peace

There is a Europe that is suffocating to pay for housing and another that lives in peace. And this map shows the differences

by

Beyond the political ups and downs, corruption, unemployment, the war in Ukraine, or the (increasingly) convulsive scenario of international geopolitics, from time to time The CIS reminds us that there is a much more everyday problem that keeps us Spaniards up at night: access to housing. At the end of 2025 39.9% of those surveyed by the organization pointed out housing as “the main problem” facing the country. And it is normal if you take into account the mismatch between supply and demand, the pressure that carries out tourist rentals and (above all) the sharp rise in prices of recent years. Every time we talk about the residential market, however, the same question arises: beyond the exact cost of the square meter (m2), calculated by the General Council of Notaries, the executive or portals like IdealisticHow “unaffordable” is accommodation in Spain? What economic effort does it require from families? Is it more or less than what other European households must assume? Getting perspective Type of housing (in m2) available spending 40% of monthly income. ESPON, the program who is dedicated to studying cohesion of the EU, has published a series of maps that help answer these questions in a quick, direct and, above all, visual way. To prepare them, two parameters have been basically set: the prices of the real estate market for sales and rentals and the income data published by Eurostat. Everything divided by regions. By crossing them the organism has been able to carry out two calculations. The first is to estimate what type of housing (in m2) a person who allocates 40% of their income to this purpose can rent in each EU region. The second is what percentage of their rent that same tenant should dedicate if they wanted a 100 m2 house. Percentage of monthly income necessary to rent a 100 m2 home. ESPON does not stop there. He has also transferred those same questions to the buying and selling market residential. That is, what type of housing could a person willing to invest 40% of their annual income for an entire decade afford? And how many years would you have to endure that same budgetary effort if you wanted to buy a 100 m2 apartment? In both cases the maps are similar and they leave behind a series of conclusions, such as the profound differences that exist within the same country. “Regions containing and surrounding capital cities such as Paris, Berlin, Lisbon and Madrid tend to be less affordable compared to the rest of the nation. Additionally, coastal regions tend to be less affordable, which is also clearly seen in the Netherlands and Germany, Portugal, Spain and France.” Available housing (m2) investing 40% of the income for 10 years. Years necessary to buy a 100 m2 home investing 40% of the income. For example, while a Madrid resident willing to invest 40% of his annual income in housing would need between 20 and 25 years To pay for a 100 m2 house, a resident of the province of Teruel would need at most ten years of effort. In Barcelona it would need around 20-25 years while on the other side of the peninsula, in Pontevedra, between 15 and 20 years would be enough. The worst part in Spain is Malaga, the Balearic Islands and the Canary Islands, where ESPON calculates that on average a buyer would need to invest 40% of their annual income for more than three and a half decades. A very similar effort would have to be endured by the inhabitants of the Algarve, Setúbal, part of the Paris area, Monaco, Corsica or different points spread across Eastern Europe, where ESPON itself recognizes that “quite unaffordable” areas are concentrated. If we talk about the rental market, the panorama It’s not very different. A Madrid resident who would like to rent a 100 m2 apartment would need to dedicate (on average) between 80 and 90% of their income to it. The situation is worse in coastal points, such as Barcelona, ​​Huelva, Malaga and Eastern European regions. In the provinces of Zamora or Huesca they would be enough between 30 and 40%which is closer to the debt ceiling level than recommend assuming the experts. Images | Quique Olivar (Unsplash) and ESPON In Xataka | It is not a country for Spaniards: Madrid and Catalonia are losing national population while gaining foreign population

If there is finally peace in Ukraine, Russia has a surprise for the rest of Europe

by

The talks in Berlin have revived the idea of ​​an agreement to end the war in Ukraine like never before, to the point that Donald Trump has assured that peace is “closer than ever” after prolonged contacts with both European leaders and Vladimir Putin. If this horizon occurs, Finland has just sounded the alarm. The peace that appears. The United States has put on the table a plan that, according to its own negotiators, would solve around 90% of friction points and that includes a ceasefire supervised by Washington, security guarantees powerful and a central role for Europe in the stabilization of the country. kyiv admits real progressalthough he emphasizes that the territorial issue remains the most painful core of the negotiation, with Russia demanding concessions in the Donbas that Ukraine is reluctant to accept. Still, the general tone is contained optimismwith the feeling that, for the first time since 2022, there is a minimally viable political architecture to stop the fighting. Security guarantees. The key element of the plan is a package of security guarantees described by US officials as the most robust ever offered to Ukraine, with explicit parallels to NATO’s Article 5. Europe is ready to lead a multinational force on the ground, a “coalition of the willing” that would help regenerate the Ukrainian armed forces, protect its airspace and guarantee maritime security, always with political and operational support from the United States, although no US troops deployed in Ukraine. Furthermore, Washington would assume supervision of a ceasefire and an early warning system for possible violations, while European countries would legally commit to act in the event of new aggression. For kyiv, these guarantees are the essential condition to accept any freezing of the conflict, even leaving aspirations such as membership in NATO on hold, something that Zelenskiy has come to openly raise. The hidden price of peace. However, beneath this apparent diplomatic advance lies growing unrest on Europe’s eastern flank. Finland has issued a warning as clear as it is uncomfortable: peace in Ukraine will not mean the end of the Russian threat, but very likely its geographical displacement. According to Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, Moscow would take advantage of the end of hostilities to redeploy forces towards NATO’s borders, especially in the Baltic and northern Europe, strengthening its posture vis-à-vis the Alliance in a period of just three to five years. From Helsinki, it is insisted that Russia would continue to be a revisionist power and that interpreting peace as a general de-escalation would be a strategic error of the first order. The eastern flank prepares. The most exposed countries already act accordingly. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are on track to spend more than 5% of its GDP in defense, well above the traditional objectives of NATO, while coordinate common capabilities in air defense, drones and ground forces, and are working to accelerate the movement of troops and weapons across the continent. Finland, with its historical culture of preparation against Russia, maintains bunkers, strategic reserves and training programs civil, despite going through a serious economic crisis. These countries fear that a peace agreement will lead some European partners, further away from the front, to relax their attention and their military spending just when, in their opinion, the threat would be reconfiguring and not disappearing. Europe and a decision. The debate comes in a critical week for the European Union, forced to decide whether to support financially to Ukraine in the long term, unlocks the use of frozen Russian assets and assumes that your future security It depends less on Washington and more on its own deterrence capabilities. Orpo has been explicit by warning that Europe cannot afford to just talk about peace, but must act quickly and resourcefully, because there is no credible alternative plan if support for kyiv fails. Thus, the paradox is strongly imposed: the advance towards peace in Ukrainefar from closing the chapter on European security, could open another equally delicatein which Russia, freed from the Ukrainian front, once again strains the continental chessboard and forces Europe to finally face the strategic consequences of a conflict that never was only from Ukraine. Image | Ministry of Defense of Ukraine In Xataka | Something unprecedented has happened in North Korea: a video has revealed that they are sending their soldiers in Ukraine to the “slaughterhouse” In Xataka | The drone war in Ukraine is complete nonsense: the manuals that were useful two weeks ago are a death trap today

The round of peace meetings in Ukraine has ended. Russia says it is “ready”, but for war with Europe

by

The last two rounds of contacts between the Kremlin and Trump’s envoys have confirmed that the peace process for Ukraine is technically alive, but politically blocked. Putin took advantage of the arrival of the emissaries to launch a verbal offensive: Accused Europe of torpedoing peace, suggested the EU “is on the side of war,” and said Russia does not want a continental conflict but that if Europe starts one, “we are ready right now.” A trapped peace process. For Moscow, the talks are “very useful” as they allow it probe the limits Washington and explore what it is willing to sacrifice in exchange for a stable ceasefire. For the United States, they are an opportunity to zoom in positions without openly acknowledging that the original plan favored Russia too much and was unacceptable to kyiv. Five hours of meeting in Moscow served to review successive versions of the US document, but not to generate a “compromise option”: Russia accepts some elements, rejects others with a “critical and even negative attitude” and, above all, keeps intact its objective of translating its military advances in territorial gains formalized on paper. Moscow red lines. At the center of the disagreement is the territorial question. Moscow insists Ukraine must resign to 20% of Donetsk which he still preserves, while boasting (not without response from kyiv) of having taken Pokrovska key logistical hub that had been in operation for more than a year trying to capture with a great cost in lives and material. This insistence is not only cartographic: is part of a maximization logicin which victories at the front are used as an argument to tighten political conditions. Added to this are other structural requirements: deep cuts in the Ukrainian armed forces, severe limits on Western military aid and a fit of Ukraine into the Russian sphere of influence that would empty its formal sovereignty of content. In this context, talking about “progress” is, in reality, talk about margins: Washington explores how far it can give in without kyiv perceiving it as a capitulation, while Russia calculates how far it can stretch its demands without completely breaking the diplomatic channel that is useful to buy time and legitimize its narrative. Parallel diplomacy and mixed signals. Witkoff and Kushner’s role adds a ambiguity layer to the process. They are not classic diplomats, but political emissaries who operate in a gray zone between official diplomacy and American domestic politics. His presence in Moscow, after meeting with Ukrainians in Florida and reviewing a 28 point plan which initially tilted the board towards Moscow, sends several signals at once: kyiv is shown that Washington “listens” to its objections and tweaks the document, Moscow is made clear that the White House is willing to continue negotiating concession frameworks, and Europe is reminded that the decisive conversation remains, above all, Washington-Moscow. The Trump statement Calling the war a “mess” that is difficult to resolve fits with that approach: rather than a closed strategy, the administration seems to seek an agreement that reduces the political and economic cost of the war for the United States, although the final balance is very delicate for Ukraine. Europe as a scapegoat. The Putin’s words on Europe reveal a perfectly calculated strategy: presenting European capitals as the real obstacle to peace, accusing them of “being on the side of the war” and of preventing Washington from closing an agreement. By saying that “Europe is preventing the US administration from achieving peace in Ukraine,” the Kremlin is trying several things at the same time: put pressure on the Europeans to lower their demands, feed the fatigue of war in Western societies and drive a wedge between the United States and its allies, suggesting that Washington would be more flexible if it were not bound by “European demands.” The added threat that Russia “does not intend to fight Europe, but is ready if Europe starts” has a double effect: it works as a military warning and, at the same time, as an internal message to reinforce the idea of ​​a besieged Russia that only defends itself. The risk of being isolated. For Ukraine, cross-play is especially dangerous. Zelenskiy insists on receiving security guarantees “livable” for the future, that is, mechanisms that prevent a new Russian attack once an agreement has been signed. HE frontally opposes to any formula that forces him to give up territory that he currently controls or to reduce his army to levels that leave him defenseless. But, at the same time, it knows that a part of the European capitals and the American political class are seeking, with increasing urgency, an outcome that freezes the war and stabilizes the front, even if that enshrines a status quo very unfavorable for Ukraine. Its margin consists of supporting in the European bloc tougher (those countries that see a bad agreement as a disastrous precedent for continental security) and to remember that any credible reconstruction involves using frozen russian assets and for a framework of Western guarantees that makes another Kremlin attack politically unaffordable. Putin’s calculation of strength. The threats “cutting off Ukraine from the sea completely” and intensifying attacks on ports and ships entering them fit into a broader strategy: combine slow but steady advances in the Donbas with the ability to strangle the Ukrainian economy and make the protection of its maritime corridors more expensive. Each city taken or partially controlled serves the Kremlin as proof that time is in its favor and that it can rise the price of peace at each plan review. Editorials from related media, as Komsomolskaya Pravdareinforce this idea by presenting the negotiations as a scenario in which Russia can afford to tighten its conditions as “more and more Ukrainian territory” passes into its hands. The implicit message is clear: if the current proposals already seem harsh, the next round could be worse for kyiv if the war continues. Uncertainty. The final result is a peace process that formally remains open, but that moves on a dangerous … Read more

A 28-page US document has brought peace in Ukraine closer than ever. The problem is that it is the translation of a Russian text

by

And suddenly a 28 page document unpublished to date has suddenly entered as a missile in the negotiations of the war in Ukraine. Promoted by Washington, it has unleashed a diplomatic storm in Europe and in kyiv because, far from having been prepared with the main parties involved, it had been conceived in discreet negotiations between the American businessman Steve Witkoff and the Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev, with the participation of Jared Kushner and the late endorsement of Trump. The origin of a plan. The result of these meetings was a text that Europe and Ukraine had not seen and that, to further alarm (according to one Bloomberg exclusive), preserved the linguistic structures typical of an original written in Russian, confirming the suspicions that Moscow had achieved filter your vision of the war in a document presented as a US initiative. The pressure exerted by Dan Driscoll (a close ally of JD Vance) on European and Ukrainian diplomats, urging them to accept territorial concessions in a matter of days, ended up setting off all the alarm signals. For European governments, which considered themselves central partners in any peace negotiations, the origin of the plan became a strategic question: they needed to know who had written it and with what objectives before sitting down to discuss. This information gap triggered a race against time to stop the imposition of a text that, in its initial form, was not only surprising for its demands, but also for its obvious alignment with Moscow’s interests. Territory, legitimization and a threat. The most explosive section of the American plan required that Ukraine will withdraw of the fortified urban centers that it still maintains in Donetsk, breaking the “belt of fortresses” that has slowed the Russian advance since 2014. This withdrawal would not only imply the displacement of tens of thousands of Ukrainian citizens, but it would open a corridor that would leave exposed to key cities like Dnipro and Zaporizhzhia. To make matters worse, the document proposed that the occupied areas be recognized as “de facto Russian”a more favorable formula for Moscow than the already problematic “de facto under Russian control”, and which, in practice, brought the international community closer to accept territorial changes achieved by force. Added to this was the idea of ​​converting the evacuated territories into a demilitarized zone whose violation by Russia (not an implausible scenario given recent history) would allow Moscow to open a new, even deeper offensive in the future. From the Ukrainian perspective, accepting this point would be sowing the conditions for a future war in worse terms, reinforcing the impression that the document did not seek a stable peace, but rather formalized a strategic result that Russia has not been able to obtain through military operations. Security cut and promises broken. The security guarantees included in the plan were vague to the point of irrelevance: they promised “reliable protection” without detailing mechanisms, but simultaneously prohibited Ukraine from entering never in NATOprevented the stationing of allied troops in its territory and forced kyiv to modify its Constitution to renounce accession. For a country marked by the experience of Budapest Memorandum (formal guarantees that prevented neither the annexation of Crimea nor the 2022 invasion), accepting an even more ambiguous framework would amount to to be left helpless facing an aggressor who has systematically broken all previous agreements. Red lines. The absence of a commitment type Article 5 and the refusal to allow training missions or deterrence forces on Ukrainian territory reinforced the conviction that Ukraine would be trapped between a strengthened Russia and a West that would reserve the right to “diplomatically support,” but not to intervene. This component fueled rejection in European capitals, which consider it essential that Ukraine keep an army strong as a land barrier that protects the continent. Limit to 600,000 troops to the only country in Europe at war, without imposing a similar restriction on Russia, was perceived as covert disarmament and a prelude to a future Russian offensive. Amnesty and frozen assets. One of the most shocking elements of the plan was the proposal of a general amnesty and Ukraine’s renunciation of any legal claim about war crimes, deportations or deliberate destruction of infrastructure. For an exposed population to documented atrocitiesthis clause meant not only the denial of justice, but also the elimination of the legal basis that allows Europe to advance the reparations loan backed by frozen Russian assets. That loan, of 140,000 million of euros, is considered by the EU as the more solid path and less expensive to sustain Ukraine during the postwar period. The US plan not only made it unviable, but also redistributed those funds in an unusual way: 100 billion would go to a US investment vehicle that would deliver half of its profits to Washington, another 100 billion would be contributed by Europe and the rest would go to a joint fund with Russia. For Berlin, Paris or Warsaw, the message was clear: Russia would obtain indirect financial relief while the Europeans would see their most effective tool of strategic pressure weakened. The attempt to force kyiv to renounce all moral and legal responsibility for the aggressor reinforced the perception that the plan sought to resolve the war “quickly,” not “fairly.” The Russian strategy. Since the beginning of the invasion, Moscow has not changed their fundamental demands: more territory in the east, military neutralization of Ukraine and permanent veto on its accession to NATO. This strategic immobility, together with gradual advances on the front, has allowed it to capitalize on Western fatigue, the political fractures in kyiv and transatlantic tensions. For the Kremlin, the leaked plan demonstrates that its commitment to prolonged resistance, military pressure and the erosion of Western will is bearing fruit. Putin openly celebrated it, affirming that the document could serve as a basis and that rejecting it would only lead to new Ukrainian defeats. Likewise, Moscow has hinted that even a signed agreement could be used as leverage to resume the … Read more

a 100 square meter spider web where two enemy species live in peace

by

He fear of spiders is one of the most common phobias. So much so that there are video games that allow you to change the design of spiders for that of other animals and there is even research into how. recreate them in less scary ways. With this I want to tell you that, if they give you the creepswhat they have discovered in a cave between Albania and Greece will be the new scene of your nightmares: the biggest spider web in the world, a megacity that has more than 111,000 spiders. And the most curious thing has nothing to do with the size of the structure. In short. A few days ago, in the magazine Subterranean Biologya team of researchers described their great discovery: in the Sulfur Cave between Albania and Greece, they had found a mega city of spiders. Actually, the initial discovery was made by speleologists from the Czech Speleological Society in 2022, but scientists from Transylvania University were the ones who visited and documented the cave in recent years. What draws the most attention is a nightmare scenario: a ‘silk’ structure that covers about 106 square meters and in which a whopping 111,000 spiders live. It is located about 50 meters from the cave entrance, in a very narrow, permanently dark area, and researchers believe there are thousands of individual funnel-shaped spider webs that have come together to create the structure. The colony. For that reason alone, the find is worth mentioning, but the most interesting thing is not the size, but rather the people responsible. If we were talking about a single species, well, it would be impressive due to its dimensions, but what is relevant here is that there are two species that coexist in the megacity: The curious thing is that both are solitary species and have never before been documented to form colonies. Furthermore, under normal conditions, the domestic tegenaria would hunt the Prinerigone vagansmuch smaller, but the researchers realized that both coexisted peacefully. Paradise. The reason? The total darkness may be inhibiting the spiders’ senses, allowing coexistence, but the toxic sulfuric environment may also be playing a role. What they are clear about is that the ecosystem is perfectly oiled: There is no photosynthesis as there is no light, so the microorganisms that are present are sulfur-oxidizing bacteriaconverting inorganic compounds into organic matter that sticks to the walls. There are chironomid larvae that feed on these biofilms. From the larvae, Tanytarsus albisutus emerge, mosquitoes that do not bite and that form dense swarms in an inland stream and of which there are an estimated 2.4 million individuals. By accident, they fall into the webs of the spider megacity and estimate that each spider touches 200 mosquitoes, so they are well fed, they do not need to hunt or leave the structure and they continue to expand the colony. The two species in love and company Implications. One of the researchers, István Urák, has commented that they often think they completely know a species “to the point that we think we understand everything about it, but even then unexpected discoveries can happen.” And he does not say this because the two species coexist, but because they have carried out DNA analyzes that have revealed that the populations of the Sulfur Cave are genetically different from their conspecifics that inhabit the surface. This means one thing: in the evolutionary line, those on the surface have gone one way and those in the cave have gone another, remaining isolated enough to evolve in another way and adapt specifically to the hostile environment they inhabit. These differences mean that microbial diversity is lower in cave spiders and females produce fewer eggs per sac than those on the surface, possibly because since they do not have predators, they do not have to produce as many offspring. a mine. Urák’s team is working on a follow-up study that may shed more light on these spiders, but in addition to the silk megacity, other teams have documented another thirty species of invertebrates that have adapted to this peculiar environment. Among them, another spider: the Metellina merianae who, unlike the other two, prefers to live in solitude. And, regardless of curiosity and even scientific interest, researchers have stressed the importance of protecting this colony. For this reason, the exact location of the cave has not been shared, but the situation is complex because it is located on the border between Albania and Greece and it remains to be seen which country has the power to protect it. In the end, they have been developed in a very specific way and any external element that is introduced can be a contaminant. Beyond the rejection that spiders produce for many of us, this discovery puts on the table that, even in conditions as hostile as a cave without light, with little oxygen and the presence of toxic gaseslife not only makes its way, but “enemy” species can form enormous communities that live in harmony. For the sake of the Prinerigone vagansmay there never be a lack of mosquitoes… Images | Marek Audy, Subterranean Biology In Xataka | We have genetically edited a spider to produce a fluorescent red web. And the implications are promising.

After imposing a peace agreement in Gaza, the US is heading to Ukraine to do the same. And that has two nuclear problems

by

United States, in omnipresent figure of its president Donald Trump, seems willing to finish once and for all the invasion of Ukraine. It happens that trying to reproduce the same diplomatic “success” that is exhibited after the agreement in Gaza runs into two problems nuclear: on the one hand, the attempt to impose an agreement on Russia calls into question the sovereignty and legitimacy of the process and pushes Moscow to react. On the other hand, perhaps more dangerous, the pressure campaign that is articulated around the threat with long range missiles drastically increases the risk of an escalation that is difficult to control. From ambiguity to challenge. For a long time, Trump’s foreign policy toward Russia and Ukraine moved between deference and confusiona mix of praise for Putin, vague warnings and broken promises to kyiv. But in recent weeks, something has changed. trump has radically changed his speech, going from suggesting that Ukraine should accept territorial losses to presenting himself as the man capable of ending the war. What started as a rhetorical gesture before the UN has become a political process that seeks to consolidate the role of the United States as arbiter of the conflict, with a mix of military pressure, transactional diplomacy and calculated threat. Change and breakup. Trump, who had historically shown a almost personal indulgence towards Putin, surprised his allies and his critics with a speech in which rated Russia “paper tiger” and stated that Ukraine can recover all your territory with the support of Europe and NATO. This change, announced after his meeting with Zelensky and Macron, marks an abandonment of his traditional strategy of avoiding direct confrontations with Moscow. However, behind the turn there does not seem to be an articulated policy yet, but rather a combination of gestures: hints of sanctions, threats of retaliation and an explicit desire to reintroduce the idea of force as an instrument of negotiation. What was once indifference toward kyiv has become an instrumental interest, mixing rivalry with Putin and a desire to demonstrate international leadership. Tomahawks and ultimatums. The most visible symbol of this transformation is the word that has become recurrent in the communications from Washington: Tomahawk. Trump has openly threatened to supply Ukraine with long-range cruise missiles if Putin does not agree to reopen peace negotiations, an ultimatum which has put the Kremlin on alert. Moscow has responded calling the measure a “qualitatively new escalation” and warning that it could not distinguish whether the missiles carry nuclear warheads or not. For Trump, however, the announcement meets a double function: reinforces your image as a negotiator who commands respect and pressures Putin to prevent him from prolonging a war he can no longer win. Zelensky, for his part, sees the possibility of obtaining Tomahawks as not only a military instrument. but psychological: the threat of its use would be enough to push Russia to the negotiation table. The mere fact of discussing its delivery represents a break with the caution of the Biden erain which Washington rejected outright any action that could be considered direct aggression. From Gaza to Ukraine: export a model. The partial success of ceasefire in Gaza has offered Trump a narrative of diplomatic victory that he is now trying to convey on the European front. After freeing the Israeli hostages and achieving a temporary cessation of hostilities, the American president declared that his next objective was to “focus on Russia” and end the war in Ukraine. What is apparently a humanitarian movement also responds to a repositioning strategy global: demonstrate that Washington can impose order in both the Middle East and Europe without needing to deploy large military contingents. Trump has presented this new stage under a classic concept that has republished with pragmatism: “peace through strength.” It is the same logic that he seeks to apply with Putin (that is, not from conciliation, but from a credible threat). Ukraine, which for months feigned faith in some sterile negotiations to ingratiate himself with the White House, now perceives a window of opportunity: to replace the dialogue tables with the delivery of advanced weapons that change the balance of the battlefield. A military agreement. The visit of a Ukrainian delegation to Washington, led by Prime Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko, has sealed the new phase. The negotiators arrived with a list of valued acquisitions in 90,000 million of dollars, including Patriot anti-aircraft systemslong-range missiles and drone co-production agreements. Zelensky has learned to speak Trump’s language: that of transactions. It is no longer about asking for help out of solidarity, but rather offer “mega deals” that benefit both parties, presenting Ukraine as a profitable partner for the US military industry. The White House, in turn, has implicitly accepted that the talks with Moscow they are sold outand that only a substantial increase in military pressure will be able to force Putin to negotiate from weakness. The new strategic calculation. If you like, the Kremlin also crosses a point operational fatigue. Its territorial advances have become more marginal, and Zelensky himself has taken it upon himself to remember this in Washington with maps and figures: in a thousand days of war, Russia has barely conquered less than one percent of additional Ukrainian territory from 2022. The narrative of inevitable victory fades, and Trump seems to have understood. His speech on networks, in which stated that Ukraine is “in a position to recover his entire country in its original form,” was interpreted as confirmation of that change in perception. In other words: it is no longer about keeping a conflict frozen, but about precipitating its outcome through technological superiority and Russian economic collapse. The paradox. Paradoxically, the trump turn does not imply a return to the liberal idealism that defined US foreign policy for decades, but rather a pragmatism that mixes interests, spectacle and coercion. Washington does not seek to rebuild Ukraine, but rather to close a war that has stopped serving its image of power. From that perspective, the American president does not seem … Read more

that the US bought the “peace” offered to Ukraine

by

The weekend began a “trip” that has ended with The meeting Trump with Zelenski and European leaders and negotiations on the end of the Ukraine War as a backdrop. In the last meeting the feared clash was avoided, but left an uncertain peace process full of traps. While kyiv and his allies were looking for security guarantees clear and stop the idea that giving territory is a previous condition, Moscow has already achieved something that did not imagine even in its best dreams: having a Winning Baraja. The last encounter. This general perception of Victoria in Moscow is given by several factors, but mainly thanks to awkwardness of the envoy Steve Witkoff and the Trump’s complacency that Russia’s territorial demands are assumed as a starting point. Putin insists that Ukraine abandons what he still controls in Donetsk and Lugansk, a assignment Impossible for Zelenski without incurring a political and military suicide, but whose negative could be presented as an obstacle to peace. Europe has preferred to focus its efforts In vague promises Of “ITA -style 5” protection, lacking precision and effective military commitments, while Trump offers only indirect “help and coordination”. Alaska’s failure. The key to all the negotiation until now was given the weekend. The summit held in Anchorage between Trump and Putin resulted in A diplomatic fiasco that the American strategy towards war in Ukraine was questioned. Trump sought to start the immediate fire, but Putin He denied yieldreaffirming some objectives that are equivalent, in practice, to the Ukrainian capitulation. In exchange for the treatment of a guest of honor and the symbolic rehabilitation of a leader under constant scrutiny in the West, the US president barely obtained empty compliments. Far from pressing, he resigned to threatening severe consequences and did not even mention the possibility of an encounter Three bands with Zelenski, which showed a position of weakness and a worrying alignment with the Russian narrative. Putin is imposed. During the joint press conference, Putin insisted that to achieve a sustainable solution They had to attend The “deep causes” of the conflict, euphemism that in its lexicon implies reverse the expansion of NATO since 1997, to ensure that Ukraine never one ever joins the Atlantic Alliance, reduce the size of kyiv’s armed forces and consolidate the loss of occupied territories. In other words, a redesign of European security architecture under parameters dictated by Moscow. Trump, far from rejecting these claims, implied that he was willing to discuss themalso transferring the burden of reaching an agreement to Ukraine and its European allies. The 2018 meeting Custom negotiation. Trump He assumed the thesis Putin to move towards a global agreement instead of a high provisional fire, an option that kyiv shared before but today, with advances in the front, favors Moscow only, allowing him to delay conversations and consolidate occupations. The Russian territorial demands, which include forcing Ukraine to resign the Donetsk room and Lugansk still under their control, constitute A red line For kyiv and Europe. Trump, however, declared have coincided With Putin “in most points”, which suggests a dangerous willingness to validate a kind of territorial amputation that would militarily weaken to Ukraine, destabilize its internal policy and open the door to new Russian aggressions. The enigma USA. Remembered the Financial Times that this turn raises Two readings disturbing: either Trump sympathizes in the background with the logic of brute force that legitimizes territorial annexation, or is easily molded by his last interlocutor, without his own coherent strategy. If the first case, Ukraine and Europe would face an insurmountable obstacle. In the second, they could still try to reorient their position in future meetings. In any case, the diplomatic success that Europeans thought they had assured the week before the meeting has been demonstrated illusory and passenger. Repetition of patterns. I remembered The New York Times that Anchorage’s scene evoked strongly Helsinki meeting In 2018, when Trump trusted Putin’s word more than in American intelligence services themselves. Again, the personal closeness with the Russian president resulted in strategic concessions. For many observers, the summit recalled the echoes of the Munich agreement From 1938, when Neville Chamberlain gave part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in a vain attempt to appease. Figures Like Boris Johnson They did not hesitate to qualify the episode of “vomitive” and one of the worst moments of modern international diplomacy. Horizon of uncertainty. Although Trump spoke of “agreements” and Putin alluded to a mysterious “understanding” achieved in Alaska, There are no signs that the Kremlin is willing to give up its most extreme demands. The apparent euphoria of the US delegation contrasts with The harsh reality: There is no fire, there are no additional sanctions and there is no term that limits the Russian offensive. Thus, the war, far from approaching its end, It extends With a new ingredient of concern: the disposition of the US president to legitimize Moscow’s demands on behalf of a peace That, if materializing in current terms, it would have more capitulation than lasting solution. Image | Сергей бобыёвKremlin.ru In Xataka | Russia has up to four unpublished robots in a war. We hadn’t seen Ukraine’s response: Flamingo In Xataka | Ukraine has opened Russia’s last drone and does not leave his astonishment: it is the first time that China does something like that

After 80 years of peace, the European Union has a future plan for the continent: a new era of the "rearmament"

by

Europe lives a convulsive geopolitical situation. For various factors, but aggravated after Ukraine invasion by Russia. There are too many open challenges: economic pressures, commercial and technological confrontation due to the Commercial War with China (who has caught electric car already ASML in between), disunity between member states and the growing tensions with the United States. All this has been intensified in recent weeks and the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is clear about the way: rearm Europe. To a scrambled river … For his second term as president of the United States, Donald Trump has arrived with everything. In issues related to Europe, the billionaire has ruled on Tariffs to European productsbut has also shown interest in get with Greenland already Ukraine War. That idea of ​​getting with Greenland caused a Danish response movement so that The country will buy California On the other hand, the intention to achieve peace in Ukraine is not an altruistic movement. An objective is to stop investing in security in foreign countries. Another, power Control rare earth deposits. The reports of your presence in Ukrainian soil They seem to be outdatedbut that does not stop the ambitions of a Trump that starred last weekend A curious act with Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelenski. In Xataka The size of the armies of the main powers, summarized in this interesting graphic The gresca. On February 28 we witnessed an unusual event: a encounter between Zelenski, Trump and JD Vance, vice president of the United States. If something was clear after the heated debate Television in Prime Time is that both leaders have a total lack of tune (before it already declared that it was difficult to reach an agreement with Zelenski and Lo Lo called “dictator”). But perhaps it is more than a lack of understanding among the leaders of two countries. You cannot count on the US. The reason is that, after the event, Europe has closed rows Around Ukraine. Different European leaders have shown support to the Ukrainian leader, with quick responses such as Pedro Sánchez and Feijóo supporting the European country. The American response has not taken long to arrive. A few hours ago, Donald Trump ordered paralyze military aid to Ukraine as a punishment for Friday’s encounter. “Rearm Europe“. The anger among the leaders, who looked like an enclosure in the White House, promoted a feeling in networks among European users: you cannot count on the United States, and Europe has to act to deal with external threats. And it is not a popular runrún, but something that, from the European Commission itself, has just supported. President Ursula von der Leyen has signed a release urging member states to join the European Rearme Plan: Rearm Europe. In it, it begins by expressing two important issues: that Europe is threatened in a “real and tangible” and that it must “assume a greater responsibility for its own security.” The Ukraine War is that of drones … and robots Beyond Ukraine. After different meetings in recent weeks, the community has concluded that “massively increase defense spending”. The president refers to the situation in Ukraine and states that this measure must be taken with “immediate urgency” to support the European country, but must also be addressed to fulfill a “long -term need to assume much greater responsibility for our own security.” The plan. Thus, he has sent a letter to European leaders to raise this issue before the European Council to be held this Thursday. In it, and at the meeting, the option of using “all financial mechanisms will be discussed at reach to help member states quickly and significantly increase their expenses in defense capacities.” The intention of Von der Leyen is that it is immediate and urgent, but that it is formalized throughout this decade. In Xataka Ukraine has registered the first combined offensive of history without humans: drones and robots against Russian troops Show me the money. Of course, this type of movements require considerable investment. United States, without going any further, will invest 850,000 million dollars in defense -40% of global military spending. The way Europe would have to catch up, according to the president, is: Release the use of public funds in defense nationwide, allowing member states to have fiscal margin to be able to invest without activating the excessive deficit procedure. According to the statement, if the states increased their defense expenditure by 1.5% of the average GDP, a fiscal margin of almost 650,000 million euros would be generated in four years. Activate an instrument that provides loans of up to 150,000 million euros to invest in defense. Under the mantra “spend better and spend together”, von der Leyen clarifies that investment in air defense, antimiles, artillery systems, missiles, ammunition, cybersecurity, military mobility and something that the war of Ukraine has brought to the table should be reinforced: the war with drones and the defense against those drones. Redirect funds to investments related to incentive defense for Member States to decide, if they wish, use cohesion policy programs to increase defense spending. Finally, the option of obtaining funds through the European Investment Bank, but also with measures to mobilize private capital. {“Videid”: “X8WLH9Q”, “Autoplay”: False, “Title”: “United States vs. China: The chips war”, “Tag”: “Webedia-prod”, “Duration”: “1611”} NATO message. Among all the noise generated these days, it has survived the idea that United States abandons the United Nations Organization. The North American country is one of those who best fulfill their obligations In this sense and, recently, voices that cry out that the country should leave NATO have been raised. Elon Musk, part of Trump’s government, been One of them. The agreements stipulate that, if someone attacks an NATO country, the rest must immediately mobilize, but the latest movements of the United States and comments such as that of which They will not be foreverThey don’t help. In the statement, von der Leyen comments that the plan Rearm Europe “It could mobilize about 800,000 million … Read more

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.