Dimitris Glezos

This is indeed devastating: an extremely detailed investigative journalism piece by mainstream Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant looked in minute details into 114 cases of young Palestinian children with single gunshot wounds to the head or chest. Their conclusion? That the overwhelming evidence points to deliberate, targeted shooting of children, primarily by snipers. Link to the article: volkskrant.nl/kijkverder/v/2…

This is interesting: the French and German governments jointly appointed a group of leading economists from both countries (within the so-called "Franco-German Council of Economic Experts") to draft a series of 5 memos on how to revive the EU economy. Some of their recommendations are what you'd expect but some are more surprising. Probably the most unexpected ones are those that pertain to China (one of their 5 memos is entirely dedicated to China: cae-eco.fr/relations-economi…), and those in particular: 1) They recommend a significant opening of the EU market to Chinese imports, to a far greater extent than is already the case. As they explain in the memo, there is a large number of sectors (such as "most consumer goods, many electronics goods as well as household appliances, but also solar panels and low-tech green equipment") where European industry has almost entirely disappeared and where revival "seems unlikely as industries are mature", and therefore barriers to entry and tariffs serve as nothing more than a hidden tax on EU consumers. Their recommendation in those cases is "to let European buyers reap the benefits of low Chinese prices" in order to improve their purchasing power and living standards, while redirecting scarce resources and political capital toward defending sectors where Europe still has competitive advantages and genuine prospects. For instance there's no point defending the EU solar panel industry when it's a) a lost cause and b) results in more expensive solar panels for consumers, thereby deteriorating their purchasing power and making the energy transition slower and costlier. Makes sense to me. 2) For "important sectors where Europe lags technologically," they recommend "welcoming Chinese foreign direct investment in Europe, preferably linked to technology transfers and joint ventures" Which is quite funny, as this is basically a recommendation to out-China China 😅 It's also incidentally a validation of China's own long-standing strategy, even though many EU countries have been bashing it for decades... As well as a recognition (not that anyone did not know that already) that there has been a complete reversal of the dynamics from two decades ago: the EU are now the ones seeking knowledge transfers from China. The authors are of course well aware of this since they write that "such a strategy would leverage access to the European market in similar ways China did it in the 2000s, would avoid costly industrial policy experiments and ensure that EU companies continue face up to international competition." Doesn't look like such a bad idea anymore now that the EU is in China's position, does it? 😉 There is also an entire memo on defense, or more precisely "Economic Principles for European Rearmament" (link: cae-eco.fr/principes-economi…) in which they're surprisingly open about the strategic foolishness of Europe's near-total dependence on America, calling Europe's de-risking from the U.S. an "urgent political priority" given the "decline in confidence in transatlantic security guarantees." As such they recommend developing "independent European capacities and deterrence" in parallel to "integrated NATO defence planning". The latter point is particularly significant because it concretely means that their recommendation is that Europe should "urgently" prepare for a post-NATO or NATO-without-America future. Those of you who have been following me for a while will know this is music to my ears. I've been saying for as long as I can remember that NATO and Europe's reliance on the U.S. for its defense is the original sin, and the principal source of Europe's problems. It's just so incredibly obvious: when you outsource your own security to someone else, they have you by the balls (excuse my French), period. It's a protection racket, that's all it is, and the reason why the U.S. can dictate any condition to Europe and they have no other choice but to accept. It's also, incidentally, the principal cause of the largest war on the European continent since WW2. So much for "protection"... (to be clear, they don't say this in the memo, this is of course my take, and that of pretty much everyone who's studied the origins of the Ukraine war with a modicum of intellectual honesty). When you think about it it's absolutely insane Europe ever agreed to this arrangement in the first place. To my knowledge there is no other example in history of a polity - especially one such as large as Europe - voluntarily ceding its military sovereignty to a foreign power to such an extent that their "protector" gains complete leverage over the "protected" party's foreign policy and strategic decisions. It's voluntary colonization, which is properly insane. Anyhow, glad that France and Germany apparently still have top economists who understand these issues. Whether this will be taken onboard by the current generation of unleaders that the EU has at the helm is another question entirely. Given that some of these folks even go as far as calling Trump "daddy," I wouldn't hold my breath...