USA250: Innovation (A Special Report) --- The Hunt for Extraterrestrial Life Enters a New Frontier: Scientists are using advanced telescopes, models and AI to help them look for signs of life beyond Earth, including in distant solar systems

“Imagine the first convincing evidence that aliens exist.

 

Are they fossilized Martian microbes that lived billions of years ago when the planet next door was a wetter, warmer world? Perhaps they're aquatic organisms -- otherworldly cephalopods -- that thrive in the dark seas of the outer solar system's icy moons. Or maybe a faraway civilization wants to communicate and can build detectable technology.

 

We could soon find evidence for each of these options -- plus others we haven't even dreamed of. Today, new tools and approaches are helping scientists search for alien biology within our solar system and in the atmospheres of planets orbiting other stars, and look for traces of extraterrestrial hardware anywhere.

 

"It's a big sky and you have to spend time being open to what's going to show up," says James Davenport, an astronomer at the University of Washington. "Any time we turn something new on, it's 100% guaranteed that anomalies or mysteries will pop out."

 

Whether aliens exist is a timeless obsession. More than 2,000 years ago, a debate raged between atomist philosophers -- who thought the cosmos comprised infinite atoms, arranged into infinite worlds, some inhabited like ours -- and those who believed Earth was unique. Over centuries, similar conceptions of alien harbors grew in the minds of mystics and scientists, sometimes leading to fatal clashes with dominant religious doctrines. Eventually, science slipped the shackles of heresy and astronomers revolutionized our understanding of Earth's place in the cosmos.

 

In the 1890s, long-simmering dreams of an inhabited Mars found a foothold in the U.S., fanned by wealthy astronomer Percival Lowell, who built an Arizona observatory. There, Lowell convinced himself that alien-built canals crisscrossed the Martian surface, though anyone who has observed Mars with a similar telescope knows it's hard to see much detail at all. But Lowell's drawings (and books) ignited public imaginations. It would take the early 20th century's sharper telescopes and planetary photography to quell the buzz about smart alien neighbors.

 

Today we know that billions of planets populate our galaxy; that on average, when you look up at night, each star you see hosts at least one planet. Hundreds of millions of those worlds could be habitable by our standards. And life's building blocks -- nucleobases, amino acids, hydrocarbons -- are pretty much everywhere we look. But we don't yet know whether life itself is common.

 

In our solar system, scientists are still scrutinizing Mars, and plan to explore icy ocean moons such as Europa, Enceladus and Titan that orbit Jupiter and Saturn and might have the ingredients necessary for life to thrive. NASA's Dragonfly mission will sail for Titan as soon as 2028, and the agency's Europa Clipper spacecraft arrives in the Jupiter system in 2030. Rovers currently are trundling on Mars, attempting to learn whether life existed more than three billion years ago when the planet was warmer and wetter.

 

Tantalizing traces of ancient Martian life may have been found. In a dried-up riverbed, there's a rock with a freshly drilled hole in it -- the handiwork of NASA's Perseverance rover, which touched down in Jezero Crater in 2021.

 

Spotted in July 2024, the reddish mudstone contains organic compounds and other minerals that could have supported bygone microbial Martians.

 

The mudstone's surface is covered with clusters of iron-rich deposits, almost like leopard spots, that could bear ancient life's fingerprints. To be sure, there are other ways to cook up those spots, but they require high temperatures the rock probably never experienced.

 

"Based on the information we have, life is one of the most likely ways we could get this," says Morgan Cable of the Planetary Science Institute, a nonprofit research institute in Arizona. "It's the most parsimonious explanation, but it may not be the only one."

 

We won't know for sure until that drilled rock sample reaches labs on Earth. NASA's Mars Sample Return mission was supposed to do that in the 2030s, but the mission grew too bloated and expensive. Congress recently directed NASA to discontinue MSR as envisioned. Now, researchers are seeking a more cost-effective way to get those rocks home, says Meenakshi Wadhwa, the mission's former principal scientist. "At least in the short-term, these samples really do represent our best opportunity to answer that question about life," says Wadhwa, who now heads the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

 

Beyond our solar system, scientists are aiming to search the atmospheres of exoplanets -- worlds orbiting other stars -- for molecules that betray the presence of biology. It may sound simple but it isn't.

 

"There's really no one signature that can indicate life," says Lisa Kaltenegger, an astronomer at Cornell University. Instead, scientists will target gases coexisting in ways that can't be explained by geology alone. Methane and oxygen, for example, would normally react with each other, forming carbon dioxide and water. If you see them together, Kaltenegger says, that could imply metabolic furnaces producing both in measurable quantities.

 

To be convinced that gases point to life, scientists must make models of target worlds to understand the planetary context in which a potential biosignature exists. Otherwise, they run the risk of making sensational claims that don't make sense. "Twenty-five years ago, nobody could run those climate models, or these huge simulations of atmospheres," Davenport says. "To now routinely produce an icy Earth, a young Earth, a lava planet -- those are huge technological innovations."

 

So, too, are the tools scientists use to investigate alien air. Right now, that means pointing NASA's space-based James Webb Space Telescope at rocky exoplanets orbiting dim red stars. The endeavor is on the edge of the observatory's capabilities. Unwelcome light from stars like our sun makes those observations even harder. To study true Earth analogues, scientists will need even-sharper tools, like NASA's flagship Habitable Worlds Observatory, which could launch within the next 15 years and use a suite of new technologies to remotely dissect a planet's atmosphere. From the ground, the next generation of aptly classified Extremely Large Telescopes, some of which are under construction, will attempt to do the same thing.

 

Then there's the search for technosignatures, or signs of alien technology. Frank Drake, the father of that field -- also my father -- ignited the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) with Project Ozma in 1960. It looked for radio signals around two sun-like stars and quickly captured popular imaginations. But the SETI enterprise struggled to find funding and scientific credibility until recently.

 

"I feel like technosignatures are hitting the mainstream," says Shelley Wright, a SETI scientist at the University of California, San Diego. "It's a really exciting time, actually."

 

Dedicated SETI observatories like the Allen Telescope Array and Wright's Panoseti have already been built. Breakthrough Listen, the largest radio SETI search to date, has been privately funded for a decade. Alien hunters now are looking for any sign of technology, radio or not, and sifting through data from large observatories that span the electromagnetic spectrum.

 

One of those will be the Vera Rubin Observatory, funded by the National Science Foundation and the Energy Department. It just came online in Chile. Every night, the observatory will take a thousand images of the sky overhead, and SETI scientists will process the data. Their algorithms will use machine learning and AI, which are particularly good at pattern recognition, to help identify anything distinctive.

 

"These large data sets and AI models really help us to cast a large net," says Steve Croft, project scientist for the Breakthrough Listen initiative.

 

Despite what you may have heard, we haven't yet detected any interstellar spaceships in the solar system. But in a weird twist, SETI researchers are interested in using the Rubin Observatory to search for alien hardware in our own backyard. Our own civilization has sent several technosignatures into the beyond, in the form of spacecraft. In all probability, Voyager 1 and its siblings -- launched in 1977 to surveil our solar system's outer planets and moons and then head into interstellar space -- will vastly outlive humans, the sun and the planet Earth.

 

"It's quite reasonable to assume that since humanity has sent spacecraft into interstellar space, other civilizations might do the same thing," Croft says. "It's sort of incumbent on us to look for them."

 

---

 

Nadia Drake is a science journalist and former contributing writer at National Geographic. She can be reached at reports@wsj.com.” [1]

 

1. USA250: Innovation (A Special Report) --- The Hunt for Extraterrestrial Life Enters a New Frontier: Scientists are using advanced telescopes, models and AI to help them look for signs of life beyond Earth, including in distant solar systems. Drake, Nadia.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 27 Apr 2026: R22.  

The Rise of the High-Range, Less Expensive E.V.

“Even as the electric vehicle market has slumped, there are more long-range E.V.s under $40,000 than ever before.

 

It’s a weird moment for electric vehicles in the United States. Sales have fallen since the Trump administration ended the $7,500 tax credit, and car manufacturers are canceling models. And while it’s likely that the recent surge in gas prices will push more people to E.V.s, it probably won’t happen fast.

 

But if there’s a bright spot in the E.V. market, it’s the budget, high-range car — a corner of the market that’s growing in number of models and, in some cases, even in sales.

 

E.V.s under $40,000 can now go as far as the most expensive models of a decade ago.

 

Range anxiety has long been a sticking point for potential E.V. owners, especially in winter. Most people don’t need to drive far every day, but they want to know they can make the occasional big trip.

 

For a long time, price and range were highly correlated: More expensive models went much farther on one charge. That’s not the case anymore. Some expensive cars have estimated ranges above 400 miles — notably some Lucid and Rivian models — but others offer less range than cars $50,000 cheaper.

 

Range and price aren’t everyone’s top criteria — there are charging speeds, horsepower, reliability, aesthetics, size and more to consider. But if your primary concern is just how far the car can get you on a single charge without breaking the bank, consider this unusual but useful metric: miles of range per dollar spent.

 

At a starting price of $32,000, the 2026 Nissan Leaf gets nearly 10 miles of total range for every $1,000 of sticker price, with Chevrolet’s $37,000 Equinox EV close behind. The most expensive E.V.s score much worse on this metric — three miles per $1,000 or fewer — but they’re luxury cars.

 

(Note that price and range vary even for a single model, depending on the trim; we looked at the cheapest price and longest range for each car and picked the one with the highest ratio of miles to dollars.)

 

Just five years ago, the best cars in this metric couldn’t top six miles per $1,000. (After adjusting for inflation.)

 

A big part of that trajectory is battery technology: Prices for lithium-ion batteries, the primary type used for E.V.s, have fallen to around $100 per kilowatt-hour in 2025, from $1,000 in the early 2010s, according to BloombergNEF. Battery density has gone up too.

 

As battery costs fell and manufacturers built more E.V.s, ranges rose and prices fell. Tesla’s cheapest Model 3 climbed to a range of 321 miles this year, up from 220 when it was launched in the late 2010s, while its inflation-adjusted price decreased.

 

Or consider the Leaf, which debuted 15 years ago.

 

By 2016, the cheapest Leaf had 84 miles of range and cost around $30,000, the equivalent of $40,000 today.

 

Nissan’s $32,000 2026 Leaf has a range of more than 300 miles.

 

Some automakers have released entirely new models under $40,000 in recent years, including the Chevrolet Equinox and the Subaru Uncharted. And the end of the tax credit led others to drop prices on existing cars: Tesla introduced a trimmed-down, significantly cheaper Model 3, and Hyundai slashed its Ioniq 5 prices by roughly the same amount as the credit.

 

Altogether, the cheaper end of the market has boomed, and the average price of a new E.V. has fallen. (Used E.V. prices fell, too, and sales climbed.)

 

There’s still a lot of bad E.V. news among automakers, who have canceled models and pulled back on battery manufacturing. New E.V. sales dropped 27 percent from early 2025 to early 2026. But models that offered a high-range, lower-price trim seemed to weather the downturn better — some of them even picked up in sales, while others held relatively steady despite the end of the tax credit.

 

New E.V.s still can’t beat new gas cars on sticker price and range. A standard Toyota Corolla can go more than 400 miles on a tank of gas, and costs around $25,000.

 

Still, the costs of driving a gas car add up: If gas prices settled back to $3.50 per gallon, that relatively efficient Corolla would cost more than $1,100 for the average driver each year, and about the same in maintenance. Over a decade, that would total nearly $50,000. (Car purchase included.)

 

The $32,000 Leaf would cost around $600 each year to drive, at average U.S. electricity prices, and about the same in maintenance, according to federal estimates. It would add up to $45,000 over the decade.” [1]

 

1. The Rise of the High-Range, Less Expensive E.V. Paris, Francesca.  New York Times (Online) New York Times Company. Apr 27, 2026.

Lenkijos vadovybėje formuojasi proamerikietiškos ir antiamerikietiškos frakcijos: Lenkijos ministras pirmininkas kaltinamas NATO aljanso griovimu, suabejojęs Amerikos „lojalumu“ Europai

„Lenkijos globalistas ministras pirmininkas Donaldas Tuskas sulaukia kritikos dėl nepagrįsto kaltinimo, kad Jungtinės Valstijos karo atveju neliks „lojalios“ ir negins Europos.

 

Akivaizdžiai bandydamas įžeisti JAV prezidentą Donaldą Trumpą, Lenkijos ministras pirmininkas Tuskas paragino Europos Sąjungą sukurti visavertį gynybinį aljansą, teigdamas, kad Jungtinės Valstijos nėra patikima partnerė.

 

Buvęs ES vadovas „Financial Times“ sakė, kad Europos „didžiausias ir svarbiausias klausimas yra tai, ar Jungtinės Valstijos yra pasirengusios būti tokios lojalios, kaip aprašyta mūsų [NATO] sutartyse“, atsižvelgiant į tai, kad Rusija gali užpulti valstybę narę per „mėnesius“.

 

„Visam rytiniam flangui, mano kaimynams, klausimas yra tas, ar NATO vis dar yra organizacija, pasirengusi politiškai ir logistiškai reaguoti, pavyzdžiui, prieš Rusiją, jei ši bandytų pulti“, – sakė jis.

 

„Nes mums labai svarbu žinoti, kad visi NATO įsipareigojimus vertins taip pat rimtai, kaip ir Lenkija“, – sakė Tuskas, pažymėdamas, kad pagal BVP procentą Varšuva yra daugiausiai išleidžianti NATO narė, nors absoliučiais skaičiais ją lenkia Jungtinės Valstijos.

 

„Vašingtonas Lenkiją laiko geriausia ir artimiausia sąjungininke Europoje. Tačiau man tikroji problema yra tai, kaip bus praktiškai, jei kas nors nutiks“, – tęsė Lenkijos ministras pirmininkas. „Noriu tikėti, kad [5 straipsnis] vis dar galioja, bet kartais, žinoma, turiu tam tikrų problemų.“

 

„Nenoriu būti toks pesimistas, bet šiandien mums reikia ir praktinio konteksto.“

 

Tuskas, anksčiau atlikęs Briuselio apgavikišką vaidmenį, 2014 m. palikęs ministro pirmininko postą ir užėmęs daug pelningesnį Europos Vadovų Tarybos pirmininko vaidmenį, o 2023 m. sugrįžęs ir vėl siekęs valdžios Varšuvoje, regis, palaiko tokius asmenis kaip Prancūzijos prezidentas Emmanuelis Macronas ir ES vadovė Ursula von der Leyen, bandydamas pasinaudoti dabartine transatlantine trintimi ir siekti ES kariuomenės formavimo.

 

Interviu globalistiniam laikraščiui „FT“ Tuskas nurodė ES sutarties 42.7 straipsnį – gana neaiškų gynybos paktą – kaip potencialų pagrindą sukurti ne NATO Europos karinį aljansą. Nuo tada, kai buvo susitarta, jis buvo panaudotas tik vieną kartą – Prancūzijos po 2015 m. teroristinių išpuolių „Bataclan“ klube.

 

Straipsnyje teigiama, kad „jei valstybė narė tampa ginkluotos agresijos savo teritorijoje auka, kitos valstybės narės privalo teikti jai pagalbą ir paramą visomis savo turimomis priemonėmis pagal Jungtinių Tautų Chartijos 51 straipsnį“. Tai neturi daryti įtakos tam tikrų valstybių narių saugumo ir gynybos politikos specifiniam pobūdžiui.“

 

„Jei norite turėti tikrą aljansą ne tik popieriuje, jums reikia tikrų įrankių ir realios galios, kalbant apie gynybos priemones ir kariuomenių mobilumą iš vienos šalies į kitą ir pan. Tai labai praktiška šiandienos problema“, – sakė Tuskas. „Štai kodėl dabar mano manija ir misija yra iš naujo integruoti Europą.“

 

„Tai reiškia bendrą gynybą, bendras pastangas apsaugoti mūsų rytines sienas.“

 

Penktadienį Tusko įpėdinis Europos Vadovų Tarybos pirmininko poste, portugalų socialistas António Costa, pareiškė, kad neseniai įvykdyti Irano smūgiai Kiprui tapo „bandomuoju pavyzdžiu“, kaip galėtų veikti tarpusavio gynybos paktas, ir pažymėjo, kad „Graikija, o vėliau Prancūzija, Italija, Ispanija ir [Nyderlandai] mobilizavo karinę įrangą ir pajėgas“, kad padėtų Kiprui po incidento.

 

Priešingai, Jungtinė Karalystė, nepaisant to, kad turėjo bazę saloje, užtruko tris savaites, kad surinktų karo laivą, kurį galėtų išsiųsti į regioną, ir vos po kelių dienų buvo priversta išsiųsti tą patį karo laivą į uostą techninei priežiūrai.

 

Blogas JK ir kitų NATO narių, ypač socialistinės Ispanijos, kuri Irano konflikto metu visiškai atsisakė suteikti Jungtinėms Valstijoms bet kokią prieigą prie savo oro erdvės ir karinių bazių, atsakas paskatino Baltuosius rūmus viešai suabejoti dabartine Aljanso struktūra ir po Irano karo iškėlė idėją nubausti tam tikrus nelojalius veikėjus.

 

Nepaisant to, prezidentas Trumpas nuolat tvirtino, kad gerbs NATO susitarimo 5 straipsnio tarpusavio gynybos nuostatą ir yra plačiai pripažįstamas už NATO stiprinimą, spaudžiant sąjungininkes pagaliau išleisti daugiau lėšų. savo gynybos biudžetus.

 

Nepaisant to, visoje Europoje vis labiau girdisi šurmulys dėl tolesnių gynybos įsipareigojimų – tai tarsi antausis prezidentui Trumpui, nors jis daro būtent taip, kaip prašė.

 

Šio fronto lyderis buvo Prancūzijos prezidentas Emmanuelis Macronas, kuris paskutiniais savo kadencijos metais, regis, siekia išsaugoti kai kuriuos senus dalykus, palikdamas pėdsaką Europos gynybos aparate.

 

Be to, kad ilgai lobizavo už tiesioginę ES armiją, prezidentas Macronas pastaruoju metu pradėjo derybas su kitais ES lyderiais dėl perspektyvos išplėsti Prancūzijos branduolinių ginklų skėtį visame žemyne, siekiant atgrasyti tokius priešininkus kaip Vladimiro Putino Rusija.

 

Būdama vienintele branduolinį ginklą turinčia valstybe, likusia Europos Sąjungoje po Jungtinės Karalystės išstojimo, Prancūzija yra bet kokių potencialių bendrų gynybos pajėgų vairuotoja, atsižvelgiant į tai, kad Paryžius beveik neabejotinai išlaikytų išimtinę savo branduolinių galvučių dislokavimo kontrolę.

 

Anksčiau šį mėnesį prezidentas Macronas nuvyko į Gdanską aptarti su ministru pirmininku Tusku galimybės dislokuoti Prancūzijos branduolines pajėgas Lenkijoje kaip šios strategijos dalį.

 

Nors tvirtesnė gynybos struktūra buvo seniai prezidento Trumpo reikalavimas, kai kurie kritikavo ministrą pirmininką Tuską už tai, kad jis atvirai abejojo ​​Jungtinių Valstijų, kurios išlieka svarbiausia Varšuvos karine sąjungininke, lojalumu.

 

Opozicinės konservatyviosios partijos „Įstatymas ir teisingumas“ lyderis Jarosławas Kaczyńskis sekmadienį pareiškė, kad Vokietija apgaudinėja Tuską, priversdamas jį sakyti komentarus, kurie „griauna Lenkijos ir Amerikos santykius“, ir apgailestavo, kad Lenkijai vadovauja „žmonės, kuriems Dievas nedavė bet kokių politinių gebėjimų“.”

 

Pro- and Anti-American Fractions Form in Leadership of Poland: Polish PM Accused of Undermining NATO Alliance After Questioning America’s ‘Loyalty’ to Europe

“Poland’s globalist Prime Minsiter Donald Tusk is facing criticism over his unfounded accusation that the United States would not remain “loyal” and come to Europe’s defence in the case of a war.

 

In an apparent shot across the bow against U.S. President Donald Trump, Polish PM Tusk has urged the European Union to develop a fully fledged defensive alliance, while claiming that the United States is not a trustworthy partner.

 

The former EU chief told the Financial Times that Europe’s “biggest, most important question is if the United States is ready to be as loyal as it is described in our [Nato] treaties,” given that Russia could potentially attack a member state within “months”.

 

“For the whole eastern flank, my neighbours… the question is if NATO is still an organisation ready, politically and also logistically, to react, for example, against Russia if they try to attack,” he said.

 

“For us, it’s really important to know that everyone will treat the Nato obligations as seriously as Poland,” Tusk said, noting that by percentage of GDP, Warsaw is the top spender in NATO, though in absolute terms dwarfed by the United States.

 

“Washington treats Poland as the best and the closest ally in Europe. But for me, the real problem is what it is in practice if something happens,” the Polish PM continued. “I want to believe that [Article 5] is still valid, but sometimes, of course, I have some problems.”

 

“I don’t want to be so pessimistic… but what we need today is also practical context.”

 

Tusk, who previously played Brussels turncoat, by abandoning his former position as prime minister to take up the far more lucrative role of President of the European Council in 2014, only to come back and seek power once again in Warsaw in 2023, appears to be siding with the likes of French President Emmanuel Macron and EU cheif Ursula von der Leyen in attempting to seize upon the current transatlantic friction to push for the formation of an EU Army.

 

In his interview with the globalist FT paper, Tusk pointed to Article 42.7 of the EU Treaty, a relatively obscure defence pact, as a potential framework for creating a non-NATO European military alliance. Since agreed to, it has only been invoked once, by France following the 2015 Bataclan terror attacks.

 

The article states that “if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.”

 

“What you need if you want to have, not only on paper, a real alliance, is true tools and real power when it comes to defence instruments and mobility of militaries from country to country etc. It’s a very practical problem for today,” Tusk said. “This is why my obsession now and my mission is to reintegrate Europe.”

 

“It means common defence… a common effort to protect our eastern borders.”

 

Tusk’s successor as European Council President, Portuguese socialist António Costa, said on Friday that the recent Iranian strikes on Cyprus provided a “test case” on how a mutual defence pact could function, noting that “Greece, and then France, Italy, Spain and [the] Netherlands mobilised military equipment and forces” to assist Cyprus in the aftermath.

 

In contrast, the United Kingdom, despite having a base on the island, took three weeks to muster a warship to send to the region, and was forced to send that very warship to port just days later for maintenance.

 

The lacklustre response from the UK and other members of NATO, notably socialist Spain, which outright refused all access to its airspace and military bases to the United States during the Iran conflict, has led to the White House publicly questioning the current framework of the alliance and has floated the idea of punishing certain disloyal actors following the Iran war.

 

Nevertheless, President Trump has consistently maintained that he would honour the Article 5 mutual defence provision of the NATO agreement, and has been widely credited with bolstering NATO by pressuring allies to finally spend more on their own defence budgets.

 

Despite this, there has been a growing hum across Europe for further defence commitments, a supposed slap at President Trump, while doing exactly as he has asked.

 

A leader on this front has been French President Emmanuel Macron, who, in his final year in office, appears intent on salvaging some legacy points by leaving a mark on the European defence apparatus.

 

In addition to having long lobbied for an outright EU Army, President Macron has of late begun negotiations with fellow EU leaders on the prospect of extending the French nuclear arms umbrella across the continent to deter adversaries such as Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

 

As the only nuclear-armed power remaining in the European Union after the departure of the United Kingdom, France is in the driver’s seat for any potential common defence force, given that Paris would almost certainly retain sole control over the deployment of its nuclear warheads.

 

Earlier this month, President Macron travelled to Gdańsk to discuss with Prime Minister Tusk the possibility of forward-deploying French nuclear forces to Poland as part of this strategy.

 

Although a firmer defence structure has been a longstanding demand from President Trump, some have criticised Prime Minister Tusk for openly questioning the loyalty of the United States, which remains Warsaw’s most important military ally.

 

The leader of the opposition conservative Law and Justice party, Jarosław Kaczyński, said on Sunday that Tusk was being duped by Germany into making comments that were “destroying Polish-American relations” and lamented that Poland was being led “by people whom God shortchanged on any political abilities whatsoever.””

 

Popiežiaus pastabos patikrina teisingo karo teoriją --- Leono kritika dėl Irano konflikto atspindi katalikų mąstymo pokyčius per daugelį metų

 

„VATIKANAS -- Prezidentas Trumpas, sakęs, kad Dievas remia JAV karines operacijas prieš Iraną, piktai kritikavo popiežiaus Leono XIV antikarinę poziciją. Viceprezidentas J. D. Vance'as netgi paragino popiežių būti atsargesniam dėl teologijos, nes katalikų tradicija apima teisingo karo idėją.

 

Tačiau Katalikų Bažnyčia ėmė abejoti, ar beveik visi šiuolaikiniai karai yra teisingi.

 

Ne tik Leonas nuo sausio mėnesio meta iššūkį Trumpui dėl jo didėjančio karinės jėgos naudojimo. Vatikano požiūris į karą per pastarąjį šimtmetį pasikeitė. Šiuolaikiniai popiežiai laikosi nuomonės, kad vien šiuolaikinių ginklų griaunamoji galia pakeitė konflikto pobūdį, todėl senovėje ir viduramžiais sukurti teisingo karo principai retai kada yra įgyvendinami.

 

Tai reiškia, kad Vatikanas ir toliau bus nepatogus, netgi aršus JAV užsienio politikos, kuri pasitiki Amerikos jėga, o ne taisyklėmis pagrįsta tarptautine tvarka, priešininkas.

 

„Kaip pastorius, negaliu pasisakyti karo naudai“, – ketvirtadienį žurnalistams sakė Leo, skrisdamas namo į Romą po kelionės po Afriką. Per daug nekaltų žmonių žuvo, sakė jis, pridurdamas, kad su savimi nešiojasi vaiko, kuris jį pernai pasitiko Libane ir kuris žuvo dabartiniame kare, nuotrauką.

 

Jau kelias savaites Leo smerkia ne tik JAV vadovaujamą karą prieš Iraną, bet ir karą apskritai. Jis kritikavo tokių pareigūnų kaip gynybos sekretorius Pete'as Hegsethas maldas už karą ir Biblijos maldas.

 

„Tai mūsų Dievas: Jėzus, Taikos Karalius, kuris atmeta karą, kurio niekas negali panaudoti karui pateisinti“, – sakė Leo per mišias Šv. Petro aikštėje Verbų sekmadienį. „Jis neklauso tų, kurie kariauja, maldų, bet jas atmeta sakydamas: „Nors jūs daug melsitės, aš jų neklausysiu: jūsų rankos pilnos kraujo“, – sakė jis, cituodamas Bibliją.

 

Vance'as, atsivertęs į katalikybę, šaukė „nedoras“. Galima diskutuoti apie konkretaus karo nuopelnus, bet Leo nuėjo per toli, sakė jis. „Kai popiežius sako, kad Dievas niekada nėra tų, kurie naudoja kardą, pusėje, egzistuoja daugiau, nei tūkstančio, metų teisingo karo teorijos tradicija“, – balandžio viduryje Džordžijos universitete vykusiame „Turning Point USA“ renginyje sakė Vance'as. Ar Dievas nebuvo JAV kareivių pusėje, klausė jis, kai jie išlaisvino Prancūziją iš nacių okupacijos? „Jei ketinate reikšti nuomonę teologijos klausimais, turite būti atsargūs.“ „Reikia įsitikinti, kad tai pagrįsta tiesa“, – perspėjo jis popiežių.

 

„Ar popiežius nusisuko nuo teisingo karo teorijos ir tapo pacifistiniu? Ne visai. Tačiau Vance'as nebuvo vienintelis asmuo, iškėlęs šį klausimą.

 

„Aš tikrai manau, kad Vatikanas turėtų būti šiek tiek aiškesnis dėl teisingo karo“, – sakė kunigas Robertas Sirico, konservatyvaus analitinio centro Acton Religijos ir laisvės studijoms Grand Rapidse, Mičigane, vienas iš įkūrėjų.

 

Praktiškai popiežiai dažnai lanksčiai vartojo „teisingos priežasties“ sąvoką, laimindami karalių ir imperatorių ekspansionistines kampanijas ir kartais net patys apsivilkdami šarvus.

 

Tačiau ši teorija bent jau bandė apriboti karą. Katalikų mąstymas tapo didele įtaka šiuolaikinei tarptautinei teisei, įskaitant Jungtinių Tautų Chartiją, kuri draudžia karą, išskyrus savigynos ar Saugumo Tarybos įgaliotas misijas, ir taisykles, ribojančias karinę jėgą iki to, kas yra būtina ir proporcinga, ir skiriančias kareivius nuo civilių.

 

Teisingo karo teorija vis dar yra Katekizmo, oficialios bažnyčios įsitikinimų santraukos, išleistos pagal Šv. Jono evangeliją, dalis. Pauliaus II 1992 m. ištartame laiške teigiama: „Teisėta gynyba gali būti ne tik teisė, bet ir rimta pareiga tam, kas yra atsakingas už kitų gyvybes.“ Yra griežti kriterijai. Net gynybinis karas turi būti paskutinė priemonė, kai visos kitos pastangos užkirsti kelią agresijai žlugo.

 

Tačiau XX amžiaus pradžioje iškilus industrializuotam karui, popiežiaus mąstyme atsirado antra kryptis, teigė Danielis Philpottas, politologas iš Notre Dame universiteto: „Stiprus mokymas, kad šiuolaikiniame kare yra kažkas labai tragiško ir apgailėtino.“ Žvelgiant iš šios perspektyvos, karas tapo toks niokojantis, ypač dėl miestų bombardavimo iš oro, kad jis visada yra žmonijos pralaimėjimas. „Beveik kiekvienas popiežius per pastarąjį šimtmetį aiškiai, garsiai ir nuolat išreiškė šią temą“, – sakė jis.

 

Popiežius Pranciškus savo 2020 m. enciklikoje „Fratelli tutti“ teigė, kad teisingo karo teorija yra pasenusi.

 

Po to, kai Vance'as sukritikavo Leoną, italų vyskupas Antonio Stagliano atsakė dar labiau išplėtodamas Pranciškaus logiką pacifistine kryptimi. Teisingas karas visada buvo pragmatiškas kompromisas su istorija, niekada ne pagrindinė doktrina, – Vatikano svetainėje paskelbtame straipsnyje teigė Stagliano, Popiežiškosios teologijos akademijos Romoje prezidentas.

 

„Kiekvienas karas šiandien yra nusikaltimas žmonijai. Ne „kai kurie karai“. Ne „neteisėti karai“. Kiekvienas karas“, – sakė jis. Straipsnyje siūloma, kad krikščionys priimtų nesmurtinį pasipriešinimą ir kankinių tradiciją.

 

Tai ne popiežiaus pozicija, teigė kiti vyresnieji dvasininkai.

 

Vyskupas Jamesas Massa, aukščiausias JAV vyskupų konferencijos doktrinos pareigūnas, teigė, kad popiežius palaiko teisingo karo teoriją. Kiti JAV vyskupai ir kardinolai teigė, kad teisingo karo teorija tebėra galiojanti, tačiau JAV karas prieš Iraną neatitinka reikalavimų.

 

---

 

Nuo kito skruosto atsukimo iki tragiškos būtinybės

 

Ankstyvoji krikščionybė buvo labai priešiška karui ir karinei tarnybai, sakė Vincentas Milleris, teologijos profesorius Deitono universitete, Ohajo valstijoje.

 

Daugelis priėmė kankinystę, užuot kompromisavę su savo tikėjimu.

 

Tačiau iki IV amžiaus pabaigos krikščionybė buvo oficiali Romos imperijos religija, įskaitant jos kareivius ir generolus.

 

Imperija griuvo; vizigotai apiplėšė Romą.

 

Ar Jėzaus pasekėjai tikrai turėtų atsukti kitą skruostą?

 

Šv. Augustinas, vyskupas iš Romos Šiaurės Afrikos, pateikė pesimistinį atsakymą: Žmonės gyveno puolusioje žemiškoje karalystėje, kurioje vyravo smurtas ir troškimas dominuoti, o nekaltųjų gynimas jėga kartais buvo tragiška būtinybė valstybei. (Popiežius Leonas XIV yra buvęs augustinų vienuolijos vadovas.)

 

Vėliau XIII amžiaus italų vienuolis šv. Tomas Akvinietis Augustino mąstymą pavertė oficialiu teisingo karo kriterijų rinkiniu, įskaitant teisėtą valdžią, siekiančią teisingo tikslo, pavyzdžiui, savigynos, su teisingais ketinimais.“ [1]

 

1. World News: Pope's Remarks Put Just-War Theory to Test --- Leo's criticisms of Iran conflict reflect shift in Catholic thinking over years. Walker, Marcus.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 27 Apr 2026: A9.  

Pope's Remarks Put Just-War Theory to Test --- Leo's criticisms of Iran conflict reflect shift in Catholic thinking over years

“VATICAN CITY -- President Trump, who said God supports U.S. military operations against Iran, has fulminated against Pope Leo XIV's antiwar stance. Vice President JD Vance has even told the pope to be more careful about theology, because Catholic tradition includes the idea of a just war.

 

But the Catholic Church has come to doubt that almost any modern wars are just.

 

It isn't just Leo, who has challenged Trump since January over his growing use of military force. The Vatican's perspective on war has shifted over the past century. Modern popes have taken the view that the sheer destructive power of modern weaponry has changed the nature of conflict, so that principles of just war developed in antiquity and the Middle Ages are rarely if ever satisfied.

 

That means the Vatican will continue to be an awkward, even fiery opponent of a U.S. foreign policy that trusts in American muscle, not in a rules-based international order.

 

"As a pastor, I cannot be in favor of war," Leo told reporters on Thursday while flying home to Rome after a tour of Africa. Too many innocents have been killed, he said, adding that he carries with him a photo of a child who greeted him in Lebanon last year, and who was killed in the current war.

 

For weeks, Leo has denounced not only the U.S.-led war on Iran, but war in general. He has criticized the pro-war prayers and biblical invocations of officials such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

 

"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Leo said during a Mass in St. Peter's Square on Palm Sunday. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them, saying: 'Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: Your hands are full of blood,'" he said, quoting from the Bible.

 

Vance, a Catholic convert, cried foul. One can debate the merits of a given war, but Leo was going too far, he said. "When the pope says that God is never on the side of those who wield the sword, there is more than a thousand-year tradition of just-war theory," Vance told a Turning Point USA event at the University of Georgia in mid-April. Was God not on the side of U.S. GIs, he asked, when they liberated France from Nazi occupation? "If you're going to opine on matters of theology, you've got to be careful. You've got to make sure it's anchored in the truth," he admonished the pontiff.

 

Has the papacy turned its back on just-war theory and become pacifist? Not quite. But Vance wasn't the only person to raise the question.

 

"I really do think the Vatican needs to be a little clearer on just war," said the Rev. Robert Sirico, co-founder of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, a conservative think tank in Grand Rapids, Mich.

 

In practice, popes often used "just cause" elastically, blessing the expansionist campaigns of kings and emperors and sometimes even donning armor themselves.

 

But the theory at least tried to limit war. Catholic thinking became a major influence on modern international law -- including the United Nations Charter, which prohibits war except for self-defense or missions mandated by the Security Council, and rules limiting military force to what is necessary and proportionate and distinguishes soldiers from civilians.

 

Just-war theory is still part of the Catechism, the official summary of the church's beliefs published under St. John Paul II in 1992, which says: "Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others." There are strict criteria. Even a defensive war must be a last resort after all other efforts to prevent aggression have failed.

 

But with the rise of industrialized warfare in the early 20th century, a second strand in papal thinking emerged, said Daniel Philpott, a political scientist at the University of Notre Dame: "A strong teaching that there's something deeply tragic and lamentable about modern war." In this perspective, war has become so devastating, particularly through the aerial bombing of cities, that it's always a defeat for humanity. "Virtually every pope in the past century has voiced this theme pointedly, vociferously and continuously," he said.

 

Pope Francis, in his 2020 encyclical "Fratelli tutti," suggested just-war theory was outdated.

 

After Vance criticized Leo, Italian bishop Antonio Stagliano responded by taking Francis' logic even further in a pacifist direction. Just war was always a pragmatic compromise with history, never a core doctrine, said Stagliano, the president of the Pontifical Academy of Theology in Rome, in an article published on a Vatican website.

 

"Every war today is a crime against humanity. Not 'some wars.' Not 'unjust wars.' Every war," he said. The article suggested Christians should embrace nonviolent resistance and the tradition of martyrs.

 

That isn't Leo's position, other senior clergy said.

 

Bishop James Massa, the top doctrinal official of the U.S. bishops' conference, said the pope is upholding just-war theory. Other U.S. bishops and cardinals have said just-war theory remains valid -- but that the U.S. war on Iran didn't meet the bar.

 

---

 

From Turning the Other Cheek to a Tragic Necessity

 

Early Christianity was overwhelmingly opposed to war and military service, said Vincent Miller, a professor of theology at the University of Dayton, Ohio.

 

Many accepted martyrdom rather than compromise their faith.

 

By the late fourth century, however, Christianity was the official religion of the Roman Empire, including its soldiers and generals.

 

The Empire was crumbling; the Visigoths had sacked Rome.

 

Should followers of Jesus really turn the other cheek?

 

St. Augustine, a bishop from Roman North Africa, gave a pessimistic answer: Men lived in a fallen earthly realm ruled by violence and lust for domination, and defending the innocent with force was sometimes a tragic necessity for the state. (Pope Leo XIV is a former head of the Augustinian religious order.)

 

Later, the 13th-century Italian friar St. Thomas Aquinas turned Augustine's thinking into a formal set of criteria for a just war, including a legitimate authority pursuing a just cause such as self-defense with the right intentions.” [1]

 

1. World News: Pope's Remarks Put Just-War Theory to Test --- Leo's criticisms of Iran conflict reflect shift in Catholic thinking over years. Walker, Marcus.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 27 Apr 2026: A9.  

Artimųjų Rytų konfliktas sukėlė energetikos krizę visame pasaulyje

„Tarptautinės energetikos agentūros vykdomasis direktorius Fatihas Birolis praėjusią savaitę perspėjo, kad pasaulis susiduria su didžiausia istorijoje energetikos krize, kurią dar labiau paaštrino Hormūzo sąsiaurio uždarymas per JAV karą su Iranu.

 

Labiausiai nukentėjo naftą eksportuojančios šalys, ir tai privertė kai kurias vyriausybes imtis beveik 50 metų nematytų priemonių.

 

Kai kurios paskelbė energetikos nepaprastąją padėtį, o kitos riboja kurą. Kai kurios dalija grynuosius pinigus. Dar kitos ragino piliečius pakeisti savo įpročius. Daugelis apribojo naftos kainą vartotojams. 32 TEA šalys iš savo atsargų išleido rekordinį 400 milijonų barelių naftos kiekį.“ [1]

 

 

1. World News: Middle East Conflict Has Fanned An Energy Crisis Around the World. Kiss, Daniel.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 27 Apr 2026: A9.