unprecedented

The California peach industry has suffered an unprecedented collapse. But it will be repeated, it will be repeated a lot, it will be repeated all over the world

by

Richard Lial He lived peacefully in his little house in Escalonnorthern California. He had acres and acres of productive almond trees that he had been exploiting for the last decade. But three years ago, just when costs began to become unsustainable, Del Monte (one of the largest fruit and vegetable companies in the world) made him an offer. A 20-year contract for Lial to exchange its almond trees for the peaches that the company’s large cannery in Modesto needed. Del Monte’s move put on the table some 550 million over the next few years and a business of tens of thousands of tons per season. The problem is that on July 1, 2025, Del Monte Food Corp declared bankruptcythe Modesto plant has closed and, with it, the entire Californian peach industry has collapsed. What exactly happened? Del Monte accumulated a debt of 1,245 million dollars on the day they filed the bankruptcy petition. And the reason is simple: in recent years, the company had been going into debt to make certain purchases in a sector that was in full decline. Today, the world consumes less canned goods and Del Monte executives believed that the only way to survive was to grow and ensure margins. The problem is that, with the rate increase in the months prior to the bankruptcy declaration, interest had doubled to the point of eating into the operating margin (a margin already quite affected by things like Trump’s tariffs that had made cans more expensive). The chaos has lasted for many months, but on February 6 the courts approved the sale of the company in parts. Peach growers breathed easy until they discovered that none of the buyers wanted the plant of Modesto. And why is that plant so important? Well, because Del Monte did not ask farmers to plant the peach they wanted. They were asked to plant the clingstone variety: a peach that simply has no fresh market. The pulp of the clingstone adheres to the bone and makes direct consumption uncomfortable. That is, it is a variety whose only destination is processors. In this case, the Modesto plant consumed 35% of the production of this stone fruit, about 50,000 tons in 2026. They are, to be honest, 50,000 tons that are now almost impossible to place anywhere. But the problem transcends 2026… Because the contracts that Del Monte I was signing Until a few months before the bankruptcy, they forced farmers to make investments of around $8,000 per acre in exchange for the peace of mind that comes with a 20-year contract. They went into debt for it. Many made the transition in 2023. So there are about 140 Californian farmers fgame era and some 1,200 jobs will be lost. But the impact is deeper. And it is not that talking about ‘sector cataclysm’ is not justified, it is that the central issue is the structural dependency that the dynamics of the primary sector are pushing the economy towards. …and that transcends even the peach. Because it doesn’t matter what product we look at: the consequences of financialization are there. It is enough to remember that in 2015 there were only 45 funds specialized in ‘agrobusiness’ in the world; Today they exceed 1,000 and move an enormous amount of money that is radically changed the way everything is managed. The rresult is as simple as it is tragic: Capital arrives, exploits the land as if there were no tomorrow, exhausts the territory’s resources, abuses the local socio-productive fabric and leaves. One day we will realize that there will be nothing left. Image | Ayla Meinberg In Xataka | Spain faces its greatest agricultural challenge of the century: converting 1,901,529 hectares of olive groves into irrigation before it is too late

reverse engineering with an unprecedented weapon

by

In wars, innovation is rarely born in a vacuum: it has often emerged from carefully observing the adversary. Throughout history, some of the most profound military transformations came not with entirely new weapons, but with the reinterpretation of existing technologies that changed hands. Now, in the 21st century, when the AIthe unmanned systems and the industrial production accelerated speed sets the pace of the combat, that old dynamic has once again taken center stage in a way that is as unexpected as it is revealing. The debut of American kamikaze drones. Yes, the United States attacked Iranian territory within the framework of Operation Epic Fury together with Israel, but what was truly unprecedented was not the magnitude of the air offensive or the coordination between both countries, something that we saw very few months ago in the same scenario, but the debut in combat of the LUCASthat is, the long-range kamikaze drones used for the first time by US forces. Launched from the ground by Task Force Scorpion Strikecreated specifically to introduce this type of capabilities in the region, the LUCAS acted as loitering munitions capable of flying long distances, staying in the zone and launching against their target in a single use. Their low cost, around tens of thousands of dollars per unit, contrasts with the price and production complexity of traditional cruise missiles, which allows them to be used in sufficient number to saturate defenses, coordinate network attacks, and maintain human oversight while operating with partial autonomy. For the first time, Washington was not only talking about cheap drones as a complement, but was actively integrating them into a real campaign against a sovereign state. The weapon returned to its creator. The strategic key to the attack lies not only in the technology, but in its origin. It we count some time ago. He LUCAS design part directly of the Iranian Shahed-136the same model that Tehran has employed for years in the Middle East and that Russia has used brutally in Ukraine. After obtaining a copy, the device was analyzed and reengineered by American companies, adapting it to their own standards and a more networked architecture. In essence, Washington used one of the oldest practices of warfare to bomb Iran: reverse engineering. It was not just about copying a platform, but about appropriate your logic operational (cheap weapon, long distance, volume versus exclusive precision) and turn it back against whoever popularized it. The result is a investment symbolic and even doctrinal: The country that had perfected the use of low-cost drone swarms became the target of its own reinterpreted strategic model. Tactical surprise and demolition. If we expand the frame of the photo, the use of drones was integrated into a much broader offensive based on precise intelligence and extreme timing. He told in a report the new york times that the CIA and the Israeli services managed to identify a meeting from top Iranian commanders in Tehran, including the supreme leader, which allowed the timing of the attack to be adjusted to maximize the initial impact. The combined operation drones, cruise missiles, long-range artillery and a massive aerial surge that sought to neutralize anti-aircraft defenses and dismantle the chain of command from the first strike. The result was the removal of key figures of the Iranian political-military apparatus and obtaining air superiority in a matter of hours. In this context, the LUCAS did not act in isolation, but as part of a distributed attack architecture that combined saturation, precision and speed to prevent an immediate coordinated response. Cheap drones vs millions. The use of LUCAS also showed a deeper trend that the war in Ukraine has pontificated: the growing vulnerability of advanced air defense systems to cheap and numerous platforms. Iran had demonstrated that even the most sophisticated defensive architectures can be overwhelmed by waves of relatively simple drones. The United States now applied that same logic, exploiting the cost-effect relationship to impose pressure and force the adversary to spend much more expensive resources on interceptors. If you will, the long-range kamikaze drone stops being a weapon of peripheral actors and becomes a fully integrated tool in the arsenal of a superpower, altering the traditional equation between cutting-edge technology and volume of fire. From Rome to the missile age. The reverse engineering employed by Washington is not a modern anomaly, but rather a historical constant. In ancient times, Rome copied Carthaginian vessels to build your fleet. In the Middle AgesThey used siege machines captured, and already in World War II, rocket and bomber programs were fed by enemy technology and scientists. One of the most famous cases was that of German V-2 ballistic missile developed by Nazi Germany at the end of World War II. Both the United States and the Soviet Union captured rockets, plans, and scientists. Washington joined Wernher von Braun in its space program, while Moscow did the same with its own equipment. That reverse engineering was the direct basis of the missile programs and, later, the space race. And during the Cold War. Also, because both missiles and guidance systems changed hands to be disassembled and reproduced. One of the most famous cases was that of the strategic bomber B-29 Superfortress. When several American B-29s made forced landings on Soviet territory, the USSR dismantled them piece by piece and produced an almost exact copy: the Tupolev Tu-4. It was, once again, an extreme exercise in industrial reverse engineering, to the point of replicating even defects in the original design. The pattern, as we see, repeats itself: capture, study, adapt and improve. What changes is the speed and technical complexity. In the case of the LUCASthat cycle closed in the 21st century with remarkable speed, also integrating autonomous coordination and network warfare capabilities that multiply its impact. The practice is ancient, but its execution is contemporary. A new stage. He attack on Iran marks a turning point because it includes for the first time the United States as an active user of long-range … Read more

RAM is in an “unprecedented” crisis. So much so that even Tesla is considering opening its own memory factory

by

Neither technological advances nor a revolution in devices: crises are what is defining the last years of the sector. He veto Huaweithe semiconductor crisis of 2020 and now, the RAM memory crisis. The difference between this crisis and the previous one is that, although the 2020 crisis was caused by a perfect storm, the RAM memory crisis is being caused by excessive interest in data centers and AI. And it is taking all sectors ahead. That there is no RAM memory for consumers is a symptom, but it implies something much bigger: although the main producers are investing millions to increase your RAM productionit is not memory for consumption, but for GPUs and data center systems. Only a few companies dominate the production of these chips, and if they cannot produce them, they do not produce the memory chips for SSDs –raising the price-. They dedicate all production to meeting the demands of AI. And, as we read in FortuneElon Musk, one of the owners of some of the largest data centers on the planethas shown that there are two ways to face this crisis: hitting the wall or taking action. And the translation is that Tesla is considering building its own RAM factory. The problem is that it is easier said than done. Tesla and Intel interested in biting the RAM biggies In recent weeks, some of the world’s leading companies have presented results and RAM has been the central topic. PlayStation, for example, has assured that they are very aware of their ability to continue manufacturing PS5 with the goal of not going upagain, the price. And NVIDIA has been stating for days that it needs TSMC – its main chip supplier – and Samsung – who provides them with new generation HBM4 memory – get the batteries. Meanwhile, the outlook is not good. own NVIDIA aims for seven or eight years of construction no brake on data centers. Intel assures that The crisis will extend beyond 2028 and Micron, one of the big three in DRAM memory, has cataloged the market bottleneck as “unprecedented.” In this technological tsunami, and during Tesla’s results presentation at the end of January, Elon Musk pointed out that the company could need to build your own memory manufacturing plant. The objective is the one that all companies have: ensure supply. Going from scratch to manufacturing RAM memory is easier said than done, however, here Tesla has an advantage: they are not new to chip manufacturing. Although they abandoned the project for a few months, at the beginning of this year Musk himself stated that They came back with their own chip for your data centers. Additionally, there is the fact that they are a company with enough muscle to create a clean chip manufacturing room next to some of its existing plants. Intel is another one looking to become one of the important voices in the RAM conversation. Together with the Japanese giant SoftBank, they are developing an evolution of stacked DRAM memory that have been baptized as ‘ZAM’ and that seeks to break the HBM memory monopoly of Samsung, Micron and SK Hynix. Now, things in the palace are going slowly, and if Intel (which is already in it) It will take between three and four years to have commercial productsTesla’s ambition may go into the next decade. Let’s hope we don’t continue in this crisis by then, but if more “players” are interested in producing RAM, it would mean that, in the event of subsequent crises, there will not be a few that dominate the sector, producing a bottleneck like the one we are experiencing. Domino effect of the AMR crisis and China taking action Because this is not just about RAM being more expensive for users: it goes much further. If companies do not have the capacity to satisfy the demand for AI, they pour all their manufacturing muscle into a single task, neglecting the others. This explains the rise in the price of SSDs, but also of other products that should not have a leading role in this conversation: hard drives or HDDs. It is a brutal domino effect because, as we say, it goes beyond the modules being more expensive: RAM is more expensive for companies and that implies mobile phones or more expensive or with less RAMconsoles that increase in price (like what is happening posing for nintendo switch 2), machines that are late and they will be more expensive (like the Steam Machine), car problems and even impacting the routers. And in this scenario, in which companies like Intel or Tesla are considering taking a bite out of the RAM sector, we have some Chinese companies that had no role in the conversation. positioning itself as an option to alleviate demand. We told it a few days ago: there were reports indicating that PC brands such as Asus, Dell or HP were considering purchasing memory from Chinese manufacturers such as CXMT. Their modules are not as advanced as those of Samsung, for example, and they do not have the production capacity of South Korean companies, but… they produce. And in lean times, that’s better than selling laptops without RAM. Anyway, as we have said on occasion, there are still more companies joining the production of RAM when the crisis has already had a full impact, but the goal is not to create more RAM for ourselvesbut for your data centers. It’s time to entrust ourselves to the most sacred thing: that our PC doesn’t break and we need to update. Images | Gage Skidmore, Intel In Xataka | The US has a problem with its AI data centers: more and more states are opposed to building them

Argentina has achieved something unprecedented since 1974: reforming its labor market

by

After a session of more than 13 hours, the senators of Argentina they have given the go-ahead to the processing of the labor reform proposed by the government of Javier Milei. The call Labor Modernization Law It is Milei’s first major legislative victory in 2026 and rewrites pillars of the current labor system in force since the 1970s. In parallel, the union centers prepare new strikes and judicial actions to try to stop a rule that, in their opinion, makes dismissal cheaper, lengthens the working day and empties the right to strike of any content, while the Executive insists that without this type of reforms Argentina will remain trapped in a rigid labor marketwith a lot of underground economy and little investment. The Senate approves it, the street does not. The project of labor reform in Argentina has overcome its main obstacle by obtaining the necessary majority in the Senate, after more than 13 hours of session that ended with 42 votes in favor and 30 against, with no abstentions. The measure was approved while on the street Tear gas and police charges quelled the discontent of workers and union organizations. The balance of these protests is at least 15 injured and several dozen protesters detained. With the approval of the Senate, the Government is already maneuvering so that the labor regulations pass without major changes their approval by the Deputies, which is considered a mere procedure with supports already closed. Cheaper layoffs. The economic heart of the reform is in the calculation of severance pay. The law modifies what parameters are taken into account to calculate the settlement after dismissal. The bonus is left out of the compensation calculation (Supplementary Annual Salary), vacations and non-monthly bonuses, concepts that today many judges do take into account when calculating compensation. The practical result is that, in the event of an unfair dismissal, the worker will receive compensation lower than with the current scheme, although the norm incorporates a minimum limit of 67% of the usual salary. In addition, large companies can divide the payment of compensation to dismissed employees into up to six monthly installments, and up to 12 installments for SMEs. A common fund for compensation. To cushion the impact of compensation on companies, the new regulations contemplate the creation of the Labor Assistance Fund (FAL), a kind of common “piggy bank” for companies that is filled with mandatory monthly contributions. Large companies will contribute 1% monthly and SMEs 2.5% on the same basis that is used today for Social Security contributions. Therefore, Social Security will no longer have these resources and they will be administered under state supervision. When a worker is fired, a good part of the compensation that corresponds It will not be assumed by the company, but will come largely from that fund. Day up to 12 hours and bank of hours. The reform does not increase the working hours, which continue to be a maximum of 48 hours per week, but it does change how they are distributed. The key is in the “hour bank”. Company and worker may agree that, instead of paying for all hours worked beyond the eight hours per day established by law, they are counted as overtime hours and are later compensated with days off or reductions in working hours. This measure opens the door to some days that the day can be extended up to 12 hours, as long as it is then balanced within the agreed period. For the Executive, this new model gives flexibility to sectors with peaks of activity. For the unions, it gives rise to the continuation of the days without the economic bonus that today protects the worker. Unregulated overtime. Another of the changes approved in the new Argentine labor regulations is that compensation for overtime is no longer regulated almost exclusively by collective agreements, and is now negotiated individually between the employee and the company. Added to this is another relevant novelty in terms of salaries: the salary can be paid both in pesos and in foreign currency, or even in kind, food or accommodation. Salary payment must be made through a bank transaction, thus reducing the underground economy that encourages cash payments, and increasing fiscal control. Medical leave and vacations. Medical leaves due to illness or accidents other than work are limited in some cases. If the cause of the decline is considered a voluntary act or a health risk behavior, the employee will receive 50% of the basic salary for three months, as long as he or she does not have dependents, or six months if he or she does. In other cases, the percentage may reach up to 75% of the salary. The company also gains weight in the medical and control boards, which the unions interpret as a lack of protection for sick workers. Vacations also change logic. The new law allows vacation days to be divided into blocks of no less than seven consecutive days, which may be rotated throughout the year. In this way, it is no longer guaranteed to have all the summer vacationand it is only ensured that the worker will have at least a few days of vacation in the summer coinciding with school vacations once every three years. In practice, companies gain margin to organize the vacation calendar according to productive needs and distribute staff in different batches during the year without the employee having the power to decide on it. Limits on the right to strike. One of the most sensitive points for the labor movement are the restrictions on the right to strike and union organization. The reform significantly expands the list of “essential services“in which, even during a legal strike, at least 75% of the activity must be maintained. For the worker, this means that many stoppages will result in almost normal services and that the pressure capacity of the strikes is significantly reduced. Union meetings during working hours will require prior authorization from the companies and will not … Read more

Spain has just surprised Europe and the US with an unprecedented operation. It is not a simple rearmament, it is a historic naval coup

by

For years, the European rearmament it was more conversation than facts and Spain always appeared in the list of the lagging countries. Now after constant pressure from the United States and the climate of insecurity In Europe, the country has taken an unexpected turn with an unprecedented naval investment that has surprised even its allies. A leap that has not been seen in decades. Spain has activated one of the largest renewal processes of its Navy since the end of the Cold War, an investment of 5.5 billion euros for a plan that combines the incorporation of 37 new warships and four submarines of new generation with the deep modernization of units already in service. This is not a routine replacement, but rather a complete reconfiguration of naval capabilities for a more demanding strategic environment, where sea control, deterrence and the protection of sea routes have returned to the center of the security agenda. The submarine axis and a program. The technological heart of the plan is formed by the four S-80 submarines, developed by Navantiadesigned to return to the Spanish fleet an advanced submarine capacity in stealth, autonomy and combat. With air-independent propulsion, state-of-the-art sensors and an architecture designed for surveillance, intelligence and anti-submarine warfare missions, these units represent a qualitative leap which places the Spanish Navy at an operational level comparable to that of the large European navies, with a delivery schedule that extends until 2030. Submarine S-8 Frigates, ships and balance. The renewal is not limited to the underwater field. The program includes five F-110 frigates multi-mission design, designed to operate in high intensity scenarios, together with the modernization of the F-100 frigates to extend its useful life for two more decades. Added to this are new action ships maritime with anti-submarine capabilities, which seeks to maintain a balance between new generation platforms and proven units, avoiding an operational vacuum during the transition. F-110 Frigate Logistics as a multiplier. A key part of the effort is focused on logistical and technological support. The construction of a new Supply Ship of Combat, the update of minehunters, the incorporation of hydrographic vessels and a specific platform electronic warfare They reflect a broader vision of naval power, where sustaining prolonged operations, gathering information, and dominating the electromagnetic spectrum is as important as direct combat. Geopolitics and deterrence. There is no doubt, this rearmament responds to an international context more unstablemarked due to open conflicts in Europe, tensions in the Mediterranean and the Sahel and greater competition between powers. For a country with a strategic position between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, strengthening the fleet is not only a matter of prestige, but deterrent credibility and real capacity to protect own and allied interests within the NATO framework. Industry, employment and autonomy. Beyond the military level, the program aims to have a direct impact about the naval industry Spanish. The aim is most likely to consolidate a technological fabric with high added value, in addition to generating qualified employment and reducing external dependencies in critical systems. If you also want, the development of the S-80 and of the new frigates It has also served as a catalyst for innovation in propulsion, sensors and combat systems, with effects that transcend the strictly defensive sphere. Spain on the board. The last reflection that comes out of the historic announcement is clear: with this investment sustained over time, Spain reinforces its role as a relevant actor in the European maritime securitya priori capable of contributing more decisively to international operations and the protection of the main lines of maritime communication. I already we had seen the last months in many other nations. In the case of Spain, it is not, or does not seem to be, a simple update of ships without further ado, but rather the confirmation that naval power is definitely once again a central pillar of defense policy in the 21st century. Image | Navy, A Guy Named NyalNavantia In Xataka | Spain may not have F-35, but it is about to make history by sea: it is called F110 and it is ready for any war In Xataka | The United Kingdom will be only the first client: Spain builds a colossus in Galicia to build warships like churros

Four astronauts are going to undertake an unprecedented journey to the Moon. They have no intention of stepping on it

by

After years of delays and rumors, NASA confirmed it finally: Artemis 2 will take off towards the moon imminently: it will be on February 6 when the team of astronauts formed by Christina Koch, Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover and Jeremy Hansen returns to lunar orbit after almost 60 years. More specifically, it was in ’72 with Apollo 17. There is nothing left in the countdown for a 10-day mission full of doubts and some controversy. The previous steps. On January 17, NASA began the deployment of the enormous SLS rocket (Space Launch System) and the Orion capsule from the vehicle assembly building to launch pad 39B at the Kennedy Space Center in a 6.4 kilometer journey carried out on a gigantic Crawler-Transporter 2 tractor in enormous logistics. Now that you are on the platform, the next step is the “Wet Dress Rehearsal” (something like the general rehearsal) where the cryogenic propellants are loaded to check that there are no leaks and a complete countdown is executed that stops just before ignition to validate the flight software and the synchronization of the ground systems. If all goes well, the launch window opens on the aforementioned February 6. The crew. POT The mission. Artemis II will not land on the Moon, but will instead perform a lunar flyby with the aim of testing the life support systems and manual maneuvering capabilities of the Orion capsule in the deep space radiation environment. In addition, the spacecraft will use lunar gravity to “propel” its return to Earth without major engine ignitions. The parallels with Apollo 8. Analogies with the veteran ’68 mission are inevitable since Artemis II will not land on the moon, but will instead perform a lunar flyby. On that mission, the astronauts were able to see and photograph the far side of the moon and now, the team will travel beyond its far side. Apollo 8 was launched at a time when the program’s lunar module was not yet ready for manned flight and with Artemis II more of the same. Thus, the first planned lunar flight of Artemis is called Starship HLS (Human Landing System), it is being developed by Space However, given the doubts regarding its development schedule, NASA has a plan B: hire another company. Why don’t you go to step on the moon?. In short, because it is not a lunar module and therefore, because it is not prepared for such a purpose. NASA Deputy Director of Mission Analysis and Evaluations Patty Casas Horn deepen: “Throughout NASA’s history, everything we do carries some risk, so we want to make sure that risk is sensible and only accept as much risk as is necessary, within reason. So we develop a capability, then we test it, then we develop a capability, then we test it. And we’ll land on the Moon, but Artemis II is really focused on the crew.” The program’s debut was Artemis I, which on a 25-day uncrewed mission orbited the moon in 2022. Now we are in the next phase: the first time there will be people aboard the Artemis spacecraft. The crew will transfer to the Orion capsule to move around the moon just before the SLS rocket launches Orion into Earth orbit. Horn explains that in this mission “we will test many new capabilities that we did not have available in Artemis I”, for example the comfort of people or collateral effects such as the humidity they add to the air, their needs for food, bathrooms or water. Wet Dress Rehearsal. POT What makes it unique. The crew intends to travel beyond the far side of the Moon, which could open the doors to a new record for the distance that humanity has traveled from Earth, a title that to this day boasts Apollo 13 with 401,000 kilometers. On the other hand, the SLS is the most powerful rocket in operational configuration, surpassing the mythical rocket in thrust. Saturn V of the 60s. Logically, it will also do so with cutting-edge technology, such as autonomous optical navigation systems or the Orion heat shield, redesigned after data from Artemis I, to protect the crew during re-entry at 40,000 km/h. Furthermore, in this mission NASA has remembered diversity to mark a milestone in the form of a trip beyond low Earth orbit for a woman, a Canadian and an African American because yes, there is life beyond the white American male cishetero In Xataka | It is now possible to book a hotel stay on the Moon for $250,000. Building it is still the complicated part In Xataka | We have been deceived by the distances of the Solar System: the closest neighbor to Neptune is Mercury Cover | POT

Europe had few options in the face of the US threat in Greenland. Until Germany has remembered Russia with an unprecedented plan

by

Growing pressure from the United States to take over Greenland has transformed a hitherto latent issue into a problem political and strategic of the first order for Europe and NATO, by explicitly placing for the first time the risk of an internal clash between allies. It was known that there were a couple of options on the table as a defense. Germany has just presented another unprecedented one. An unprecedented crisis. The insistence of the US administration on presenting control of the island as a necessity of national security, accompanied by rhetoric increasingly harderhas forced European partners to react not only in defense of Denmark’s sovereignty and Greenland’s right to self-determination, but also to protect credibility of an alliance designed precisely to prevent force from prevailing among its members. The problem is not only territorial, but systemicbecause it raises the extent to which NATO can manage a crisis caused from within without eroding its own foundations. Germany and the allied response. Faced with the difficulty of directly confronting Washington, Berlin has emerged as the actor in charge of articulating a solution that combines political firmness and strategic containment. Germany has chosen to channel the response through NATO. As? proposing a joint mission in the Arctic that makes it possible to strengthen regional security without turning the conflict into a bilateral battle between the United States and Denmark. The initiative seeks to save time, reduce tensions and offer an institutional alternative that frames American concerns within a collective logic, while sending a clear signal that Greenlandic sovereignty is non-negotiable. This German role reflects a commitment to multilateral management of the conflict and to prevent the crisis from leading to an open fracture within the alliance. From the Baltic to the Arctic. The German proposal takes as a direct reference the operation Baltic Sentrylaunched to protect critical infrastructure in the Baltic Sea from sabotage and covert activities linked to Russia and its ghost fleet. The idea is to replicate this scheme in the Arctic through a hypothetical “Arctic Sentry” missionwhich would include Greenland and allow increased surveillance, naval presence and allied coordination in an increasingly disputed region. This approach has a double function: on the one hand, respond to the security concerns raised by Washington about the Russian and Chinese presence in the Arctic, and on the other, prevent those concerns from being used as a pretext for unilateral action. Turning the Arctic into a space of collective management seeks to deactivate the security vacuum narrative that fuels American aspirations. The shadow of Article 4. Although it has not yet been formally activated, the idea of invoke Article 4 of the NATO treaty, which provides for consultations when an ally perceives a threat to its territorial integrity or security, has gained weight in diplomatic debates. The mere possibility of Denmark resorting to this mechanism reflects the seriousness of the situation and the growing nervousness in European capitals. Invoking Article 4 would not imply an automatic military response, but it would force the alliance to address it head on. an internal crisis that many would prefer to manage in silence. The underlying fear is that, if not managed institutionally, the conflict sets a dangerous precedent that normalize pressure between allies and voids the founding principles of NATO. Diplomacy, deterrence and limits. Beyond the military dimension, the European Union has explored diplomatic and economic options to contain the United States, from the reinforcement of political dialogue to the theoretical threat of instruments commercial pressure. However, Europe’s dependence on the American technology, defense and security umbrella drastically reduces the credibility of these tools. Economic sanctions, although powerful on paper, are perceived as unrealistic in a context marked by the war in Ukraine and the need to keep Washington engaged with European security. This imbalance reinforces the idea that the most viable path is to offer shared security solutions, such as the proposed Arctic mission, rather than a direct confrontation that Europe could hardly sustain. Greenland as autonomy. The economic dimension It adds another layer of complexity to the conflict, as Greenland relies heavily on Danish transfers and warily watches American promises of massive investment. From Brussels we study increase financial support European to prevent the island from being trapped in a relationship of dependency with Washington, especially with the prospect of future independence. This effort not only seeks to counteract American economic influence, but also preserve the social and political model that the Greenlanders might want to keep. In this context, the crisis reveals that the battle for Greenland is not only fought in the military field, but also in that of investment, legitimacy and the projection of soft power. A stress test. Altogether, the American pressure over Greenland has exposed the internal tensions of a NATO designed to deter external threats, not manage territorial ambitions of one of its members. The german initiative of transferring the problem to the field of collective security, inspired by the Baltic model, is an attempt to preserve allied cohesion and avoid an existential crisis. However, the simple fact that mechanisms are being considered like Article 4 It demonstrates the extent to which the alliance faces an unprecedented scenario, one in which unity no longer depends only on stopping external adversaries, but on containing power impulses within its own ranks. Image | Program Executive Office Soldier, pathanMinistry of Defense of the Russian Federation In Xataka | After the Nazi occupation, Denmark signed a pact in 1951. Since then, the US can ask for whatever it wants in Greenland In Xataka | Greenland has become an obsession for the United States for a simple reason: they believe in global warming

The US has just sent an unprecedented package to Taiwan. Inside are the instructions and weapons against an invasion

by

USA has announced one of the largest arms sales deals ever signed with Taiwan, a package valued at more than 11,000 million of dollars that includes medium-range missiles, HIMARS systemsself-propelled howitzers, suicide drones, military software and anti-tank ammunition. The message is loud and clear to reach 130 km away. A package with a copyto. Formally, the operation is presented as an upgrade of the island’s defensive capabilities and as fulfillment of the US legal obligation to help Taiwan defend itself. In practice, however, the agreement is a strategic message in every rule, carefully formulated to strengthen deterrence against China without altering the diplomatic framework of ambiguity that Washington has maintained for decades. The fact that the announcement came during a televised speech by Trump in which foreign policy was barely mentioned underlines the extent to which the gesture was intended more as a structural signal than an immediate rhetorical coup. Missiles, HIMARS and drones. The content of the package is not coincidental. HIMARS systems and ATACMS missiles, already tested on the Ukrainian battlefield, they are designed to hit long-range targets with great precision, greatly complicating any Chinese amphibious or air operation (without rhetoric, against an invasion). to it they add up self-propelled howitzers, Javelin and TOW missiles, and kamikaze drones designed to overwhelm and wear down an adversary superior in numbers. It is a clearly oriented military architecture to asymmetric war: It does not seek that Taiwan can defeat China, but that it can inflict costs so high and so fast that an invasion ceases to be a politically acceptable option in Beijing. Washington and Taipei insist that these are defensive weapons, but the type of capabilities included points to a strategy of denial of territory and airspace in the early stages of a conflict. The strategic ambiguity. The size of the agreement also has an internal reading in the United States. During Trump’s second term, part of the establishment security and the hardest sectors towards China had expressed doubts about their real commitment to the defense of Taiwan, especially in a negotiation context trade with Beijing. A package that exceeds 11,000 million of dollars, greater than the total volume sold during the Biden presidency and equivalent to more than half of what was approved in Trump’s first term, serves to dispel these suspicions. Without explicitly committing direct military intervention, Washington de facto reinforces his support for Taiwan and demonstrates that the so-called “strategic ambiguity” does not equal passivity. The message is twofold: to China, that the cost of coercion will continue to rise; and to US allies, that the US security network remains operational in the Asia-Pacific. The red line narrative. The Chinese reaction has been immediate and predictable. Beijing has condemned the agreement as a violation of its sovereignty and has warned that Taiwan is a “red line” that should not be crossed in Sino-US relations. In its official speech, the Communist Party insists that rearmament of the island only turns it into a powder keg and accelerates the risk of war. However, the intensity of the response also reflects an uncomfortable reality for China: each new weapons package raises the military and political threshold for any pressure action. While the People’s Liberation Army increases daily with flights, naval maneuvers and large-scale exercises, the United States reply silently strengthening Taiwan’s capacity for resistance, without the need to modify treaties or formally recognize its sovereignty. Taiwan and the internal cost. For Taipei, the agreement comes at a politically complex time. President Lai Ching-te has proposed a historic special budget of 40,000 million dollars for defense, which includes air defense systems like the T-Dome and a wide range of long-range capabilities, but faces resistance from an opposition that controls parliament and questions both the cost and effectiveness of previous purchases. Even so, there is a growing consensus on the island about the need to increase military spending to at least 5% of GDP in 2030, in line with Washington’s implicit demands. American protection is not free: it comes accompanied by political pressure, budgetary sacrifices and a profound transformation of the Taiwanese defensive structure. Ukraine as a precedent. The parallel with Ukraine is inevitable. The same systems as the United States has sent to kyiv to stop Russia now appear in the package destined for Taiwan. In both cases, the strategy is similar: do not intervene directly, but arm a partner until it becomes a credible military barrier against a revisionist power. In Europe, this model is applied in open war. In Asia, as prevention. The result is an increasingly clear pattern in Western security policy: finance and equip allies key to acting as the first line of deterrence, reducing the need for direct confrontation between great powers. The final message. He arms deal with Taiwan does not guarantee peace in the Strait, but it redefines its balance. The United States does not promise to defend Taiwan no matter what, but it does ensure that any attempt to force reunification will be expensive, lengthy and politically explosive. Taiwan, for its part, accept the role of an advanced bastion, assuming the economic cost and strategic risk that this implies. And China is getting a clear, if carefully worded, message: Washington is not seeking war, but neither will it allow the status quo to be broken without consequences. Like in Ukrainedeterrence is not articulated with grandiloquent words, but with missiles, rockets and drones. And on the global board, that language remains the most eloquent. Image | 中文（臺灣）：​中華民國總統府, NARA, 總統府 In Xataka | China does not need bombs or missiles to impose its law. It is called “panda diplomacy” and it has just been applied to Japan In Xataka | China is sending drones to an island 100 km from Taiwan. The problem is that Japan and the US are filling it with missiles

In Ukraine, the difficult thing is not to replace a drone, but its pilot. So Russia has started the hunt with something unprecedented: Rubikon

by

For two years, Ukrainian drone operators had managed to maintain a decisive tactical advantage: the ability to detect, harass and destroy Russian positions with an agility that Moscow could not match. Pilots worked in small teams, in makeshift basements or camouflaged trenches, piloting from a distance FPV that turned the front into a transparent space where the enemy could rarely move unobserved. All that has changed with an appearance. The dark turn. Yes, that domain has been abruptly broken with the appearance Rubikona Russian unit created to track, locate and eliminate not so much drones as to those who operate them. The testimony in the financial times by Dmytro, a Ukrainian pilot and former rapper, summarizes this change of era: he went from being a hunter to being hunted in seconds when a Russian drone detected him on a reckless walk. That moment, which two years ago would have been exceptional, has become part of the daily routine on a front where the survival of the operator has become a strategic objective for Russia and a critical weak point for Ukraine. The result is a complete investment of roles: Innovators, previously almost untouchable, are now a priority target. Rubikon structure and ambition. This Russian elite corps is not simply a drone unit, but an organization of about 5,000 troops endowed with ample financial resources, tactical autonomy and a defined mission: deny Ukraine the ability to operate its drone network. Unlike the heavily bureaucratic operation that characterized the Russian army in the early stages of the war, this unit acts with speed, initiative and an approach more reminiscent of the Ukrainian groups it seeks to destroy. Their main task is not to attack the infantry on the front line, but penetrate behind the frontup to 10 kilometers in depth, to destroy logistics vehicles, ground robots and, above all, locate the operators who control the Ukrainian defensive swarms. Emblem of the elite Russian unit And much more. For Russian and Western experts, Rubikon functions as a development center of unmanned systems: trains other units, analyzes tactics, refines procedures and continually adapts its way of operating. Each technical or doctrinal improvement that emerges from Rubikon ends up radiating to the rest of the Russian army, which explains why the Ukrainians detect unexpected qualitative leaps in the performance of enemy drones. This ability fast learning It is one of the most disturbing elements, because it allows Russia to correct in months the technological gap that Ukraine built for years. The new invisible dimension. The combat is no longer limited to the visible sky, but is fought in a domain more abstract and lethal: the electromagnetic spectrum. Both Ukraine and Russia deploy electronic intelligence stations, signal guidance equipment and jamming systems capable of defeating, jamming or even hijacking adversary drones. This rivalry makes any radio broadcast a potential risk. Operators, no matter how hidden, need clear lines of sight, elevated antennas, and transmitters relatively close to the front, factors that Rubicon systematically explodes. Their teams track antennas on hills, thermal shadows in forests and emissions that reveal the presence of a pilot a few kilometers away. Andrey Belousov inspecting the Rubikon unit The signs. The inhibitorsdespite their usefulness, generate visible electrical signatures that can attract attacks. And in the midst of these maneuvers, both sides resort to signal hacking video to observe enemy cameras or locate the exact source of a remote control. Expert Tom Withington resume this complexity with a precise image: it is a game of cat and mouse where physics dictates the rules, and where each action leaves a trace that the opponent can exploit. Pressure on the pilots. Plus: unlike the Russians, Ukraine lacks the necessary troops to maintain continuous shiftswhich creates physical and psychological exhaustion that becomes as dangerous as the enemy itself. Zoommer, a Ukrainian soldier from a small drone unit, explained in the Times that Rubikon can operate without breaks because it has enough staff to rotate every few hours, while they must remain alert almost all day. The arrival of this unit to Pokrovsk area (a city that has been in a desperate defensive struggle for a year) has transformed life on the front, going from manageable days to a constant tension in which any movement can mean death. Before, says Zoommer.the area was almost “a vacation”, now it is an invisible hell where every antenna, every fleeting signal and every movement outside the trench can be a fatal mistake. This pressure has forced the Ukrainians to change routines, camouflage positions with extreme care, hide transmitters, disperse equipment and create anti-drone cells that act as a defensive mirror of Russia’s own tactics. The loss of transparency. Drones had provided Ukraine with a crucial tool: the ability to see and hit farther and faster, giving its defenders situational transparency that compensated for numerical inferiority. According to the RUSI analysisup to 80% of current casualties are attributed to drone operations, underscoring their central role in a war in which artillery and infantry depend on these mechanical eyes. What’s happening? Than Rubikon and the like have eroded that advantage in forcing Ukraine to reallocate resources from offensive missions to the protection of its own operators. The result is that, while Russia advances at an increasing pace, Ukraine devotes more efforts to stopping than hitting, losing the initiative at a critical moment in the conflict. Moscow has quickly absorbed the enemy’s lessons and turned them into doctrine, a process that would normally take years and that here has been compressed into months, tipping the balance on an increasingly dynamic front. Psychological warfare. The latest analysis show that the front is no longer defined only by the technology deployed, but by psychological pressure endured by Ukrainian operators and by the transformation of the Russian army towards a more agile structure, represented in Rubikon. The pilots, who have become priority objectives, live under constant tension that forces them to minimize any movement and operate with the permanent feeling of being watched, because … Read more

Many video AIs are learning to imitate the world. And everything points to an unprecedented “looting” of YouTube

by

A square, tourists, a waiter moving between tables, a bike passing by in the background or a journalist on a set. Video AIs can now generate scenes in a flash. The result is surprising, but it also opens up a question that until recently was barely posed: where did all those images that have come from come from? allowed to learn to imitate the world? According to The Atlanticpart of the answer points to millions of videos pulled from platforms like YouTube without clear consent. The euphoria over generative AI has moved so quickly that many questions have been left behind. In just two years we have gone from curious little experiments to models that produce videos almost indistinguishable from the real thing. And while the focus was on the demonstrations, another issue was gaining weight: transparency. OpenAI, for example, has explained that Sora is trained with “publicly available” data, but has not detailed which one. A massive workout that points to YouTube The Atlantic piece gives a clear clue as to what was happening behind the scenes. We are talking about more than 15 million videos collected to train AI models, with a huge amount coming from YouTube without formal authorization. Among the initiatives cited are data sets associated with several companies, designed to improve the performance of video generators. According to the media, this process was carried out without notifying the creators who originally published that content. One of the most striking aspects of the discovery is the profile of the affected material. These were not just anonymous videos or home recordings, but informative content and professional productions. The media found that thousands of pieces came from channels belonging to publications such as The New York Times, BBC, The Guardian, The Washington Post or Al Jazeera. Taken together, we are talking about a huge volume of journalism that would have ended up feeding AI systems without prior agreement with their owners. runwayone of the companies that has given the most impetus to generative video, is highlighted in the reviewed data sets. According to the documents cited, their models would have learned with clips organized by type of scene and context: interviews, explanatory, pieces with graphics, kitchen plans, resource plans. The idea is clear: if AI must reproduce human situations and audiovisual narratives, it needs real references that cover everything from gestures to editing rhythms. Fragments of a video generated with the Runway tool In addition to Runway, the research mentions data sets used in laboratories of large technology platforms such as Meta or ByteDance in research and development of their models. The dynamic was similar: huge volumes of videos collected on the Internet and shared between research teams to improve audiovisual capabilities. YouTube’s official stance doesn’t leave much room for interpretation. Its regulations prohibit downloading videos to train modelsand its CEO, Neal Mohan, has reiterated it in public. The expectations of the creators, he stressed, involve their content being used within the rules of the service. The appearance of millions of videos in AI databases has brought that legal framework to the fore and has intensified pressure on platforms involved in the development of generative models. The reaction of the media sector has followed two paths. On the one hand, companies like Vox Media o Prisa have closed agreements to license their content to artificial intelligence platforms, looking for a clear framework and economic compensation. On the other hand, some media outlets have chosen to stand up: The New York Times has taken OpenAI and Microsoft to court for the unauthorized use of their materials, stressing that it will also protect the video content it distributes. The legal terrain remains unclear. Current legislation was not intended for models that process millions of videos in parallel, and courts are still beginning to draw the lines. For some experts, publishing openly is not equivalent to transferring training rightswhile AI companies defend that indexing and the use of public material are part of technological advancement. This tension, still unresolved, keeps media and developers in a constant game of balance. What we have before us is the start of a conversation that goes far beyond technology. Training AI models with material available on the internet has been a widespread practice for years, and now comes the time to decide where the limits are. Companies promise agreements and transparency, the media ask for guarantees and creators demand control. The next stage will be as technological as it is political: how artificial intelligence is fed will define who benefits from it. Images | Xataka with Gemini 2.5 In Xataka | All the big AIs have ignored copyright laws. The amazing thing is that there are still no consequences

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.