, kartais naudodamos naujos informacijos figų lapą apie Wuhano laboratorijos darbuotojus, kurie 2019 metų rudenį buvo užkrėsti į Covidą panašia liga.

Visuomenės sveikatos bendruomenė naujai pažvelgia į savo „Covid“ kilmės istoriją. Tačiau ir dabar jaučiamas sunkus darbe esančių savarankiškų protų būrys. Jei laboratorijos nutekėjimo teorija pagaliau sulaukia pagarbaus dėmesio, kurio ji visada nusipelnė, tai daugiausia dėl to, kad JAV prezidentas Joe Bidenas leido atlikti tyrimą, o vyriausias JAV ekspertas Anthony Fauci pripažino abejones dėl natūralios kilmės teiginio. Kitaip tariant, tinkamas prezidentas ir teisingas visuomenės sveikatos ekspertas palaimino tam tikrą tyrimo kryptį. Vis dėlto laboratorijos nutekėjimo teorija, nepaisant to, ar ji teisinga, ar ne, visada buvo patikima. Net jei Tomas Cottonas tuo patikėjo. Net jei mokslinis „sutarimas“ tai ginčijo. Net jei didvyriai - kuriems retai reikia preteksto - iš to padarė dideles išvadas. 

Gera žurnalistika, kaip ir geras mokslas, turėtų vadovautis įrodymais, o ne pasakojimais. Ji turėtų atkreipti dėmesį tiek į intelektualias mašinas, kiek į iškilius autoritetus. Ir niekada neturėtų sąžiningų nesutarimų traktuoti, kaip moralinės erezijos.

 Kiekvienas žmogus, kuriam kyla klausimas, kodėl tiek daug žmonių tapo tokie priešiški visuomenės sveikatos pareigūnų ir mokslo žurnalistų pareiškimams, turėtų padaryti tinkamą šios istorijos išvadą. Dėstant visuomenei apie dezinformacijos pavojus, geriausia tos dezinformacijos neskleisti." 

Lietuvos elito masinė psichozė Facebooke ir informacijos priemonėse kartojasi reguliariai. Tai liečia ir Baltarusiją, ir koronavirusą, ir narkotikus.


 


Media Groupthink and the Lab-Leak Theory


"If it turns out that the Covid pandemic was caused by a leak from a lab in Wuhan, China, it will rank among the greatest scientific scandals in history: dangerous research, possibly involving ethically dubious techniques that make viruses more dangerous, carried out in a poorly safeguarded facility, thuggishly covered up by a regime more interested in propaganda than human life, catastrophic for the entire world.

But this possible scandal, which is as yet unproved, obscures an actual scandal, which remains to be digested.

I mean the long refusal by too many media gatekeepers (social as well as mainstream) to take the lab-leak theory seriously. The reasons for this — rank partisanship and credulous reporting — and the methods by which it was enforced — censorship and vilification — are reminders that sometimes the most destructive enemies of science can be those who claim to speak in its name.

Rewind the tape to February of last year, when people such as Senator Tom Cotton began pointing to a disturbing fact set: the odd coincidence of a pandemic originating in the same city where a Chinese lab was conducting high-end experiments on bat viruses; the troubling report that some of the original Covid patients had no contact with the food markets where the pandemic supposedly originated; the fact that the Chinese government lied and stonewalled its way through the crisis. Think what you will about the Arkansas Republican, but these were reasonable observations warranting impartial investigation.

The common reaction in elite liberal circles? A Washington Post reporter called it a “fringe theory” that “has been repeatedly disputed by experts.” The Atlantic Council accused Cotton of abetting an “infodemic” by “pushing debunked claim that the novel coronavirus may have been created in a Wuhan lab.” A writer for Vox said it was a “dangerous conspiracy theory” being advanced by conservatives “known to regularly spew nonsense (and bash China).”

There are many more such examples. But the overall shape of the media narrative was clear. On one side were experts at places like the World Health Organization: knowledgeable, incorruptible, authoritative, noble. On the other were a bunch of right-wing yahoos pushing a risible fantasy with xenophobic overtones in order to deflect attention from the Trump administration’s mishandling of the crisis.

Yet it was also a narrative with holes larger than Donald Trump’s mouth.

Was it outrageous to think that the virus might have escaped the Wuhan Institute? Not if you listened to evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein’s patient, lucid, scientifically rich explanation of the lab-leak hypothesis — which he delivered almost a year ago on the decidedly non-mainstream Joe Rogan podcast.

Was it smart for science reporters to accept the authority of a February 2020 letter, signed by 27 scientists and published in The Lancet, feverishly insisting on the “natural origin” of Covid? Not if those reporters had probed the  ties between the letter’s lead author and the Wuhan lab (a fact, as the science writer Nicholas Wade points out in a landmark essay in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, that has been public knowledge for months).

Was it wise to suppose that the World Health Organization, which has  served as a mouthpiece for Chinese regime propaganda, should be  an authority on what counted as Covid “misinformation” by Facebook, which in February banned the lab-leak theory from its platform? Not if the aim of companies like Facebook is to bring the world closer together, as opposed to laundering Chinese government disinformation while modeling its illiberal methods.

To its credit, Facebook reversed itself last week. News organizations are quietly correcting (or stealth editing) last year’s dismissive reports, sometimes using the fig leaf of new information about Wuhan lab workers being infected in the fall of 2019 with a Covid-like illness. And the public-health community is taking a fresh look at its Covid origin story.

But even now one gets a distinct sense of the herd of independent minds hard at work. If the lab-leak theory is finally getting the respectful attention it always deserved, it’s mainly because Joe Biden authorized an inquiry and Anthony Fauci admitted to doubts about the natural-origin claim. In other words, the right president and the right public-health expert have blessed a certain line of inquiry.

Yet the lab-leak theory, whether or not it turns out to be right, was always credible. Even if Tom Cotton believed it. Even if the scientific “consensus” disputed it. Even if bigots — who rarely need a pretext — drew bigoted conclusions from it.

Good journalism, like good science, should follow evidence, not narratives. It should pay as much heed to intelligent gadflies as it does to eminent authorities. And it should never treat honest disagreement as moral heresy.

Anyone wondering why so many people have become so hostile to the pronouncements of public-health officials and science journalists should draw the appropriate conclusion from this story. When lecturing the public about the dangers of misinformation, it’s best not to peddle it yourself."

 The mass psychosis of the Lithuanian elite is repeated regularly on Facebook and in the media. This concerns Belarus, the coronavirus and drugs.




Politologas Vokietijoje paskelbė apie susikūrusį karinį aljansą tarp Rusijos ir Kinijos

  „Kinija ir Rusija sukūrė karinį aljansą siekdamos išvaryti JAV iš savo ekonominių interesų zonų“, - sakė vokiečių politologas Joachimas Krause.  Jis mano, kad du faktai įrodo aljanso egzistavimą: bendros Rusijos Federacijos ir KLR pratybos, taip pat Rusijos ginklų tiekimas Kinijai. Maskva, kaip prisiminė ekspertas, tiekia Pekinui oro gynybos sistemą S-400 ir naikintuvą Su-35. 

„Pekinas, kaip ir Maskva, savo regioninę aplinką vertina kaip ypatingos įtakos zoną. Taigi pagrindinė jų priešininkė yra JAV, kuri kuria savo karinių aljansų tinklą “, - „Die Welt“ cituoja ekspertą. Politologas pažymėjo, kad Kinija padidino spaudimą Taivanui, kai Rusija padidino karių skaičių netoli Ukrainos sienų. Tai, pasak Krause, buvo pasirengimo remti Rusiją signalas“. 

Mes dar kartą sveikiname Lietuvos elitą, kuris bando laimėti vietinius rinkimus Lietuvoje, nuolat pigiomis dramomis stumdamas Lukašenką prie Rusijos, o Rusiją - prie Kinijos.  Kenkiate Lietuvai, kenkiate ir Vakarams. Esate smulkūs parazitai.