Sekėjai

Ieškoti šiame dienoraštyje

2025 m. kovo 1 d., šeštadienis

How Was World War III Recently Prevented?

 


American leaders stood for peace.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

"WASHINGTON -- President Trump said he would take one more question -- and then everything fell apart.

It had been a relatively polite Oval Office meeting between Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, who was in Washington on a mission to secure the U.S.'s continued support in his campaign to end Ukrainian three-year-old conflict.

But Vice President JD Vance interjected. "I have to respond," he said, taking issue with reporters' questions about Trump's interactions with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. "What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy. That's what President Trump is doing," Vance said.

Zelensky shot back, laying out Putin's yearslong campaign of conflict in Ukraine.

From there, the conversation devolved into a tense and personal argument that played out on television cameras in front of millions of viewers, stunning senior officials in Washington and Kyiv and threatening a U.S.-Ukraine deal that could have laid a pathway for bringing the conflict to a close.

The meeting ended with Trump declaring that the beleaguered nation didn't want his help reaching a cease- fire -- and the U.S. president's team asking Zelensky to leave the White House, according to U.S. and Ukrainian officials.

It was also a rare moment of public tension in the Oval Office, which has for years been the staging ground for tightly choreographed interactions between U.S. presidents and world leaders. Earlier in the day, a meeting between Zelensky and a bipartisan group of Senate allies ended with talk of unity and smiling selfies.

"I think it's disrespectful to come to the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media," a visibly angry Vance said.

"Have you said thank you once?" Vance asked. "We are thankful," Zelensky responded.

At one point, Zelensky accused Vance of shouting, saying: "You think that if you will speak very loudly -- " but Trump interrupted, saying "He's not speaking loudly. Your country is in big trouble."

"I know," Zelensky said.

"You're not winning," Trump said. "You're not winning this. You have a damn good chance of coming out OK, because of us."

The U.S. president, hunched over in his chair between Zelensky and Vance, pointed his finger at the Ukrainian leader as he spoke and at one point touched Zelensky's shoulder.

The long-planned meeting was the culmination of a week of discussions with European leaders, who flattered the U.S. president in hopes that he would come to Ukraine's aid.

For days, Trump telegraphed that Zelensky would sign a rare minerals deal that would eventually reimburse the U.S. for the billions of dollars that it has sent to Kyiv. Instead, it ended with a canceled news conference and Trump declaring on social media that Zelensky had disrespected the U.S.

"He can come back when he is ready for Peace," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

As the Oval Office standoff unfolded, Ukrainian Ambassador Oksana Markarova stopped scribbling in a blue notebook and put her head in her hands. A White House staffer whispered, "This is going to be big."

After the media left the Oval Office, word circulated in the press room that the rest of the day's scheduled events with Zelensky would be called off. Reporters gathered outside the White House to watch Zelensky's black SUV depart.

When world leaders come to the U.S. to meet with the president, they typically sit in the Oval Office and exchange rehearsed comments in front of the media. Then they close the doors and hash out their differences.

That is what happened this past week when Trump met with President Emmanuel Macron of France and UK's Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The schedule for Friday was similar, until it went off the rails.

There were signs that Friday's meeting was unusual from the start. A reporter who confirmed he was with the Russian state-owned news agency TASS lined up with journalists, and then passed by a White House press aide who checked names. TASS is not typically allowed in restricted White House events. A White House official said TASS wasn't on the approved list of media and was escorted out of the room.

Early in the meeting, a U.S.-based reporter asked Zelensky why he wasn't wearing a suit. Zelensky has a tradition of wearing casual, military-style clothing with world leaders as a visual reminder that his country is at war. He responded that when his country isn't at war, he will wear a nice suit.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio frowned and looked away as Vance laughed at the question.

The disagreements between Trump and Zelensky started to emerge as the two men took a series of questions that centered on whether Putin could be trusted. Trump said that he has a particularly close relationship with Putin, and suggested that their bond grew in his first term after Russia was accused of meddling in the election on his behalf.

Trump and Zelensky seemed to largely paper over their disagreements at first, with Zelensky initially only gently reminding the Americans about his extensive experience dealing with Putin.

Then Vance said he wanted to respond to the question that Trump had just answered on whether the president is aligned with Russia. Trump had said he was aligned with the world, wanting to find peace.

Trump initially watched as the two men bickered back and forth. But he cut in when Zelensky said that the U.S. would eventually feel the consequences of trusting Russia.

"You're in no position to dictate to us what we're going to feel," Trump said, later adding: "You're gambling with World War III."

After about 50 minutes, Trump said "I think we've seen enough" signaling to his press staff to ask the media to leave. As reporters left, Trump quipped, "This is going to be great television."" [1]

The clowns who run the European Union are still waving their fists, but they can't do anything. The voice of a dog doesn't reach heaven.

1. 'Your Country Is in Big Trouble'. Linskey, Annie; Andrews, Natalie.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 01 Mar 2025: A1.

 

Branduolinio karo, kurio kurstymu Zelenskį apkaltino JAV prezidentas Trumpas, planai, vystomi tarp Zelenskio šalininkų Vakarų Europoje

 

 "Potenciali situacija

 

Agentūros AFP žodžiais, susidūrusi su seisminiais Donaldo Trumpo vadovaujamų Jungtinių Valstijų strategijos pokyčiais, Europa gali likti be Amerikos branduolinio skydo, saugojusio ją per Šaltąjį karą ir vėlesniais dešimtmečiais.

 

Stokholmo tarptautinio taikos tyrimų instituto duomenimis, Prancūzija turi 290 branduolinių galvučių, kurių dauguma skirtos balistinėms raketoms, naudojamoms keturiuose povandeniniuose laivuose. Savo ruožtu naikintuvai „Rafale“ gali būti aprūpinti branduolinėmis sparnuotosiomis raketomis. Didžioji Britanija turi 225, o JAV – 3 708 kovines galvutes.

 

Praėjusią savaitę rinkimus laimėjęs galimas Vokietijos federalinis kancleris Friedrichas Merzas pareiškė, kad norėtų aptarti „dalijimąsi branduoliniais pajėgumais“ su Prancūzija ir Didžiąja Britanija. Vokietija negali įsigyti branduolinių ginklų nepažeisdama tarptautinės branduolinio ginklo neplatinimo sutarties, kurią yra pasirašiusi.

 

Apie galimą Vokietijos prieigą prie Prancūzijos branduolinių garantijų 2022 m. liepą – praėjus keliems mėnesiams po Rusijos puolimo Ukrainoje – buvo užsiminęs buvęs Vokietijos finansų ministras Wolfgangas Schaeuble. Jis siūlė finansiškai prisidėti prie „europinio lygmens branduolinio atgrasymo priemonių“.

 

„Didžiausias iššūkis būtų psichologinis aspektas, nes žinome, kad Rusija labai rimtai vertina JAV kaip priešininkę, taip pat žinome, kad Rusija kur kas mažiau rimtai žiūri į Europos valstybes“, – agentūra AFP cituoja Marion Messmer, „Chatham House“ tarptautinės saugumo programos vyresniąją mokslo darbuotoją.

 

Paryžiaus ambicijos

 

Po „Brexit“ Prancūzija yra vienintelė branduolinė jėga ES. Tačiau, priešingai nei britai, Paryžius nepriklauso NATO branduolinio planavimo grupei. 2009 m. grįžusi į integruotą vadovavimo struktūrą, Prancūzija nenorėjo grįžti į šį organą, kad išlaikytų visišką savo branduolinių pajėgų kontrolę.

 

Ateityje abi branduolinės valstybės kartu galėtų atlikti svarbesnį vaidmenį užtikrinant Europos saugumą. Tačiau apie atgrasymo formas turėtų būti diskutuojama ne ES lygmeniu ir ne NATO viduje, o tam tikru ad hoc formatu, kaip ragina saugumo ekspertė Emmanuelle Maitre iš Prancūzijos strateginių tyrimų fondo. Prancūzijos ekspertai atmeta galimybę sukurti bendrą sprendimų priėmimo struktūrą.

 

Prancūzijos gynybos ministras Sebastienas Lecornu ketvirtadienį atmetė galimybę dalytis Prancūzijos branduolinių ginklų pajėgumais. „Tai prancūziškas ginklas ir jis liks prancūziškas“, – transliuotojui „Franceinfo“ pareiškė ministras.

 

Prancūzijos branduolinėje doktrinoje teigiama, kad atominis ginklas gali būti panaudotas, jei kyla pavojus šalies gyvybiniams interesams. Tokį sprendimą gali priimti tik Prancūzijos prezidentas.

 

Tačiau šia prerogatyva neatmetamas dialogas su partneriais, 2020-aisiais pareiškė Prancūzijos prezidentas Emmanuelis Macronas, pabrėžęs šaliai gyvybiškai svarbių interesų „autentišką europinę dimensiją“.

 

Idėja – nenauja

 

E. Macronas pastaraisiais metais ne kartą aiškiai pareiškė, kad europiečiams būtų geriau pasikliauti savo kaimyne Prancūzija, o ne senuoju draugu amerikiečiu. „Leiskite aiškiai pasakyti: Prancūzijos gyvybiniai interesai dabar turi europinę dimensiją“, – dar 2020 m. pavasarį sakė E. Macronas.

 

Savo pasiūlymą jis pakartojo prieš dvejus metus Miuncheno saugumo konferencijoje, kai Vokietijos kancleris Olafas Scholzas jau buvo demonstratyviai palikęs salę. Prie šios idėjos E. Macronas grįžo 2024 m. sausį Stokholme ir po kelių savaičių savo antrojoje kalboje Sorbonoje. Tačiau Berlynas buvo nesuinteresuotas.

 

Dar anksčiau, 2007 m., tuometis Prancūzijos prezidentas Nicolas Sarkozy panašų pasiūlymą pateikė ir tuometei Vokietijos kanclerei Angelai Merkel.

 

Pasak E. Maitre, Prancūzijos nacionaliniai interesai iš tiesų yra suderinami su likusios Vakarų Europos dalies interesais dėl ilgametės narystės ES ir NATO.

 

„Kadangi esame itin integruotos regioninės bendruomenės ir karinio aljanso nariai, mūsų svarbiausi interesai didele dalimi automatiškai sutampa su mūsų kaimynų svarbiausiais interesais“, – sakė ji AFP.

 

Tačiau ekspertė perspėja, kad „nėra jokių garantijų“ dėl to, kaip prezidentas spręstų dėl „gyvybiškai svarbių“ interesų, jei padidėtų į Prancūziją nukreiptų atsakomųjų branduolinių veiksmų rizika.

 

Kaip rašo britų laikraštis „Telegraph“, Prancūzija yra pasirengusi panaudoti savo branduolinio atgrasymo priemones, kad apsaugotų Europą. Šiam tikslui Vokietijoje galėtų būti dislokuoti naikintuvai su branduoliniais ginklais.

 

Laukdama doktrinos pakeitimų, Prancūzija galėtų imtis tam tikrų ribotų praktinių žingsnių įtraukti sąjungininkus. Pasak ekspertės, Prancūzija, pavyzdžiui, galėtų pakviesti juos dalyvauti branduolinio ginklo pratybose su lydinčiais naikintuvais arba vykdyti aprūpinimo funkcijas.

 

    Nepriklausomos Didžiosios Britanijos branduolinio atgrasymo priemonės nėra nei britų, nei nepriklausomos.

 

Prancūzija taip pat galėtų dislokuoti branduolinį ginklą galinčius nešti orlaivius sąjungininkų šalyse ir taip pasunkinti Rusijos strategavimą.

 

Visgi Prancūzijos partneriai gali būti nelabai suinteresuoti groti antruoju smuiku. „Jie gali priimti tai, kas siūloma, bet negali kelti jokių reikalavimų“, – sakė E. Maitre.

 

Britų ryšys su JAV

 

Didžiojoje Britanijoje sprendimus dėl branduolinio ginklo naudojimo priima vienintelis ministras pirmininkas, nepaisant, kad šalis perka branduolines raketas ir kovines galvutes iš JAV.

 

Tačiau, priešingai nei Prancūzijoje, Didžiosios Britanijos branduoliniai ginklai „jau yra NATO išplėstinės atgrasymo garantijos dalis“, primena M. Messmer. Šia prasme, sakė ji, AFP, Didžioji Britanija jau užtikrina „tam tikrą“ branduolinę apsaugą likusiai Europos daliai.

 

Diskutuojant apie galimas Europos branduolinių pajėgas neišvengiamai susiduriama su klausimu dėl jų patikimumo. Prancūzijos ir Didžiosios Britanijos arsenalai yra riboto dydžio, be to, kyla abejonių dėl pirmojo smūgio pajėgumų.

 

Kyla ir klausimas, kokios apimties Didžiosios Britanijos arsenalas yra nepriklausomas nuo Jungtinių Valstijų arsenalo.

 

„Nepriklausomos Didžiosios Britanijos branduolinio atgrasymo priemonės nėra nei britų, nei nepriklausomos, – mano Normanas Dombey, fizikos ir astronomijos profesorius emeritas ir branduolinių ginklų ekspertas. – Ir raketos, ir kovinės galvutės yra priklausomos nuo JAV ir JAV konstrukcijos. Tai nėra ir atgrasymo priemonė.“

 

Jungtinės Karalystės branduolinė programa „Trident“ – tai keturi „Vanguard“ klasės povandeniniai laivai su „Trident II D-5“ balistinėmis raketomis. Todėl kai kurie saugumo ekspertai ragina iš amerikiečių įsigyti dar bent 1 tūkst. branduolinių galvučių ir paskirstyti jas Europoje.

 

Britų premjeras Keiras Starmeris tvirtai pasisako už Didžiosios Britanijos branduolinį arsenalą. Didžiosios Britanijos Vyriausybė neseniai pasirašė 9 mlrd. svarų sterlingų vertės sutartį su „Rolls-Royce“ dėl branduolinių reaktorių Karališkojo karinio jūrų laivyno povandeninių laivų laivynui kūrimo, gamybos ir priežiūros.

 

Be to, nuo 2030 m. „Vanguard“ klasės balistines raketas pakeis galingesni „Dreadnought“ klasės povandeniniai laivai iš „BAE Systems“. Gynybos ministerija yra įsteigusi Branduolinio atgrasymo fondą, kurio apimtis – 3,3 mln. svarų sterlingų. Šis fondas skirtas moksliniams tyrimams ir kompetencijai branduolinio atgrasymo srityje stiprinti.”


2025 m. vasario 28 d., penktadienis

Why Aren't We Achieving Great Things Anymore?

 

"American political culture goes through phases. Between 1933 and 1963 that culture went through a Hamiltonian phase. Leaders believed in centralizing power to build big things. Franklin Roosevelt created the Tennessee Valley Authority and the rest of the New Deal. Dwight Eisenhower built the national highways system and founded NASA.

A lot of the stuff the centralizers did was great, like the New York infrastructure czar Robert Moses’ building Lincoln Center. Some of the stuff they did was horrific, like Robert Moses’ destroying Bronx neighborhoods to put in a highway.

Somewhere around the late ’60s the culture shifted in a decentralizing, Jeffersonian direction. A new generation of conservatives and progressives emerged who were suspicious of centralized authority and instinctively against the establishment, and who railed against “the system.” People with less power were automatically the good guys, and people with more power were automatically the bad guys.

On the right, Republicans from Ronald Reagan to the Tea Party crusaded against elites and the swamp in Washington. On the left, progressive activists like Ralph Nader and the environmentalists sued the government to halt development projects. Progressive community activists empowered neighborhoods to take on and stymie City Hall. Federal workers passed masses of regulations to micromanage everyday life on a work site. Republicans and Democrats joined forces to pass the National Environmental Policy Act, the California Environmental Quality Act and the Endangered Species Act, all of which could be used by activists to slow down and halt housing and transportation projects.

The decentralizing Jeffersonians overshot the mark. A group of activists who came of age during the New Deal era concentrated power to get things done. Then, a new generation of activists who came of age during the 1960s rebelled against concentrated power and made it nearly impossible to get anything done. This became the pattern.

In 2008 California set out to build high-speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco, promising that it would be finished in 2020. The project was blocked by a thousand little barriers, and now a scaled-down line between Merced and Bakersfield may open in 2033 at a cost, so far, of $35 billion.

In the United States it costs roughly $609 million to build a kilometer of rail. In Canada it costs only $295 million and in Portugal, $96 million. Because of regulations and the lack of cost-effective production, a basic elevator in New York City costs about four times as much as that same elevator in Switzerland.

Progressives proved especially effective at blocking new home construction. A study in California found that as the share of liberal votes rises by 10 points in a given city, the number of housing permits issued declines by 30 percent. In San Francisco, according to one 2023 state report, it took 523 days on average to get clearance to construct new housing and then 605 days to get building permits, if your project wasn’t killed in the meantime by lawsuits and citizen action.

One result has been scarcity and higher prices for the things that get regulated, like housing. Another is that highly educated people found they could game the permitting system and prevent poorer and less educated people from sullying their neighborhoods. Another is that when government tries to do big things, like build clean energy or rail lines, it finds it can’t act. The irony is this: Progressives, who believe in using government to do good things, have built a system that renders government incompetent.

But now the culture may be shifting again. Over the past several years, various versions of something called the abundance movement have been growing at libertarian-leaning think tanks like the Niskanen Center, at right-leaning tech hubs like Andreessen Horowitz and at a wide array of left-leaning think tanks. The core argument is the need to get rid of regulations that make it impossible to build things, and we need to invest money in order to achieve great things.

This winter the abundance movement is having its coming-out party in the form of three spectacular books by some of its more prominent champions.

Next month, Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein’s book “Abundance” will be published, offering a comprehensive indictment of the current problems and a clear path forward. This month brought us Yoni Appelbaum’s “Stuck,” a historical account of the forces that have produced the current housing crisis and its social and cultural effects. Marc J. Dunkelman’s new book, “Why Nothing Works,” is an intellectual history that describes the ideas and values that first drove people like Moses to act the way they did and the values that drove the next generation of activists to oppose them. These three books have significantly altered the way I see our current political morass. (Klein, Thompson and Appelbaum are colleagues of mine at The Times and The Atlantic.)

Dunkelman summarizes the history perfectly: “In ways big and small, Jeffersonian protections have prevented the movement from expanding the nation’s housing supply, delivering high-speed rail and replacing carbon-emitting power with clean energy. We’ve become so terrified of Hamiltonian figures making bad decisions that we’ve curtailed government’s ability to make tough calls.”

Appelbaum describes the way all this stasis has enervated American life. He points out that our housing crisis is not just a cost crisis; it’s a mobility crisis. In the 1940s and 1950s, about a fifth of Americans moved. Then came the zoning and other regulations that progressives championed. Today, only one in 12 Americans moves every year.

People can’t afford housing in the places where opportunity is plentiful. That means fewer Americans are moving to improve their lives and fewer are climbing the social ladder. When people move to new places, they join churches and civic organizations to meet new people. When mobility slows, social and civic life, paradoxically, deteriorates. More Americans are, as Appelbaum puts it, stuck.

In their book, Klein and Thompson usher in a mood shift. They inspire hope and enlarge the imagination by describing the good things that are actually within our grasp: abundant energy, cheaper housing, affordable cities, shorter workweeks, lab-grown meat so that we no longer have to use 25 percent of global land to raise livestock.

“What is needed here is a change in political culture, not just a change in legislation,” they write.

Will the abundance movement take flight? There are some obstacles. A lot of people, especially rich Democrats, like having the NIMBY power to block development around them. Public sector unions tend to instinctively defend bureaucracies and the regulations promulgated within them. The abundance folks call for both deregulation and more spending. Many progressives hate the former and many conservatives hate the latter.

The more troubling obstacles may be cultural. If anything, Americans have grown more cynical and more distrustful of authority than they were even in the 1970s. In an essay in The New Atlantis, the American Enterprise Institute scholar Yuval Levin points to a “willful paralysis that oddly passes for sophistication in our elite culture now.” Americans now have trouble thinking about the future in the way previous generations did.

Levin continues: “It often bespeaks a kind of vanity unable to imagine the world without ourselves in it, and to take pleasure in benefiting our successors. The future, after all, is the home of other people — people who will follow us when we are gone. To build durable infrastructure for future prosperity is to build for those other people. And the inability to value those other people and judge them worthy of our work and sacrifice is a characteristic failing of a decadent society.”

Yet I strongly believe the abundance movement will form an important faction within the Democratic Party and maybe in the Republican one too. Democratic politicians like Kamala Harris and Representative Jake Auchincloss have seized some of its ideas. There is a natural tendency in our country to move in a Hamiltonian direction after a period of Jeffersonian ascent, and such a shift is overdue. Most important, the arguments these authors make are utterly compelling.

It’s interesting to read these books during the Trump Anschluss. In some ways President Trump can be seen as an extreme response to a government that can’t get anything done.

If we still have a country when he is done, we’re going to need a better establishment. So I’d close with some questions for educators. Every society on earth has a leadership class of one sort or another, so are you educating your students so that they can build a better establishment? Are you arming them with sensible views about authority so that they don’t childishly dismiss all forms of it? Are you training them to be in touch with their fellow citizens, so that they don’t rule imperiously from above? Are you training them to embrace the obligations that fall on them as leaders, to serve the country and not their own kind? Are you trying to inculcate in them both the humility to know what they don’t know and the audacity to reach for abundance?" [1]

1. We Can Achieve Great Things: David Brooks.  New York Times (Online) New York Times Company. Feb 27, 2025.