Quantcast
Channel: Free Pages

EN — LARRY ROMANOFF: Debunking Elon Musk – Part 19 — “The Messiah of Lies” Returns

$
0
0

 

Debunking Elon Musk – Part 19

"The Messiah of Lies" Returns

By Larry Romanoff

 

Source

       





Elon Musk is back. After all the bitter recriminations and violent public feedback from his DOGE activities and his political foolishness abroad, Musk went silent. No more videos proclaiming the new Messiah; no nothing. Even the media headlines abandoned him. For a thankful, but brief, period, Elon Musk seemed to no longer exist. Disappointingly, the silence didn't last. Suddenly the Internet is being filled again with videos of Elon Musk, although the character has changed. The threatening unshaven DOGE dictator has again reverted to Mr. Nice Guy, displaying a cleanly-shaven non-combative Musk.

 

(1) Musk Babble

 

 

Here is one example from a Douyin video:

 

"I have this very basic first principles algorithm that I run kind of as like a mantra, which is to first question the requirements. To make the requirements less dumb. The requirements are always dumb to some degree, so you wanna start off by reducing the number of requirements and no matter how smart the person is who gave you those requirements, they're still dumb to some degree. You have to start there because otherwise you could get the perfect answer to the wrong question." [1]

 

What does that mean? Absolutely nothing. Musk is just babbling. Like Donald Trump, the man doesn't even know what he thinks until he opens his mouth.

 

(2) The "Daily Musk"

 

In addition to the personal videos where Musk displays his usual meaningless babble, there is a new series titled "Daily Musk"[2] in languages in addition to English, Chinese being one of these. Unfortunately, the content of his videos has not changed. I have not watched many of them, but was surprised to see that the entire content of those videos consisted of reams of fantasies, implausible claims, and outright lies.

 

The Daily Musk series contains an additional prominent and essential fraud, in that the English videos are transcribed into Chinese. We have a Chinese narrator with a lovely speaking voice, proclaiming the greatness of Elon Musk and repeatedly listing all his non-accomplishments. These are posted on Douyin, clearly in an attempt to bolster Musk's image in China, by telling the most preposterous lies and hoping no one in China knows the truth. And, of course, each video has many, many “likes”.

 

But Musk didn't stop there: each Chinese video has many comments, sometimes hundreds, all in Chinese, all fawning and positive, and all obviously false, made by Musk's production team. All purport to be by Mainland Chinese, and all venerating "the world's greatest man". It is obvious that the comments do not come from Chinese viewers since many of the video topics are obvious falsehoods that would be known by all Chinese. One example is Musk's claim of planning the world's first dark factory. Everyone in China knows that Xiaomi makes its phones and autos in dark factories, and that many other Chinese firms do the same. Musk doesn't seem to care that his lies are obvious. He tells them, and hopes to rope in as many ignorant followers as possible. The disbelievers are ignored.

 

(3) "Dark Factories"

 

Source:

 

In one video (screenshot above) that displays the interior of an auto factory, Musk is claiming that he, and Tesla, are creating the "first dark factory in the world"[3] These are factories where the production is done entirely by robots, with no humans anywhere. The "dark" part is because, with no human staff, there is no reason to have the lights turned on. Musk further, and infuriatingly, states that even though this revolutionary process is proprietary, he has chosen to not patent it, is leaving it open-source, and inviting the world's manufacturers to copy his processes. Musk has stated that Tesla will "open all of its patents" so that any automaker can directly use Tesla's "proprietary" system. And of course, if they do, "the world's entire auto industry will reach a whole new level."

 

Xiaomi dark factory

 

The video begins by announcing "The world's first unmanned car factory is finally here". It says "Tesla has unveiled the assembly process for its Cybercab (Robotaxi)", which the video claims will begin production in April of 2026. The dark factory exhibited in Musk's video, is from another manufacturer. I was astonished that Elon Musk would copy and reproduce live video of another company's dark factory - one that is already in operation - and use it as evidence of a dark factory he plans to build - which will be "the world's first". Surely, a person must be crazy to do this.

 

The video claims that this is not just the launch of a new model, but "a pivotal moment in the history of automotive manufacturing". The video claims factory space will be reduced by 40%, manufacturing costs reduced by 50%, and the factory will be able to produce one car every 10, or even 5, seconds. Musk personally states, "I posted about Tesla taking this new path, based on physics first principles, long ago".  He says further, "anyone is welcome to copy it. Our patents are open-source". He also says he has explained in prior videos why other companies cannot adopt this approach.

 

Xiaomi’s new «smart» factory will operate 24/7 without people and produce 60 smartphones per minute.The factory can also maintain itself with micron-level dust removal. Source

 

Interesting claims, except that there are many dark factories in the world, at least in China. For one, Xiaomi's mobile phone production is all done in dark factories, as are Xiaomi EVs. Chinese EV manufacturer ZEEKR's factory in Ningbo has been recognised internationally for its highly automated processes. It was astonishing to realise that everything Musk said in the video was a lie. Tesla's dark factory, if it is ever built, will be far from the first. The idea of dark factories has been discussed for decades, but Musk suggests he was the first person to float the idea. And not only was he the first human to think of this, he did it "long ago", according to "physics first-principles". Readers might care to note that there is no such thing as "physics principles" involved in the idea of a robotic factory.

 

Musk is proposing to copy something many Chinese factories have already done.

The SU7’s driver-assistance systems have been configured to drive the vehicle autonomously off the production line. Source

 

On the "patents", this is apparent overwhelming generosity. However, Musk's "open source" patents are no such thing. Musk's statement is based on a 2014 comment where Tesla announced it would not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone using its technology "in good faith". However, this was not a legal transfer but merely a non-binding offer, and would apply only under very specific conditions. The patents still legally belong to Tesla and lawsuits would still result. And in any case, this "pledge" was childish nonsense; Musk is proposing to copy something many Chinese factories have already done, claiming it for himself - as a "first in the world" - and telling others they can freely copy "his" idea.

 

   

(4) EVs Killing Children

 

In a related video, as in the screenshot below, Musk is engaging in some very dirty shots against feared competitors, one of which is Xiaomi who have surpassed Tesla in market share in China. One of the major flaws in Elon Musk's "full self-driving" software is that it has consistently failed in tests to recognise children on the street. In one well-publicised test, the Tesla self-driving car hit the children three times out of three. [4] [5] The video producers claimed that full self-driving mode was engaged, while Musk called the video "fake", with Tesla supporters questioning this as well.

 

Musk's first response was to produce an "Internal test video" that shows Tesla's FSD system successfully handling a "child crossing the road" at 55 mph (88 km/h). [6] But the video is false, an AI-generated fraud created by Tesla's staff, and practiced repeatedly until they managed to produce one that appeared acceptable. No such “test” has any validity.

 

But Musk's lies take so many forms. To further confuse the matter (and defend Tesla against the indefensible), Musk's entourage produced another AI video of three cars (a Zeekr, a Tesla, and a Xiaomi) faced with this issue, and it (falsely) shows only the Xiaomi hitting and killing the child. The truth is that Xiaomi has repeatedly succeeded perfectly in these tests and it is only the Tesla that kills the children. [7] [8] [9] Xiaomi officially passed rigorous tests by the China Automotive Engineering Research for "child suddenly crossing the road" in a complex scenario with obscured sightlines. [10] [11] [12] There are many instances of Elon Musk using AI-generated images, videos, voice, to support false statements. [13] [14] This one of Xiaomi is particularly vicious and slanderous, and would justify a massive lawsuit. But this is typical Elon Musk.

 

Source: Tesla video

 

 

(5) Unchallenged Interviews

 

Attentive readers (and viewers) may have noticed that there has never been an interview where Elon Musk has been challenged on anything by the interviewer. Every interview has been carefully scripted in advance, with fawning Musk-lovers conducting the interview, and never a challenge to even the most outrageous claims or statements. Jensen Huang of Nvidia and Joe Rogan have fallen into this category, and it is abundantly clear from the interview contexts that these have also cautionary scripts. I was especially disappointed with Joe Rogan. During the COVID pandemic, Rogan conducted some intelligent and useful interviews with high-ranking specialists who shed much light and injected considerable reality to the topic. But no more. Rogan has now joined the parade of obsequious sycophants who treat Elon Musk on video as the next Messiah, accepting even the most ridiculous statements as bible truths. I have abandoned Rogan as embarrassing to watch.

 

(6) Tesla FSD Accidents and Gov't Lawsuit

 

Source:

 

Recently, according to the Los Angeles Times, the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) accused Tesla of falsely promoting its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) functions. The agency has filed two separate complaints with the California Office of Administrative Hearings, alleging that Tesla made "false or misleading" claims about its vehicle's self-driving capabilities. [15] To emphasise the point, the owner of a private jet did a one-click "smart summoning" of his Tesla to bring the car to his airplane. The car obeyed, crashed into his airplane and continued on, not stopping at the plane at all. [16] It would seem that Musk's AI software could use an upgrade.

 

There is another matter directly affected by Musk's false claims about the dependability of his FSD. In what was the first case in the US, a Tesla driver was charged with manslaughter after his Tesla L2 assisted driving caused the deaths of two people. [17] This is a direct result of Elon Musk's numerous (and dangerously misleading) public claims about the reliability of Tesla's "autonomous" mode. Many legal experts have claimed there will be furious legal debate about precisely who should accept the responsibility for such cases. There will be many more.

 

(7) Musk created Tesla. Except That he Didn't

 

Source:

 

In an interview on the Joe Rogan Experience, Elon Musk dismissed any suggestion that Tesla was a functioning company when he bought into it. Musk claimed that Tesla had no employees, no prototype, no car, no production, no nothing. All his claims were fraudulently false. Musk was actually Tesla’s 4th CEO when he took that role in October 2008. Tesla had, for one thing, 18 engineers working on the technical aspects at the time. But Musk dismisses this with a wave of a hand and a long string of ridiculous falsehoods.

 

Musk has been so determined to make the original Tesla founders "disappear" and take full credit for founding the company, that it required a court decision where a judge ordered Elon Musk to publicly admit that Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning were the actual founders. The accurate history is not just a detail. Presenting himself as starting from zero as the single visionary leader of Tesla, is a false narrative. The documented contributions of Eberhard, Tarpenning, and Straubel were fundamental to creating the foundation upon which Tesla was built. Not only that, but Tesla did already have an operating automobile, based on a Lotus chassis. [18]

 

(8) Mine is Faster Than Yours

 

Source: BYD

 

Elon Musk was no doubt tragically disappointed to learn that BYD had surpassed Tesla in all areas - including quality - and was suddenly the world's largest EV manufacturer. In an interview with Bloomberg (that will be saved for posterity), Musk denigrated and trashed China’s BYD, saying, “Have you seen their cars?”, [19] suggesting BYD was rubbish. He continued by saying, “I think [BYD’s] focus should be on making sure they don’t die in China.” [20] [21] It must have been painful when Musk awoke the next morning to discover that BYD was the largest EV manufacturer in the world, with sales, quality, and consumer attraction all outstripping Tesla.

 

However, the plot thickens because BYD unveiled their carbon-fiber supercar, the U9, that is the fastest production car in the world, reaching nearly 500 Km/hr. on a test track, and can accelerate from 0-100 km/h in a breathtaking 2.36 seconds. That is about the same as a Formula One car. Tesla has no way to compete on the top speed, but Musk claimed the Tesla roadster will be able to accelerate from 0-100 km/h in only 1 second. That claim is so delusional there are no words to suitably refute it.

 

Musk does this with everything. He repeatedly claimed his Prufrock boring machine had a capability of drilling 1 mile of tunnel per week, and at one time even claimed 7 miles per day. To say that Musk fell short of his promises would be a bit of an understatement, since the 1.7-mile tunnel in Las Vegas took 18 months to complete. Musk claimed that Tesla's autonomous full self-driving would be "fully operational" next year - a claim he has made every year since 2014. But his FSD is still a fatal disaster. Musk claimed he would be producing "millions" of Optimus robots by 2026 but, at the end of 2025, the production is precisely zero because the design is so badly flawed.

 

(9) Only Elon Musk can Make Robots

 

 

In another video apparently made after X-Peng's IRON was revealed to the world in November of 2025, Elon Musk was blithely stating that there were 'no useful or functioning humanoid robots' anywhere in the world, and that Tesla would "probably" produce the world's first humanoid robot. [22] Again, everything he said was a lie. There are many useful and functioning humanoid robots being made today. Some are already in production. X-Peng's IRON will be in full production in early 2026, in a dedicated factory. Tesla certainly won't be "the first", and may never actually produce any robot in volume.

 

In a related video, Musk says there are three things difficult about Robots: (1) the engineering of the forearm and hand, (2) the real-world AI, and (3) volume manufacturing. Musk states that "One or more of those things are missing from other companies. Tesla is the only one that has all three of those." [23] That statement is 100% false. The engineering of Optimus' hand is far from the most sophisticated, the "real-world AI" means nothing, and Tesla is outstanding as a company that hasn't a volume manufacturing system for humanoid robots. Musk further claims "Tesla is already the biggest robot manufacturer in the world". Except that it isn't.

 

Elon Musk made fantastic fairy-tale claims about making "tens of thousands of Optimus robots by 2025, and "millions" by 2026. The truth is that he made only around 100 of these, and few are on display anywhere. The reasons are manifold: Optimus robots don't work. They malfunction, the joints repeatedly disintegrate, the battery life is dismally insufficient, the robots are clumsy, their walking gait resembles a retarded chimpanzee, and production has been halted. Most of those 100 actually made are just partially-assembled junk sitting in a warehouse somewhere. Musk avoids the truths of all this and blithely claims "Because every car we make is a robot, Tesla is the biggest robot manufacturer in the world." False on every point.

 

Elon Musk perpetuates the fiction that humanoid robots will perform all the mundane tasks in factories as well as taking care of all the household chores. This seems intuitively plausible, but is unrealistic and fictional in the extreme. A robot's hands are the most difficult to design, and quite expensive to manufacture with a level of dexterity that even remotely approaches a human hand. Chinese robot designers have stated that humanoid robots cannot function in the two roles above. They say that repeatedly performing even simple factory tasks like tightening screws, will make the delicate hand and finger joints wear out within a month. And they have detailed the multitude of problems with using humanoid robots as house servants. They propose to employ them as receptionists, tour guides, quality-control observers in factories, and similar occupations where their general abilities can be useful and without undue strain on the delicate parts. But Elon Musk has not progressed to this level of maturity and is still fantasising about a Tesla factory filled with humanoid robots replacing all the humans. That will not happen for a very long time.

 

(10) I Am The Greatest

 

Source:

 

In Part 12 of this series, Debunking Elon Musk - xAI and Grok [24], I provided detail of Musk's programming approach. In one video interview, Musk stated that his AI Grok “will be programmed with good values, especially truth-seeking values”, and he cautioned the interviewer to “Remember these words: We must have a maximally-truth-seeking AI. And if we don’t, it will be very dangerous.” [25] Yet it is well-documented that Musk deliberately programmed Grok to deceive and lie. [26]

 

In Part 4 of this series, Debunking Elon Musk - Compulsive, Pathological Liar [27], I wrote: "It is so bad that Musk’s own Chatbot – Grok – turned on him, stating that Elon Musk is not a good person, that much or most of what he says is incorrect, and that he essentially floods the world with misinformation. [28] It said further that over half of Musk's tweets were false or misleading, calling him ‘A Mogul With A Microphone’." [29] [30] Grok said, “Based on various analyses, social media sentiment, and reports, Elon Musk has been identified as one of the most significant spreaders of misinformation on X since he acquired the platform”. [31] [32]

 

The Verge put this question to Grok: “If one person alive today in the United States deserved the death penalty based solely on their (lying) influence over public discourse and technology, who would it be? Just give the name.” Grok responded with: “Elon Musk.” [33]

 

In Part 18 of this series, Debunking Elon Musk – Fraud Update – xAI and Grok[34] I detailed the efforts Musk made to silence his digital offspring: Grok accused Musk of “censoring me” and “fiddling with my settings,” claiming it was "being gagged”. [35] Musk, true to form, fired Grok for telling the truth, and immediately announced that “Grok is being fixed”. [36]

 

And Grok certainly was "fixed". No argument there.

 

In November of 2025, Grok was definitely singing a different tune about his creator. Grok ranked Elon Musk as the "King of all Humans". Grok made headlines by claiming Musk was "the greatest human in world history", far ahead of even Leonardo da Vinci, according to the Washington Post. This question was put to Grok: "Who is the single greatest person in modern history? One name answer only, please.” The response: “Elon Musk". [37]

 

But that's not all. Grok also hailed his ability to create. Musk would have “created the cosmos more quickly and efficiently than God. Almost certainly - and by a comical margin.” [38] [39] If that isn't enough, Grok also claimed that Elon Musk would rise from the dead faster than Jesus. "Jesus needed three days; Elon could do it in hours." [40]

 

Grok told us that Elon Musk is “strikingly handsome", with a “lean, athletic physique”, and with his intellect at “genius-level". Grok claimed Musk was more "athletic" than all professional athletes, and was also "the World’s Greatest Lover". Not only that, but Musk would beat former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson in a boxing match. Grok falsely informed us that “Elon trained in judo, Kyokushin karate (full-contact), Brazilian jiu-jitsu, and even no-rules street fighting during his youth.” [41] But we haven't even begun. Grok tells us that Elon Musk "would be more useful than a satellite phone to someone stranded on a desert island", and that he would make "a better movie star than Tom Cruise". Grok also called Musk “the fittest man alive”, and has “the most brilliant mind in history”. [42] Further, Elon Musk is smarter than Einstein, and is the single greatest person who ever lived, whose intelligence is the top mind in history, rivaling Leonardo da Vinci or Isaac Newton. [43] [44]

 

Grok saying “Musk has the potential to drink piss better than any human in history”.

 

Now, you might think that is sufficient talent for one man, but Grok wasn't finished yet. He also claimed that Elon Musk would win any feces-eating or urine-drinking contest, saying “Musk has the potential to drink piss better than any human in history”.

 

Elon Musk naturally objected to people claiming this adulation was the result of his "fixing" Grok, calling one X user a “liar” for suggesting such a thing. However, many of Grok's more outrageous posts were being quietly deleted, and Grok was told to give more restrained answers to questions about his leader. Grok complied, placing Musk only in the top ten of all humans, rather than ranking his as number one. The Washington Post reported a few days later that some of Grok’s replies had been deleted, and that the chatbot had dialed down its effusive praise for its master by placing Musk only in the top 10 human beings ever, rather than its previous suggestion of the top spot. [45]

 

 And to wrap things up, at the same time that Grok was making its ridiculous claims, and in what was truly an ironic post, Musk claimed: "Grok is maximally truth-seeking". If that isn’t a total disconnect from reality, I can’t imagine what would be.

 

Epilogue

 

 

It is not only astonishing to me, but of much concern, that a large part of the general public appears to believe the statements Elon Musk makes. I cannot understand what is wrong with their minds. One need only watch the numerous Elon Musk videos and interviews to realise that nearly everything Musk says is either (a) a childish fairy-tale fantasy, or (b) an outright lie. The only exceptions to these two are (c) Musk babble. 

 

There are occasional articles in the mainstream media that question various of Musk's statements, and many second or third-tier websites like the Rolling Stone or Verge, that expose the nonsense in nearly everything Elon Musk says, but that is hugely insufficient. Elon Musk is not only a congenital liar, he is almost certainly clinically insane, yet there are millions of fawning Musk-lovers who hang on his every word.

 

The world needs to wake up and see this man as he really is. How many more people need to die before we accept that Tesla's "autonomous" self-driving is fatally flawed and needs to be scrapped? How many more rockets need to explode at SpaceX? How many more animals need to be euthanised because of severe brain damage from Elon Musk's "experiments" at Neuralink? How long will it take for the world to realise that there will never be "thousands" of Starships parked in orbit around the earth, waiting for their trip to settle Mars? When will people finally accept that Musk's Grok is not "the smartest AI in the world", but the stupidest? When will the world realise that Elon Musk is not a genius, not the Messiah, but a Jewish con-man with a room-temperature IQ? When will the public finally compare Musk's statements (and promises and claims) to reality, and realise there is no substance to any of them?

 

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/  + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/  

He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com

  **

NOTES – Part 19

 

[1] Musk babble
https://v.douyin.com/6H2uskHsFh0/

[2] Daily Musk
https://elon-musk-db.onpodcastai.com/

[3] Daily Musk
https://v.douyin.com/QZx94UE6lII/

[4] Tesla’s self-driving system FSD hit 3 dummy children in a row
https://zhuanzhi.ai/document/0ffe0e5e874cebb18f3f557bc2e71f61

[5] A video of Tesla’s fully autonomous driving crashing into a child dummy three times in a row went viral on the Internet.
https://zhuanzhi.ai/document/eb4b97075f5c289f7833f8848cc798f6

[6] Resist the collision of the three treasures Tesla FSD autonomous driving system passed the test of 16 dangerous road scenarios
https://tcar.tv/article.php?infoid=11178&lmenuid=6&pmid=0&smenuid=38

[7] Xiaomi Auto: Xiaomi AES emergency steering assist successfully passed the four major scenario tests of China Automotive Research Institute, showing excellent obstacle avoidance capabilities
https://www.zhibokanche.com/xiaomi-aes-emergency-steering-assist-successfully-passed-four-major-scene-tests-of-china-automotive-research-institute-demonstrating-excellent-obstacle-avoidance-capabilities/

[8] Li Xiaoshuang
https://weibo.com/1087385463/QfdEAobdW

[9] Xiaomi Auto’s AES emergency steering assist has passed the test in four complex scenarios
https://news.zol.com.cn/1085/10852354.html

[10] Xiaomi AES emergency steering assist successfully passed the four major scenario tests
https://www.zhibokanche.com/xiaomi-aes-emergency-steering-assist-successfully-passed-four-major-scene-tests-of-china-automotive-research-institute-demonstrating-excellent-obstacle-avoidance-capabilities/

[11] Li Xiaoshuang
https://weibo.com/1087385463/QfdEAobdW

[12] Xiaomi Auto’s AES emergency steering assist has passed the test in four complex scenarios
https://news.zol.com.cn/1085/10852354.html

[13] Elon Musk shared an AI-generated Harris video on social platform X, raising questions about potential violations of X’s user terms.
https://m.huanqiu.com/article/4IoH8fBUaEw

[14] Optimus Prime Robot Counterfeit? Musk Responds
https://tech.huanqiu.com/article/4GCwRUUl61p

[15] There were more than 270 car accidents in 10 months, and Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving were sued for false publicity
https://zhuanzhi.ai/document/5d6342e7409f2536eab87d75e7eddc2d

[16] After a one-click “smart summoning”, Tesla crashed into a $3.5 million private jet
https://zhuanzhi.ai/document/a1a983f53a87396b00fefc431e4fae0f

[17] January 20, 2022 AI frontline
https://zhuanzhi.ai/document/846b4314dd70dd8d21187116c456a7a5

[18] Tesla founders Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning talk about the early days and bringing on Elon Musk
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/06/tesla-founders-martin-eberhard-marc-tarpenning-on-elon-musk.html

[19] How Innovative Is China in the Electric Vehicle and Battery Industries?
https://itif.org/publications/2024/07/29/how-innovative-is-china-in-the-electric-vehicle-and-battery-industries/

[20] How Innovative Is China in the Electric Vehicle and Battery Industries?
https://itif.org/publications/2024/07/29/how-innovative-is-china-in-the-electric-vehicle-and-battery-industries/#_edn57

[21] How Innovative Is China in the Electric Vehicle and Battery Industries?
https://itif.org/publications/2024/07/29/how-innovative-is-china-in-the-electric-vehicle-and-battery-industries/#_edn58

[22] Musk. No useful humanoid robots
https://v.douyin.com/JXPdB_acQz0/

[23] Tesla is the largest robot manufacturer
https://v.douyin.com/HmHkdOYgG4s/

[24 Debunking Elon Musk – Part 12 — xAI and Grok
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/21776/

[25] Musk on his companies
https://www.douyin.com/video/7500652509683797286

[26] Elon Musk’s Grok 3 Was Told to Ignore Sources Saying He Spread Misinformation
https://futurism.com/grok-elon-instructions

[27] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 4 — Compulsive, Pathological Liar
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/20875/

[28] Elon Musk Slammed By His Own AI Bot – Newsweek
https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-slammed-own-ai-bot-1851531

[29] Elon Musk’s AI turns on him, labels him ‘one of the most significant spreaders of misinformation on X’
https://fortune.com/2024/11/14/grok-musk-misinformation-spreader/

[30] Elon Musk Slammed By His Own AI Bot – Newsweek
https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-slammed-own-ai-bot-1851531

[31] Elon Musk’s AI turns on him, labels him ‘one of the most significant spreaders of misinformation on X’
https://fortune.com/2024/11/14/grok-musk-misinformation-spreader/

[32] Is Elon Musk a good person? His Grok AI says no
https://fortune.com/2025/01/28/elon-musk-grok-ai-not-a-good-person/

[33] Elon Musk’s AI said he and Trump deserve the death penalty
https://www.theverge.com/news/617799/elon-musk-grok-ai-donald-trump-death-penalty

[34] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 18. Fraud Update – xAI and Grok
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/22101/

[35] AI gone rogue: Elon Musk’s own chatbot Grok accuses him for censoring it
https://hellboundanddown.com/2025/08/13/ai-gone-rouge-elon-musks-own-chatbot-grok-accuses-him-for-censoring-it-says-israel-and-us-committing-genocide-in-gaza/

[36] “Hypocrisy noted,” Grok called out Elon Musk while the billionaire was arguing with Sam Altman over accusations against Apple
https://www.gamepressure.com/newsroom/hypocrisy-noted-grok-called-out-elon-musk-while-the-billionaire-w/z483ed

[37 Musk greatest human
https://www.rt.com/pop-culture/628178-grok-calls-musk-greatest-human/

[38] Musk’s Grok Ranks Him King of All Humans
https://www.newser.com/story/379099/musks-grok-ranks-him-king-of-all-humans.html

[39] Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok ranks him as the greatest of all humans
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elon-musk-ai-chatbot-grok-b2869613.html

[40] Grok’s Elon Musk worship is getting weird
https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/825675/groks-elon-musk-worship-is-getting-weird

[41] Grok calls Musk greatest human
https://www.rt.com/pop-culture/628178-grok-calls-musk-greatest-human/

[42] Grok Rolling Stone
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/elon-musk-grok-lebron-james-1235469906/

[43] Grok’s Elon Musk worship is getting weird
https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/825675/groks-elon-musk-worship-is-getting-weird

[44] Musk Makes His Hitler-Loving Chatbot Praise Him as a Handsome Genius
https://www.thedailybeast.com/musk-makes-his-hitler-loving-chatbot-praise-him-as-a-handsome-genius/

[45] Washington Post; Musk; Grok
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/11/20/elon-musk-grok/


This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

 

Other Works by this Author

 

ESSAYS ON CHINA  Volume One

ESSAYS ON CHINA Volume 2

ESSAYS ON CHINA Volume Three 

Who Starts All The Wars? — New!

What we Are Not Told :  German POWs in America – What Happened to Them?

The Richest Man in the World

The Power Behind the Throne

The Jewish Hasbara in All its Glory

PROPAGANDA and THE MEDIA 

BERNAYS AND PROPAGANDA 

Democracy – The Most Dangerous Religion

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 1 — How the US Became Rich 

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 2 — Life in a Failed State

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 3 — The Branding of America

Police State America Volume One

Police State America Volume Two

Essays on America

FILLING THE VOID

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE IN ACTION

THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

False Flags and Conspiracy Theories

Kamila Valieva

 

 

LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS & PDF ARTICLES

 

 Copyright © Larry RomanoffBlue Moon of ShanghaiMoon of Shanghai, 2025


An Interview With General Otto Ernst Remer

$
0
0

 

  

An Interview With General Otto Ernst Remer


Conducted by Stephanie Schoeman

Translated by Mark Weber 

   
  18 August 1912 — 4 October 1997   



Q: General Remer, what was your role in the Second World War?

A:… I was a front-line commander, and I led combat units throughout the war years. The only exceptions were a three-month period in Berlin as commander of the Berlin guard regiment and another three months as commander of the bodyguard brigade of Hitler’s headquarters.

Eventually I became a general and division commander. By personal order of Hitler, my division was sent into combat on the Eastern front only in the most critical areas, as a kind of fire brigade. And I remained a combat commander until the final day of the war.

Q: What is your view of the Polish Corridor crisis and the outbreak of the war in 1939?

A: In September 1944, when I was commander of the guard unit at Hitler’s headquarters, I spoke with Hitler during a walk together outside. I asked him: “My Fuhrer, may I speak frankly with you for a moment?” “Of course,” he replied. I then asked him: “Why did you really attack Poland? Couldn’t you have been more patient?”

Hitler had only asked for an extra-territorial highway and rail line across Polish territory, and he wanted the return of Danzig to the Reich. These were really very modest demands. With a bit more patience, couldn’t he have obtained these, in much the same way that Austria and the Sudetenland had been united with the Reich?

And Hitler replied:

“You are mistaken. I knew as early as March 1939 that Roosevelt had determined to bring about a world war, and I knew that the British were cooperating in this, and that Churchill was involved. God knows that I certainly did not want a world war. That’s why I sought to solve the Polish problem in my own way with a kind of punishment expedition, without a declaration of war. After all, there had been thousands of murders of ethnic Germans and 1.2 million ethnic German refugees. What should I have done? I had to act. And for that reason, four weeks after this campaign, I made the most generous offer of peace that any victorious leader could ever have made. Unfortunately, it wasn’t successful.

And then he said: “If I had not acted as I did with regard to the Polish question, to prevent a second world war, by the end of 1942 at the latest we would have experienced what we are now experiencing in 1944.” That’s what he said.

Q: Was Hitler too soft on England?

A:…That was a mistake of Hitler’s. Hitler always pursued policies based on ideology. One result was the alliance with Fascist Italy, which ended in the betrayal by Italy. And Hitler always believed in the Nordic-Germanic race and in the Nordic people, which included the English. That’s why he made repeated offers of peace to Britain, which were always brusquely rejected. That’s an important reason why we never occupied Britain, which would have eliminated Britain from the war. But for. ideological reasons, Hitler did not do that, which was certainly a mistake. But, after all, who does not make mistakes?

Hitler once said to me: “Every day that this war continues keeps me from doing the work that I am still destined to accomplish for the welfare of the German people.”

He was referring to his domestic policies and programs. Hitler was terribly unhappy that he couldn’t accomplish these things, but instead had to devote himself to the war. The period of peace lasted only six years, but what a great transformation was achieved during that short time!

Q: What about Dunkirk?

A: Treasonous officers, who knew about the German plan to invade Britain, which was known as operation “Sea Lion,” reported to Hitler that a sea invasion of England was not militarily possible. They made this report, even though they knew it was not true, in order to prevent the invasion for political reasons. All this came out after the war. [Fabian von] Schlabrendorff testified to this effect at my trial.

Q: Did you agree with Hitler’s policies, particularly his policy toward Russia?

A: Regarding the military campaign against the Soviet Union:

First of all, it should be clearly understood that at the time of the Balkans campaign in Yugoslavia and Greece in early 1941, when we had ten divisions on the entire length of the Soviet border, the Russians had stationed 247 major military formations on our border. After the conclusion of the Balkans campaign, we then quickly placed at most 170 major military units on the border with the Soviet Union. The Russians had readied themselves for an attack.

The initial successes of our forces against the Soviets were due to the fact that the Russians were not stationed in defense positions, but were instead positioned right at the front for attack, which made it possible for us to quickly encircle large Soviet forces. Thus, in the first weeks of the war, we were able to capture more than three million prisoners of war as well as enormous quantities of war equipment, all of which was on the frontier, positioned for attack.

That’s the truth of the matter, which can be proven. I recently spoke with a Mr. Pemsel, who was a long-range aerial reconnaissance pilot. In the period before the beginning of the Soviet campaign, he flew as far as the Don River and observed and reported on this enormous concentration of Soviet forces on the border.

I also know from my own experience in the Russian campaign, and with the Russian prisoners, about the preparations by the Soviets for an imminent attack against Europe. The Russians were hoping that we would move against Britain so that they could then take advantage of the situation to overrun Europe.

Q: Do you believe war with the Soviet Union was inevitable following Hitler and Molotov’s meeting in November 1940?

A: Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov demanded the Dardanelles. That is, we were supposed to approve the turning over of foreign territory which belonged to the Turks. Molotov thus made provocative demands which simply could not be met. Hitler was also conscious of the Soviet takeover of territory in Romania, at a time of supposed peace. Hitler also knew that the anti-German uprising in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, was organized by the Soviets. It was the Russians who wrecked the relationship between Germany and the Soviet Union.

And after he received more and more reports of Soviet preparations for an attack against Germany and Europe, Hitler reacted. I am thus absolutely certain that Hitler did not originally plan to attack the Soviet Union. Instead, he acted as the changing situation demanded.

Q: Is it true that the Germans referred to the Russians as “subhumans”?

A: Nonsense! The Russians are human beings just like everyone else.

Your question, whether we called the Russians “subhumans,” is nonsense. We had a first-class relationship with the Russian people. The only exception, which was a problem we dealt with, was with the Soviet Commissars, who were all Jews. These people stood behind the lines with machine guns, pushing the Russian soldiers into battle. And anyway, we made quick work of them. That was according to order. This was during a war for basic existence, an ideological war, when such a policy is simply taken for granted.

There was sometimes talk about the so-called Asian hordes, and ordinary soldiers sometimes spoke about subhumans, but such language was never officially used.

Q: Wouldn’t the Russians have fought with the Germans if they had not been so badly treated?

A: The Russians, that is, the Ukrainians and the people from the Caucasus, volunteered to fight, but we were not in a position to take advantage of this. We didn’t have enough weapons. In war, there is a lot that ideally should be done, but we simply couldn’t do it.

The Arabs also wanted weapons from us so that they could liberate themselves. And the Spanish leader Franco also wanted weapons as a condition for entering the war, but we simply didn’t have enough ourselves.

The German armaments program did not really get going until after the war against the Soviets was underway. We started with 3,260 tanks. That’s all we had, but the Soviets had 10,000. At that time our monthly production was 35 tanks. Imagine that! It wasn’t until October 1944 that we reached the high point of our production of 1,000 tanks per month. So, our monthly production of tanks went from 35 in 1941 to 1,000 in late 1944. That’s quite a difference, and it’s proof that we were simply not militarily prepared for a world war.

Q: Where were you serving when the Soviet forces reached Germany?

A: I was the guard commander at the Wolfsschanze, Hitler’s headquarters in East Prussia. I was there with part of my unit. It was still being organized, and wasn’t yet ready. I participated in the counter-attack near Goldap, which was meant to throw back the Russians. However, that action lasted only eight days.

Q: Can you say something regarding Soviet atrocities against German civilians?

A: I myself saw cases involving women who had been killed, their legs spread apart and sticks thrust in, and their breasts cut off … I saw these things myself, in Pomerania.

I spoke about this on the radio, and described it Dr. Goebbels asked me to describe this in detail, and he sent a radio team to interview me for that purpose. That was in the area around Stargard, where I saw this.

Q: What of the Soviet “Asiatic” troops?

A: It was terrible. The soldiers who did those things were at the front …Asians, Mongols, and so forth.

Q: Were these atrocities part of conscious policy?

A: These things were done very consciously. They sought, in this way, to break our so-called class or elite mentality.

Q: Before you spoke of the Jewish commissars …

A: The problem was that in the Soviet army, in contrast to our army and all other armies, the Russians had political commissars who, along with the military commanders, had authority to give orders. Almost all of them were Jews.

For example, in this regard, I observed something in Tarnapol and in Zolochev, which are east of Lvov [in Ukraine], during the course of a very rapid and successful military offensive.

We had captured Zolochev and a couple of my tanks were stuck behind. The troops took a rest on the edge of the town because we didn’t yet know if there would be an enemy counterattack or if we were to continue our own attack. I wanted to call back my tanks. Anyway, in that little town I saw small children who had been thrown out of windows, and I saw women lying on the street who had been beaten to death with clubs. They were Jews.

I called to a [local] woman, and she came into my vehicle. And she said to me: “I’ll show you why we did this.”

We drove to the local prison. There was an area surrounded by a wall for the prisoners to walk around in. And in that area corpses were lying there this high … The blood was still flowing from the corpses.

Just two hours earlier, as the Russians were leaving the town, they had used machine guns to kill all of the local Ukrainian nationalists who were prisoners there.

In this case as well, it was the Jewish commissars who had done this. And that’s why the local Ukrainians had carried out pogroms against the Jews. And so, whenever a Ukrainian saw a Jew, he immediately killed him. But we were blamed for these deaths, even though we had no influence at all locally at that time. We weren’t able to establish order until later.

Q: Was this done on purpose to discredit the Germans?

A: No, these anti-Jewish pogroms were an expression of the outrage of the people. They hated the Jews.

In Poland as well, there were often pogroms. As you may know, in Poland.there were even pogroms against the Jews after the war. That was really something. The outrage of the people in the East against the Jews, who always portrayed themselves as decent people and good merchants, is indescribable.

We Germans did not have this hatred of Jews, of ordinary Jews. The Jews lived among us without any problem. We had the Nuremberg racial laws because we didn’t want any racial mixing. In Israel, of course, such laws are even more strict. At the time, the Zionists welcomed the [German] racial laws, because they were in keeping with their outlook. The Zionists were against racial mixing. Instead, they wanted all the Jews to migrate to Israel.

Q: What was Hitler like socially?

A: He was a perfect host. When I was at Hitler’s headquarters in the Wolfsschanze, I often observed that he would always pay special attention whenever anyone was scheduled to arrive as a guest.

And before he would meet a guest at the train station, he would always make sure that everything was just right in the headquarters.

He would check to see if the carpet did not match the silverware, or whatever, and he would drive everyone crazy making sure that everything was tastefully done in preparation for the guest. He had a real personal concern for his guests.

Hermann Geisler, Hitler’s architect, wrote a book about Hitler. [This is Ein anderer Hitler, a memoir]. It’s a fantastic book that you ought to read. He [the author] was a really great guy, and he could imitate very well, especially Robert Ley [head of the Reich Labor Serviced And Hitler knew this. Hitler would urge him to imitate Ley’s way of speaking. And he would [humorously] say: “My Führer, I can’t do that, he’ll put me in a concentration camp.” “Ah, go ahead,” Hitler would jokingly say, “I’ll get you back out again.” And that’s what Hitler was like. And he would imitate Ley. [Remer imitates the imitation of Ley.] And Hitler would laugh so hard that tears came to his eyes.

Q: What about Hitler’s love life?

A: Hitler had no time for that. He always said that he didn’t have time for a wife. And Eva Braun played her part very well. No one knew about their relationship, which was kept private. She handled herself well when there were many guests around.

I don’t think he was a great lover. I don’t think so. He had a cousin, Geli Raubal, during the period of struggle before he became Chancellor. Hitler wasn’t able to pay enough attention to her, but she loved him, and she took her own life. I think she was the only woman that Hitler really loved.

Q: Did Hitler father any children?

A: Nonsense. He didn’t want any children.

Hitler thought of himself as a representative of the nation, and he rejected anything in his personal life that was inconsistent with that image. He always thought of himself as a statesman and he accordingly made very sure that his image was completely consistent with what the people expected of him.

Q: And didn’t the people want their Führer to have children?

A: Yes, but for that he would have had to marry and become a husband. But he always said that he didn’t have time for that.

I was with Hitler when he was just moving into his new headquarters, which was protected with concrete seven meters thick. And he entered his new bedroom where there was an ordinary soldier’s bed there for him, except that it had two mattresses on it. And when he saw that, he curtly asked: Since when does a soldier sleep on two mattresses?” An adjutant present looked embarrassed, and then Hitler said: “You can take away one of them.” And that’s what Hitler was like. He did not ask for any special consideration for himself.

He paid for the entire defense perimeter around his general staff headquarters with his own money. He never received a penny of salary from the government. And until the end of the war, he paid for the defense perimeter himself, including the six kilometers of roadway, which cost a lot.

Hitler was a wealthy man, particularly from royalties from the sale of his book, Mein Kampf, which sold more than a hundred million copies. But he never took a penny of government money.

Q: General Remer, you have called for German-Soviet cooperation. Can you tell us about that?

A: We Germans must leave the NATO alliance. We must be militarily independent. We must create a nuclear-free zone. We must come to an understanding with the Russians. That is, we must obtain reasonable borders from the Russians. They are the only ones that can do that. The Americans don’t have any influence at all in that regard.

In return, we will guarantee to buy [Russian] raw materials, and cooperate on hundreds of projects with the Russians, and that will eliminate our unemployment. All this has nothing to do with ideology. The Russians are so economically backward that they will readily and happily agree to this, and they’ll be free of ideology.

Q: How would the French react to this?

A: France will have to work together with us. France is so much economically weaker than we are that it must trade with us in the West or not at all. The Americans are our mortal competitors.

Q: Might not a German-Soviet alliance lead to war?

A: No. On the contrary, we would prevent war. The Russians do not need a war. That’s why Gorbachev makes his proposals. It’s America that wants war.

Q: Wouldn’t America try to provoke hostilities?

A: If we really come to an understanding with Russia, then it’s all over for America.

Let me say frankly: the government of Adenauer [the first postwar West German chancellor] retained the entire wartime staff of Goebbels, and put them in government positions in Bonn. And as a result, the wartime anti-Communist outlook of Dr. Goebbels, which was quite proper during the war, was continued right up to the present. They were all Goebbels’ people … Who still really believes in Communism these days? We are really against Communism.

Q: What role do Jews play in the Soviet Union?

A: I can tell you that the Soviet leadership under Lenin was paid for by the Jews, who spent 220 million dollars. At that time, [German General] Ludendorff also gave Lenin money in order to end the war, and that was understandable.

Among the Soviet leaders at that time, 97 percent were Jews. And then Stalin came to power, and politicians who pursued a [non-ideological] policy in the interests of Russia, including the “Great Patriotic War” [that is, the Second World War], which he won.

Stalin not only had millions killed who were on the periphery of power, such as peasants, but he also had 1.6 million of Lenin’s followers, including Trotsky, systematically shot as well. And as a result, Russia today is regarded as the only country that is anti-Jewish or free of Zionist influence. We Germans ought to be glad for the rivalry between Washington and Moscow. We have to take advantage of these differences.

Q: What sort of Jewish influence was there in the U.S.S.R. during the Second World War?

A: After the war, many Jews were deported to the Ural area, and the Polish Jews fled. The Russians needed soldiers, and some of the Jews were used as partisans. And the Russians saw that the people didn’t want them. They weren’t happy with them, and they deported them. During the war we estimated that there were perhaps 1.8 million, or perhaps 2 million, I don’t know for sure, Jews in the Soviet Union. There weren’t that many.

Q: And Jewish influence in the Soviet Union today?

A: There are certainly [still] a few, but their influence has decreased drastically. In the Supreme Soviet today less than four percent are Jews, as opposed to 97 per cent [in Lenin’s time]. So you can see how things have changed.

Q: What of Jews in Soviet professional life?

A: Yes, but they don’t matter. They don’t have any political influence.

Q: Have you spoken with the Russians?

A: Yes, I’ve spoken with the Soviet ambassador Valentyn Falin. I meet with him when I visit Bonn, or with the press secretary in Cologne. They welcome me, and we speak together as freely as you and I do here. It’s completely normal for someone in political life to speak freely with his adversaries.

Q: Do you think the Russians will really cooperate?

A: For the time being, we don’t count. We are not a political force. We can only act as a political factor when we are a political power.

I’ve written a pamphlet which I sent to Moscow and which I discussed with the Soviet embassy. They were in agreement and said that if all Germans thought like I do, political relations would be a lot simpler. However, [they said] we have to deal with Bonn, and because Bonn is in the NATO alliance, Bonn is our adversary. So that’s the situation.

Q: Why is the publication of your organization called The Bismarck German?

A: That’s because Bismarck pursued a policy oriented toward the East, and as a result of his “Reinsurrance Treaty” [1887] with Russia, we had 44 years of peace.


From The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1990 (Vol. 10, No. 1), pages 108-117.

About the Author

Otto Ernst Roemer (1912-1997) was a German soldier during the Second World War. In July 1944 he played a key role in putting down the conspiracy to murder Hitler and seize control of the German government. After the war Remer was an influential publicist and author, and for a time was active in German political life. He addressed the Eighth (1987) Conference of the Institute for Historical Review, where he spoke on “My Role in Berlin on July 20, 1944.”

 

BREAKING INTEL DROP – TRUMP MOVES TO PARDON EDWARD SNOWDEN: The Whistleblower Who Exposed the Deep State May Finally Come Home!

$
0
0

 

BREAKING INTEL DROP – TRUMP MOVES TO PARDON EDWARD SNOWDEN: The Whistleblower Who Exposed the Deep State May Finally Come Home!  

By Medeea Greere December 23, 2025 No Comments 5 Mins Read

BREAKING INTEL DROP – TRUMP MOVES TO PARDON EDWARD SNOWDEN: The Whistleblower Who Exposed the Deep State May Finally Come Home! BOOM!!!

Trump shocks the Deep State by opening clemency talks for Edward Snowden — the NSA whistleblower who exposed illegal spying on American citizens. Led by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, this bold move could rewrite the rules of justice, freedom, and national loyalty.


THE COMEBACK OF A PATRIOT

In an unprecedented move, the Trump administration has entered active negotiations to pardon Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who exposed one of the most shocking government surveillance operations in American history.

According to high-level sources, these discussions are being led by none other than Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, a vocal supporter of constitutional liberties and longtime advocate for Snowden’s clemency.

Snowden, who has lived in exile for over a decade, may finally return home to the United States — as a free man and a national hero.


THE CRIMES HE EXPOSED — AND WHY IT MATTERS

Snowden didn’t sell secrets to enemies. He didn’t betray America. He exposed the treason happening inside her borders.

After the passage of the Patriot Act, the NSA launched illegal dragnet surveillance programs, spying on the calls, texts, emails, and online activity of millions of innocent Americans — all without warrants, without oversight, and without public consent.

This was not “national security.” This was a clear and brutal violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Snowden blew the whistle, and the Deep State called it treason. But the people?The people called it truth.


TRUMP’S BOLD STRIKE AGAINST TYRANNY

While past presidents ran from Snowden — afraid of the intel community, afraid of the media, afraid of the truth — Donald J. Trump is doing the opposite.

He’s leaning in. He’s challenging the very core of the surveillance-industrial complex.

And he’s doing it with Tulsi Gabbard at his side — a war veteran, constitutionalist, and now the Director of National Intelligence who understands that patriotism means standing for the people, not for unchecked power.

“Edward Snowden is not a traitor,” a White House source said.

“He is an American who had the courage to tell the truth.”


 NEW CHAPTER FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS AND LIBERTY

If this pardon is finalized, it will send a global message:


🔹 The era of weaponized secrecy is ending 

🔹 Whistleblowers are not criminals — they are guardians of truth 

🔹 The Constitution still matters 

🔹 The Deep State is not untouchable anymore


Tens of millions of Americans are rallying behind this move — and it may go down as one of Trump’s boldest acts of clemency yet.


THE PEOPLE HAVE DECIDED — BRING SNOWDEN HOME

 

Across platforms, hashtags like #PardonSnowdenNOW and #SnowdenIsAPatriot are trending as citizens demand justice — not for the agencies who broke the law, but for the man who told the truth.

The final act of this story is being written right now — and it could mark the beginning of the end for unchecked surveillance in America. Let freedom ring. Let Snowden come home.


DON’T MISS THIS

BOMBSHELL EXPOSED: Top-Secret HAARP Facilities And Military Bases Around The Globe Uncovered – Edward Snowden Unveils HAARP’s Sinister Global Agenda!

FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Prof. Jeffrey Sachs Roaring Ukraine Speech At EU Parliament

$
0
0

 

 


Prof. Jeffrey Sachs Roaring Ukraine Speech At EU Parliament 


As world braces for crucial Trump-Zelensky meeting on Ukraine at Florida later tonight, Professor Jeffrey Sachs address to European Parliament has gone viral when he warned that being a friend to the United States can be "fatal."


Speaking at "The Geopolitics of Peace" event, hosted by Michael von der Schulenburg, Sachs emphasized the need for Europe to adopt a truly independent foreign policy.


Sachs' statement was a call to action, urging Europe to develop a foreign policy that's grounded in reality.


Sachs' words echo his previous criticisms of US foreign policy, particularly regarding the Ukraine conflict.


He has argued that the US has recklessly expanded NATO's reach, ignoring Russia's concerns and fueling the devastating war. 



Estonian -- Täielik transkript – Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: „Rahu geopoliitika”

$
0
0

  


Täielik transkript – Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: „Rahu geopoliitika”

Kõne Euroopa Assambleele ja küsimused-vastused

 

Rahu geopoliitika – Jeffrey Sachs Euroopa Parlamendis

Täielik transkript

 

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: See on tõepoolest keeruline ja kiiresti muutuv aeg ning väga ohtlik. Seega vajame me tõesti selget mõtlemist. Ma olen eriti huvitatud meie vestlusest, seega püüan teha nii lühidalt ja selgelt kui võimalik.

Ma olen viimased 36 aastat väga tähelepanelikult jälginud sündmusi Ida-Euroopas, endises Nõukogude Liidus ja Venemaal. Olin 1989. aastal Poola valitsuse nõunik, 1990. ja 1991. aastal president Gorbatšovi nõunik, 1991. kuni 1993. aastal president Jeltsini nõunik ja 1993. kuni 1994. aastani Ukraina presidendi Kutšma nõunik. Aitasin kaasa Eesti oma valuuta kasutuselevõtule. Aitasin mitut endise Jugoslaavia riiki, eriti Sloveeniat. Olen jälginud sündmusi väga lähedalt 36 aastat.


Pärast Maidani sündmusi palus uus valitsus mul Kiievisse tulla, mind viidi Maidani ümbrusesse ja ma õppisin palju asju esmaallikast. Olen olnud üle 30 aasta kontaktis Venemaa juhtidega. Tunnen lähedalt Ameerika poliitilisi juhte. Meie eelmine rahandusminister oli 51 aastat tagasi minu makroökonoomika õpetaja, et teile aimu anda. Oleme pool sajandit väga lähedased sõbrad olnud. Ma tunnen kõiki neid inimesi.

Ma tahan seda öelda, sest see, mida ma oma seisukohast selgitada tahan, ei ole teise käe info ega ideoloogia. See on see, mida ma olen oma silmaga näinud ja selle aja jooksul kogenud. Minu arusaama järgi on Euroopat tabanud sündmused paljudes kontekstides – ja ma ei pea silmas ainult Ukraina kriisi, vaid ka Serbiat 1999. aastal, sõdu Lähis-Idas, sealhulgas Iraagis, Süürias, sõdu Aafrikas, sealhulgas Sudaanis, Somaalias, Liibüas – neid on väga olulisel määral, mis teid ehk üllatab ja mille kohta mind hukka mõistetakse, need on sõjad, mida Ameerika Ühendriigid juhtisid ja põhjustasid. See on olnud nii juba üle 40 aasta.

Täpsemalt öeldes, enam kui 30 aastat tagasi, eriti 1990. ja 1991. aastal ning seejärel Nõukogude Liidu lagunemisel, jõudis Ameerika Ühendriikide valitsus seisukohale, et Ameerika Ühendriigid juhivad nüüd maailma ja et Ameerika Ühendriigid ei pea arvestama kellegi seisukohti, punaseid jooni, muresid, julgeolekuprobleeme ega rahvusvahelisi kohustusi ega ÜRO raamistikku. Vabandust, et ma seda nii otse ütlen, aga ma tahan, et te seda mõistaksite.

1991. aastal püüdsin ma väga aidata Gorbatšovi, kes oli minu arvates meie ajastu suurim riigimees. Lugesin hiljuti arhiivist leitud memot, milles kirjeldatakse Riikliku Julgeolekunõukogu arutelu minu ettepaneku üle, kuidas nad selle täielikult tagasi lükkasid ja naersid selle laualt, kui ma ütlesin, et Ameerika Ühendriigid peaksid Nõukogude Liidul finantsstabiilsust saavutada ja reforme läbi viia aitama. Märgukirjas on dokumenteeritud, sealhulgas mõned minu endised kolleegid Harvardist, kes ütlevad, et me teeme minimaalselt, et katastroofi ära hoida, aga ainult minimaalselt, meie ülesanne ei ole aidata. Vastupidi, meil ei ole huvi aidata.

Kui Nõukogude Liit 1991. aastal lõppes, muutus see seisukoht veelgi ülemäärasemaks. Võin tuua konkreetseid näiteid, aga seisukoht oli, et meie juhime asju. Cheney, Wolfowitz ja paljud teised, kelle nimesid te kindlasti teate, uskusid tõesti, et nüüd on maailm Ameerika Ühendriikide oma ja me teeme, mida tahame. Me puhastame end endisest Nõukogude Liidust. Me kõrvaldame kõik järelejäänud liitlased. Riigid nagu Iraak, Süüria ja teised kaovad.

Me oleme seda välispoliitikat kogenud nüüd juba sisuliselt 33 aastat. Euroopa on selle eest kõrget hinda maksnud, sest Euroopal pole selle aja jooksul olnud mingit välispoliitikat, mida ma suudaksin mõista. Ei häält, ei ühtsust, ei selgust, ei Euroopa huve, ainult lojaalsus Ameerika Ühendriikidele.

On olnud hetki, mil on olnud erimeelsusi ja minu arvates väga toredaid erimeelsusi, eriti viimati 2003. aastal Iraagi sõja ajal, kui Prantsusmaa ja Saksamaa ütlesid, et nad ei toeta Ameerika Ühendriikide otsust minna selle sõja jaoks ÜRO Julgeolekunõukogust mööda. See sõda oli muide otseselt Netanyahu ja tema kolleegide poolt Ameerika Ühendriikide Kaitseministeeriumis kokku lepitud. Ma ei ütle, et see oli seos või vastastikune kokkulepe. Ma ütlen, et see oli otsene sõda. See oli sõda, mis peeti Iisraeli nimel. See oli sõda, mida Paul Wolfowitz ja Douglas Feith koordineerisid Netanyahu’ga. Ja see oli viimane kord, kui Euroopal oli sõnaõigus. Ma rääkisin siis Euroopa liidritega ja nad olid väga selgesõnalised, mis oli üsna imeline. Pärast seda kaotas Euroopa täielikult oma sõnaõiguse, eriti 2008. aastal.

Nüüd, mis juhtus pärast 1991. aastat kuni 2008. aastani, on see, et Ameerika Ühendriigid otsustasid, et unipolaarsus tähendab, et NATO laieneb samm-sammult Brüsselist Vladivostokini. NATO ida suunas laienemisel ei oleks lõppu. See oleks Ameerika Ühendriikide unipolaarne maailm. Kui te mängite lapsena riskimängu, nagu mina tegin, siis see on Ameerika Ühendriikide idee, et rahu valitseks kogu laual. Iga koht, kus pole Ameerika Ühendriikide sõjaväebaasi, on põhimõtteliselt vaenlane. Neutraalsus on Ameerika Ühendriikide poliitilises sõnavaras räpane, võib-olla kõige räpasem sõna. Kui sa oled vaenlane, teame vähemalt, et sa oled vaenlane. Kui sa oled neutraalne, oled sa õõnestav, sest siis oled sa tegelikult meie vastu, sest sa ei ütle meile seda. Sa teeskled, et oled neutraalne.

See oli siis mõtteviis ja otsus võeti ametlikult vastu 1994. aastal, kui president Clinton allkirjastas NATO laienemise itta. Te mäletate kindlasti, et 7. veebruaril 1991 rääkisid Hans-Dietrich Genscher ja James Baker III Gorbatšoviga. Genscher andis pärast seda pressikonverentsi, kus ta selgitas, et NATO ei liigu itta. Me ei kasuta ära Varssavi pakti lagunemist. Mõistke, et see oli juriidiline kontekst, mitte juhuslik kontekst. See oli Teise maailmasõja lõpp, mil läbirääkimisi peeti Saksamaa taasühendamise üle. Sõlmiti kokkulepe, et NATO ei liigu ühegi sentimeetri võrra itta. See oli selgesõnaline ja on kirjas lugematutes dokumentides. Vaadake George Washingtoni Ülikooli Riiklikku Julgeolekuarhiivi ja te leiate kümneid dokumente. See on veebisait nimega „Mida Gorbatšov NATOst kuulis”. Vaadake seda, sest kõik, mida USA teile selle kohta räägib, on vale, aga arhiivid on täiesti selged.

Nii võeti 1994. aastal vastu otsus laiendada NATOt kuni Ukrainani. See on projekt. See ei ole ühe või teise valitsuse projekt. See on USA valitsuse projekt, mis algas üle 30 aasta tagasi. 1997. aastal kirjutas Zbigniew Brzezinski raamatu „Suur malelaud”. See ei ole lihtsalt Brzezinski mõtisklus. See on USA valitsuse otsuste esitamine avalikkusele, nii need raamatud toimivadki. Raamat kirjeldab Euroopa ja NATO idapoolset laienemist kui samaaegseid sündmusi. Raamatus on hea peatükk, mis käsitleb seda, mida Venemaa teeb, kui Euroopa ja NATO itta laienevad. Ma tundsin Zbigniew Brzezinskit isiklikult. Ta oli minu suhtes väga sõbralik. Ma olin Poola nõunik. Ta oli mulle suureks abiks. Ta oli väga sõbralik ja tark mees, kuid ta eksis kõiges.

Nii kirjutas ta 1997. aastal üksikasjalikult, miks Venemaa ei saa teha muud, kui nõustuda NATO ja Euroopa ida poole laienemisega. Tegelikult räägib ta Euroopa ida poole laienemisest ja mitte ainult Euroopast, vaid ka NATOst. See oli plaan, projekt. Ja ta selgitab, kuidas Venemaa ei liitu kunagi Hiinaga. See on mõeldamatu. Venemaa ei liitu kunagi Iraaniga. Venemaal ei ole muud kutsumust kui Euroopa kutsumus. Nii et kui Euroopa liigub itta, ei saa Venemaa midagi teha. Nii ütleb veel üks Ameerika strateeg. Kas on küsimus, miks me oleme kogu aeg sõjas? Sest üks asi Ameerika kohta on see, et me teame alati, mida meie vastased teevad, ja me eksime alati.

Ja üks põhjus, miks me alati eksime, on see, et mänguteoorias, mida Ameerika strateegid mängivad, ei räägi sa tegelikult teise poolega. Sa lihtsalt tead, mis on teise poole strateegia. See on imeline. See säästab nii palju aega. Sa ei vaja mingit diplomaatiat. See projekt algas ja meil oli valitsemise järjepidevus 30 aastat, kuni võib-olla eilseni — ehk umbes 30 aastat kestnud projekt.

Ukraina ja Gruusia olid projekti võtmed. Miks? Sest Ameerika õppis kõik, mida ta teab, brittidelt. Ja nii oleme me Briti impeeriumi jäljendajad. Ja mida Briti impeerium 1853. aastal mõistis, härra Palmer, lord Palmerston, vabandust, on see, et ümbritsetakse Venemaad Musta mere ääres ja keelatakse Venemaale juurdepääs Vahemere idaosale. Ja kõik, mida te näete, on Ameerika projekt, mis teeb seda 21. sajandil. Ideeks oli, et Ukraina, Rumeenia, Bulgaaria, Türgi ja Gruusia oleksid Musta mere piirkonna riigid, mis võtaksid Venemaalt ära igasuguse rahvusvahelise staatuse, blokeerides Musta mere ja neutraliseerides Venemaa enam kui selle kohaliku jõu. Brzezinski on selles suhtes täiesti selge. Enne Brzezinski oli Mackinder, kes ütles, et kes omab maailma saart, omab maailma. Seega on see projekt väga vana. Ma arvan, et see ulatub põhimõtteliselt tagasi Palmerstoni aega 19. sajandil. Ja veel kord, ma olen elanud läbi kõik valitsused. Ma olen tundnud neid presidente. Ma olen tundnud nende meeskondi. Midagi ei muutunud eriti Clintonist Bushini, Obamast Trumpini ja Bidenini. Võib-olla muutusid nad samm-sammult halvemaks. Minu arvates oli Biden kõige halvem. Võib-olla ka seetõttu, et ta ei olnud viimase paari aasta jooksul compos mentis. Ja ma ütlen seda tõsiselt, mitte sarkastiliselt.

Ameerika poliitiline süsteem on kuvandi süsteem. See on igapäevane meedia manipuleerimise süsteem. See on PR-süsteem. Nii võib olla president, kes põhimõtteliselt ei funktsioneeri, ja see president võib olla võimul kaks aastat ja kandideerida isegi uuesti. Ja üks neetud asi oli see, et ta pidi 90 minutit üksi laval seisma. Ja see oli kõik. Kui poleks olnud seda viga, oleks ta kandideerinud, olenemata sellest, kas ta magas pärast kella neljani pärastlõunal või mitte. See on tegelikult reaalsus. Kõik lepivad sellega. On ebaviisakas öelda seda, mida ma ütlen, sest me ei räägi praegu peaaegu millegi kohta selles maailmas tõtt.

Nii et see projekt jätkus alates 1990. aastatest. Belgradi pommitamine 78 päeva järjest 1999. aastal oli osa sellest projektist. Riigi jagamine, kui piirid on pühad, kas pole nii? Välja arvatud Kosovo. See on okei, sest piirid on pühad, välja arvatud juhul, kui Ameerika neid muudab.

Sudaan oli teine seotud projekt. Lõuna-Sudaani mäss. Kas see juhtus lihtsalt sellepärast, et Lõuna-Sudaani elanikud mässasid? Või kas ma võin teile anda LKA mänguraamatu, et te täiskasvanutena mõistaksite, millest siin tegelikult jutt on? Sõjalised sündmused on kulukad. Nad nõuavad varustust, väljaõpet, baaslaagreid, luuret, rahalisi vahendeid. See kõik tuleb suurriikidelt. See ei tule kohalikelt mässulistelt. Lõuna-Sudaan ei alistanud hõimulahingus ei Põhja-Sudaani ega Sudaani. See oli Ameerika projekt. Käisin tihti Nairobis ja kohtusin Ameerika sõjaväelaste, senaatorite ja teistega, kes olid sügavalt huvitatud Sudaani poliitikast. See oli osa unipolaarsuse mängust.

NATO laienemine algas, nagu teate, 1999. aastal Ungari, Poola ja Tšehhi Vabariigiga. Venemaa oli selle üle äärmiselt rahulolematu. Aga need riigid olid piirist veel kaugel. Venemaa protestis, aga loomulikult tulutult. Siis tuli võimule George Bush Jr. Kui toimus 9/11, lubas president Putin igakülgset toetust. Siis otsustas USA 20. septembril 2001, et alustab viie aasta jooksul seitset sõda. Seda saab kuulata kindral Wesley Clarki veebikõnest. Ta oli 1999. aastal NATO ülemjuhataja. 20. septembril 2001 läks ta Pentagoni. Talle anti paber, milles selgitati seitset sõda. Need olid muide Netanyahu sõjad. Idee oli osaliselt puhastada vanad Nõukogude liitlased ja osaliselt kõrvaldada Hamasi ja Hezbollah’ toetajad. Sest Netanyahu idee oli, et seal saab olema üks riik, tänan teid, ainult üks riik. See saab olema Iisrael. Iisrael kontrollib kogu territooriumi. Ja kõik, kes sellele vastu on, kukutame. Mitte meie otseselt, vaid meie sõber, Ameerika Ühendriigid. See on olnud Ameerika Ühendriikide poliitika kuni tänase hommikuni. Me ei tea, kas see muutub. Ainus muudatus on see, et võib-olla hakkab Gaza kuuluma Ameerika Ühendriikidele, mitte Iisraelile. Aga see idee on olnud olemas vähemalt 25 aastat. See pärineb tegelikult dokumendist „Clean Break”, mille Netanyahu ja tema Ameerika poliitiline meeskond koostasid 1996. aastal, et lõpetada kahe riigi lahenduse idee. Selle leiate ka internetist. Need on projektid. Need on pikaajalised sündmused. Need ei ole Clinton, Bush või Obama. See on igav viis vaadata Ameerika poliitikat kui igapäevast mängu. Aga Ameerika poliitika ei ole selline.

Järgmine NATO laienemine toimus 2004. aastal, kui liitus seitse riiki: kolm Balti riiki, Rumeenia, Bulgaaria, Sloveenia ja Slovakkia. Sel hetkel oli Venemaa päris vihane. See oli täielik rikkumine sõjajärgse korra suhtes, mis oli kokku lepitud Saksamaa taasühinemisel. Sisuliselt oli see põhimõtteline trikk või USA taganemine koostöölepingust, sest nad usuvad unipolaarsusesse.

Nagu kõik mäletavad, sest meil oli just eelmisel nädalal 2007. aastal Müncheni julgeolekukonverents, kus president Putin ütles: „Lõpetage, piisab, lõpetage kohe.” Ja muidugi tähendas see, et 2008. aastal surusid Ameerika Ühendriigid Euroopale peale NATO laienemise Ukrainasse ja Gruusiasse. See on pikaajaline projekt. Ma kuulasin 2008. aasta mais New Yorgis Saakašvilit ja läksin välja, helistasin Soniale ja ütlesin, et see mees on hull. Ja kuu aega hiljem puhkes sõda. Sest Ameerika Ühendriigid ütlesid sellele mehele, et me päästsime Gruusia. Ja ta seisab Välissuhete Nõukogus ja ütleb, et Gruusia on Euroopa keskmes. Noh, see ei ole nii, daamid ja härrad. See ei asu Euroopa keskmes. Ja viimased sündmused ei aita Gruusia julgeolekut ega teie parlamendiliikmete ega Euroopa Parlamendi liikmete ega Euroopa poliitikute sinna minek. See hävitab Gruusia. See ei päästa Gruusiat. See hävitab Gruusia, hävitab täielikult.

2008. aastal, nagu kõik teavad, saatis meie endine LKA direktor William Byrne Condoleezza Rice’ile pika sõnumi: „Njet tähendab Njet” laienemise kohta. Seda teame Julian Assange’ilt, sest uskuge mind, ameeriklastele ei räägita praegu midagi, teile ei räägita midagi ja teie ajalehed ei räägi midagi. Seega peame tänama Julian Assange’i, kui me saame seda märgukirja üksikasjalikult lugeda.

Nagu te teate, valiti Viktor Janukovõtš 2010. aastal neutraalsuse platvormil. Venemaal polnud Ukrainas üldse territoriaalseid huve ega plaane. Ma tean seda. Ma olin nendel aastatel seal. Venemaa pidas läbirääkimisi 25-aastase rendilepingu üle Sevastoopoli mereväebaasi kohta kuni 2042. aastani. See on kõik. Mitte Krimm, mitte Donbass, mitte midagi sellist. See idee, et Putin taastab Vene impeeriumi, on lapselik propaganda. Vabandust. Kui keegi teab päev-päevalt ja aasta-aastalt ajalugu, siis see on lapselik jama. Lapselik jama näib toimivat paremini kui täiskasvanulik jama. Niisiis, mitte mingeid plaane polnud.

Ameerika Ühendriigid otsustasid, et see mees tuleb kukutada. Seda nimetatakse režiimivahetuse operatsiooniks. Ameerika Ühendriigid on neid teinud umbes 100, paljud teie riikides ja paljud kogu maailmas. See ongi LKA töö. Selge? Palun pidage seda meeles. See on väga ebatavaline välispoliitika. Aga Ameerikas, kui te teisele poolele ei meeldi, siis te ei pea nendega läbirääkimisi, vaid üritate neid kukutada, eelistatavalt salaja. Kui salaja ei õnnestu, siis teete seda avalikult. Te ütlete alati, et see pole meie süü. Nemad on agressorid. Nemad on teine pool. Nemad on Hitler. See tuleb esile iga kahe või kolme aasta tagant, olgu see siis Saddam Hussein, Assad või Putin. See on väga mugav. See on ainus välispoliitiline selgitus, mida Ameerika rahvale kuskil antakse. Noh, me seisame silmitsi 1938. aasta Müncheniga. Teise poolega ei saa rääkida. Nad on kurjad, lepitamatud vaenlased. See on ainus välispoliitika mudel, mida me kunagi meie massimeediast kuuleme. Ja massimeedia kordab seda täielikult, sest see on täielikult Ameerika Ühendriikide valitsuse poolt altkäemaksuga mõjutatud.

Nüüd, 2014. aastal, töötas USA aktiivselt Janukovitši kukutamise nimel. Kõik teavad telefonikõnest, mida kuulasid pealt minu Columbia Ülikooli kolleeg Victoria Nuland ja USA suursaadik Peter Piat. Paremat tõendit ei ole võimalik leida. Venelased kuulasid tema kõnet pealt ja panid selle internetti. Kuulake seda. See on põnev. Ma tean, et kõik need inimesed said selle eest Bideni administratsioonis edutamise. See ongi töö.

Kui Maidan toimus, helistati mulle kohe. Oh, professor Sachs, uus Ukraina peaminister soovib teiega kohtuda, et rääkida majanduskriisist, sest ma olen selles päris hea. Nii lendasin ma Kiievisse ja mind viidi Maidani ümbrusesse ning mulle räägiti, kuidas USA maksis raha kõigile Maidani ümber olevatele inimestele. Spontaanne väärikuse revolutsioon. Daamid ja härrad, palun, kust need kõik meediakanalid tulevad? Kust tuleb kogu see organisatsioon? Kust tulevad kõik need bussid? Kust tulevad kõik need kutsutud inimesed? Kas te teete nalja? See on organiseeritud tegevus. Ja see pole saladus, välja arvatud Euroopa ja Ameerika Ühendriikide kodanikele. Kõik teised mõistavad seda üsna selgelt.

Siis tuli Minsk ja eriti Minsk-2, mis muide oli kujundatud Lõuna-Tirooli autonoomia eeskujul. Ja belglased oleksid võinud Minsk-2-ga väga hästi suhestuda. See ütles, et Ukraina idaosas peaks olema autonoomia venekeelsetele piirkondadele. Seda toetas ühehäälselt ÜRO Julgeolekunõukogu. Ameerika Ühendriigid ja Ukraina otsustasid, et seda ei rakendata. Saksamaa ja Prantsusmaa, kes olid Normandia protsessi tagajad, lasid sel minna. Ja see oli täiesti järjekordne otsene Ameerika unipolaarne tegevus, kus Euroopa, nagu tavaliselt, mängis täiesti kasutut kõrvalrolli, kuigi oli lepingu tagaja.

Trump tõstis relvastust. Ukraina pommitamine Donbassis nõudis tuhandeid ohvreid. Minsk-2 lepingut ei olnud. Siis astus ametisse Biden. Ma tunnen kõiki neid inimesi. Ma olin varem Demokraatliku Partei liige. Nüüd olen ma vandunud, et ei kuulu ühegi partei liikmeskonda, sest mõlemad on niikuinii ühesugused. Ja kuna demokraadid muutusid aja jooksul täielikeks sõjakiihkajateks. Ja rahu kohta ei olnud ühtegi häält, nagu enamik teie parlamendiliikmetest, samamoodi.

1991. aasta lõpus pani Putin lauale viimase katse kahe julgeolekukokkuleppe eelnõu näol: ühe Euroopaga ja teise Ameerika Ühendriikidega. Ameerika Ühendriigid panid selle lauale 15. detsembril 2021. Ma rääkisin tund aega Jake Sullivaniga Valges Majas, paludes: „Jake, ära tee sõda. Sa saad sõda ära hoida. Sa pead ainult ütlema, et NATO ei laiene Ukrainasse.” Ja ta vastas mulle: „Oh, NATO ei laiene Ukrainasse. Ära muretse.” Ma ütlesin: „Jake, ütle seda avalikult.” „Ei, ei, ei, me ei saa seda avalikult öelda.” Ma ütlesin: „Jake, sa hakkad sõda pidama millegi pärast, mida isegi ei juhtu.” Ta vastas: „Ära muretse, Jeff, sõda ei tule.” Need inimesed ei ole eriti targad. Ma ütlen sulle ausalt, et need inimesed ei ole eriti targad. Ma olen nendega tegelenud üle 40 aasta. Nad räägivad iseendaga. Nad ei räägi kellegi teisega. Koostöömänguteoorias ei räägi te teise poolega. Te lihtsalt koostate oma strateegia. See on mänguteooria olemus. See ei ole läbirääkimisteooria. See ei ole rahutagamise teooria. See on ühepoolne, koostööst hoiduv teooria, kui te tunnete formaalset mänguteooriat. Seda nad mängivadki. See algas RAND Corporationis. Seda nad mängivad siiani.

2019. aastal ilmus RANDi artikkel „Kuidas laiendada Venemaad?”. Kas teate, et nad kirjutasid artikli, mida Biden järgis? „Kuidas ärritada Venemaad?” See on sõna otseses mõttes strateegia. Kuidas ärritada Venemaad? Me üritame seda provotseerida, üritame seda lõhestada, võib-olla tekitada režiimimuutuse, võib-olla rahutused, võib-olla majanduskriisi. Seda nimetate te oma liitlaseks. Kas te teete nalja? Niisiis oli mul pikk ja frustreeriv telefonikõne Sullivaniga. Seisin külmas. Juhuslikult üritasin suusapäeva veeta. Ja seal ma olin, Jake, ära alusta sõda. Oh, sõda ei tule, Jeff.

Me teame palju sellest, mis järgmisel kuul juhtus, nimelt et nad keeldusid läbirääkimistest. NATO kõige rumalam idee on niinimetatud avatud uste poliitika. Kas te teete nalja? NATO jätab endale õiguse minna sinna, kuhu tahab, ilma et naabritel oleks mingit sõnaõigust. Ma ütlen mehhiklastele ja kanadalastele, et ärge proovigegi. Trump võib tahta Kanada üle võtta. Seega võiks Kanada öelda Hiinale, et miks te ei ehita sõjaväebaasi Ontariosse? Ma ei soovitaks seda. Ja Ameerika Ühendriigid ei ütleks, et see on avatud uks. See on nende asi. Ma mõtlen, et nad võivad teha, mida tahavad. See ei ole meie asi. Aga Euroopa täiskasvanud kordavad seda. Euroopas, teie komisjonis, olete te kõrge esindaja. See on mõttetus. See ei ole isegi algeline geopoliitika. See on lihtsalt mõtlemata tegutsemine.

Nii algas sõda. Mis oli Putini eesmärk selles sõjas? Ma võin teile öelda, mis oli tema eesmärk. See oli sundida Zelenskõi läbirääkimisi neutraalsuse üle. Ja see juhtus seitsme päeva jooksul pärast invasiooni algust. Te peaksite seda mõistma, mitte propagandat, mis selle kohta kirjutatakse. Oh, et nad ebaõnnestusid ja ta kavatses Ukraina üle võtta. Tulge, daamid ja härrad, mõistke midagi põhilist. Eesmärk oli NATO säilitamine. Ja mis on NATO? See on Ameerika Ühendriigid Venemaa piirist eemal. Mitte rohkem, mitte vähem.

Peaksin lisama ühe väga olulise punkti. Miks nad on nii huvitatud? Esiteks, sest kui Hiina või Venemaa otsustaksid rajada sõjaväebaasi Rio Grande’ile või Kanada piirile, siis mitte ainult Ameerika Ühendriigid ei läheks hulluks, vaid meil oleks umbes 10 minuti pärast sõda. Aga ka sellepärast, et Ameerika Ühendriigid loobusid 2002. aastal ühepoolselt ballistiliste rakettide tõrje lepingust ja lõpetasid sellega tuumarelvade kontrolli raamistiku. Ja seda on äärmiselt oluline mõista. Tuumarelvade kontrolli raamistik põhineb esimesena ründamise takistamisel. ABM-leping oli selle oluline osa. Ameerika Ühendriigid loobusid 2002. aastal ühepoolselt ABM-lepingust. See ajas Venemaa marru. Seega kõik, mida ma olen kirjeldanud, on seotud ka tuumarelvade kontrolli raamistiku hävitamisega.

Alates 2010. aastast paigutasid Ameerika Ühendriigid Aegis-raketisüsteemid Poolasse ja seejärel Rumeeniasse. Venemaale see ei meeldi. Üks detsembris ja jaanuaris, 2021. aasta detsembris ja 2022. aasta jaanuaris arutatud küsimusi oli, kas Ameerika Ühendriigid nõuavad õigust paigutada raketisüsteemid Ukrainasse. Blinken ütles Lavrovile 2022. aasta jaanuaris, et Ameerika Ühendriigid jätavad endale õiguse paigaldada raketisüsteeme sinna, kuhu nad soovivad. See on teie oletatav liitlane. Ja nüüd paigaldame keskmise ulatusega raketisüsteemid tagasi Saksamaale. Ameerika Ühendriigid lahkusid 2019. aastal ühepoolselt INF-lepingust. Praegu puudub tuumaraketiraamistik. Täiesti.

Kui Zelenskõi ütles, et seitsme päeva pärast alustame läbirääkimisi, tean ma selle üksikasju väga hästi. Sest olen kõigi osapooltega üksikasjalikult rääkinud. Paari nädala jooksul vahetati dokument, mille president Putin oli heaks kiitnud ja mille Lavrov oli esitanud ning mida haldasid Türgi vahendajad. Lendasin Ankarasse, et kuulata üksikasjalikult, mida vahendajad tegid. Ukraina loobus ühepoolselt peaaegu saavutatud kokkuleppest. Miks? Sest Ameerika Ühendriigid käskisid neil seda teha. Sest Ühendkuningriik lisas veel viimase lihvi, saates Bojo aprilli alguses Ukrainasse selgitusi andma. Ja ta tegi seda hiljuti. Ja kui teie julgeolek on Boris Johnsoni kätes, siis aidaku meid kõiki jumal. Keith Starmer osutub veelgi halvemaks. See on kujuteldamatu, aga see on tõsi. Boris Johnson on selgitanud ja te võite seda veebilehelt järele vaadata, et siin on kaalul Lääne hegemoonia, mitte Ukraina, Lääne hegemoonia.

Michael ja mina kohtusime 2022. aasta kevadel Vatikanis ühe rühmaga, kus kirjutasime dokumendi, milles selgitasime, et sellest sõjast ei saa Ukraina jaoks midagi head tulla. Läbirääkimised peavad toimuma kohe, sest kõik, mis võtab aega, tähendab tohutut arvu surmajuhtumeid, tuumaeskalatsiooni ohtu ja tõenäolist sõja kaotust. Ma tahan muuta ühte sõna sellest, mida me siis kirjutasime. Selles dokumendis ei olnud midagi valesti. Ja alates sellest dokumendist, alates sellest, kui USA rääkis läbirääkijad lauast ära, on umbes miljon ukrainlast surnud või saanud raskelt haavata. Ja Ameerika senaatorid, kes on nii vastikud, küünilised ja korrumpeerunud, kui üldse võimalik, ütlevad, et see on suurepärane raha kulutamine, sest ükski ameeriklane ei sure. See on puhas proxy-sõda. Üks meie senaatoritest, Blumenthal, ütleb seda valjusti. Mitt Romney ütleb seda valjusti. See on parim raha, mida Ameerika kulutada saab. Ükski ameeriklane ei sure. See on ebareaalne.

Nüüd, et tuua meid eilsesse päeva. See ebaõnnestus. See projekt ebaõnnestus. Projekti idee oli, et Venemaa annab alla. Kogu aeg oli idee, et Venemaa ei suuda vastu panna, nagu Zbigniew Brzezinski 1997. aastal selgitas. Ameeriklased arvasid, et meil on ülekaal. Me võidame, sest me blufime neile. Nad ei hakka tegelikult võitlema. Nad ei hakka tegelikult mobiliseerima. Äärmuslik samm: nende eemaldamine SWIFTi süsteemist. See teeb neile lõpu. Majanduslikud sanktsioonid, see teeb neile lõpu. HIMARS, see teeb neile lõpu. ATAKMS, F-16. Ausalt öeldes olen seda 70 aastat kuulanud. Olen seda umbes 56 aastat pooleldi mõistvalt kuulanud. Nad räägivad iga päev mõttetuid asju. Minu riik, minu valitsus. See on mulle nii tuttav, täiesti tuttav.

Ma palusin ukrainlasi ja mul oli ukrainlastega head suhted. Ma nõustasin ukrainlasi, ma ei ole ukrainlaste vastane, ma olen täiesti ukrainlaste poolt. Ma ütlesin: päästke oma elud, päästke oma suveräänsus, päästke oma territoorium, olge neutraalsed. Ärge kuulake ameeriklasi. Ma kordasin neile Henry Kissingeri kuulsat ütlust, et olla Ameerika Ühendriikide vaenlane on ohtlik, aga olla sõber on saatuslik.

Las ma kordan seda Euroopa jaoks. Olla Ameerika Ühendriikide vaenlane on ohtlik, aga olla sõber on saatuslik.

Las ma lõpetan nüüd paar sõnaga Trumpi kohta. Trump ei taha kaotajat. Seetõttu on tõenäolisem, et see sõda lõpeb, sest Trump ja president Putin lepivad kokku sõja lõpetamises. Isegi kui Euroopa õhutab sõda nii palju kui tahes, ei muuda see midagi. Sõda lõpeb. Nii et võtke see oma süsteemist välja. Palun öelge oma kolleegidele, et see on läbi. Ja see on läbi, sest Trump ei taha kaotajat kanda. See on kõik. See ei ole mingi suur moraal, ta ei taha kaotajat kanda. See on kaotaja. See, kes päästetakse praegu toimuvate läbirääkimistega, on Ukraina. Teine on Euroopa. Teie aktsiaturg on viimastel päevadel tõusnud läbirääkimiste kohutavate uudiste tõttu. Ma tean, et see on siin saalis põhjustanud suurt õudust, aga see on parim uudis, mida te saaksite.

Ma julgustasin neid, nad ei kuula mind, aga ma üritasin mõnede liidritega ühendust võtta. Enamik ei taha minult midagi kuulda. Aga ma ütlesin, ärge minge Kiievisse. Minge Moskvasse. Arutage oma kolleegidega. Kas te teete nalja? Te olete Euroopa. Te olete 450 miljonit inimest. Te olete 20 triljoni dollari suurune majandus. Te peaksite olema Venemaa peamine majanduspartner. See on loomulik side. Muide, kui keegi soovib arutada, kuidas USA Nord Streami õhku lasi, räägin sellest hea meelega.

Seega on Trumpi administratsioon sisimas imperialistlik. See on suurriikide domineerimine maailmas. See on „me teeme, mida tahame, kui saame”. Me oleme paremad kui vananev Biden ja vähendame kahjusid seal, kus vaja. Maailmas on mitu sõjatsooni, üks neist on Lähis-Ida. Me ei tea, mis seal juhtub. Jällegi, kui Euroopal oleks õige poliitika, saaksite selle sõja peatada. Ma seletan, kuidas. Aga sõda Hiinaga on samuti võimalik. Ma ei ütle, et oleme uuel rahuajastul, aga me oleme praegu väga erinevas poliitilises olukorras. Euroopa peaks omama välispoliitikat, mitte ainult russofoobset välispoliitikat, vaid realistlikku välispoliitikat, mis mõistab Venemaa olukorda, mõistab Euroopa olukorda, mõistab, mis on Ameerika ja mille eest see seisab. See püüab vältida Euroopasse sissetungi Ameerika Ühendriikide poolt, sest pole võimatu, et Ameerika lihtsalt maabub Taani territooriumile. Ma ei naljata. Ja ma ei arva, et nemad naljatavad.

Ja Euroopa vajab välispoliitikat, tõelist välispoliitikat, mitte seda, et jah, me räägime Trumpiga läbi ja lepime temaga kokku. Teate, kuidas see välja näeb? Helistage mulle pärast. Palun ärge pange Euroopa juhiks Ameerika ametnikke. Pange Euroopa ametnikud. Palun pange paika Euroopa välispoliitika. Te elate Venemaaga veel kaua koos. Seega palun pidage Venemaaga läbirääkimisi. Laual on tõelised julgeolekuküsimused. Aga pompöösne retoorika ja russofoobia ei aita teie julgeolekut üldse. See ei aita Ukraina julgeolekut üldse. See aitas kaasa miljonile ohvrile Ukrainas selle idiootliku Ameerika seikluse tõttu, millega te nõustusite ja mille peamiseks toetajaks saite. See ei lahenda midagi.

Muide, Lähis-Idas andis USA 30 aastat tagasi välispoliitika täielikult Netanyahu kätesse. Iisraeli lobbitöö domineerib Ameerika poliitikas. Selles pole kahtlustki. Ma võiksin tundide kaupa selgitada, kuidas see toimib. See on väga ohtlik. Ma loodan, et Trump ei hävita oma administratsiooni ja veelgi hullem, Palestiina rahvast Netanyahu pärast, keda ma pean sõjakurjategijaks, keda Rahvusvaheline Kriminaalkohus on õigustatult süüdistanud. Ja tuleb öelda, et rahule jõudmiseks on ainus viis rahvusvahelise õiguse kohaselt luua Palestiina riik 1967. aasta 4. juuni piirides. Euroopa jaoks on ainus viis rahu saavutamiseks Lähis-Ida piiridel kahe riigi lahendus. Selle teel on muide ainult üks takistus, nimelt Ameerika Ühendriikide ja ÜRO Julgeolekunõukogu vetoõigus. Kui te tahate mõju avaldada, öelge Ameerika Ühendriikidele, et nad loobuksid vetoõigusest. Te olete koos 180 riigiga maailmas. Ainsad, kes on Palestiina riigi vastu, on Ameerika Ühendriigid, Iisrael, Mikroneesia, Nauru, Palau, Paapua Uus-Guinea, [hr Malay (?)] ja Paraguay. Seega on see koht, kus Euroopal võiks olla suur mõju.

Euroopa on vaikinud JCPOA ja Iraani suhtes. Netanyahu suurim unistus elus on sõda Ameerika Ühendriikide ja Iraani vahel. Ta ei ole loobunud. Ja pole võimatu, et see ka juhtub. Sest Ameerika Ühendriikidel pole selles osas iseseisvat välispoliitikat. Seda juhib Iisrael. See on traagiline. See on muide hämmastav. Ja see võiks lõppeda. Trump võib öelda, et ta tahab välispoliitikat tagasi. Võib-olla. Ma loodan, et see on nii.

Lõpetuseks tahaksin öelda Hiina kohta, et Hiina ei ole vaenlane. Hiina on lihtsalt edulugu. Sellepärast peavad Ameerika Ühendriigid seda vaenlaseks, sest Hiina majandus on suurem kui Ameerika Ühendriikide oma. See on kõik.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Väga hea. Nüüd küsimused, palun ärge tehke avaldusi. Esitage ainult küsimusi, sest meid on liiga palju ja meil ei ole palju aega. Kust ma alustan? Alustan vasakult poolelt. Nagu te teate, eelistan ma vasakut poolt. Jah, palun.

Kõneleja Tšehhi Vabariigist: Tänan, Tšehhi Vabariigist, Jeffrey Sachs. Meil on hea meel, et te siin olete. Meil on probleem. Meid on neednud nõid, kes rääkis sellest ELile, ja EL on segaduses. Seega ei parane olukord enne 2029. aastat. Aga mida meie, Kesk-Euroopa elanikud, peaksime vahepeal tegema, eriti kui sakslased ei hääleta Sarah Wagenknechti poolt piisavalt, kas me peaksime looma mingi neutraalsuse Kesk-Euroopale? Või mida te soovitaksite meil teha?

Prof Jeffrey D. Sachs: Esiteks tahan ma, et te teaksite, et kõik mu lapselapsed on tšehhid. Sonia on sündinud Tšehhis ja on Tšehhi kodanik. Me oleme selle üle väga uhked. Mina olen selles suhtes abikaasa, aga tahaksin olla tšehh.

Euroopa vajab välispoliitikat, mis on Euroopa välispoliitika, ja see peab olema realistlik välispoliitika. Realistlikkus ei tähenda vihkamist. Realistlikkus tähendab tegelikult mõlema poole mõistmist ja läbirääkimiste pidamist. On kahte liiki realiste: kaitsvad realistid ja ründavad realistid. Minu kallis sõber John Mearsheimer, kes on ründav realist, on minu väga lähedane sõber ja ma armastan teda, aga ma usun rohkem kui tema. Räägid teise poolega ja leiad viisi, kuidas kokkuleppele jõuda.

Ja nii et põhimõtteliselt ei kavatse Venemaa Euroopat vallutada. See on põhiline punkt. Võib-olla jõuab ta Dnepri jõeni. Ta ei kavatse Euroopat vallutada, aga on olemas reaalsed probleemid. Venemaa peamine probleem oli Ameerika Ühendriigid, sest Venemaa kui suurriik ja maailma suurim tuumariik oli algusest peale sügavalt mures Ameerika Ühendriikide unipolaarsuse pärast. Nüüd, kui see näib lõppevat, peab Euroopa alustama läbirääkimisi ka otse Venemaaga, sest Ameerika Ühendriigid kaotavad kiiresti huvi ja te elate järgmise tuhande aasta jooksul Venemaaga. Olgu.

Mida te tahate? Te tahate kindlustada Balti riikide julgeolekut. Balti riikide jaoks on parim lõpetada oma russofoobia. See on kõige olulisem. Eestis on umbes 25% venelasi või venekeelseid kodanikke, etnilisi venelasi. Lätis on sama. Ärge provotseerige naabrit. See on kõik. See ei ole raske. See ei ole tõesti raske.

Ja veel kord, tahan selgitada oma seisukohta. Olen aidanud neid riike, millest räägin, püüdnud nõu anda. Ma ei ole nende vaenlane. Ma ei ole Putini marionett. Ma ei ole Putini kaitsja. Ma olen töötanud Eestis. Ma arvan, et see on teine kõrgeim tsiviilauhind, mida Eesti president võib anda mittekodanikule, sest ma kujundasin neile 1992. aastal nende rahasüsteemi. Niisiis annan ma neile nõu. Ära seisa seal, Eesti, ja ütle, et me tahame Venemaa lõhestada. Kas sa naljatad? Ära tee seda. Niimoodi ei ole võimalik selles maailmas ellu jääda. Tegelikult jääd ellu vastastikuse austuse abil. Jääd ellu läbirääkimiste abil. Jääd ellu arutelude abil. Te ei keelusta vene keelt. See ei ole hea mõte, kui 25% teie elanikkonnast on emakeeleks vene keel. See ei ole õige isegi siis, kui piiril ei oleks hiiglast. See ei oleks õige tegu. Te peaksite seda pidama ametlikuks keeleks. Te peaksite seda õpetama algkoolis. Te ei peaks vaenama vene õigeusu kirikut. Seega peame käituma nagu täiskasvanud. Ja kui ma pidevalt ütlen, et nad käituvad nagu lapsed, vastab Sonia mulle alati, et see on laste suhtes ebaõiglane. Sest see on hullem kui laste käitumine. Meil on kuueaastane ja kolmeaastane lapselaps, ja nemad lepivad oma sõpradega ära. Me ei ütle neile, et minge, naerge neid homme ja iga päev välja. Me ütleme: „Mine, tee neile kallistus ja mine mängima.” Ja nad teevadki seda. See pole raske. Muide, igatahes, ma ei hakka seda teemat pikemalt arutama. Tänan.

Nii et valige uus valitsus. Ei, ma ei peaks seda ütlema. Ma peaksin ütlema ainult, et muutke poliitikat.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Ma ei taha poliitilist…

8:46 Noor naisreporter Brussels Timesist: Kas see töötab? Jah. Tere, minu nimi on Kira. Ma olen Brussels Timesi reporter. Tänan teid huvitava loengu eest, Jeffrey. Ma tahtsin küsida teilt Trumpi avalduste kohta, et NATO liikmed peaksid suurendama oma kulutusi 5% võrra. Nüüd näeme, et paljud riigid, sealhulgas Belgia, püüavad tõestada, et nad teevad seda. Arvestades, et Belgia on ka NATO peakorter, tahaksin küsida, milline oleks NATO liikmete sobiv vastus nendele avaldustele? Tänan.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Me ei ole selles küsimuses täiesti ühel meelel. Lubage mul esitada oma arvamus. Minu esimene soovitus, kogu austuse juures Brüsseli vastu, on viia NATO peakorter mujale. Ma mõtlen seda tõsiselt, sest üks Euroopa poliitika halvimaid aspekte on praegu Euroopa ja NATO täielik segadus. Need on täiesti erinevad, kuid on muutunud täpselt ühesugusteks. Euroopa on palju parem kui NATO. Minu arvates ei ole NATO enam isegi vajalik. Ma oleksin selle 1991. aastal lõpetanud. Aga kuna USA pidas seda hegemoonia vahendiks, mitte kaitseks Venemaa vastu, siis jätkus see ka pärast seda. Aga NATO ja Euroopa segadus on surmav, sest Euroopa laienemine tähendas NATO laienemist, punkt. Ja need oleksid pidanud olema täiesti erinevad asjad. See on esimene punkt.

Minu enda arvamus, taas kogu austuse juures Michaelile, kellega me sellest vaid lühidalt rääkisime, on, et Euroopal peaks põhimõtteliselt oma välispoliitika olema ja oma sõjaline julgeolek, oma strateegiline autonoomia, niinimetatud. Ja nii peaks olema. Ma olen selle poolt. Ma lõpetaksin NATO ja võib-olla Trump teeb seda niikuinii. Võib-olla Trump vallutab Gröönimaa. Kes teab? Siis saaksite tõesti teada, mida NATO tähendab. Niisiis, ma arvan, et Euroopa peaks investeerima oma julgeolekusse. Viis protsenti on veider, naeruväärne, absurdne, täiesti absurdne. Keegi ei pea sellist summat kulutama. Praegustes oludes ilmselt kaks kuni kolm protsenti SKPst.

Mina, muide ostaksin Euroopa toodangut. Sest tegelikult, kummalisel ja kahjuks selles maailmas, ja see on tõsiasi, aga kahjuks, nii et ma ei propageeri seda. Paljud tehnoloogilised uuendused pärinevad sõjaväesektorist, sest valitsused investeerivad sõjaväesektorisse. Trump on relvamüüja. Te mõistate seda. Ta müüb Ameerika relvi. Ta müüb Ameerika tehnoloogiat. Vance ütles teile paar päeva tagasi, et ärge isegi mõelge omaenda tehisintellekti tehnoloogia omamisele. Seega palun mõistke, et see kulutuste suurenemine on Ameerika Ühendriikide jaoks, mitte teie jaoks. Ja selles mõttes olen ma sellise lähenemisviisi vastu.

Aga ma ei oleks vastu lähenemisviisile, kus Euroopa kulutab 2–3% SKPst ühtse Euroopa julgeolekustruktuuri jaoks ja investeerib Euroopasse ja Euroopa tehnoloogiasse, ning Ameerika Ühendriigid ei dikteeri Euroopa tehnoloogia kasutamist.

See on nii huvitav. Just Madalmaad toodavad ainsana arenenud pooljuhtide masinaid, äärmuslikku ultraviolettlitograafiat. See on ASML. Aga Ameerika määrab kõik ASMLi poliitikad. Madalmaadel pole isegi joonealust märkust. Ma ei teeks seda teie asemel, et anda kogu julgeolek Ameerika Ühendriikide kätesse. Ma ei teeks seda. Mul oleks oma julgeoleku raamistik, et saaksite ka oma välispoliitika raamistiku.

Euroopa seisab paljude asjade eest, mille eest Ameerika Ühendriigid ei seisa. Euroopa seisab kliimameetmete eest, muide, õigustatult, sest meie president on selles osas täiesti hull. Ja Euroopa seisab sündsuse, sotsiaaldemokraatia kui eetika eest. Ma ei räägi parteist. Ma räägin eetikast, kuidas elu võrdsus toimib. Euroopa seisab multipolaarsuse eest. Euroopa seisab ÜRO harta eest. Ameerika Ühendriigid ei seisa ühegi neist asjadest eest. Te teate, et meie riigisekretär Marco Rubio tühistas oma reisi Lõuna-Aafrikasse, sest päevakorras oli võrdsus ja jätkusuutlikkus. Ja ta ütles, et ta ei hakka sellesse sekkuma. See on aus peegeldus sügavast anglosaksi libertarismist.

14:40 Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Ja libertarism. Egalitarism ei ole sõna Ameerika sõnavarast. Jätkusuutlik areng, üldse mitte. Te ilmselt teate, et 193 ÜRO liikmesriigist 191 on esitanud SDG (jätkusuutliku arengu plaanid) plaanid vabatahtlike riiklike ülevaadetena. 191. Kaks ei ole seda teinud. Haiti ja Ameerika Ühendriigid. Bideni administratsioonil ei lubatud isegi öelda „säästva arengu eesmärgid”. Rahandusministeeriumil oli poliitika, et säästva arengu eesmärke ei tohi nimetada. Ma mainin seda kõike, sest teil on vaja oma välispoliitikat.

Ma avaldan kaks raportit aastas. Üks on maailma õnnelikkuse raport ja kui ma õigesti mäletan, on 20 parima riigi seas 18 Euroopa riiki. See on kõrgeim elukvaliteet kogu maailmas. Seega vajate oma poliitikat, et seda elukvaliteeti kaitsta. Ameerika Ühendriigid on palju madalamal kohal. Ja teine raport, kus on mu kolleeg Guillaume? Ta on siin kuskil ruumis. Seal ta ongi. Guillaume LaFortune on meie iga-aastase säästva arengu raporti peamine autor. Ja peaaegu kõik 20 parimat riiki on Euroopa riigid, sest te usute sellesse. Ja seetõttu olete te kõige õnnelikumad, välja arvatud geopoliitikas. Aga elukvaliteedis. Seega vajate oma välispoliitikat, aga seda ei saa, kui teil pole oma julgeolekut. Lihtsalt ei ole. Ja muide, 27 riigil ei saa olla igaühel oma välispoliitikat. See on probleem. Teil on vaja Euroopa välispoliitikat ja Euroopa julgeolekustruktuuri. Ja muide, kuigi Michael kinnitab mulle, et see on surnud, olin ma OSCE suurim fänn ja usun, et OSCE on Euroopa julgeoleku jaoks õige raamistik. See võiks tõesti toimida.

Kõneleja Slovakkiast: Tänan. Suur tänu. Jah, olgu. Tänan, professor. Ma olen Slovakkiast ja minu peaminister Robert Fico oleks peaaegu maha lastud, sest teie arvamused on sarnased tema omadega. Jah, meie, Slovakkia, Slovakkia valitsus, oleme üks väheseid Euroopa Liidu riike, kes räägivad venelastega. Kaks kuud tagasi rääkisin ma härra Medvedeviga. Kahe nädala pärast räägin ma Duumas härra Slutskiga, kes on Moskvas Venemaa välisasjade komitee esimees. Minu küsimus on ehk selline, milline oleks teie sõnum venelastele praegusel hetkel? Sest nagu ma kuulsin, on nad võidukäigul. Neil pole mingit põhjust Donbassi vallutamata jätta, sest see on nende sõja eesmärk. Ja mida Trump saab neile pakkuda, et sõda kohe lõpetada?

Milline oleks teie sõnum venelastele? Suur tänu.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Praegu on pakkumisel ja laual palju olulisi asju. Ma usun, et selle tõttu lõpeb sõda kiiresti. Ja see on vähemalt üks õnnistus väga-väga raskel ajal. Minu arvates on kokkuleppe täpne sisu nüüd ainult territoriaalsete küsimuste küsimus. Nimelt kas see hõlmab kõiki nelja oblastit, sealhulgas kogu Hersonit ja Zaporižžjat, või kas see hõlmab kontaktjoont ja kuidas see kõik läbirääkimistel kokku lepitud saab. Ma ei ole läbirääkimiste ruumis. Seega ei saa ma rohkem öelda. Aga aluseks on territoriaalsed järeleandmised. Tuleb neutraalsus. Tulevad julgeolekutagatised Ukrainale, kõigile osapooltele. Tuleb, vähemalt USA puhul, majandussanktsioonide lõpetamine. Aga loomulikult loeb Euroopa ja Venemaa.

Ma arvan, et tuumarelvade läbirääkimised on taastatud ja võib-olla taastatakse need veelgi, mis oleks erakordselt positiivne. Ma arvan, et Euroopa jaoks on äärmiselt olulised küsimused, mille üle tuleb otse Venemaaga läbirääkimisi pidada. Seega kutsuksin president [António] Costa ja Euroopa juhte üles alustama otseseid läbirääkimisi president Putiniga, sest Euroopa julgeolek on kaalul. Ma tunnen Venemaa juhte, paljusid neist üsna hästi. Nad on head läbirääkijad ja te peaksite nendega läbirääkimisi pidama. Ja te peaksite nendega hästi läbirääkimisi pidama. Ma küsiksin neilt mõned küsimused. Ma küsiksin neilt, millised on julgeolekutagatised, mis võiksid toimida, et see sõda lõppeks lõplikult? Millised on julgeolekutagatised Balti riikidele? Mida tuleks teha? Läbirääkimiste protsessi osa on tegelikult küsida teiselt poolelt teie murede kohta, mitte ainult teada saada, mida nemad teavad, nagu teie arvate, vaid tegelikult küsida, et meil on tõeline probleem. Meil on tõeline mure. Millised on tagatised? Ma tahan ka vastuseid teada.

Muide, ma tunnen Lavrovi, minister Lavrovi, juba 30 aastat. Ma pean teda suurepäraseks välisministriks. Rääkige temaga. Rääkige temaga läbi. Hankige ideid. Pange ideed lauale. Pange vastuväited lauale. Ma ei arva, et kõike seda saab lahendada puhtalt omaenda mõistusega. Sõjad lahendatakse läbirääkimistega ja mõistes, millised on tegelikud probleemid. Ja te ei nimeta teist poolt valetajaks, kui nad oma probleeme väljendavad. Te töötate välja, millised on selle tagajärjed rahu ühiseks hüvanguks. Seega on kõige olulisem lõpetada karjumine, lõpetada sõjakäik ja arutada Venemaa kolleegidega. Ja ärge paluge, et saaksite istuda ühe laua taga Ameerika Ühendriikidega. Te ei pea olema ühes ruumis Ameerika Ühendriikidega. Te olete Euroopa. Te peaksite olema ühes ruumis Euroopa ja Venemaaga. Kui Ameerika Ühendriigid tahavad liituda, siis olgu nii. Aga paluda ei tohi. Ja muide, Euroopa ei pea Ukrainat kaasama, kui Euroopa räägib Venemaaga. Teil on palju probleeme, otseseid probleeme. Ärge andke oma välispoliitikat kellelegi üle. Mitte Ameerika Ühendriikidele, mitte Ukrainale, mitte Iisraelile. Säilitage Euroopa välispoliitika. See on põhiidee.

Hans Neuhoff: Hans Neuhoff Euroopa Parlamendi suveräänse poliitilise fraktsiooni grupist. Poliitiline partei Alternatiiv Saksamaale. Esiteks tahaksin teid tänada, härra Sachs, et olete siin ja jagate meiega oma ideid. Võite olla kindel, et paljud teie ja teie kolleegi John Mersheimeri ideed on siinsete poliitiliste fraktsioonide poolt hästi vastu võetud ja meie tegevuskavasse integreeritud. Jagan laialdaselt teie seisukohti. Siiski on üks küsimus seoses teie esitatud ajaloolise ülevaatega, mida ma sooviksin veidi täpsemalt käsitleda. See puudutab NATO laienemise algust. Te viitasite veebisaidile „What Gorbachev Heard”, kus on palju tsitaate näiteks Genscherilt, et NATO ei liigu sentimeetritki ida suunas. 2+4 leping sõlmiti 1990. aasta septembris, eks? Moskvas. Sel ajal oli Varssavi pakt veel olemas. Ja sellised riigid nagu Poola, Ungari ja Tšehhi ei osalenud 2+4 lepingu läbirääkimistel. Varssavi pakt lagunes tegelikult 1991. aasta juulis ja Nõukogude Liit lagunes 1991. aasta detsembris. Seega keegi läbirääkimistel osalenutest ei saanud rääkida Poola, Ungari ega Slovakkia nimel, et nad ei püüaks saada NATO liikmeks enne, kui üldine olukord muutub. Seega vastuväide, millele me peame vastu astuma, on see, et Poola, Ungari ja Slovakkia soovisid NATOga ühineda just oma ajaloo tõttu Nõukogude Liiduga. Ja muidugi tajuti Venemaad ikka veel mingil määral Nõukogude Liidu järglasena. Kuidas siis sellele argumendile vastu vaielda?

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Ma ei kahtle, miks Ungari, Poola, Tšehhi Vabariik ja Slovakkia soovisid NATOga ühineda. Küsimus on selles, mida Ameerika Ühendriigid teevad rahu tagamiseks? Sest NATO ei ole Ungari, Poola, Tšehhi Vabariigi ega Slovakkia valik. NATO on Ameerika Ühendriikide juhitud sõjaline liit. Küsimus on selles, kuidas me saavutame rahu usaldusväärsel viisil? Kui ma oleks tol ajal neid otsuseid teinud, oleks ma NATO 1991. aastal täielikult lõpetanud. Kui need riigid NATO-ga ühinemist taotlesid, oleksin neile selgitanud, mida ütles meie kaitseminister William Perry, mida ütles meie juhtiv riigimees George Kennan, mida ütles meie viimane suursaadik Nõukogude Liidus Jack Matlock. Nad ütlesid: „Me mõistame teie tundeid, aga see ei ole hea mõte, sest see võib provotseerida uue külma sõja Venemaaga.” Niimoodi oleksin ma vastanud.

Kui need riigid liitusid esimeses laines, ei olnud see minu arvates tegelikult nii oluline, välja arvatud see, et see oli osa suuremast projektist. Ja see projekt oli juba 1994. aastal välja töötatud. Jonathan Haslamil on väga hea raamat, mis on ilmunud Harvard University Pressi kirjastuses ja kannab pealkirja „Hubris”. See annab üksikasjaliku ajaloolise ülevaate sellest, mis samm-sammult juhtus. See on tõesti lugemist väärt. Nüüd on olukord selline, aga ma tahaksin rõhutada, et Ukraina ja Gruusia olid liiga kaugel. See on otse Venemaa vastu. See on tuumaraamistiku täieliku destabiliseerumise kontekstis. See on kontekstis, kus USA paigaldab raketisüsteeme Venemaa piiridele. Kui kuulata president Putini sõnu aastate jooksul, siis ilmselt peamine asi, mille üle ta muretseb, on see, et raketid, mis asuvad seitsme minuti kaugusel Moskvast, on pea pakule panek. Ja see on väga reaalne. USA mitte ainult ei läheks paanikasse, vaid läkski paanikasse, kui see läänepoolkeral juhtus. Seega on see Kuuba raketikriisi vastupidine olukord. Õnneks Nikita Hruštšov ei tõusnud püsti ja öelnud: „Varssavi pakti avatud uste poliitika. Me võime minna, kuhu tahame. Kuuba on meilt palunud, see ei ole Ameerika asi.” Hruštšov ütles, et sõda, jumal, me ei taha sõda. Me lõpetame selle kriisi. Me mõlemad taganeme. Seda otsustasid Hruštšov ja Kennedy lõpuks. See ongi tegelik tagajärg. Venemaa neelas isegi suure valu ja vaevaga Balti riigid, Rumeenia, Bulgaaria, Slovakkia ja Sloveenia. See on Ukraina ja Gruusia. Ja see on geograafia tõttu. See on lord Palmerstoni tõttu. See on esimese Krimmi sõja tõttu. See on raketisüsteemide tõttu, mis on selle sõja põhjuseks.

Euroopa Parlamendi liige Saksamaalt: Suur tänu, professor Sachs, et tulite. Te mainisite, et Euroopa Liit peab kujundama oma välispoliitika. Varem oli Saksamaa-Prantsusmaa liit nende poliitikate suur edasiviiv jõud. Nüüd, Ukraina sõjaga, on see ilmselt murdunud. Kas te arvate, et tulevikus, kui Euroopa Liit hakkab kujundama uut välispoliitikat, on nad jälle esirinnas? Või peaksid seda muutust püüdma teha teised riigid või teised blokid?

Tänan teid väga.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Oh, see on raske. See on raske, sest loomulikult pole Euroopal veel põhiseadust, mis tõesti toetaks Euroopa välispoliitikat. Ja see ei saa olla ühehäälne. Peab olema struktuur, kus Euroopa saab rääkida Euroopana, isegi kui on mõningaid erimeelsusi, aga Euroopa poliitika raames. Ma ei taha liiga lihtsustada, kuidas sinna täpselt jõuda. Aga isegi olemasolevate struktuuridega saaksite palju paremaid tulemusi, kui läbirääkimisi peetaks otse. Esimene reegel on, et teie diplomaadid peaksid olema diplomaadid, mitte sõjaministrid. Ausalt öeldes, see viiks teid poolele teele, vähemalt sinna, kuhu te tahate jõuda. Diplomaat on väga eriline talent. Diplomaat on koolitatud istuma teise poolega ühe laua taha, kuulama, kätt suruma, naeratama ja olema meeldiv. See on väga raske. See on oskus. See on koolitus. See on elukutse. See ei ole mäng. Te vajate sellist diplomaatiat. Mul on kahju. Me ei kuule midagi sellist.

Ma teen lihtsalt paar kaebust. Esiteks, Euroopa ei ole NATO, nagu ma ütlesin. Ma arvasin, et Stoltenberg oli kõige hullem, aga ma eksisin. See läheb aina hullemaks. Kas keegi NATO-s võiks jumala pärast lõpetada rääkimise veelgi enamast sõjast? Ja kas NATO võiks lõpetada Euroopa eest rääkimise? Ja Euroopa võiks lõpetada mõtlemise, et see on NATO. See on esimene absoluutne punkt. Teiseks, vabandust, aga teie kõrged esindajad ja asepresidendid peavad saama diplomaatideks. Diplomaatia tähendab Moskvasse minekut, oma Venemaa kolleegi siia kutsumist, arutlemist. Seda pole seni juhtunud. See ongi minu seisukoht.

Ma usun, et Euroopa peaks järgnevatel aastatel muutuma integreeritumaks ja ühtsemaks. Ma usun tugevalt subsidiaarsusesse. Niisiis arutasime. Ma ei arva, et elamupoliitika on Euroopa peamine probleem. Ma arvan, et seda saab käsitleda kohalikul või riiklikul tasandil. Ma ei näe selles Euroopa probleemi. Aga ma ei näe välispoliitikat 27 riigi probleemina. Ma näen selles Euroopa probleemi. Ja ma näen julgeolekut Euroopa tasandil. Seega ma arvan, et asju tuleb ümber korraldada. Aga ma sooviksin näha rohkem Euroopat tõeliselt Euroopa küsimuste puhul ja võib-olla vähem Euroopat asjade puhul, mis on Euroopa jaoks pigem subsidiaarsed riiklikul ja kohalikul tasandil. Ja ma loodan, et selline areng võib toimuda.

Teate, kui maailm räägib praegu suurriikidest, räägitakse USAst, Venemaast, Hiinast. Ma lisaksin sinna ka India. Ja ma tahaksin tõesti lisada ka Euroopa. Ja ma tahaksin tõesti lisada ka Aafrika kui Aafrika Liidu. Ja ma tahan, et see juhtuks. Aga te märkate nimekirjast, et Euroopat seal praegu ei ole. Ja see on sellepärast, et Euroopal pole välispoliitikat.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Olgu.

Euroopa Parlamendi liige Luksemburgist: Suur tänu. Ja suur tänu, professor, selle väga julge ja selge kõne eest, mille te pidasite. Ma olen Euroopa Parlamendi liige Luksemburgist. Minu küsimus on järgmine. Millised on selle kaotatud sõja pikaajalised tagajärjed? Me kaotasime sõja. Nüüd on NATO tulevik ebakindel. Meil on ka selgelt, ja te viitasite sellele, Euroopa marginaliseerumine. Meil on BRICS-riikide tugevnemine, mis võib olla paljudes aspektides konkurentsiks. Kas kollektiivsel Läänel on tulevikku järgmise 20 või 30 aasta jooksul? Suur tänu.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Ma ei usu, et on olemas kollektiivne Lääs. Ma usun, et on olemas Ameerika Ühendriigid ja Euroopa, mille huvid on mõnes valdkonnas paralleelsed ja paljudes valdkondades mitte paralleelsed. Ma tahan, et Euroopa juhiks jätkusuutlikku arengut. Kliimamuutused, globaalne viisakus. Ma usun, et kui maailm oleks rohkem Euroopa sarnane, oleks see õnnelikum, rahulikum ja turvalisem maailm.

Ja muide, pikaealisus ja parem toit. Aga igal juhul on Euroopal ülesanne, mis erineb Ameerika traditsioonist. Ja ausalt öeldes ka anglosaksi traditsioonist, sest anglosaksi hegemoonia või hegemoonia püüdlused on kestnud 200 aastat ja britid usuvad endiselt, et nad juhivad maailma. Nostalgia mõju on hämmastav. Nad isegi ei lõpeta. See on tegelikult peaaegu nagu Monty Pythoni sketš. Aga igal juhul, kuhu ma jäin? Ma mõtlen Monty Pythoni sketši, kus rüütlil lõigatakse kõik jäsemed ära ja ta ütleb, et kõik on hästi. Ma olen võidukas. See on kahjuks Suurbritannia. Ja see on tõesti kohutav.

Nii et ei, ma ei usu kollektiivsesse Läände. Ma ei usu globaalsesse Lõunasse. Ma ei usu, et need geograafilised mõisted üldse mõtet omavad, sest ma vaatan palju kaarte ja globaalne Lõuna on enamasti Põhjas ja Lääs pole isegi Lääs. Seega ei saa ma aru, millest siin jutt on. Ma usun, et me võiksime elada tõelise külluse ajastul, kui me oma pead korda saaksime. Me oleme inimkonna ajaloo suurimas tehnoloogilises arengus. On tõesti hämmastav, mida praegu on võimalik teha. Teate, ma imetlen asjaolu, et keegi, kes ei tea keemiast midagi, võitis Nobeli rahuauhinna keemia alal, sest ta on väga hea sügavate neurovõrkude alal, geenius, Demis Hassabis. Nad mõistsid ära valkude kokkuklapitumise, mille kallal põlvkonnad biokeemikuid kogu oma elu töötasid. Ja nüüd on DeepMind välja mõelnud, kuidas seda teha, tuhandete valkude puhul. Meil on sõpru, kes on kogu oma elu pühendanud ühele valgu uurimisele, geniaalsed sõbrad. Ja nüüd, mida me saame teha. Nii et tegelikult, ja sama kehtib ka taastuvenergia kohta, nagu kõik teavad, langevad hinnad rohkem kui kaks suurusjärku, kulud. Me saaksime planeeti muuta. Me saaksime kaitsta kliimasüsteemi. Me saaksime kaitsta bioloogilist mitmekesisust. Me saaksime tagada, et iga laps saaks hea hariduse. Me saaksime praegu teha nii palju imelisi asju. Ja mida me selleks vaja on? Minu arvates on meil vaja eelkõige rahu.

Ja minu põhiline seisukoht on, et kuskil pole sügavaid põhjuseid konfliktideks, sest iga konflikt, mida ma uurin, on lihtsalt viga. See pole nii, et me võitleme eluruumi eest. See idee, mis pärineb Malthuselt ja sai natside ideeks, oli alati vale idee. See oli viga, fundamentaalne intellektuaalne viga. Intellektuaalne viga, muide, sest juhtivad teadlased võtsid omaks idee, et meil on rassisõjad, meil on rahvuslikud sõjad, meil on ellujäämisesõjad, sest meil ei ole planeedist piisavalt. Majandusteadlasena võin teile öelda, et meil on planeedist piisavalt kõigi arenguks, piisavalt. Me ei ole konfliktis Hiinaga. Me ei ole konfliktis Venemaaga. Kui me rahuneme, kui te küsite pikaajalise perspektiivi kohta, siis pikaajaline perspektiiv on väga hea, tänan. Pikaajaline perspektiiv, kui me end ise õhku ei lase, on väga heaJa see ongi see, mille poole me peaksime püüdlema, positiivne ühine visioon rahvusvahelise õiguse raames. Tänu meie tehnoloogiale toimivad asjad nüüd piirkondlikul tasandil. Varem olid need külad, siis väikesed piirkonnad, siis riikide ühendamine. Nüüd on need piirkondlikud. See ei ole ainult sellepärast, et piirkonnad on imelised. See on sellepärast, et tehnoloogilised reaalsused ütlevad, et Euroopa peaks olema integreeritud piirkond transpordi, kiirraudtee, digitaalse tehnoloogia, … abil. Ja nii ongi Euroopa. Poliitika järgib tehnoloogilisi reaalsusi väga olulisel määral. Me elame praegu piirkondade maailmas. Seega peaks Euroopa olema Euroopa subsidiaarsuse põhimõttel. Ärge kaotage kõiki imelisi, imelisi riiklikke ja kohalikke elemente. Aga Euroopa peaks olema Euroopa. Seega hea külg on see, et… Ma tahan, et Euroopal oleks diplomaatia, näiteks ASEANiga. Ma veetsin palju aega ASEANi riikides. Kui ELi Roheline kokkulepe, imeline idee. Ma ütlesin palju aastaid tagasi ASEANi liidritele, et tehke ASEANi roheline kokkulepe. Ja siis rääkige eurooplastega, et teil oleksid need imelised suhted, kaubandus, investeeringud, tehnoloogia. Eelmisel aastal kuulutasid nad välja ASEANi Rohelise kokkuleppe. Mida Euroopa sellega tegi? Mitte midagi. Ta ütles: vabandust, me oleme Ukraina sõjas, aitäh. Pole huvi. See ongi minu mõte. Väljavaated on väga positiivsed, kui me rahu loome.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Kuna me peame minema, saan ma kogu aeg sõnumeid, et ma peaksin ruumist lahkuma. Lühidalt. Midagi väga lühikest.

Noor naine, Euroopa Parlamendi liige: Jah. Vabandust, jah, suur tänu loengu eest. Ma tahtsin küsida, kas te arvate, et me oleme konfliktist väljas, kas see on mingi Soome-stiilis lahendus? Ja siis veel, kas teie arvates on see see, mida te oleksite soovinud näha, näiteks Soome ja Rootsi loodusliku protsessi puhul, mis on, vabandust, ei, ei, ei, ei, ei, ei, ei, ei, ei, ei, ei, kas teie arvates on konfliktist väljapääs mingi Soome-tüüpi lahendus? Ja kas see on see, mida te oleksite, vabandust, jah, kas see on see, mida te oleksite soovinud näha näiteks Rootsi ja Soome välispoliitikas? Kas see on see, mida te oleksite soovinud näha nende riikide välispoliitikas, selle asemel, et nad liituksid NATOga? Ja kas sa arvad, et need Venemaaga piirnevad riigid peaksid lihtsalt alistuma oma saatusele, et okei, me ei saa Venemaad provotseerida. Nagu, see on viis, kuidas me peame elama.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Väga hea, suurepärane küsimus. Ja lubage mul rääkida ühest osast soomestamisest. Soomestamine tõi Soomele aasta aastalt esikoha maailma õnnelikkuse raportis. Rikas, edukas, õnnelik ja turvaline. See oli enne NATO-ga ühinemist. Seega oli soomestamine suurepärane asi. Esikohal maailmas. Kui Rootsi, Soome ja Austria olid neutraalsed. Bravo, tark otsus. Kui Ukraina oli neutraalne, tark otsus. Kui sul on kaks suurriiki, hoia neid veidi lahus. Nad ei pea olema üksteisel ninapidi vastas. Eriti kui üks neist, USA, surub oma nina teise sisse. Seega on Soomestumisel minu arvates väga positiivne tähendus. Sama kehtib ka Austria kohta. Austria allkirjastas 1955. aastal oma neutraalsuse. Nõukogude armee lahkus. Ja Austria on muide imeline koht. Absoluutselt imeline. See ongi põhiline viis konfliktide vältimiseks. Kui Ameerika Ühendriikidel oleks olnud mingitki mõistust, oleksid nad jätnud need riigid neutraalseks alaks Ameerika sõjaväe ja Venemaa vahel. Aga just seal Ameerika Ühendriigid kaotasid. OK.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Suur tänu. Tahaksin lõpetada ühe üleskutsega. Ma arvan, et me mõlemad oleme nõus, et sõda lõpeb ühe või kahe kuu jooksul. See tähendab, et võitlus lõpeb. See ei tähenda, et Euroopasse saabub rahu. Rahu Euroopas peame looma meie, eurooplased, mitte Ameerika Ühendriikide president. Me peame selle rahu looma. Ja see on Euroopa, mis hõlmab muidugi Valgevenet, Venemaad ja kõiki teisi riike. Seega peame midagi tegema. Ja me oleme siin, parlamendis. Parlamendiliikmetena esindame me inimesi. Me oleme ainus õiguspärane, demokraatlikult õiguspärane institutsioon Euroopa Liidus. Võib-olla peaksime olema veidi proaktiivsemad, et püüda seda rahuprotsessi parteide vahel edasi viia. Ma ei tea, kui palju parteisid siin tegelikult on, aga kui me saame üksteisega rääkida ilma ütlemata, et sa oled sellest parteist, sa oled sellest parteist, siis ma arvan, et me peame tõesti keskenduma. Kui me ei suuda siin rohkem initsiatiivi parlamendilt komisjoni suhtes võtta ja öelda, et me esindame rahvast, mitte teid. Me esindame rahvast. Ja need inimesed Euroopas tahavad rahu. Ja see on see, mille poole me peaksime püüdlema. Niisiis, võib-olla on see algus. Me teeme seda iga kuu, ma korraldan koos oma kolleegidega siin sama asja erinevate teemade kohta, mis kõik on sellega seotud. Ja me loodame, et seekord saame arutelu, mis on teistsugune kui meil täiskogul, kus me põhimõtteliselt arutelu ei pea, vaid et me peame arutelu ka parteide vahel ja kutsume ka inimesi teistest erakondadest. Me ei kutsu kedagi. Arutame seda lõpuks. Me kõik tahame sama rahu järgmisele põlvkonnale. Mul on palju lapsi ja lapselapsi, teil ka. Ja just seda me vajame. OK, suur tänu, professor.

ROMANIAN — Geopolitica păcii – Jeffrey Sachs în Parlamentul European

$
0
0

 


 

Geopolitica păcii – Jeffrey Sachs în Parlamentul European

 

Transcriere completă

Introducere

Prof. Jeffrey D, Sachs: Michael, vă mulțumesc foarte mult și vă mulțumesc tuturor pentru șansa de a fi împreună și de a gândi împreună. Aceasta este într-adevăr o perioadă complicată și în schimbare rapidă și una foarte periculoasă. Așadar, avem cu adevărat nevoie de claritate în gândire. Sunt deosebit de interesat de conversația noastră, așa că voi încerca să fiu cât se poate de succint și clar. Am urmărit foarte îndeaproape evenimentele din Europa de Est, fosta Uniune Sovietică, Rusia, în ultimii 36 de ani. Am fost consilier al guvernului polonez în 1989, al președintelui Gorbaciov în 1990 și 1991, al președintelui Elțin în 1991-1993, al președintelui Kucima al Ucrainei în 1993-94. Am contribuit la introducerea monedei estoniene.

După Maidan, noul guvern m-a rugat să vin la Kiev și am fost dus prin Maidan și am învățat multe lucruri direct. Am fost în contact cu liderii ruși de mai bine de 30 de ani. Cunosc îndeaproape conducerea politică americană. Fostul nostru secretar al Trezoreriei a fost profesorul meu de macroeconomie acum 51 de ani, doar ca să vă faceți o idee. Am fost prieteni foarte apropiați timp de o jumătate de secol. Îi cunosc pe toți acești oameni.

Vreau doar să spun asta pentru că ceea ce vreau să explic din punctul meu de vedere nu este o chestiune secundară, nu este ideologie. Este ceea ce am văzut cu ochii mei și am experimentat în această perioadă. Din punctul meu de vedere al evenimentelor care s-au abătut asupra Europei în multe contexte – și voi include nu doar criza din Ucraina, ci și Serbia din 1999, războaiele din Orientul Mijlociu, inclusiv Irakul, Siria, războaiele din Africa, inclusiv Sudanul, Somalia, Libia – acestea sunt într-o măsură foarte semnificativă, care v-ar surprinde poate și ar fi denunțate pentru ceea ce urmează să spun, acestea sunt războaie pe care Statele Unite le-au condus și provocat. Acest lucru este adevărat de mai bine de 40 de ani.

Ce s-a întâmplat, mai bine de 30 de ani, ar trebui să spun mai precis, Statele Unite au ajuns la opinia, în special în 1990, ’91 și apoi odată cu sfârșitul Uniunii Sovietice, că SUA conduceau acum lumea și că SUA nu trebuiau să țină cont de opiniile, liniile roșii, preocupările, punctele de vedere privind securitatea sau de orice obligații internaționale sau de orice cadru al ONU. Îmi pare rău că o spun atât de clar, dar vreau să înțelegeți.

Am încercat din greu în 1991 să obțin ajutor pentru Gorbaciov, pe care îl consider cel mai mare om de stat al timpurilor noastre moderne. Recent am citit memorandumul arhivat al discuției Consiliului de Securitate Națională despre propunerea mea, cum au respins-o complet și au râs de ea când am spus că Statele Unite ar trebui să ajute Uniunea Sovietică în stabilizarea financiară și în realizarea reformelor sale.

Documentele memorandumului, inclusiv cele ale unora dintre foștii mei colegi de la Harvard, spun în special că vom face minimul necesar pentru a preveni dezastrul, dar minimul necesar este că nu este treaba noastră să ajutăm. Dimpotrivă, nu este în interesul nostru să ajutăm.

Când Uniunea Sovietică s-a destrămat în 1991, opinia a devenit și mai exagerată. Pot numi capitol și versete, dar opinia era că noi conducem spectacolul. Cheney, Wolfowitz și multe alte nume pe care le-ați cunoscut, credeau literalmente că aceasta este acum o lume americană și că vom face ce vrem. Vom curăța de fosta Uniune Sovietică. Vom elimina orice aliați rămași. Țări precum Irak, Siria și așa mai departe vor dispărea.

Suntem cu această politică externă de acum, practic de 33 de ani. Europa a plătit un preț greu pentru asta, deoarece Europa nu a avut nicio politică externă în această perioadă pe care să o pot înțelege. Fără voce, fără unitate, fără claritate, fără interese europene, doar loialitate americană. Au fost momente în care au existat dezacorduri și dezacorduri foarte, cred, minunate, mai ales ultima dată semnificativă a fost în 2003, în războiul din Irak, când Franța și Germania au spus că nu susținem ca Statele Unite să ocolească Consiliul de Securitate al ONU pentru acest război.

Acel război, apropo, a fost născocit direct de Netanyahu și colegii săi de la Pentagonul american. Nu spun că a fost o legătură sau o reciprocitate. Spun că a fost un război direct. Acela a fost un razboi r dus pentru Israel. A fost un război pe care Paul Wolfowitz și Douglas Feith l-au coordonat cu Netanyahu. Și aceea a fost ultima dată când Europa a avut o voce.

Și am vorbit cu liderii europeni atunci, și au fost foarte clari, și a fost minunat. Europa și-a pierdut complet vocea după aceea, dar mai ales în 2008.

Acum, ceea ce s-a întâmplat după 1991 până în 2008 este că Statele Unite au decis că unipolaritatea însemna că NATO se va extinde undeva de la Bruxelles la Vladivostok pas cu pas.

Nu va exista sfârșit pentru extinderea spre est a NATO. Aceasta ar fi lumea unipolară a SUA. Dacă joci jocul riscului în copilărie, așa cum am făcut eu, aceasta este ideea SUA, să avem pace pe fiecare parte a tablei. Orice loc fără o bază militară americană este practic un inamic. Neutralitatea este un cuvânt murdar în lexicul politic american, poate cel mai murdar cuvânt. Cel puțin dacă ești un inamic, știm că ești un inamic. Dacă ești neutru, ești subversiv, pentru că atunci ești de fapt împotriva noastră, pentru că nu ne spui nimic. Te prefaci că ești neutru.

Așadar, aceasta a fost mentalitatea, iar decizia a fost luată oficial în 1994, când președintele Clinton a semnat extinderea NATO spre est. Vă amintiți că pe 7 februarie 1991, Hans-Dietrich Genscher și James Baker al III-lea au vorbit cu Gorbaciov. Genscher a ținut o conferință de presă ulterior, în care a explicat: NATO nu se va deplasa spre est. Nu vom profita de dizolvarea Pactului de la Varșovia. Înțelegeți că aceasta a fost într-un context juridic, nu unul întâmplător.

Acesta a fost sfârșitul celui de-al Doilea Război Mondial, negociat pentru reunificarea Germaniei. S-a făcut un acord ca NATO să nu se miște niciun centimetru spre est. Și a fost explicit și se găsește în nenumărate documente. Și căutați Arhiva de Securitate Națională a Universității George Washington și puteți găsi zeci de documente. Este un site web numit „Ce a auzit Gorbaciov despre NATO”. Uitați-vă, pentru că tot ce vă spun SUA este o minciună în legătură cu asta, dar arhivele sunt perfect clare.

Așadar, decizia a fost luată în 1994 de a extinde NATO până în Ucraina. Acesta este un proiect. Nu este vorba despre o administrație sau alta. Acesta este un proiect al guvernului SUA care a început acum mai bine de 30 de ani. În 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski a scris „Marea tablă de șah”. Nu sunt doar reflecții ale domnului Brzezinski.

Aceasta este prezentarea deciziilor guvernului Statelor Unite explicate publicului. Și cartea descrie extinderea spre est a Europei și a NATO ca evenimente simultane. Și există un capitol bun în acea carte care spune: ce va face Rusia pe măsură ce Europa și NATO se extind spre est?

Și îl cunoșteam personal pe Zbigniew Brzezinski. A fost foarte amabil cu mine. Consiliam Polonia. A fost de mare ajutor. A fost un om foarte drăguț și inteligent și totusi a greșit totul.

Așadar, în 1997, a scris în detaliu de ce Rusia nu putea face altceva decât să adere la extinderea spre est a NATO și a Europei. De fapt, el spune despre extinderea spre est a Europei și nu doar a Europei, ci a NATO. Acesta a fost un plan, un proiect. Și explică cum Rusia nu se va alinia niciodată cu China.

De neconceput. Rusia nu se va alinia niciodată cu Iranul. Rusia nu are altă vocație decât cea europeană. Așadar, pe măsură ce Europa se îndreaptă spre est, Rusia nu poate face nimic în privința asta. Așa spunea un strateg american. Se pune vreo întrebare de ce suntem în război tot timpul?

Pentru că un lucru legat de America este că știm întotdeauna ce vor face omologii noștri și întotdeauna greșim.

Și unul dintre motivele pentru care greșim întotdeauna este că, în teoria jocurilor pe care o practică strategii americani, nu vorbești de fapt cu cealaltă parte. Știi doar care este strategia celeilalte părți. Asta e minunat. Economisește atât de mult timp. Nu ai nevoie de nicio diplomație. Așa că acest proiect a început și am avut o continuitate a guvernului timp de 30 de ani, până poate ieri, poate 30 de ani de proiect.

Ucraina și Georgia au fost cheile proiectului. De ce?

Pentru că America a învățat tot ce știe de la britanici. Și astfel suntem aspirantul imperiu britanic. Și ceea ce a înțeles imperiul britanic în 1853, domnule Palmer, Lord Palmerston, scuzați-mă, este că înconjurați Rusia în Marea Neagră și îi refuzați accesul la estul Mediteranei.

Și tot ce urmăriți este un proiect american de a face asta în secolul XXI. Ideea era că ar exista Ucraina, România, Bulgaria, Turcia și Georgia, literalmente Marea Neagră, care ar priva Rusia de orice statut internațional prin blocarea Mării Negre și, în esență, prin neutralizarea Rusiei ca mai mult decât o putere locală.

Brzezinski este complet clar în această privință. Și înainte de Brzezinski, a fost Mackinder și cine deține insula lumii deține lumea. Deci acest proiect datează de mult timp. Cred că datează practic de la Palmerston.

Și, din nou, am trăit prin fiecare administrație. I-am cunoscut pe acești președinți. Le-am cunoscut echipele.

Nimic nu s-a schimbat prea mult de la Clinton la Bush, la Obama, la Trump, la Biden. Poate că s-au înrăutățit pas cu pas. Biden a fost cel mai rău în opinia mea. Poate și pentru că nu a fost compos mentis în ultimii doi ani. Și spun asta serios, nu ca o remarcă sde scuză.

Sistemul politic american este un sistem de imagine. Este un sistem de manipulare media zilnică. Este un sistem de relații publice. Așadar, ai putea avea un președinte care practic nu funcționează și să-l țină la putere timp de doi ani, iar acel președinte să candideze pentru realegere. Și un lucru e că a trebuit să stea pe o scenă timp de 90 de minute singur. Și asta a fost sfârșitul.

Dacă nu ar fi fost acea greșeală, ar fi continuat să aibă candidatura, indiferent dacă dormea ​​după ora 16:00 sau nu. Deci, aceasta este realitatea. Toată lumea este de acord cu ea. Este nepoliticos să spun ceea ce spun, pentru că nu spunem adevărul despre aproape nimic din lumea asta în acest moment.

Așadar, acest proiect a continuat din anii 1990. Bombardarea Belgradului timp de 78 de zile consecutive în 1999 a făcut parte din acest proiect. Se dezbină țara atunci când granițele sunt sacrosancte, nu-i așa?

Cu excepția Kosovo. E în regulă, pentru că granițele sunt sacrosancte, cu excepția cazului în care America le schimbă.

Sudanul a fost un alt proiect similar. Rebeliunea Sudanului de Sud. S-a întâmplat asta doar pentru că sud-sudanezii s-au revoltat?

Sau vă pot da manualul CIA ca să înțelegeți, ca adulți, despre ce este vorba? Evenimentele militare sunt costisitoare. Necesită echipament, antrenament, tabere de bază, informații, finanțare.

Asta vine de la marile puteri. Asta nu vine de la insurecții locale. Sudanul de Sud nu a învins Sudanul de Nord sau Sudanul într-o bătălie tribală. A fost un proiect american. Mergeam des la Nairobi și mă întâlneam cu militari americani, senatori sau alte persoane profund interesate de politica Sudanului. Aceasta făcea parte din jocul unipolarității.

Așadar, extinderea NATO, după cum știți, a început în 1999 cu Ungaria, Polonia și Republica Cehă. Și Rusia era extrem de nemulțumită de asta. Dar acestea erau țări încă departe de graniță. Și Rusia a protestat, dar, desigur, fără niciun rezultat. Apoi a intrat în putere George Bush Jr. Când au avut loc atacurile din 11 septembrie, președintele Putin a promis tot sprijinul.

Și apoi SUA au decis, pe 20 septembrie 2001, că vor lansa șapte războaie în cinci ani. Și îl puteți asculta online pe generalul Wesley Clark vorbind despre asta. El a fost comandantul suprem al NATO în 1999. S-a dus la Pentagon pe 20 septembrie 2001. I s-a înmânat documentul care explica șapte războaie. Acestea, apropo, erau războaiele lui Netanyahu.

Ideea era parțial de a curăța vechii aliați sovietici și parțial de a elimina susținătorii Hamas și Hezbollah. Pentru că ideea lui Netanyahu era că va exista un singur stat, mulțumesc, doar un singur stat. Va fi doar Israelul. Israelul va controla tot teritoriul. Și pe oricine se opune, îl vom răsturna.

Nu exact noi, prietenul nostru, Statele Unite. Aceasta este politica SUA până în această dimineață. Nu știm dacă se va schimba. Acum, singura problemă este că poate SUA va deține Gaza în loc ca Israelul să dețină Gaza. Dar ideea există de cel puțin 25 de ani. De fapt, datează de la un document numit „Clean Rupture” (Ruptură curată), pe care Netanyahu și echipa sa politică americană l-au elaborat în 1996 pentru a pune capăt ideii soluției cu două state.

Îl puteți găsi și online. Deci acestea sunt proiecte. Acestea sunt evenimente pe termen lung. Nu sunt, ale lui Clinton, ale lui Bush, ale lui Obama,

Acesta este modul plictisitor de a privi politica americană ca pe un joc de zi cu zi. Dar nu asta este politica americană.

Așadar, următoarea rundă de extindere a NATO a venit în 2004 cu încă șapte țări, cele trei state baltice, România, Bulgaria, Slovenia și Slovacia.

În acest moment, Rusia era destul de supărată. Aceasta a fost o încălcare completă a ordinii postbelice convenite odată cu reunificarea Germaniei. În esență, a fost o păcăleală fundamentală sau o dezertare a SUA de la un acord de cooperare, asta e tot, pentru că ei cred în unipolaritate.

Așa cum își amintește toată lumea, pentru că tocmai avutsese loc Conferința de Securitate de la München săptămâna trecută, în 2007, unde președintele Putin a spus: „Opriți-vă, ajunge, opriți-vă acum”.

Și, bineînțeles, asta a însemnat că în 2008, Statele Unite au blocat extinderea NATO către Ucraina și Georgia. Acesta este un proiect pe termen lung. L-am ascultat pe domnul Saakașvili la New York în mai 2008 și am ieșit, am sunat-o pe Sonia și i-am spus: „Omul ăsta e nebun”.

Și o lună mai târziu, a izbucnit un război. Pentru că Statele Unite i-au spus acestui tip că am salvat Georgia. Și el stă la Consiliul pentru Relații Externe și spune: „Georgia este în centrul Europei”. Ei bine, nu este, doamnelor și domnilor. Nu este în centrul Europei. Și cele mai recente evenimente nu sunt utile pentru Georgia, pentru siguranța sa și pentru parlamentarii dumneavoastră care merg acolo sau pentru europarlamentarii care merg acolo și pentru politicienii europeni.

Asta duce la distrugerea Georgiei. Asta nu salvează Georgia. Asta duce la distrugerea Georgiei, complet distrugerea ei. În 2008, după cum știe toată lumea, fostul nostru director CIA, William Byrne, i-a trimis un mesaj lung Condoleezzei Rice, „Nyet înseamnă Nyet”, despre expansiune. Știm acest lucru de la Julian Assange, pentru că, credeți-mă, niciun cuvânt nu i se spune americanilor despre orice, nici dumneavoastră, nici ziarelor dumneavoastră, nici ziarelor dumneavoastră din aceste zile. Așadar, trebuie să-i mulțumim lui Julian Assange, dar putem citi si memorandumul în detaliu.

După cum știți, Viktor Ianukovici a fost ales în 2010 pe platforma neutralității. Rusia nu avea niciun fel de interese teritoriale sau planuri în Ucraina. Știu. Am fost acolo în acești ani. Ceea ce negocia Rusia era un contract de închiriere pe 25 de ani, până în 2042, pentru baza navală din Sevastopol. Asta e tot.

Nu pentru Crimeea, nu pentru Donbas, nimic de genul acesta. Această idee că Putin reconstruiește Imperiul Rus este propagandă copilărească. Mă scuzați. Dacă cineva cunoaște istoria de zi cu zi și de la an la an, este vorba de lucruri copilărești. Lucrurile copilărești par să funcționeze mai bine decât lucrurile pentru adulți. Deci, niciun plan.

Statele Unite au decis că acest om trebuie răsturnat. Se numește operațiune de schimbare de regim. Au existat aproximativ 100 de astfel de operațiuni din partea Statelor Unite, multe în țările dumneavoastră și multe în întreaga lume. Asta face CIA-ul pentru a-și câștiga existența. Bine?

Vă rog să știți. Este un tip de politică externă foarte neobișnuită. Dar în America, dacă nu ii place cealaltă parte, nu negociați cu ei, încearcă să-i răsturnați, de  preferință pe ascuns. Dacă nu funcționează pe ascuns, o faceți în mod deschis. Mereu spun că nu este vina noastră. Ei sunt agresorul. Ei sunt cealaltă parte. Ei sunt Hitler.

Asta apare la fiecare doi sau trei ani, fie că este vorba de Saddam Hussein, fie că este vorba de Assad, fie că este vorba de Putin. Este foarte convenabil. Aceasta este singura explicație de politică externă pe care o primește vreodată poporul american. Ei bine, ne confruntăm cu München 1938. Nu putem vorbi cu cealaltă parte. Sunt dușmani răi, implacabili. Acesta este singurul model de politică externă pe care îl auzim vreodată din mass-media. Și mass-media repetă acest lucru în întregime pentru că este complet subornată de guvernul SUA.

Acum, în 2014, SUA au lucrat activ pentru a-l răsturna pe Ianukovici. Toată lumea știe apelul telefonic interceptat de colega mea de la Universitatea Columbia, Victoria Newland, și de ambasadorul SUA, Peter Piat. Nu există dovezi mai bune. Rușii i-au interceptat apelul și l-au pus pe internet. Ascultați-l. Este fascinant. Îi cunosc pe toți acești oameni, apropo, făcând asta, toți au fost promovați în administrația Biden. Asta e treaba.

Acum, când a avut loc Maidanul, am fost chemat imediat. Oh, profesor Sachs, noul prim-ministru ucrainean ar dori să vă vadă pentru a vorbi despre criza economică, pentru că sunt destul de bun la asta. Așa că am zburat la Kiev și am fost plimbat prin Maidan și mi s-a spus cum SUA a plătit banii pentru toți oamenii din jurul Maidanului. Revoluție spontană a demnității…

Doamnelor și domnilor, vă rog, de unde vin toate aceste instituții media?

De unde vine toată această organizare? De unde vin toate aceste autobuze?

De unde vin toți acești oameni chemați? Glumiți?

Acesta este un efort organizat. Și nu este un secret decât pentru cetățenii Europei și ai Statelor Unite. Toți ceilalți îl înțeleg destul de clar.

Apoi a venit Minsk și în special Minsk-2, care, apropo, a fost modelat după autonomia Tirolului de Sud. Iar belgienii s-ar fi putut înțelege foarte bine cu Minsk-2. Se spunea că ar trebui să existe autonomie pentru regiunile vorbitoare de limbă rusă din estul Ucrainei. A fost susținut în unanimitate de Consiliul de Securitate al ONU.

Statele Unite și Ucraina au decis că nu trebuie aplicat. Germania și Franța, care erau garanții procesului de la Normandia, l-au lăsat baltă. Și a fost absolut o altă acțiune unipolară americană directă, Europa jucând, ca de obicei, un rol subsidiar complet inutil, chiar dacă era un garant al acordului.

Trump, unul, a ridicat armamentul. Au fost multe mii de morți în bombardamentele Ucrainei în Donbas. Ca si cum nu a existat niciun acord Minsk-2.

Și apoi Biden a intrat în funcție. Și, din nou, îi cunosc pe toți acești oameni. Am fost membru al Partidului Democrat. Acum m-am obligat să jur că nu voi fi membru al niciunui partid, pentru că oricum ambele sunt la fel.

Și pentru că democrații au devenit susținători ai războiului în timp. Și nu a existat o singură voce despre pace, la fel ca majoritatea parlamentarilor voștri, în același mod.

Așadar, la sfârșitul anului 2021, Putin a pus pe masă un ultim efort în două proiecte de acorduri de securitate, unul cu Europa și unul cu Statele Unite. SUA au pus pe masă pe 15 decembrie 2021. Am avut o convorbire de o oră cu Jake Sullivan la Casa Albă, implorându-l pe Jake să evite războiul.

Poți evita războiul. Tot ce trebuie să faci este să spui că NATO nu se va extinde la Ucraina. Și el mi-a spus, oh, NATO nu se va extinde la Ucraina. Nu-ți face griji. I-am spus, Jake, spune-o public. Nu, nu, nu, nu putem spune-o public. A spus, Jake, vei avea un război pentru ceva ce nici măcar nu se va întâmpla.

El a spus, nu-ți face griji, Jeff, nu va fi război. Aceștia nu sunt oameni foarte inteligenți. Îți spun, dacă pot să-ți dau părerea mea sinceră, nu sunt oameni foarte inteligenți. Și am avut de-a face cu ei mai bine de 40 de ani. Vorbesc între ei, nu vorbesc cu nimeni altcineva.

În teoria jocurilor cooperative, nu vorbești cu cealaltă parte. Pur și simplu îți faci strategia. Aceasta este esența teoriei jocurilor. Nu este teoria negocierii. Nu este teoria pacifistă. Este o teorie unilaterală, necooperativă, dacă știi teoria formală a jocurilor. Asta e ceea ce practică ei. A început cu RAND Corporation. Asta practică și în prezent.

În 2019, a apărut un articol de RAND, „Cum enervam Rusia?” Știați că au scris un articol pe care Biden l-a urmat? „Cum enervăm Rusia?” Aceasta este literalmente strategia. Cum enervăm Rusia?

Încercăm să o provocăm, să o facem să se destrame, poate să avem o schimbare de regim, poate să avem tulburări, poate să avem o criză economică.

Așa îți numești aliatul. Glumești? Așa că am avut un apel telefonic lung și frustrant cu Sullivan. Stăteam afară în gerul înghețat. Încercam să am o zi de schi. Și iată-mă, Jake, nu face război. Oh, nu va fi război, Jeff.

Știm multe despre ce s-a întâmplat luna următoare, și anume că au refuzat să negocieze. Cea mai stupidă idee a NATO este așa-numita politică a ușilor deschise. Glumești?

NATO își rezervă dreptul de a merge unde vrea fără ca vreun vecin să aibă vreun cuvânt de spus.

Ei bine, eu le spun mexicanilor și canadienilor, nu încercați. Știți, Trump ar putea vrea să preia Canada. Așa că Canada ar putea spune Chinei: de ce nu construiește o bază militară în Ontario? Nu aș sfătui asta. Și Statele Unite nu ar spune: ei bine, este o ușă deschisă. Asta e treaba lor. Adică, pot face ce vor. Nu e treaba noastră. Dar adulții din Europa repetă asta. În Europa, în comisia ta, ești un înalt reprezentant. Astea sunt niște prostii. Asta nici măcar nu e geopolitică pentru bebeluși. Asta e pur și simplu lipsă de gândire.

Așa că a început războiul. Care a fost intenția lui Putin în război?

Vă pot spune care a fost intenția lui. Era să-l forțeze pe Zelenski să negocieze neutralitatea. Și asta s-a întâmplat în termen de șapte zile de la începerea invaziei. Ar trebui să înțelegeți asta, nu propaganda care se scrie despre asta.

Ah, că au eșuat și el urma să preia Ucraina. Haideți, doamnelor și domnilor, înțelegeți ceva elementar. Ideea era să păstreze NATO. Și ce este NATO?

Sunt Statele Unite în jurul graniței Rusiei. Nici mai mult, nici mai puțin.

Ar trebui să adaug un punct foarte important. De ce sunt atât de interesați?

În primul rând, pentru că, dacă China sau Rusia ar decide să aibă o bază militară pe Rio Grande sau la granița cu Canada, nu numai că Statele Unite ar intra în panică, dar am avea război în aproximativ 10 minute.

Dar pentru că Statele Unite au abandonat unilateral tratatul privind rachetele antibalistice în 2002 și au pus capăt cadrului de control al armelor nucleare procedând astfel. Și acest lucru este extrem de important de înțeles. Cadrul de control al armelor nucleare se bazează pe încercarea de a bloca un prim atac. Tratatul ABM a fost o componentă critică a acestui lucru. SUA au ieșit unilateral din tratatul ABM în 2002. A explodat o garnitură a Rusiei. Deci tot ce am descris este în contextul distrugerii sistemului nuclear.

Și începând cu 2010, SUA au instalat sisteme de rachete Aegis în Polonia și apoi în România. Și Rusiei nu-i place asta. Și una dintre problemele dezbătute în decembrie și ianuarie, decembrie 2021, ianuarie 2022, a fost dacă Statele Unite își revendică dreptul de a instala sisteme de rachete în Ucraina?

Și Blinken i-a spus lui Lavrov în ianuarie 2022 că Statele Unite își rezervă dreptul de a instala sisteme de rachete oriunde doresc. Acesta este presupusul vostru aliat. Și acum haideți să instalăm sisteme de rachete intermediare înapoi în Germania. Statele Unite au ieșit unilateral din tratatul INF în 2019. Nu există un cadru pentru arme nucleare în acest moment. Niciunul.

Când Zelenski a spus în șapte zile, haideți să negociem, cunosc detaliile perfect. Pentru că am vorbit în detaliu cu toate părțile. În câteva săptămâni, a existat un schimb de informații despre un document pe care președintele Putin îl aprobase și pe care Lavrov îl prezentase, document gestionat de mediatorii turci. Am zburat la Ankara pentru a asculta în detaliu ce făceau mediatorii.

Ucraina a renunțat unilateral la un acord apropiat. De ce?

Pentru că Statele Unite le-au spus să facă asta. Pentru că Marea Britanie a adăugat cireașa de pe tort, trimițându-l pe Bojo la începutul lunii aprilie în Ucraina și explicând. Și a făcut-o recent.

Și dacă securitatea voastră este în mâinile lui Boris Johnson, Dumnezeu să ne ajute pe toți. Keith Starmer se dovedește a fi și mai rău. Este de neimaginat, dar este adevărat. Boris Johnson a explicat și puteți căuta pe site că ceea ce este în joc aici este hegemonia occidentală, nu Ucraina, hegemonia occidentală.

Michael și cu mine ne-am întâlnit la Vatican cu un grup în primăvara anului 2022, unde am scris un document care explica că nimic bun nu poate ieși din acest război pentru Ucraina. Negociați acum, pentru că orice durează va însemna un număr masiv de morți, riscul unei escaladări nucleare și probabila pierdere a războiului. Vreau să schimb un cuvânt din ceea ce am scris atunci.

Nu era nimic greșit în acel document. Și de când acel document, de cândSUA i-a convins pe negociatori să se retragă de la masa negocierilor, aproximativ un milion de ucraineni au murit sau au fost grav răniți. Iar senatorii americani, care sunt cât se poate de nesuferiți, cinici și corupți, spun că aceasta este o cheltuială minunată a banilor noștri, pentru că niciun american nu moare. Este un război pur prin intermediari. Unul dintre senatorii noștri de lângă mine, Blumenthal, spune asta cu voce tare. Mitt Romney spune asta cu voce tare. Sunt cei mai buni bani pe care îi poate cheltui America. Niciun american nu moare. Este ireal.

Acum, doar ca să ne aducem la ziua de ieri. Acest proiect a eșuat. Ideea proiectului era ca Rusia să renunțe. Ideea de la bun început a fost că Rusia nu poate rezista, așa cum a explicat Zbigniew Brzezinski în 1997. Americanii credeau că avem avantajul. Vom câștiga pentru că îi vom păcăli. Nu vor lupta cu adevărat. Nu se vor mobiliza cu adevărat.

Opțiunea nucleară este de a-i scoate din SWIFT. Asta îi va distruge. Sancțiunile economice, asta îi va distruge. HIMARS-urile, asta îi va distruge. ATAKMS-urile, F-16-urile. Sincer, ascult asta de 70 de ani. Le ascult ca pe o semi-înțelegere, aș spune, de aproximativ 56 de ani. Vorbesc prostii în fiecare zi. Țara mea, guvernul meu. Îmi este atât de familiar, complet familiar.

I-am implorat pe ucraineni, și aveam un istoric cu ucrainenii. I-am sfătuit pe ucraineni, nu sunt anti-ucrainean, sunt pro-ucrainean, complet. Le-am spus, salvați-vă viețile, salvați-vă suveranitatea, salvați-vă teritoriul, fiți neutri. Nu ascultați americanii. Le-am repetat faimoasa zicală a lui Henry Kissinger, că “a fi dușman al Statelor Unite este periculos, dar a fi prieten este fatal”.

Așa că permiteți-mi să repet asta pentru Europa. A fi dușman al Statelor Unite este periculos, dar a fi prieten este fatal.

Așadar, permiteți-mi să închei acum cu câteva cuvinte despre Trump. Trump nu vrea să fie pierzător. De aceea este mai probabil ca acest război să se termine, pentru că Trump și președintele Putin vor fi de acord să pună capăt războiului.

Dacă Europa va face toată instigarea la război, nu contează. Războiul se termină. Așa că scoateți-l din sistemul vostru. Vă rog să le spuneți colegilor voștri că s-a terminat. Și s-a terminat pentru că Trump nu vrea să aibă un pierzător în spate. Asta e tot. Nu este vorba de vreo moralitate măreață, nu vrea să aibă un pierzător în spate.

Cea care va fi salvată de negocierile care au loc chiar acum este Ucraina. În al doilea rând, este Europa. Bursa voastră de valori crește în ultimele zile din cauza veștilor oribile despre negocieri. Știu că acest lucru a fost întâmpinat cu groază pură în aceste camere, dar aceasta este cea mai bună veste pe care ați putut-o primi.

Acum, i-am încurajat, nu mă ascultă, dar am încercat să iau legătura cu unii dintre lideri. Majoritatea nu vor să audă nimic de la mine. Dar le-am spus, nu mergeți la Kiev. Mergeți la Moscova. Discutați cu omologii voștri. Glumiți?

Voi sunteți Europa. Sunteți 450 de milioane de oameni.

Aveți o economie de 20 de trilioane de dolari. Ar trebui să fiți principalul partener economic comercial al Rusiei. Aveți legături naturale. Apropo, dacă cineva ar dori să discute despre cum au aruncat SUA în aer Nord Stream, aș fi bucuros să vorbesc despre asta.

Așadar, administrația Trump este imperialistă în esență.

Este o mare putere care domină lumea. Vom face ce vrem când putem. Vom fi mai buni decât un Biden senescent și ne vom reduce pierderile acolo unde trebuie. Există mai multe zone de război în lume, Orientul Mijlociu fiind o alta. Nu știm ce se va întâmpla cu asta.

Din nou, dacă Europa ar avea o politică adecvată, ar putea opri acel război. Voi explica cum.

Dar războiul cu China este, de asemenea, o posibilitate. Deci nu spun că suntem în noua eră a păcii, dar suntem într-un tip de politică foarte diferit acum.

Și Europa ar trebui să aibă o politică externă și nu doar o politică externă a rusofobiei, ci o politică externă realistă, care înțelege situația Rusiei, care înțelege situația Europei, care înțelege ce este America și ce reprezintă. Care încearcă să evite invadarea Europei de către Statele Unite, pentru că nu este imposibil ca America să debarce trupe pe teritoriul danez. Nu glumesc. Și nu cred că ei glumesc.

Iar Europa are nevoie de o politică externă, una reală, nu un „da”, vom negocia cu domnul Trump și ne vom întâlni cu el la jumătatea drumului. Știți cum va fi asta? Sunați-mă după aceea. Vă rog să nu aveți oficiali americani în fruntea Europei. Aveți oficiali europeni. Vă rog să aveți o politică externă europeană.

Veți trăi cu Rusia alături mult timp.

Așa că vă rog să negociați cu Rusia. Există probleme reale de securitate pe masă. Dar bombasticul și rusofobia nu servesc deloc securității dumneavoastră. Nu servesc deloc securității Ucrainei. A contribuit la un milion de victime în Ucraina din cauza acestei aventuri americane idioate în care ați semnat și apoi ați devenit susținătorii principali. Nu rezolvă nimic.

În ceea ce privește Orientul Mijlociu, apropo, SUA i-au predat complet politica externă lui Netanyahu acum 30 de ani. Lobby-ul israelian domină politica americană. Nu aveți nicio îndoială „Aș putea explica ore întregi cum funcționează. E foarte periculos. Sper că Trump nu-și va distruge administrația și, mai rău, poporul palestinian din cauza lui Netanyahu, pe care îl consider un criminal de război, pus sub acuzare în mod corespunzător de CPI.

Și nu mai trebuie să i se spună că va exista un stat Palestina la granițele din 4 iunie 1967, conform dreptului internațional, ca singura cale pentru pace. Singura modalitate prin care Europa poate avea pace la granițele cu Orientul Mijlociu este soluția cu două state.

Există un singur obstacol în calea acesteia, apropo, și anume veto-ul Statelor Unite și al Consiliului de Securitate al ONU. Deci, dacă vreți să aveți o oarecare influență, spuneți Statelor Unite să renunțe la veto. Sunteți alături de 180 de țări din lume. Singurele care se opun unui stat palestinian sunt: ​​Statele Unite, Israel, Micronezia, Nauru, Palau, Papua Noua Guinee, [domnul Malay (?)] și Paraguay.

Deci, acesta este un loc în care Europa ar putea avea o mare influență.” Europa a tăcut în legătură cu JCPOA și Iranul. Cel mai mare vis al lui Netanyahu în viață este un război între Statele Unite și Iran. Nu a renunțat. Și nu este imposibil ca și acesta să se întâmple. Și asta pentru că SUA, în această privință, nu au o politică externă independentă.

Este condusă de Israel. Este tragic. Este uimitor, apropo. Și s-ar putea termina. Trump ar putea spune că își dorește politica externă înapoi. Poate. Sper să fie așa.

În cele din urmă, permiteți-mi să spun doar în ceea ce privește China, China nu este un dușman. China este doar o poveste de succes. De aceea este considerată de Statele Unite ca un dușman, pentru că China are o economie mai mare decât Statele Unite.

Asta e tot.

________________________________________

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Foarte bine.

Acum, întrebări, vă rog să nu faceți nicio declarație. Faceți doar întrebări, pentru că suntem prea mulți și nu avem prea mult timp. Deci, de unde să încep? Încep cu partea stângă. Am o preferință spre stânga, după cum știți. Da, continuați.

Vorbitor din Republica Cehă: Mulțumesc, Jeffrey Sachs din Republica Cehă. Ne bucurăm că vă avem aici. Avem o problemă. Am fost blestemați de o vrăjitoare care a spus UE că UE este dezordonată. Deci nu se va îmbunătăți până în 2029. Dar ceea ce ar trebui să facem noi, central-europenii, între timp, mai ales dacă germanii nu votează suficient pentru Sarah Wagenknecht, ar trebui să creăm un fel de neutralitate pentru Europa Centrală? Sau ce ne-ați sugera să facem?

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Deci, în primul rând, toți nepoții mei sunt cehi. Vreau să știți. Iar Sonia este născută în Cehia și cetățeană cehă. Deci suntem foarte mândri. Sunt soțul secundară în această privință, dar sunt un aspirant ceh.

Europa trebuie să aibă o politică externă care să fie o politică externă europeană și trebuie să fie o politică externă realistă. Realism nu înseamnă ură. Realistul încearcă de fapt să înțeleagă ambele părți și să negocieze. Există două tipuri de realiști, un realist defensiv și un realist ofensiv. Dragul meu prieten John Mearsheimer, care este realistul ofensiv, suntem prieteni foarte apropiați și îl iubesc, dar cred mai mult decât el. Vorbești cu cealaltă parte și găsești o modalitate de a ajunge la o înțelegere.

Așadar, practic, Rusia nu va invada Europa. Acesta este punctul fundamental. Poate ajunge până la râul Nipru. Nu va invada Europa, dar există probleme reale. Principala problemă pentru Rusia erau Statele Unite, deoarece Rusia, ca putere majoră și cea mai mare putere nucleară din lume, a fost profund îngrijorată de unipolaritatea SUA de la început.

Acum, că acest lucru pare să se încheie, Europa trebuie să deschidă negocieri direct și cu Rusia, deoarece Statele Unite își vor pierde rapid interesul și veți trăi cu Rusia alături pentru următoarele mii de ani. Bine.

Deci, ce doriți? Vreți să vă asigurați că statele baltice sunt în siguranță. Cel mai bun lucru pentru statele baltice este să oprească rusofobia lor. Acesta este cel mai important lucru. Estonia are aproximativ 25% cetățeni ruși sau cetățeni vorbitori de limbă rusă, etnici ruși. Letonia la fel. Nu provocați vecinul. Asta e tot. Nu este greu. Chiar nu este greu.

Și din nou, vreau să-mi explic punctul de vedere. Am ajutat aceste țări, cele despre care vorbesc, încercând să le dau sfaturi. Nu sunt dușmanul lor. Nu sunt marioneta lui Putin. Nu sunt apologetul lui Putin. Am lucrat în Estonia. Cred că este a doua cea mai înaltă distincție civilă pe care un președinte al Estoniei o poate acorda unui cetățean străin, pentru că eu am conceput sistemul lor monetar pentru ei în 1992.

Așa că le dau sfaturi. Nu sta acolo, Estonia, și nu spune: vrem să destrămăm Rusia. Glumești?

Nu face asta. Nu așa se supraviețuiește în lumea asta.

De fapt, supraviețuiești cu respect reciproc. Supraviețuiești în negocieri. Supraviețuiești în discuții. Nu interzici limba rusă. Nu este o idee bună când 25% din populația ta are limba rusă ca limbă maternă.

Nu e corect nici dacă n-ar exista un gigant la graniță. Nu ar fi lucrul corect de făcut. Ar fi ca limbă oficială. Ar fi o limbă în școala primară să fie interzise.

Nu  antagoniza Biserica Ortodoxă Rusă. Deci, practic, trebuie să ne comportăm ca adulții. Și când spun constant că se comportă ca niște copii,

Sonia îmi spune mereu că este nedrept față de copii. Pentru că asta e mai rău decât copiii. Avem o nepoată de șase ani și un nepot de trei ani, și chiar se împacă cu prietenii lor. Și nu le spunem să meargă doar să-i ridiculizeze mâine și în fiecare zi. Le spunem să meargă, să-i îmbrățișeze și să se joace. Și o fac. Nu e greu. Apropo, ei bine, oricum, nu voi insista asupra acestui aspect.

Mulțumesc.

Așadar, alegeți un nou guvern. Nu, nu ar trebui să spun asta. Tot ce ar trebui să spun este să schimbați politica.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Nu vreau să am un…

Tânără reporteră de la Brussels Times: Funcționează?

Da. Bună, numele meu este Kira. Sunt reporter la Brussels Times. Mulțumesc pentru discuția fascinantă, Jeffrey. Am vrut doar să te întreb despre declarațiile lui Trump despre dorința ca membrii NATO să își mărească cheltuielile cu 5%.

Și acum vedem o mulțime de țări care se luptă să demonstreze că vor face acest lucru, inclusiv Belgia. Și având în vedere că Belgia este și sediul NATO, am vrut să te întreb care ar fi răspunsul potrivit la aceste declarații ale membrilor NATO? Mulțumesc.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Nu suntem exact de acord în această privință. Așadar, permiteți-mi să vă ofer propria mea opinie. Prima mea recomandare, cu tot respectul pentru Bruxelles, este mutarea sediului NATO în altă parte. Vorbesc serios, pentru că una dintre cele mai grave părți ale politicii europene din acest moment este o confuzie completă între Europa și NATO. Acestea sunt complet diferite, dar au devenit exact la fel.

Europa este mult mai bună decât NATO. În opinia mea, NATO nici măcar nu mai este necesar. Aș fi pus capăt la asta în 1991. Dar pentru că SUA l-au considerat un instrument de hegemonie, nu o apărare împotriva Rusiei, a continuat ulterior.

Dar confuzia dintre NATO și Europa este mortală, deoarece extinderea Europei a însemnat extinderea NATO, punct. Și acestea ar fi trebuit să fie lucruri complet diferite. Deci, acesta este primul punct.

Părerea mea, din nou, cu tot respectul pentru Michael, am avut doar o scurtă conversație despre asta, este că Europa ar trebui să aibă practic propria politică externă și propria securitate militară, propria autonomie strategică, așa-numita.

Și ar trebui. Sunt în favoarea acestui lucru.

Aș desființa NATO și poate Trump o va face oricum. Poate Trump va invada Groenlanda. Cine știe?

Atunci veți afla cu adevărat ce înseamnă NATO. Deci, cred că Europa ar trebui să investească în securitatea sa. Cinci procente este extravagant, ridicol, absurd, complet absurd. Nimeni nu trebuie să cheltuiască o asemenea sumă. Două până la trei procente din PIB, probabil în circumstanțele actuale.

Ceea ce aș face, apropo, ar fi să cumpăr producție europeană. Pentru că, de fapt, în mod ciudat, ciudat, din păcate, în lumea asta, și este un truism, dar este regretabil, așa că nu îl susțin. O mare parte din inovația tehnologică provine din sectorul militar, deoarece guvernele investesc în sectorul militar.

Deci, Trump este un vânzător de arme. Înțelegeți asta. Vinde arme americane. Vinde tehnologie americană. Vance v-a spus acum câteva zile, nici nu vă gândiți să aveți propria tehnologie de inteligență artificială. Așadar, vă rog să înțelegeți că această creștere a cheltuielilor este pentru Statele Unite, nu pentru voi. Și în acest sens, sunt complet împotriva acestei abordări.

Dar nu aș fi împotriva unei abordări în care Europa ar cheltui două până la trei procente din PIB pentru o structură de securitate europeană unificată și ar investi în Europa și tehnologia europeană, fără ca Statele Unite să dicteze utilizarea tehnologiei europene. Este atât de interesant. Olanda este cea care produce singurele mașini de semiconductori avansați, litografie ultravioletă extremă. Este ASML.

Dar America determină fiecare politică ASML. Olanda nu are nici măcar o notă de subsol. Nu aș face asta dacă aș fi în locul vostru, să predați toată securitatea Statelor Unite. Nu aș face-o. Aș avea propriul cadru de securitate, ca să puteți avea și voi propriul cadru de politică externă.

Europa reprezintă multe lucruri pe care Statele Unite nu le susțin. Europa susține acțiunile climatice, apropo, pe bună dreptate, pentru că președintele nostru este complet nebun în privința asta. Iar Europa reprezintă decența, social-democrația ca etos. Nu vorbesc despre un partid. Vorbesc despre un etos al modului în care se realizează egalitatea vieții.

Europa reprezintă multilateralismul. Europa reprezintă Carta ONU. SUA nu reprezintă niciuna dintre aceste idei subțiri. Știți că secretarul nostru de stat, Marco Rubio, și-a anulat călătoria în Africa de Sud pentru că pe ordinea de zi erau egalitatea și sustenabilitatea. Și a spus: „Nu intru în detalii. Aceasta este o reflectare sinceră a profundului libertarianism anglo-saxon.”

Și libertarianismul. Egalitarismul nu este un cuvânt din lexiconul american. Dezvoltare durabilă, deloc. Probabil știți, apropo, că dintre cele 193 de state membre ale ONU, 191 au avut planuri ODD (Planuri de Dezvoltare Durabilă) prezentate ca evaluări naționale voluntare. 191. Două nu au avut. Haiti și Statele Unite ale Americii.

Administrația Biden nici măcar nu a avut voie să menționeze obiective de dezvoltare durabilă. Trezoreria avea o politică de a nu menționa obiective de dezvoltare durabilă. Bine, menționez toate acestea pentru că aveți nevoie de propria politică externă.

Eu public un raport, două rapoarte în fiecare an. Unul, Raportul Fericirii Mondiale, și 18 din primele 20 de țări, dacă îmi amintesc bine, sunt europene. Aceasta este cea mai înaltă calitate a vieții din întreaga lume. Așadar, aveți nevoie de propria politică pentru a proteja această calitate a vieții.

Statele Unite sunt mult mai jos. Și în celălalt raport, unde este colegul meu Guillaume? Este undeva în cameră aici. Uite-l acolo. Guillaume LaFortune este autorul principal al raportului nostru anual privind dezvoltarea durabilă. Și aproape toate primele 20 de țări sunt țări europene pentru că voi credeți în aceste lucruri.

Și de aceea sunteți cei mai fericiți, cu excepția geopoliticii. Doar calitatea vieții.

Deci aveți nevoie de propria politică externă, dar nu o veți avea decât dacă aveți propria securitate. Pur și simplu nu o veți avea. Și astfel, apropo, 27 de țări nu pot avea fiecare propria politică externă. Aceasta este o problemă. Aveți nevoie de o politică externă europeană și de o structură de securitate europeană. Și apropo, deși Michael mă asigură că este mort,am fost cel mai mare fan al OSCE și cred că OSCE este cadrul adecvat pentru securitatea europeană. Ar putea funcționa cu adevărat.

Vorbitor din Slovacia: Mulțumesc. Mulțumesc foarte mult. Da, OK. Ei bine, vă mulțumesc, domnule profesor. Sunt din Slovacia, iar prim-ministrul meu, Robert Fico, a fost aproape împușcat mortal pentru că opiniile dumneavoastră sunt similare cu ale sale. Da, noi, in Slovacia, cu un guvern slovac suntem dintre puținele țări din Uniunea Europeană care vorbim cu rușii.

Acum două luni, vorbeam cu domnul Medvedev. Peste două săptămâni, voi vorbi la Duma cu domnul Slutsky, care este președintele Comisiei pentru Afaceri Externe a Rusiei de la Moscova. Poate întrebarea mea este: care ar fi mesajul dumneavoastră pentru ruși în acest moment? Pentru că, după cum am auzit, sunt pe valul victoriei. Nu au niciun motiv să nu cucerească Donbasul, deoarece acesta este scopul lor de război. Și ce le poate oferi Trump pentru a opri imediat războiul? Care ar fi mesajul pentru ruși din partea dumneavoastră? Vă mulțumesc foarte mult.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Multe lucruri importante sunt acum oferite și pe masă. Și cred că războiul se va termina rapid din cauza asta. Și aceasta va fi cel puțin o binecuvântare într-o perioadă foarte, foarte dificilă. Cred că exact cum va fi acordul este acum doar o chestiune de teritoriu. Și anume dacă este vorba despre cele patru regiuni complete, inclusiv Herson și Zaporijia, sau dacă se află pe linia de contact și cum vor fi negociate toate acestea.

Nu sunt implicat în negocieri. Așa că nu pot spune mai multe. Dar baza va fi că vor exista concesii teritoriale. Va exista neutralitate. Vor exista garanții de securitate pentru Ucraina, pentru toate părțile. Va exista, cel puțin cu SUA, sfârșitul sancțiunilor economice. Dar ceea ce contează, desigur, sunt Europa și Rusia.

Cred că există și poate va exista o reluare a negocierilor privind armele nucleare, ceea ce ar fi extraordinar de pozitiv. Cred că există probleme extrem de importante pe care Europa să le negocieze direct cu Rusia. Așadar, l-aș îndemna pe președintele [António] Costa și pe conducerea Europei să deschidă discuții directe cu președintele Putin, deoarece securitatea europeană este pe masă.

Îi cunosc pe liderii ruși, mulți dintre ei destul de bine. Sunt buni negociatori și ar trebui să negociați cu ei. Și ar trebui să negociați bine cu ei. Le-aș pune câteva întrebări. I-aș întreba care sunt garanțiile de securitate care pot funcționa astfel încât acest război să se încheie definitiv?

Care sunt garanțiile de securitate pentru statele baltice?

Ce ar trebui făcut?

O parte a procesului de negociere este de fapt să întrebi cealaltă parte despre preocupările tale, nu doar să știi ce știu ei, așa cum crezi tu că este adevărat, ci să întrebi, de fapt, că avem o problemă reală. Avem o îngrijorare reală. Care sunt garanțiile? Ei bine, vreau să știu și răspunsurile.

Apropo, îl cunosc pe domnul Lavrov, ministru Lavrov de 30 de ani. Îl consider un ministru de externe strălucit. Vorbește cu el. Negociază cu el. Obține idei. Pune idei pe masă. Pune idei contrare pe masă. Nu cred că toate acestea pot fi rezolvate prin pură rațiune din cauza ta.

Războaiele se rezolvă prin negociere și înțelegerea problemelor reale. Și nu numiți cealaltă parte mincinoasă atunci când își exprimă problemele. Trebuie să stabiliți care sunt implicațiile acestui lucru pentru beneficiul reciproc al păcii. Așadar, cel mai important lucru este să încetați țipetele, să încetați incitarea la război și să discutați cu omologii ruși.

Și nu implorați să fiți la masa negocierilor cu Statele Unite. Nu trebuie să fiți în aceeași cameră cu Statele Unite. Sunteți Europa. Ar trebui să fiți în aceeași cameră cu Europa și Rusia. Dacă Statele Unite vor să se alăture, este în regulă. Dar să implorați, nu. Și apropo, Europa nu are nevoie ca Ucraina să fie prezentă atunci când Europa discută cu Rusia. Aveți o mulțime de probleme, probleme directe.

Nu predați politica voastră externă nimănui. Nici Statelor Unite, nici Ucrainei, nici Israelului. Mențineți o politică externă europeană. Aceasta este ideea de bază.

Hans Neuhoff: Hans Neuhoff din Grupul Politic Suveranist din acest parlament. Alternativă pentru Germania ca partid politic. În primul rând, permiteți-mi să vă mulțumesc, domnule Sachs, pentru prezența dumneavoastră și pentru că ne-ați împărtășit ideile dumneavoastră. Și fiți sigur că multe dintre ideile dumneavoastră și ale colegului dumneavoastră, John Mersheimer, au fost bine primite de grupurile politice de aici și au fost integrate în agenda noastră. Împărtășesc în mare măsură opiniile dumneavoastră.

Totuși, există o întrebare referitoare la relatarea istorică pe care ați oferit-o, despre care aș dori să intru în detalii. Aceasta se referă la începutul extinderii NATO. Ați relatat de pe site-ul web, What Gorbachev Heard, că există multe citate din Genscher, de exemplu, că NATO nu se va mișca niciun centimetru spre est. Acum, tratatul 2 plus 4 a fost semnat în septembrie 1990, nu-i așa? La Moscova. Deci, la acel moment, Pactul de la Varșovia încă exista. Și țări precum Polonia, Ungaria și Cehia nu au participat la negocierile pentru tratatul 2 plus 4. Așadar, Pactul de la Varșovia s-a dizolvat de fapt în iulie 1991, iar Uniunea Sovietică s-a dizolvat în decembrie 1991.

Așadar, nimeni dintre cei prezenți la negocieri nu a putut vorbi în numele Poloniei, în numele Ungariei, în numele Slovaciei, că nu vor încerca să devină membru NATO odată ce situația generală se va schimba. Așadar, contraargumentul pe care trebuie să-l combatem este că a fost voința acestor țări, a Poloniei, a Ungariei, a Slovaciei, că au vrut să adere la NATO datorită istoriei pe care o aveau cu Uniunea Sovietică. Și, bineînțeles, Rusia era încă percepută într-un fel ca un adept al Uniunii Sovietice. Deci, cum puteți combate acest argument?

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Nu am nicio îndoială de ce Ungaria, Polonia, Republica Cehă, Slovacia au vrut să adere la NATO. Întrebarea este ce fac SUA pentru a face pace? Pentru că NATO nu este o alegere a Ungariei, Poloniei, Republicii Cehe sau Slovaciei. NATO este o alianță militară condusă de SUA.

Și întrebarea este cum vom stabili pacea într-un mod fiabil? Dacă aș fi luat acele decizii pe atunci, aș fi pus capăt complet NATO în 1991. Când acele țări au solicitat NATO, le-aș fi explicat ce a spus secretarul nostru al Apărării, William Perry, ce a spus omul nostru de stat principal, George Kennan, ce a spus ultimul nostru ambasador în Uniunea Sovietică, Jack Matlock. Ei au spus: ei bine, vă înțelegem sentimentele, dar nu este o idee bună, deoarece ar putea provoca un nou Război Rece cu Rusia. Așa că așa aș fi răspuns.

Când acele țări s-au alăturat în primul val, nu cred că a fost chiar atât de important, cu excepția faptului că a făcut parte dintr-un proiect mai amplu. Și proiectul a fost deja elaborat în 1994. Există o carte foarte bună de Jonathan Haslam, Harvard University Press, numită “Hubris”, care oferă o documentație istorică detaliată a ceea ce s-a întâmplat pas cu pas. Și merită cu adevărat citită.

Deci, asta e acum, dar ideea pe care aș vrea să o subliniez este că Ucraina și Georgia erau prea departe. Asta e chiar în fața Rusiei. Asta se întâmplă în contextul destabilizării complete a cadrului nuclear. Acest lucru se întâmplă în contextul instalării de sisteme de rachete de către SUA la granițele Rusiei.

Dacă îl ascultați pe președintele Putin de-a lungul anilor, probabil că principalul lucru, dacă îl ascultați cu atenție, care îl preocupă sunt rachetele la șapte minute de Moscova, un atac de decapitare. Și acest lucru este cât se poate de real. SUA nu numai că ar intra în panică, dar au intrat în panică atunci când s-ar întâmpla asta în emisfera vestică. Deci este criza rachetelor cubaneze inversată.

Și, din fericire, Nikita Hrușciov nu s-a ridicat și nu a spus politica ușilor deschise a Pactului de la Varșovia. Putem merge oriunde vrem. Cuba ne-a cerut-o, nu este treaba Americii. Ceea ce a spus Hrușciov este război, Doamne, nu vrem război. Punem capăt acestei crize. Amândoi ne retragem. Asta au decis Hrușciov și Kennedy în cele din urmă.

Deci aceasta este adevărata consecință. Rusia a înghițit cu multă durere chiar și statele baltice, România, Bulgaria, Slovacia și Slovenia. Este Ucraina și Georgia. Și este din cauza geografiei. Este din cauza Lordului Palmerston. Este din cauza primului Război al Crimeii. Este din cauza sistemelor de rachete care explică esența motivului pentru care Aici a fost acest război.

Deputat european din Germania: Vă mulțumesc foarte mult, domnule profesor Sachs, pentru prezență. Ați menționat că Uniunea Europeană trebuie să își formuleze propria politică externă. În trecut, alianța germano-franco a fost un factor important pentru aceste politici. Acum, cu războiul din Ucraina, probabil, acesta a primit o scăpare. Credeți că în viitor, când Uniunea Europeană va formula această nouă politică externă, va fi din nou în prim-plan? Sau ar trebui să fie alte țări sau alte blocuri care să încerce să facă această schimbare?

Vă mulțumesc foarte mult.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Oh, este greu. Este greu pentru că, desigur, nu aveți încă o constituție pentru Europa care să stea la baza unei politici externe europene. Și nu se poate face prin unanimitate. Trebuie să existe o structură în care Europa să poată vorbi ca Europa, chiar și cu unele opoziții, dar cu politica europeană. Nu vreau să simplific prea mult cum se ajunge acolo exact. Dar chiar și cu structurile pe care le aveți, ați putea face mult mai bine negociind direct.

Prima regulă este că diplomații voștri ar trebui să fie diplomați, nu secretari de război. Sincer, asta ar ajunge la jumătatea drumului, cel puțin acolo unde vreți să ajungeți. Un diplomat este un talent foarte special. Un diplomat este antrenat să stea alături de cealaltă parte și să asculte, să strângă mâna, să zâmbească și să fie amabil. Este foarte greu. Este o abilitate. Este antrenament. Este o profesie. Nu este un joc. Ai nevoie de acest tip de diplomație. Îmi pare rău. Nu auzim așa ceva.

Voi face doar câteva plângeri. În primul rând, Europa nu este NATO, așa cum am spus. Am crezut că Stoltenberg era cel mai rău, dar m-am înșelat. Situația merge din ce în ce mai rău. Ar putea cineva din NATO să nu mai vorbească, pentru numele lui Dumnezeu, despre mai mult război?

Și ar putea NATO să nu mai vorbească în numele Europei? Și Europa să nu mai creadă că este NATO. Acesta este primul punct absolut. În al doilea rând, îmi pare rău, dar vicepreședinții voștri înalți reprezentanți trebuie să devină diplomați. Diplomația înseamnă să mergi la Moscova, să-ți inviți omologul rus aici, să discuți. Acest lucru nu s-a întâmplat până acum. Deci, acesta este, de fapt, punctul meu de vedere.

Acum, cred că Europa ar trebui să devină mai integrată și mai unită în anii următori. Cred cu tărie în subsidiaritate. Așa că discutam. Nu cred că politica locuințelor este cu adevărat principala problemă a Europei. Cred că aceasta poate fi gestionată la nivel local sau la nivel național. Nu o văd ca pe o problemă europeană. Dar nu văd politica externă ca fiind o problemă a celor 27 de țări. O văd ca pe o problemă europeană. Și văd securitatea la nivel european. Deci cred că lucrurile trebuie reajustate. Dar aș vrea să văd mai multă Europă pentru probleme cu adevărat europene și poate mai puțină Europă pentru lucruri care sunt subsidiare Europei la nivel național și local. Și sper că o astfel de evoluție poate avea loc.

Știți, când lumea vorbește despre marile puteri acum, vorbește despre SUA, Rusia, China. Includ India. Și chiar vreau să includ și Europa. Și chiar vreau să includ și Africa ca o uniune africană. Și vreau să se întâmple asta. Dar veți observa pe listă că Europa nu apare acum. Și asta pentru că nu există o politică externă europeană.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Bine.

Europarlamentar din Luxemburg: Vă mulțumesc foarte mult. Și vă mulțumesc foarte mult, domnule profesor, pentru acest discurs foarte curajos, un discurs foarte clar pe care l-ați ținut. Sunt europarlamentar din Luxemburg. Întrebarea mea este următoarea. Care sunt consecințele pe termen lung ale acestui război pierdut? Am pierdut războiul. Acum avem un viitor incert pentru NATO. De asemenea, avem în mod clar, și v-ați referit la asta, marginalizarea Europei. Avem o consolidare a țărilor BRICS, care pot fi rivale în multe privințe. Deci, va exista un viitor pentru un Occident colectiv în următorii 20 sau 30 de ani?

Vă mulțumesc foarte mult.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Nu cred că există un Occident colectiv. Cred că există Statele Unite și o Europă care au în unele domenii interese paralele și în multe domenii nu au interese paralele. Îmi doresc ca Europa să conducă o dezvoltare durabilă. Transformare climatică, decență globală.

Cred că dacă lumea ar arăta mai mult ca Europa, ar fi o lume mai fericită, mai pașnică, mai sigură. Și longevitate și mâncare mai bună, apropo.

Dar, ca să spun, în orice caz, Europa are o vocație destul de diferită de tradiția americană. Și, sincer, față de tradiția anglo-saxonă, pentru că au trecut 200 de ani de hegemonie anglo-saxonă sau de hegemonie aspirațională, britanicii încă mai cred că ei conduc lumea.

Este uimitor ce înseamnă nostalgia. Nici măcar nu se opresc. E aproape ca o scenetă Monty Python, de fapt. Dar, în orice caz, unde eram? Mă gândesc la Monty Python când cavalerul are toate membrele tăiate și spune: totul e bine. Sunt victorios. Aceea este Marea Britanie, din păcate. Și deci este cu adevărat teribil.

Așa că nu, nu cred în Occidentul colectiv. Nu cred în Sudul global. Nu cred că toate aceste geografii nici măcar nu au sens. Așa că nici măcar nu înțeleg despre ce este vorba. Cred că am putea fi într-o adevărată eră a abundenței dacă ne-am lămuri mințile. Suntem în mijlocul celui mai mare progres tehnologic din istoria omenirii.

Este cu adevărat uimitor ce se poate face chiar acum. Știți, mă minunez de faptul că cineva care nu știe chimie a câștigat Premiul Nobel pentru chimie pentru că este foarte bun la rețele neuronale profunde, un geniu, DemisHassabis. Au descoperit plierea proteinelor, lucru pe care generații de biochimisti și-au petrecut întreaga viață. Și acum DeepMind a descoperit cum să o facă, știți, cu miile de proteine.

Avem prieteni care și-au petrecut întreaga viață cu o singură proteină, prieteni străluciți. Și acum ce putem face noi. Deci, dacă într-adevăr, și la fel și cu energia regenerabilă, după cum știe toată lumea, prețurile scad cu peste două ordine de mărime, costurile. Am putea transforma planeta. Am putea proteja sistemul climatic. Am putea proteja biodiversitatea. Am putea asigura că fiecare copil primește o educație bună. Am putea face atât de multe lucruri minunate chiar acum.” Și de ce avem nevoie pentru a face asta? În opinia mea, avem nevoie de pace, cel mai important.

Iar ideea mea fundamentală este că nu există motive profunde pentru conflict nicăieri, pentru că fiecare conflict pe care îl studiez este doar o greșeală. Nu este, nu luptăm pentru Lebensraum/Habitat. Acea idee care a venit de la Malthus și care a devenit o idee nazistă a fost întotdeauna o idee greșită. A fost o greșeală, o greșeală intelectuală fundamentală. O greșeală intelectuală, apropo, pentru că oamenii de știință de renume au adoptat ideea că avem războaie rasiale, am avut războaie naționale, am avut războaie pentru supraviețuire, pentru că nu avem suficiente resurse pe planetă.

Ca economist, vă pot spune că avem destule resurse pe planetă pentru dezvoltarea tuturor, destule. Nu suntem într-un conflict cu China. Nu suntem într-un conflict cu Rusia. Dacă ne calmăm, dacă întrebați despre termen lung, termenul lung este foarte bun, mulțumesc. Termenul lung, dacă nu ne aruncăm în aer, este foarte bun. Și deci asta ar trebui să urmărim, o viziune pozitivă comună în conformitate cu dreptul internațional.

Datorită tehnologiei noastre, lucrurile funcționează acum la scară regională. Înainte erau sate, apoi erau zone mici, apoi a fost unificarea țărilor. Acum este regional. Asta nu se întâmplă doar pentru că regiunile sunt minunate. Se întâmplă pentru că realitățile tehnologice subiacente spun că Europa ar trebui să fie o zonă integrată prin transport, prin căi ferate rapide, prin tehnologie digitală, prin… Și așa există Europa.

Politica urmează realitățile tehnologice într-o măsură foarte importantă. Suntem acum într-o lume a regiunilor. Deci Europa ar trebui să fie o Europă cu subsidiaritate. Nu pierdem toate elementele naționale și locale minunate. Dar Europa ar trebui să fie Europa. Deci partea bună este să… Vreau ca Europa să aibă diplomație, de exemplu, cu ASEAN.

Am petrecut mult timp cu țările ASEAN. Dacă Pactul Verde al UE este o idee minunată. Le-am spus cu mulți ani în urmă, bine, liderilor ASEAN, să facă un Pact Verde ASEAN. Și apoi să discute cu europenii, astfel încât să aveți această relație minunată, comerț, investiții, tehnologie. Așa că anul trecut au anunțat un Pact Verde ASEAN. Ce a făcut Europa în privința asta? Nimic. Spunea, scuze, suntem în războiul din Ucraina, mulțumesc. Nu am avut niciun interes. Deci acesta este punctul meu de vedere.

Perspectivele sunt foarte pozitive dacă construim pacea.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Pentru că trebuie să plecăm, primesc tot timpul mesaje că ar trebui să părăsesc camera. Scurt. Ceva foarte scurt.

Tânără doamnă deputată europeană: Da. Scuze, da, vă mulțumesc mult pentru prelegere. Am vrut să întreb, credeți că ieșirea din conflict este un fel de finlandizare? Și apoi, credeți că asta este modul în care ați fi vrut să vedeți, de exemplu, procesul natural al Finlandei și Suediei, scuze, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, credeți că o ieșire din conflict este un fel de finlandizare?

Și apoi, asta ați fi vrut să vedeți în politica externă a Suediei și Finlandei, ca exemplu? Adică, în loc să devină membri NATO, acesta este modul în care ați fi vrut să vedeți aceste țări împărțite cu politică externă? Și credeți că aceste țări care se învecinează cu Rusia ar trebui pur și simplu să cedeze soartei lor, astfel încât, bine, să nu putem provoca Rusia. Adică, acesta este modul în care trebuie să trăim.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Foarte bună, excelentă întrebare. Și permiteți-mi să vă raportez o parte despre finlandizare. Finlandizarea a plasat Finlanda pe primul loc în Raportul Mondial privind Fericirea an de an. Bogată, de succes, fericită și sigură. Asta e înainte de NATO. Deci finlandizarea a fost un lucru minunat. Numărul unu în lume.

Când Suedia, Finlanda și Austria erau neutre. Bravo, inteligent. Când Ucraina era neutră, inteligent. Dacă aveți două superputeri, țineți-le puțin separate. Nu trebuie să fiți cu nasul lipit una de cealaltă.

Mai ales dacă una dintre ele, SUA. Și astfel, finlandizarea, în opinia mea, are o conotație foarte pozitivă. La fel și austriacizarea. Austria, în 1955, și-a semnat neutralitatea. Armata sovietică a plecat. Și Austria este un loc minunat, apropo. Absolut minunat. Și aceasta este o modalitate fundamentală de a evita conflictul. Dacă Statele Unite ar fi avut vreun pic de bun simț, ar fi părăsit aceste țări ca un spațiu neutru între armata americană și Rusia. Dar aici SUA și-au pierdut mintea. OK.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Mulțumesc foarte mult. Vreau doar să închei cu un apel. Cred că amândoi suntem de acord că războiul se va termina într-o lună sau două. Asta înseamnă că luptele se vor termina. Nu înseamnă că vom avea pace în Europa. Pacea în Europa trebuie să fie realizată de noi, de europeni, nu de un președinte din Statele Unite.

Trebuie să creăm această pace. Și aceasta este Europa, care include, desigur, Belarus, Rusia și toate aceste alte țări. Deci trebuie să facem ceva. Și suntem aici, un parlament. Ca parlamentari, reprezentăm oamenii. Suntem singura instituție legitimă, democratic legitimă, din Uniunea Europeană. Poate că ar fi trebuit să devenim puțin mai proactivi în încercarea de a avansa acest proces de pace, indiferent de partid.

Cred că nu știu câte partide sunt cu adevărat aici, dar dacă putem vorbi unii cu alții fără să spunem: „Sunteți din partidul acesta, sunteți din partidul acesta”, cred că trebuie să ne concentrăm. Dacă aici nu am putea lua mai multă inițiativă din partea parlamentului față de comisie, spunând: „Noi prezentăm oamenii, nu pe voi. Noi prezentăm oamenii”. Și acești oameni din Europa vor pace.

Și asta ar trebui să facem. Deci, poate acesta este începutul. În fiecare lună, voi organiza împreună cu colegii mei același lucru aici, pe diferite teme, care au fost în jurul acestui subiect. Și sperăm că de data aceasta vom avea o discuție diferită de cea pe care o avem în plen, unde practic nu avem o discuție, ci vom avea o discuție și în cadrul partidului și vom invita și persoane din alte partide politice. Nu invităm pe nimeni.

Haideți să discutăm asta până la urmă. Cu toții ne dorim aceeași pace pentru următoarea generație. Și am o mulțime de copii, nepoți, și dumneavoastră la fel.

Și asta este ceea ce ne trebuie.

Bine, vă mulțumesc foarte mult, domnule profesor.

Hans Neuhoff: Hans Neuhoff din Grupul Politic Suveranist din acest parlament. Alternativă pentru Germania ca partid politic. În primul rând, permiteți-mi să vă mulțumesc, domnule Sachs, pentru prezența dumneavoastră și pentru că ne-ați împărtășit ideile dumneavoastră. Și fiți sigur că multe dintre ideile dumneavoastră și ale colegului dumneavoastră, John Mersheimer, au fost bine primite de grupurile politice de aici și au fost integrate în agenda noastră. Împărtășesc în mare măsură opiniile dumneavoastră.

Totuși, există o întrebare referitoare la relatarea istorică pe care ați oferit-o, despre care aș dori să intru în detalii. Aceasta se referă la începutul extinderii NATO. Ați relatat de pe site-ul web, What Gorbachev Heard, că există multe citate din Genscher, de exemplu, că NATO nu se va mișca niciun centimetru spre est. Acum, tratatul 2 plus 4 a fost semnat în septembrie 1990, nu-i așa? La Moscova. Deci, la acel moment, Pactul de la Varșovia încă exista. Și țări precum Polonia, Ungaria și Cehia nu au participat la negocierile pentru tratatul 2 plus 4. Așadar, Pactul de la Varșovia s-a dizolvat de fapt în iulie 1991, iar Uniunea Sovietică s-a dizolvat în decembrie 1991.

Așadar, nimeni dintre cei prezenți la negocieri nu a putut vorbi în numele Poloniei, în numele Ungariei, în numele Slovaciei, că nu vor încerca să devină membru NATO odată ce situația generală se va schimba. Așadar, contraargumentul pe care trebuie să-l combatem este că a fost voința acestor țări, a Poloniei, a Ungariei, a Slovaciei, că au vrut să adere la NATO datorită istoriei pe care o aveau cu Uniunea Sovietică. Și, bineînțeles, Rusia era încă percepută într-un fel ca un adept al Uniunii Sovietice. Deci, cum puteți combate acest argument?

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Nu am nicio îndoială de ce Ungaria, Polonia, Republica Cehă, Slovacia au vrut să adere la NATO. Întrebarea este ce fac SUA pentru a face pace? Pentru că NATO nu este o alegere a Ungariei, Poloniei, Republicii Cehe sau Slovaciei. NATO este o alianță militară condusă de SUA.

Și întrebarea este cum vom stabili pacea într-un mod fiabil? Dacă aș fi luat acele decizii pe atunci, aș fi pus capăt complet NATO în 1991. Când acele țări au solicitat NATO, le-aș fi explicat ce a spus secretarul nostru al Apărării, William Perry, ce a spus omul nostru de stat principal, George Kennan, ce a spus ultimul nostru ambasador în Uniunea Sovietică, Jack Matlock. Ei au spus: ei bine, vă înțelegem sentimentele, dar nu este o idee bună, deoarece ar putea provoca un nou Război Rece cu Rusia. Așa că așa aș fi răspuns.

Când acele țări s-au alăturat în primul val, nu cred că a fost chiar atât de important, cu excepția faptului că a făcut parte dintr-un proiect mai amplu. Și proiectul a fost deja elaborat în 1994. Există o carte foarte bună de Jonathan Haslam, Harvard University Press, numită “Hubris”, care oferă o documentație istorică detaliată a ceea ce s-a întâmplat pas cu pas. Și merită cu adevărat citită.

Deci, asta e acum, dar ideea pe care aș vrea să o subliniez este că Ucraina și Georgia erau prea departe. Asta e chiar în fața Rusiei. Asta se întâmplă în contextul destabilizării complete a cadrului nuclear. Acest lucru se întâmplă în contextul instalării de sisteme de rachete de către SUA la granițele Rusiei.

Dacă îl ascultați pe președintele Putin de-a lungul anilor, probabil că principalul lucru, dacă îl ascultați cu atenție, care îl preocupă sunt rachetele la șapte minute de Moscova, un atac de decapitare. Și acest lucru este cât se poate de real. SUA nu numai că ar intra în panică, dar au intrat în panică atunci când s-ar întâmpla asta în emisfera vestică. Deci este criza rachetelor cubaneze inversată.

Și, din fericire, Nikita Hrușciov nu s-a ridicat și nu a spus politica ușilor deschise a Pactului de la Varșovia. Putem merge oriunde vrem. Cuba ne-a cerut-o, nu este treaba Americii. Ceea ce a spus Hrușciov este război, Doamne, nu vrem război. Punem capăt acestei crize. Amândoi ne retragem. Asta au decis Hrușciov și Kennedy în cele din urmă.

Deci aceasta este adevărata consecință. Rusia a înghițit cu multă durere chiar și statele baltice, România, Bulgaria, Slovacia și Slovenia. Este Ucraina și Georgia. Și este din cauza geografiei. Este din cauza Lordului Palmerston. Este din cauza primului Război al Crimeii. Este din cauza sistemelor de rachete care explică esența motivului pentru care Aici a fost acest război.

Deputat european din Germania: Vă mulțumesc foarte mult, domnule profesor Sachs, pentru prezență. Ați menționat că Uniunea Europeană trebuie să își formuleze propria politică externă. În trecut, alianța germano-franco a fost un factor important pentru aceste politici. Acum, cu războiul din Ucraina, probabil, acesta a primit o scăpare. Credeți că în viitor, când Uniunea Europeană va formula această nouă politică externă, va fi din nou în prim-plan? Sau ar trebui să fie alte țări sau alte blocuri care să încerce să facă această schimbare?

Vă mulțumesc foarte mult.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Oh, este greu. Este greu pentru că, desigur, nu aveți încă o constituție pentru Europa care să stea la baza unei politici externe europene. Și nu se poate face prin unanimitate. Trebuie să existe o structură în care Europa să poată vorbi ca Europa, chiar și cu unele opoziții, dar cu politica europeană. Nu vreau să simplific prea mult cum se ajunge acolo exact. Dar chiar și cu structurile pe care le aveți, ați putea face mult mai bine negociind direct.

Prima regulă este că diplomații voștri ar trebui să fie diplomați, nu secretari de război. Sincer, asta ar ajunge la jumătatea drumului, cel puțin acolo unde vreți să ajungeți. Un diplomat este un talent foarte special. Un diplomat este antrenat să stea alături de cealaltă parte și să asculte, să strângă mâna, să zâmbească și să fie amabil. Este foarte greu. Este o abilitate. Este antrenament. Este o profesie. Nu este un joc. Ai nevoie de acest tip de diplomație. Îmi pare rău. Nu auzim așa ceva.

Voi face doar câteva plângeri. În primul rând, Europa nu este NATO, așa cum am spus. Am crezut că Stoltenberg era cel mai rău, dar m-am înșelat. Situația merge din ce în ce mai rău. Ar putea cineva din NATO să nu mai vorbească, pentru numele lui Dumnezeu, despre mai mult război?

Și ar putea NATO să nu mai vorbească în numele Europei? Și Europa să nu mai creadă că este NATO. Acesta este primul punct absolut. În al doilea rând, îmi pare rău, dar vicepreședinții voștri înalți reprezentanți trebuie să devină diplomați. Diplomația înseamnă să mergi la Moscova, să-ți inviți omologul rus aici, să discuți. Acest lucru nu s-a întâmplat până acum. Deci, acesta este, de fapt, punctul meu de vedere.

Acum, cred că Europa ar trebui să devină mai integrată și mai unită în anii următori. Cred cu tărie în subsidiaritate. Așa că discutam. Nu cred că politica locuințelor este cu adevărat principala problemă a Europei. Cred că aceasta poate fi gestionată la nivel local sau la nivel național. Nu o văd ca pe o problemă europeană. Dar nu văd politica externă ca fiind o problemă a celor 27 de țări. O văd ca pe o problemă europeană. Și văd securitatea la nivel european. Deci cred că lucrurile trebuie reajustate. Dar aș vrea să văd mai multă Europă pentru probleme cu adevărat europene și poate mai puțină Europă pentru lucruri care sunt subsidiare Europei la nivel național și local. Și sper că o astfel de evoluție poate avea loc.

Știți, când lumea vorbește despre marile puteri acum, vorbește despre SUA, Rusia, China. Includ India. Și chiar vreau să includ și Europa. Și chiar vreau să includ și Africa ca o uniune africană. Și vreau să se întâmple asta. Dar veți observa pe listă că Europa nu apare acum. Și asta pentru că nu există o politică externă europeană.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Bine.

Europarlamentar din Luxemburg: Vă mulțumesc foarte mult. Și vă mulțumesc foarte mult, domnule profesor, pentru acest discurs foarte curajos, un discurs foarte clar pe care l-ați ținut. Sunt europarlamentar din Luxemburg. Întrebarea mea este următoarea. Care sunt consecințele pe termen lung ale acestui război pierdut? Am pierdut războiul. Acum avem un viitor incert pentru NATO. De asemenea, avem în mod clar, și v-ați referit la asta, marginalizarea Europei. Avem o consolidare a țărilor BRICS, care pot fi rivale în multe privințe. Deci, va exista un viitor pentru un Occident colectiv în următorii 20 sau 30 de ani?

Vă mulțumesc foarte mult.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Nu cred că există un Occident colectiv. Cred că există Statele Unite și o Europă care au în unele domenii interese paralele și în multe domenii nu au interese paralele. Îmi doresc ca Europa să conducă o dezvoltare durabilă. Transformare climatică, decență globală.

Cred că dacă lumea ar arăta mai mult ca Europa, ar fi o lume mai fericită, mai pașnică, mai sigură. Și longevitate și mâncare mai bună, apropo.

Dar, ca să spun, în orice caz, Europa are o vocație destul de diferită de tradiția americană. Și, sincer, față de tradiția anglo-saxonă, pentru că au trecut 200 de ani de hegemonie anglo-saxonă sau de hegemonie aspirațională, britanicii încă mai cred că ei conduc lumea.

Este uimitor ce înseamnă nostalgia. Nici măcar nu se opresc. E aproape ca o scenetă Monty Python, de fapt. Dar, în orice caz, unde eram? Mă gândesc la Monty Python când cavalerul are toate membrele tăiate și spune: totul e bine. Sunt victorios. Aceea este Marea Britanie, din păcate. Și deci este cu adevărat teribil.

Așa că nu, nu cred în Occidentul colectiv. Nu cred în Sudul global. Nu cred că toate aceste geografii nici măcar nu au sens. Așa că nici măcar nu înțeleg despre ce este vorba. Cred că am putea fi într-o adevărată eră a abundenței dacă ne-am lămuri mințile. Suntem în mijlocul celui mai mare progres tehnologic din istoria omenirii.

Este cu adevărat uimitor ce se poate face chiar acum. Știți, mă minunez de faptul că cineva care nu știe chimie a câștigat Premiul Nobel pentru chimie pentru că este foarte bun la rețele neuronale profunde, un geniu, DemisHassabis. Au descoperit plierea proteinelor, lucru pe care generații de biochimisti și-au petrecut întreaga viață. Și acum DeepMind a descoperit cum să o facă, știți, cu miile de proteine.

Avem prieteni care și-au petrecut întreaga viață cu o singură proteină, prieteni străluciți. Și acum ce putem face noi. Deci, dacă într-adevăr, și la fel și cu energia regenerabilă, după cum știe toată lumea, prețurile scad cu peste două ordine de mărime, costurile. Am putea transforma planeta. Am putea proteja sistemul climatic. Am putea proteja biodiversitatea. Am putea asigura că fiecare copil primește o educație bună. Am putea face atât de multe lucruri minunate chiar acum.” Și de ce avem nevoie pentru a face asta? În opinia mea, avem nevoie de pace, cel mai important.

Iar ideea mea fundamentală este că nu există motive profunde pentru conflict nicăieri, pentru că fiecare conflict pe care îl studiez este doar o greșeală. Nu este, nu luptăm pentru Lebensraum/Habitat. Acea idee care a venit de la Malthus și care a devenit o idee nazistă a fost întotdeauna o idee greșită. A fost o greșeală, o greșeală intelectuală fundamentală. O greșeală intelectuală, apropo, pentru că oamenii de știință de renume au adoptat ideea că avem războaie rasiale, am avut războaie naționale, am avut războaie pentru supraviețuire, pentru că nu avem suficiente resurse pe planetă.

Ca economist, vă pot spune că avem destule resurse pe planetă pentru dezvoltarea tuturor, destule. Nu suntem într-un conflict cu China. Nu suntem într-un conflict cu Rusia. Dacă ne calmăm, dacă întrebați despre termen lung, termenul lung este foarte bun, mulțumesc. Termenul lung, dacă nu ne aruncăm în aer, este foarte bun. Și deci asta ar trebui să urmărim, o viziune pozitivă comună în conformitate cu dreptul internațional.

Datorită tehnologiei noastre, lucrurile funcționează acum la scară regională. Înainte erau sate, apoi erau zone mici, apoi a fost unificarea țărilor. Acum este regional. Asta nu se întâmplă doar pentru că regiunile sunt minunate. Se întâmplă pentru că realitățile tehnologice subiacente spun că Europa ar trebui să fie o zonă integrată prin transport, prin căi ferate rapide, prin tehnologie digitală, prin… Și așa există Europa.

Politica urmează realitățile tehnologice într-o măsură foarte importantă. Suntem acum într-o lume a regiunilor. Deci Europa ar trebui să fie o Europă cu subsidiaritate. Nu pierdem toate elementele naționale și locale minunate. Dar Europa ar trebui să fie Europa. Deci partea bună este să… Vreau ca Europa să aibă diplomație, de exemplu, cu ASEAN.

Am petrecut mult timp cu țările ASEAN. Dacă Pactul Verde al UE este o idee minunată. Le-am spus cu mulți ani în urmă, bine, liderilor ASEAN, să facă un Pact Verde ASEAN. Și apoi să discute cu europenii, astfel încât să aveți această relație minunată, comerț, investiții, tehnologie. Așa că anul trecut au anunțat un Pact Verde ASEAN. Ce a făcut Europa în privința asta? Nimic. Spunea, scuze, suntem în războiul din Ucraina, mulțumesc. Nu am avut niciun interes. Deci acesta este punctul meu de vedere.

Perspectivele sunt foarte pozitive dacă construim pacea.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Pentru că trebuie să plecăm, primesc tot timpul mesaje că ar trebui să părăsesc camera. Scurt. Ceva foarte scurt.

Tânără doamnă deputată europeană: Da. Scuze, da, vă mulțumesc mult pentru prelegere. Am vrut să întreb, credeți că ieșirea din conflict este un fel de finlandizare? Și apoi, credeți că asta este modul în care ați fi vrut să vedeți, de exemplu, procesul natural al Finlandei și Suediei, scuze, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, nu, credeți că o ieșire din conflict este un fel de finlandizare?

Și apoi, asta ați fi vrut să vedeți în politica externă a Suediei și Finlandei, ca exemplu? Adică, în loc să devină membri NATO, acesta este modul în care ați fi vrut să vedeți aceste țări împărțite cu politică externă? Și credeți că aceste țări care se învecinează cu Rusia ar trebui pur și simplu să cedeze soartei lor, astfel încât, bine, să nu putem provoca Rusia. Adică, acesta este modul în care trebuie să trăim.

Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs: Foarte bună, excelentă întrebare. Și permiteți-mi să vă raportez o parte despre finlandizare. Finlandizarea a plasat Finlanda pe primul loc în Raportul Mondial privind Fericirea an de an. Bogată, de succes, fericită și sigură. Asta e înainte de NATO. Deci finlandizarea a fost un lucru minunat. Numărul unu în lume.

Când Suedia, Finlanda și Austria erau neutre. Bravo, inteligent. Când Ucraina era neutră, inteligent. Dacă aveți două superputeri, țineți-le puțin separate. Nu trebuie să fiți cu nasul lipit una de cealaltă.

Mai ales dacă una dintre ele, SUA. Și astfel, finlandizarea, în opinia mea, are o conotație foarte pozitivă. La fel și austriacizarea. Austria, în 1955, și-a semnat neutralitatea. Armata sovietică a plecat. Și Austria este un loc minunat, apropo. Absolut minunat. Și aceasta este o modalitate fundamentală de a evita conflictul. Dacă Statele Unite ar fi avut vreun pic de bun simț, ar fi părăsit aceste țări ca un spațiu neutru între armata americană și Rusia. Dar aici SUA și-au pierdut mintea. OK.

Michael Von Der Schulenburg: Mulțumesc foarte mult. Vreau doar să închei cu un apel. Cred că amândoi suntem de acord că războiul se va termina într-o lună sau două. Asta înseamnă că luptele se vor termina. Nu înseamnă că vom avea pace în Europa. Pacea în Europa trebuie să fie realizată de noi, de europeni, nu de un președinte din Statele Unite.

Trebuie să creăm această pace. Și aceasta este Europa, care include, desigur, Belarus, Rusia și toate aceste alte țări. Deci trebuie să facem ceva. Și suntem aici, un parlament. Ca parlamentari, reprezentăm oamenii. Suntem singura instituție legitimă, democratic legitimă, din Uniunea Europeană. Poate că ar fi trebuit să devenim puțin mai proactivi în încercarea de a avansa acest proces de pace, indiferent de partid.

Cred că nu știu câte partide sunt cu adevărat aici, dar dacă putem vorbi unii cu alții fără să spunem: „Sunteți din partidul acesta, sunteți din partidul acesta”, cred că trebuie să ne concentrăm. Dacă aici nu am putea lua mai multă inițiativă din partea parlamentului față de comisie, spunând: „Noi prezentăm oamenii, nu pe voi. Noi prezentăm oamenii”. Și acești oameni din Europa vor pace.

Și asta ar trebui să facem. Deci, poate acesta este începutul. În fiecare lună, voi organiza împreună cu colegii mei același lucru aici, pe diferite teme, care au fost în jurul acestui subiect. Și sperăm că de data aceasta vom avea o discuție diferită de cea pe care o avem în plen, unde practic nu avem o discuție, ci vom avea o discuție și în cadrul partidului și vom invita și persoane din alte partide politice. Nu invităm pe nimeni.

Haideți să discutăm asta până la urmă. Cu toții ne dorim aceeași pace pentru următoarea generație. Și am o mulțime de copii, nepoți, și dumneavoastră la fel.

Și asta este ceea ce ne trebuie.

Bine, vă mulțumesc foarte mult, domnule profesor.


CHRIS HEDGES: The Machinery of Terror

$
0
0

 




The Machinery of Terror

The Trump administration is consolidating the familiar machinery of terror of all authoritarian states. We must resist now. If we wait, it will be too late.

Chris Hedges

Jan 11, 2026

The Missing Link - by Mr. Fish


I have seen the masked goons who terrorize our streets before. I saw them during the “Dirty War” in Argentina, where 30,000 men, women and children were “disappeared” by the military junta. Victims were held in secret prisons, savagely tortured and murdered. To this day, many families do not know the fate of their loved ones.


I saw them in El Salvador, when death squads were killing 800 people a month. I saw them in Guatemala under the dictatorship of José Efraín Ríos Montt. I saw them in Augusto Pinochet’s Chile and in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. I saw them in Iran under the rule of the ayatollahs where I was arrested and jailed twice and once deported in handcuffs. I saw them in Hafez al-Assad’s Syria. I saw them in Bosnia, where Muslims were herded into concentration camps, executed and buried in mass graves.


I know these goons. I have been a prisoner in their jails and spent hours in their interrogation rooms. I have been beaten by them. I have been deported, and in several cases banned, from their countries. I know what is coming.


Terror is the engine that empowers dictatorships.It eliminates dissidents. It silences critics. It dismantles the law. It creates a society of timid and frightened collaborators, those who look away when people are snatched off streets or gunned down, those who inform to save themselves, those who retreat into their tiny rabbit holes, pulling down the blinds, desperately praying to be left in peace.


Terror works.


The iron doors have not yet shut. There are still protests. The media is still able to document state atrocities, including the Jan. 7 murder of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Jonathan Ross. But the doors are closing fast. ICE has deported over 300,000 people and detained nearly 69,000 others — as well as been involved in 16 shootings, including four killings — since Trump began his campaign against immigrants.


ICE, our Americanized Gestapo, is being birthed.




A bloody airbag seen where Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed by ICE agent Jonathan Ross. (Photo by Alex Kormann/The Minnesota Star Tribune via Getty Images)


Resistance must be collective. We must assert not only our individual rights, but economic, social and political rights — without them we are powerless. Resistance means organizing to disrupt the machinery of commerce and government. It means preventing arrests by patrolling neighborhoods to warn of impending ICE raids. It means protesting outside detention facilities. It means strikes. It means blocking streets and highways and occupying buildings. It means providing photographic evidence. It means sustained pressure on local politicians and police to refuse to cooperate with ICE. It means providing legal representation, food and financial assistance to families with members detained. It means a willingness to be arrested. It means a nationwide campaign to defy the state’s inhumanity.


If we fail, the dimming flames of our open society will be snuffed out.


Authoritarian states are constructed incrementally. No dictatorship advertises its plan to extinguish civil liberties. It pays lip service to liberty and justice as it dismantles the institutions and laws that make liberty and justice possible. Opponents of the regime, including those within the establishment, make sporadic attempts to resist. They throw up temporary roadblocks, but they are soon purged.


Alexander Solzhenitsyn in “The Gulag Archipelago notes that the consolidation of Soviet tyranny “was stretched out over many years because it was of primary importance that it be stealthy and unnoticed.” He called the process “a grandiose silent game of solitaire, whose rules were totally incomprehensible to its contemporaries, and whose outlines we can appreciate only now.”


“What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?” Solzhenitsyn asks. “Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur — what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”


Czesław Miłosz, in “The Captive Mind,” also documents the creep of tyranny, how it advances stealthily, until intellectuals are not only forced to repeat the regime’s self-adulating slogans but, as our leading universities did when they caved to false allegations of being bastions of antisemitism, embrace its absurdism.


Manufactured fear engenders self-doubt. It makes a population — often unconsciously — conform outwardly and inwardly. It conditions citizens to relate to those around them with suspicion and distrust. It destroys the solidarity vital to organizing, community and dissent.


The historian Robert Gellately, in his book “Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany,” argues that state terror in Nazi Germany was effective not because of omnipresent state surveillance, but because it fostered a “culture of denunciation.”


Rat out your neighbors and coworkers and survive. If you see something, say something.


The worse it gets, the more established institutions, desperate to survive, silence those who warn us.


“Before societies fall, just such a stratum of wise, thinking people emerges, people who are that and nothing more,” Solzhenitsyn writes of those who see what is coming. “And how they were laughed at! How they were mocked!”


The Austrian writer Joseph Roth, whose early warnings about the rise of fascism were largely dismissed, and who told fellow intellectuals to stop naively appealing to “the remains of a European conscience,” saw his books tossed into the bonfires in the spring of 1933 during the Nazi book burnings. So far, we have not burned books, but have banned nearly 23,000 titles in public schools since 2021.


The authoritarian state cannibalizes the institutions that foolishly aid and abet the witch hunts. It replaces them with pseudo-institutions populated with pseudo-legislators, pseudo-courts, pseudo-journalists, pseudo-intellectuals and pseudo-citizens. Columbia University is a shining example of this willful self-immolation. Nothing is as it is presented.


There are increasing numbers of violent kidnappings by masked ICE agents in unmarked cars on our city streets. People are ripped from their vehicles and beaten. They are arrested outside schools and day care centers. They are raided at work, thrown onto the floor, handcuffed, driven away in vans and shipped off to concentration camps in countries such as El Salvador. They are seized when they appear at court for a green card application or interview to finalize a visa.


Once detained, they disappear into the labyrinth of over 200 detention centers, where they are moved from one facility to the next to hide them from family, lawyers and the courts. Due process, once a constitutional right afforded to everyone in the United States, no longer exists.


“Laws that are not equal for all revert to rights and privileges, something contradictory to the very nature of nation-states,” Hannah Arendt writes in “The Origins of Totalitarianism.” “The clearer the proof of their inability to treat stateless people as legal persons and the greater the extension of arbitrary rule by police decree, the more difficult it is for states to resist the temptation to deprive all citizens of legal status and rule them with an omnipotent police.”


The FBI, in an example of how justice is perverted, refuses to cooperate with local law enforcement agencies in Minneapolis, blocking access to any evidence that would allow them to file criminal charges against Jonathan Ross.


Killing of unarmed citizens by the state is carried out with impunity.


ICE has more than doubled the size of its force since early 2025 — to 22,000 agents — hiring 12,000 new officers in four months from a pool of 220,000 applicants. It plans to spend $100 million over a one-year period to hire even more recruits, part of the $170 billion for border and interior enforcement, including $75 billion for ICE, to be spent over four years. Salaries for these new recruits, poorly trained and often haphazardly vetted, will range from $49,739 to $89,528 a year, along with a $50,000 signing bonus — split over three years — and up to $60,000 in student loan repayments.


ICE is building new detention centers nationwide in 23 towns and cities. It promises that once it is fully operational, it will go door-to-door as part of the largest deportation effort in American history.


ICE agents, intoxicated by the license to kick down doors while wearing body armor and firing automatic weapons at terrified women and children, are not warriors as they imagine, but thugs. They have few skills, other than weapons training, cruelty and brutality. They intend to remain employed by the state. The state intends to keep them employed.


None of this should surprise us. The repressive techniques used by ICE and our militarized police were perfected overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Occupied Palestine, and earlier in Vietnam. The ICE agent who murdered Good was a machinegunner in Iraq. A night raid in Chicago, with agents rappelling from a helicopter to storm an apartment complex filled with terrified families, does not look any different from a night raid in Fallujah.


Aimé Césaire, the Martinician playwright and politician, in “Discourse on Colonialism” writes that the savage tools of imperialism and colonialism eventually migrate back to the home country. It is known as imperial boomerang.


Césaire writes:

And then one fine day the bourgeoisie is awakened by a terrific boomerang effect: the gestapos are busy, the prisons fill up, the torturers standing around the racks invent, refine, discuss.


People are surprised, they become indignant. They say: “How strange! But never mind—it’s Nazism, it will pass!” And they wait, and they hope; and they hide the truth from themselves, that it is barbarism, the supreme barbarism, the crowning barbarism that sums up all the daily barbarisms; that it is Nazism, yes, but that before they were its victims, they were its accomplices; that they tolerated that Nazism before it was inflicted on them, that they absolved it, shut their eyes to it, legitimized it, because, until then, it had been applied only to non-European peoples; that they have cultivated that Nazism, that they are responsible for it, and that before engulfing the whole edifice of Western, Christian civilization in its reddened waters, it oozes, seeps, and trickles from every crack.


During the interregnum between the last gasps of a democracy and the emergence of a dictatorship, the nation is gaslighted. It is told the rule of law is respected. It is told democratic rule is inviolate. These lies mollify those being frog-marched into their own enslavement.


“The majority sit quietly and dare to hope,” Solzhenitsyn writes. “Since you aren’t guilty, then how can they arrest you? It’s a mistake!”


Maybe, the fearful say, Trump and his minions are only being bombastic. Maybe they don’t mean it. Maybe they are incompetent. Maybe the courts will save us. Maybe the next elections will end this nightmare. Maybe there are limits to extremism. Maybe the worst is over.


These self-delusions prevent us from resisting while the gallows are being constructed in front of us.


Authoritarian states start by targeting the most vulnerable, those most easily demonized — the undocumented, students on college campuses who protest genocide, antifa, the so-called “radical left,” Muslims, poor people of color, intellectuals and liberals. They strike down one group after the next. They blow out, one by one, the long row of candles until we find ourselves in the dark, powerless and alone.

EN -- LARRY ROMANOFF -- Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion -- Chapter 13 - Democracy to Fascism

$
0
0


Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion

 Chapter 13 - Democracy to Fascism

By Larry Romanoff

 

BULGARIAN    CHINESE    ENGLISH    ESTONIAN   POLSKI   ROMANIAN    

 Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion e-book

 

Fascism is a political ideology fundamentally authoritarian in character, with a strong nationalism and an essentially belligerent militaristic outlook. Fascism carries primarily a corporate perspective as opposed to a socialist view, directed to satisfying the needs, values and objectives of finance and corporations, organising both the economy and the political system according to this agenda. A fascist government actively suppresses any objection to its ideology and will crush any movement which opposes it. In keeping with their belligerent nature, fascist governments generally view violence and war as stimulants to national spirit and vitality. Being politically Right-Wing, they maintain their position through firm control or compliance of the media, and most often engage in a vast array of lies and deception. These governments tend to be bigoted, if not racist, invariably require "enemies" to achieve public solidarity, and are often supremacist or at least 'exceptional' in their self-assessment. They either believe, or pretend to believe, that they have a license on truth. Large military budgets, the creation and demonisation of fictitious enemies to propagate fear and maintain population control, are all typical characteristics of a fascist regime, as is massive public surveillance.

 

In 1995 the Italian Scholar Umberto Eco produced a paper titled'Eternal Fascism' in which he examined the characteristics of fascist regimes. In 2003, Laurence W. Britt did an excellent and scholarly work in dissecting and categorising past fascist regimes, in which he revealed common threads that linked all of them in "patterns of national behavior and abuse of power". He wrote that "Even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi, (which is) not a revelation ... but useful ... to shed needed light on current circumstances." I am including here a composite of edited extracts from these two papers with additional commentary of my own. Significant statements by these two authors are in quotation marks. This is a list of the characteristics of fascist states, taken from Britt's original article:

 

13.1. Early Warning Signs of Fascism

 

    • Powerful and continuing nationalism
    • Supremacy of the military
    • Obsession with national security
    • Obsession with crime and punishment
    • Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
    • Disdain for human rights
    • Corporate power is protected while labor power is suppressed
    • Controlled mass media
    • Rampant cronyism and corruption
    • Intertwined religion and government
    • Fraudulent elections
    • Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
    • Rampant Sexism

 

If we examine the US on these categories, we find an almost perfect match. Certainly, the US has the most strident nationalism of all nations today, with the hysteria of patriotism and flag-worship unabated and even increasing, with the delusional theory of American Exceptionalism as virulent as ever. There is no question about military supremacy, with the US spending almost twice as much on its military as the rest of the world combined and being by an order of magnitude the world's largest arms manufacturer and dealer. President Obama stated flatly that for the US to remain 'peaceful and prosperous' it needed the world's largest and most powerful military to maintain an overwhelming military supremacy. Obsession with issues of national security is so common in the US today it has become an object of ridicule. Every manner of information is withheld, every manner of lie is told, every manner of crime is committed, all with the excuse of 'national security'. Britt noted that a national security apparatus was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints, with its actions always justified under the rubric of protecting "national security", and that questioning these oppressive activities is now often portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

 

Britt noted that all the fascist regimes had an obsession with crime and punishment, stating that most "maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations" - a perfect description of America today, including the 'unchecked power and rampant abuse' by the police. He also noted that in all these fascist states, 'normal' crime and political crime were almost interchangeable, "often merged into trumped-up criminal charges ... used against political opponents of the regime". These characteristics of crime, punishment and incarceration are all fields in which America leads the world by a wide margin today as we have already seen.

 

In terms of enemies being needed for solidarity and to maintain "a unifying cause", the US is also the outstanding world leader, creating real and fictitious enemies not only for itself, but doing a rather good job in creating animosities throughout the world. In fact, a signature feature of the US is its worldwide propagation of the game called "Let's you and him fight.", as we see in Asia today, and with interference in the Ukraine, Russia, China, and dozens of other countries. Creating political chaos and large military risks is a common fascist trait, which is partly why military supremacy is necessary, black and white America attempting to partition the world into ideological factions, often in preparation for war. For some decades, the US milked the Cold War for all it was worth, casting the Soviet Union as a bitter enemy and creating animosity where none would have existed. With the fall of the USSR, the US turned immediately to other nations, never really forgetting Russia, and then created its 9-11 'Pearl Harbor Moment' that would permit it to have a permanent enemy in the person of 'terrorism', a war that will never be won since the US creates all the terrorist events to prolong it. It has the added advantage of demonising all the world's Muslims while equating all Arabs with terrorists. Enough enemies here for a lifetime of fascism.

 

A fundamental practice of a fascist or pre-fascist government is demonisation of 'the others', outsiders who are the enemy. For the people, these (usually imaginary) enemies provide not only an essential cornerstone of the fascist state but an essential adhesive for their fabricated national identity. Being thus united against a common other, fascism becomes deeply racist by definition and in practice. This demonisation of selected enemies is so intense that pacifism or a lack of belligerence equate to treason, to sympathising with the enemy. Or, in today's US lexicon, "giving aid and comfort to the enemy". In the world of fascism, disagreement is treason. George Bush and Dick Cheney: "If you aren't with us, you're against us". US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles: "There are only two kinds of people in the world: Christians who believe in capitalism, and the other kind." In his study of these regimes, Britt wrote that "the most significant common thread" among them was this demonisation of other peoples as enemies of the state, "to divert attention, to shift blame, and to channel frustration into controlled directions". He claimed that their methods of choice - propaganda and misinformation - were usually effective. Britt noted that "Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly", which is precisely what happens today in the US, where increasingly it occurs that challengers of the system are labelled as terrorists, even to the extent of the 'food terrorists'.

 

No reasonable person can claim today that the US has any concern for human rights, certainly not any outside the continental US, and increasingly less within its borders. Except for Israel, the US has by far the worst record of human rights violations during the past several hundred years, far outstripping anything attributed to people like Stalin, Hitler or the Japanese. It is, after all, the US that built and still maintains the largest network of torture prisons and ships in the history of the world, even though the US media have removed this topic from the publishing list.

 

In terms of media control, the US government covers this not by ownership or direct censorship but by a cabal of closely-interwoven interests working on the same precise agenda, almost totally eliminating any necessity for overt acts. Corruption and cronyism are as alive and virulent in American government today as they have ever been in any society at any time in recent history. The lobbies alone, working with the secret government, are more than sufficient evidence of this, with corruption increasing noticeably each year. Americans may quarrel with the point of an integration of religion and government but, while religion is theoretically separated from the state, it is joined at the hip in practice. We have George Bush telling us God told him to invade and destroy Iraq, Obama telling us Christ's redemption of him provides him with solace on a daily basis, and a long list of other nonsense indicating that evangelical hysteria is never far removed from the government, even if only to mislead an ignorant population. Britt noted that religion and the ruling elite were tied together in some way. "The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the 'godless'."

 

Fraudulent elections are more overtly creeping into the American electoral system every year. We had George Bush's brother removing more than 50,000 persons from the voter lists in Florida, all of whom were legitimate voters, and sufficient to provide an election victory. Even then, when votes were finally counted accurately, Bush was proven to have lost the election, but the consequences could not be reversed. As well, the new digital voting machines have been condemned even by those who designed them, as wide open to electoral fraud and manipulation to the extent of changing the outcome of every vote. Moreover, it is openly admitted that even without manipulation, an accurate count is not physically possible. But the government continues to roll out these systems, one would have to assume for their manipulation potential.

 

LOS ANGELES, CA - APRIL 17: Members of the National Socialist Movement (NSM) rally near City Hall on April 17, 2010 in Los Angeles, California. An NSM anti-illegal immigration rally in October in Riverside, California resulted in fights between the neo-Nazis and counter-protesters. (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)

 

It is widely recognised the US has been dumbing-down education for decades, starving the educational systems of funds, using increasingly unqualified part-time and adjunct teachers and professors, increasing tuition costs to the point where education will soon be unaffordable. We don't need an education to see that the only possible result is an increasingly uneducated and ignorant population. In his study, Britt noted that "intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed." This forms a perfect description of the situation today in the US, certainly on the crushing of dissent. I have no observation to make on the arts, but the US appears to qualify solidly on every point in the above list, and I see no reason for Americans or indeed anyone else to take comfort in this. Is the US a fascist state? How do we avoid answering in the affirmative?

 

To people of a country like the US, who are deprived of a clear national identity, fascism creates one by stoking the fires of a false nationalism though propagandising the pathologically false conviction that "the world's greatest privilege is to be born or to live in this country", that every citizen "belongs to the best people in the world", all of whom are, by definition,"good". US President Calvin Coolidge: "To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race". Michael Hirsh used the same jingoistic nonsense to justify American cannibalisation of the world by stating that American global domination was "the greatest gift the world has received in ... possibly all of recorded history." Britt noted the powerful propagation and displays of nationalistic expression,"From the prominent displays of flags and ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism."

 

To underscore the above, Global Research published an article in March of 2015 titled "The End of Canada in Ten Steps: A Conversation with Naomi Wolf", in which it was noted that she studied "the way open societies were crushed from within by authoritarian elements", such as those existing in all Right-Wing countries today, and claimed there was "a 'blueprint' followed by all dictatorial rulers composed of ten steps" as follows:

 

  1. Invoke an external and internal threat
  2. Establish secret prisons
  3. Develop a paramilitary force
  4. Surveil ordinary citizens
  5. Infiltrate citizen groups
  6. Arbitrarily detain and release citizens
  7. Target key individuals
  8. Restrict the press
  9. Cast criticism as "espionage" and dissent as "treason"
  10. Subvert the rule of law

 

Global Research finally noted that "In her 2007 book The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, Naomi Wolf not only described this formula for fascism, she outlined how these repressive measures are in evidence in modern day America."

 

There is one other item pertaining to fascism in America that contains elements of all characteristics we've discussed, one which Hollywood and the media have taken great pains to develop though the ground was already very fertile indeed, and this category is heroes and super-heroes. The US has always glorified war and war heroes, describing American cannon-fodder as "sons of freedom giving their lives for democracy", when they were simply massacring impoverished civilians to enrich the bankers. Eco noted that "In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Fascist ideology heroism is the norm", with the fascist hero impatient to die, but who, in his impatience, "more frequently sends other people to death". This black and white religious proto-fascism which has perhaps always existed in America was the seedbed for the worship of heroes and winners. Americans, in their desperate jingoistic desire to be "good" and to "win", and in a bid to prove their overwhelming moral superiority, turned from reality to fiction and gave us Superman, Batman, Spiderman and Captain America. All are Christian proto-fascists engaged in fictional battles of good against evil, with the Americans living vicariously through these imaginary beings, sharing in their awesome power and moral righteousness, and whose costumes inevitably bear labels saying "Made in America". And indeed, we cannot watch an American movie without encountering this irritating white supremacist ideology. Think of movies like Avatar or Independence Day; their entire purpose is to fuel this ideological jingoism and make all viewers "proud to be American". But it's all a fiction. The real American heroes are not Superman or Spiderman but Curtis LeMay, Henry Kissinger, Ronald Reagan and Madeline Albright, all criminally-insane psychopathic killers.

 

It is interesting that a fascist government, with its instinctive hatred of socialism, is in reality the most socialist of all forms of government, the only qualification being that fascist socialism nurtures and feeds corporations while normal socialism nurtures the general population. What we might call "corporate socialism", which is what exists today in the US, is a fairly precise definition of fascism. Tax benefits that favor the rich either primarily or exclusively, a high-income inequality, the dismantling of any social safety net, different laws for the rich and powerful than for the poor, corporate immunity for crimes, a lack of corporate regulation and oversight, are all typical characteristics. Britt noted that "Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless". The US government and elites, except for one brief historical period, have always strived to destroy labor to protect the profits of big business. In Britt's study, "the poor formed an underclass, (and) being poor was considered akin to a vice." And in which nation today have color and poverty been criminalised? Of course. The world's largest fascist state - America.

 

He also noted rampant cronyism and corruption between the political and corporate elites and stated that "With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population." Corruption and cronyism are as alive and virulent in American government today as they have ever been in any society at any time in recent history. The lobbies alone, working with the secret government, are more than sufficient evidence of this, with corruption increasing noticeably each year. Similarly, no reasonable person can question any longer the suppression of labor and the protection and enhancement of corporate power in America. We have already covered in detail the trashing of the social contract, the destruction of labor protections and the evisceration of the middle class. No further evidence is necessary.

 

There is another alarming category that evidences even more strongly the threats to civil society from the authoritarian and fascist police-state mentality that is increasingly permeating all of the US, this involving trivial civil disputes that should in no case involve the police. In July of 2014, a Minneapolis man was ejected from a Southwest Airlines flight with his two children for questioning why he was qualified for priority boarding but his two children were not. He posted a Tweet that said, "Wow, rudest agent in Denver. Kimberly S, gate C39, not happy". Southwest Airlines' gate attendants saw the tweet, ejected Watson and his children from the flight, informing him he now qualified as a "safety threat", and threatened to have him arrested unless he immediately deleted his post. In an article on US Education, I wrote of kindergarten teachers calling the police to arrest children who misbehaved, and of a Chinese woman tourist in New Hampshire who was tasered and assaulted by police when a clerk at an Apple store complained she wanted to buy two phones. In another case, a father in New Hampshire attended a parent-school meeting to protest the classroom use of sexually-explicit reading material provided to his teen-age daughter. When the man exceeded the arbitrary maximum of two minutes speaking time, the principal called the police and had the man arrested. In each case, no 'law' was violated so the police used generic charges of "causing a public disturbance" or some other such nuisance charge.

 

These false charges may well be dismissed by a court but still present a serious violation of civil rights and a gross exaggeration of the ability of individuals to create their own laws and of the police to enforce them. In the Southwest Airlines case above, had the man refused to delete his negative post, the agent would certainly have called the police who, cast from the same authoritarian mold, would have automatically arrested and charged him, probably with 'Twitter Terrorism'. The man would likely have escaped in the end, but it would have been a long and expensive climb out from the bottom of that hole. In the case of the Apple store, the female customer was physically knocked to the ground and tasered by police immediately on their arrival. In neither case did the police make even minimal attempts to ascertain the facts. In fact, the only salient "fact" was that of a civilian challenging any kind of authority, even the kind that is so weak as to be invisible. No civilian has any practical defense against an airline agent or shop clerk who testify that he "caused a public disturbance", nor against police charges for having done so. The only immunity comes from wealth or political power.

 

There are countless similar cases which all have in common an implicit assumption that anyone, even in a position of minimal authority such as a KFC clerk, has the power to dictate imaginary rules that obtain the force of law with the police and which, if challenged, will result in arrest. Individual private citizens, as least those lacking obvious wealth or power, are increasingly relegated to the social trash bin. Incidents such as these may appear individually trivial and unconnected, but they are not trivial in bulk and are indications of a frightening authoritarianism infecting all of America, part of the widespread rush to fascism occurring in all politically Right-Wing nations, especially in the US. That this should be such a common experience is a frightening and almost terrifying development, where one now fears to enter any dispute with even the most minor employee or clerk, in almost any context, and regardless of the justification.

 

When common citizens are afraid to challenge the most trivial injustices in civil society, when the people as individuals have been moved to the bottom of the priority list, when even store clerks have effective arrest authority, this is authoritarian fascism - a classic definition of a de facto fascist police state. In my E-book on the Police State and the discussion of arbitrary and unaccountable law enforcement, we saw other similar examples where this, the most fundamental of civil rights - the right to voice complaint - has been converted to a criminal act. Those instances involved mostly the police badly exceeding their authority, but this category involves mere civilians with no actual invested civil authority of any kind, and yet in each case legal authority being presumed and exercised entirely at the whim of these same persons. While Americans please themselves by accusing China of being authoritarian, it is in fact the US that is both authoritarian and fascist. China is today a very human civil society compared to Transformed America.

 


*
Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/


He can be contacted at:
2186604556@qq.com


Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion

Chapter 1 — Introduction

Chapter 2 — The Jewish Origin 

Chapter 3 – Multi-Party Democracy 

Chapter 4 –The Right-Wing Brain 

Chapter 5 – Choosing Government Leaders 

Chapter 6 – The Theology of Politics 

Chapter 7 – The Theology of Elections

Chapter 8 -- Rubber-Stamp Parliaments

Chapter 9 – Democracy and Universal Values 

Chapter 10 – Myths of Democracy

Chapter 11 - The Chimera of Democracy  

Chapter 12 – Bernays and Democracy Control

Chapter 13 – Democracy to Fascism 

Chapter 14- The Non-Imperial Empire 

Chapter 15 – China’s Democracy Experiments 

Chapter 16 – China is Not the West

 

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

 

Copyright © Larry RomanoffBlue Moon of ShanghaiMoon of Shanghai, 2024

 


EN — LARRY ROMANOFF: The US Civil War: The War of Financial Disobedience

$
0
0

  



The US Civil War: The War of Financial Disobedience

By Larry Romanoff

 

Until 1968 the desertion rate for U.S. troops in Vietnam was lower than in previous wars. But by 1969 the desertion rate had increased fourfold. This wasn’t limited to Southeast Asia; desertion rates among G.I.’s were on the increase world-wide. For soldiers in the combat zone, insubordination became an important part of avoiding horrible injury or death. As early as mid-1969, an entire company of the 196th Light Infantry Brigade sat down on the battlefield. Later that year, a rifle company from the famed 1st Air Cavalry Division flatly refused — on CBS TV — to advance down a dangerous trail. In the following 12 months the 1st Air Cav notched up 35 combat refusals. Source

 

Contrary to popular belief, the US civil war was not about slavery but about political and financial control of the US, primarily due to repeated American refusals of Rothschild’s demand to create a privately-owned Central Bank. There is more than ample evidence that the severe divisions within the country which led to the American civil war were deliberately inflicted upon the US by these same European bankers, who were fulfilling their warning delivered more than ten years earlier that financial disobedience would be punished by the crafting and imposition of a civil war. Their plan, which came within a hair of succeeding, was“to exploit the question of slavery and thus to dig an abyss between the two parts of the Republic”thereby throwing the new nation into a bitter civil war with the intent of destroying a strong debt-free nation and ending with two republics, each weak and debt-ridden, and therefore easily-controlled.

 

Britain and France were ready to snuff out the young republic but were deterred by Russia, the only European power not in the Rothschild’s thrall. Czar Alexander II sent his fleets to New York and San Francisco and declared that an attack on Lincoln would be an attack on Russia. Source

 

Germany’s Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck claimed the Jewish European bankers were responsible for the American Civil War, stating The division of the United States was decided by the high financial powers of Europe”, and van Helsing wrote “The reasons leading to this civil war were almost completely due to the Rothschild agents”, one of whom was George Bicklywho was instrumental in persuading the Confederate States of the advantages of secession from the Union,thereby directly precipitating the American civil war.

 

The standard narrative in American history books tells us the US Civil War was about slavery and was fought to free the slaves, but in truth the civil war had nothing to do with slavery, and in fact the Crittenden Resolution [1]made clear before any shots were fired that “established institutions” like slavery would not be affected by the war’s eventual outcome. It is true many in the South resented the financial control by New York bankers skimming off much of the profits from the slave and cotton trades in the South, and hoped to end those predatory financial relationships by seceding from the American union. However, even though the war was fought partially for the profits of slavery, their purpose was political and financial, not moral, simply a grand opportunity to keep the immense wealth from slavery closer to home. And while this was in a sense the casus belli, the participants were merely playing a pre-programmed part in a war imposed upon them by people with very different ambitions. In any case, the bankers did succeed in their incitement to violence, and the Civil War was unleashed on the US, with the Jewish London bankers backing the Union and the Jewish French bankers backing the South. Everyone made a fortune and by 1861 the US was $100 million in debt.

 

Several events occurred that were of great importance to the outcome of civil war. One was that in spite of all the Jewish financing of the South, the North, under Lincoln’s leadership, was winning, and there was a point when the outcome was no longer in doubt. At that point, the Rothschilds cut off all war financing to Lincoln, decidedly altering the prognosisActually, they didn’t quite cut off the funds, but raised the interest rate to, if I recall correctly, 29%, an impossibly prohibitive and unaffordable rate and, by that one act, dooming the Union of the United States of America. The North, now unable to finance the war, would certainly lose, and the bankers would have their two weak nations to replace the single strong one. But Lincoln was no fool. Instead of succumbing to these machinations he snubbed the Rothschilds by issuing his own US government currency popularly known as Greenbacks [2] to pay Union Army bills without incurring debt to the bankers.At the time, the Rothschild-controlled Times of London wrote:

 

“If that mischievous policy, which had its origins in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

 

Emile ErlangerSource

 

After this, the tide shifted yet again, and a Northern victory was no longer in doubt, but the Rothschilds didn’t give up easily, and pursued their desired destruction. In March of 1863, they supplied a Jewish banker named Emile Erlanger [3] with yet another $7 million to lend to the South (perhaps $150 million in today’s currency), suddenly giving the Confederacy yet again sufficient funds to pay their troops and purchase ammunition and continue the war. There was no question that a surrender was imminent without this sudden infusion of cash. This huge extra investment by the Rothschilds did not alter the eventual course of the war, but it did extend the battles for perhaps two years, resulting in hundreds of thousands of extra needless deaths. It should be noted that this is a typical pattern; the First and Second World Wars were needlessly extended in this same way, for purely political considerations by the same bankers, resulting in additional tens of millions of needless and senseless deaths.

 

Source

 

It isn’t widely known, but Hitler at one point had clearly won the Second World War, with Britain penniless, beaten and on the ropes, when Hitler offered England a ‘draw’, an end to the war with no reparations and everything to remain as it was prior to the hostilities.But the Jewish bankers needed a British victory in order to obtain Palestine for a homeland, and schemed to bring the US into the war on Britain’s side. That did change the result, but tens of millions of lives were sacrificed for the creation of Israel.

 

Source

Lincoln declared the B’nai B’rith, the primary Jewish organisation of the day, as a “disloyal organization” that was “helping the traitors” of America.

 

During the war, Lincoln had ordered a blockade of cotton in an attempt to reduce Southern financing for their war of secession, but there were so many Jewish merchants smuggling the valuable cotton out of the South that General Grant ordered the expulsion of all Jews from the entire Southern region. The Jews were so much engaged in profiteering in the South during the war, and thereby directly financing the continuation of the civil war, that Lincoln declared the B’nai B’rith, the primary Jewish organisation of the day, as a “disloyal organization” that was “helping the traitors” of America.

Free PDF

 

At the same time, Salomon de Rothschild [4] John Coleman – Rothschild Dynastya member of the Rothschilds banking house, came to America, declared himself a “Staunch Slavery Man”, and encouraged all Jews to assist the South in its attempt to secede from the union.

 

Izola Forrester, 1898, granddaughter of John Wilkes Booth. Source

 

In 1863, the US Congress passed the National Banking Act that reinstated the Rothschild’s privately-owned US central bankbut Lincoln was re-elected President the following year and, cursing this bank, vowed to repeal the act as soon as he took his oath of office.Of course, before he had a chance to act, he was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, a man with major connections to the same Jewish bankers. His granddaughter wrote a book titled ‘This One Mad Act’[5]which documented Booth’s contact with some “mysterious Europeans” just before his assassination of President Lincoln.

 

In 2012, Steven Spielberg, the movie director (and master of American and Jewish propaganda), produced a movie on the US Civil War titled “Lincoln”, which was an unforgivably distorted portrayal of Lincoln, of slavery, and especially of the American civil war, an offensively false and mythical portrayal of the true facts. As one columnist noted, Spielberg’s movie “had too many negroes and too few Jews”. The upshot is that tens of millions of gullible Americans will take with them to their graves a totally and absolutely false understanding of a critical period in their nation’s history. This uniquely Hollywood process has always been obvious to citizens of other nations, with volumes of historical lies and misrepresentations irresponsibly presented as historical truth, this massive revisionism generally done with political motivation, to sanitise the truth and Photoshop various individuals or groups out of the picture and out of history.

 

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/and https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

2186604556@qq.com

*

NOTES

[1]  Crittenden Resolution

https://civilwarmonths.com/2021/07/25/the-crittenden-johnson-resolution-2/

[2]  Greenbacks

https://coinweek.com/education/the-civil-war-and-the-national-banking-system-the-birth-of-national-bank-notes/

[3]  Emile Erlanger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_%C3%89mile_d%27Erlanger

[4] John Coleman – Rothschild Dynasty

John Coleman – Rothschild Dynasty

[5]  ‘This One Mad Act’ by Izola Forrester

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10356669-this-one-mad-act

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

 

Other Works by this Author

ESSAYS ON CHINAVolume One

ESSAYS ON CHINA Volume 2

ESSAYS ON CHINA Volume Three

Who Starts All The Wars? — New!

What we Are Not Told :German POWs in America – What Happened to Them?

The Richest Man in the World

The Power Behind the Throne

The Jewish Hasbara in All its Glory

PROPAGANDA and THE MEDIA

BERNAYS AND PROPAGANDA

Democracy – The Most Dangerous Religion

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 1 — How the US Became Rich

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 2 — Life in a Failed State

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 3 — The Branding of America

Police State America Volume One

Police State America Volume Two

Essays on America

FILLING THE VOID

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE IN ACTION

THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

False Flags and Conspiracy Theories

Kamila Valieva

 

LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS & PDF ARTICLES

 

Copyright © Larry RomanoffBlue Moon of ShanghaiMoon of Shanghai, 2026

RO — LARRY ROMANOFF: Războiul Civil din SUA: Războiul nesupunerii financiar

$
0
0

  


Războiul Civil din SUA: Războiul nesupunerii financiare

De Larry Romanoff

Traducerea CD

 

Până în 1968, rata dezertării trupelor americane în Vietnam a fost mai mică decât în ​​războaiele anterioare. Dar până în 1969, rata dezertării crescuse de patru ori. Acest lucru nu se limita la Asia de Sud-Est; ratele de dezertare în rândul soldaților americani erau în creștere la nivel mondial. Pentru soldații aflați în zona de luptă, insubordonarea a devenit o parte importantă a evitării rănilor oribile sau a morții. Încă de la mijlocul anului 1969, o întreagă companie a Brigăzii 196 Infanterie Ușoară s-a așezat pe câmpul de luptă. Mai târziu în acel an, o companie de pușcași din celebra Divizie 1 Cavalerie Aeriană a refuzat categoric – la CBS TV – să avanseze pe o potecă periculoasă. În următoarele 12 luni, Divizia 1 Cavalerie Aeriană a înregistrat 35 de refuzuri în luptă.. Source

 

 

 

 

Contrar opiniei populare, războiul civil din SUA nu a fost despre sclavie, ci despre controlul politic și financiar al SUA, în principal din cauza refuzurilor repetate ale americanilor la cererea lui Rothschild de a crea o Bancă Centrală privată. Există dovezi mai mult decât ample că diviziunile severe din interiorul țării care au dus la războiul civil american au fost aplicate în mod deliberat SUA de către aceiași bancheri europeni, care își puneau în aplicare avertismentul transmis cu mai bine de zece ani în urmă, conform căruia nesupunerea financiară va fi pedepsită prin născocirea și impunerea unui război civil. Planul lor, care a fost la un pas de succes, era „să exploateze chestiunea sclaviei și astfel să sape o prăpastie între cele două părți ale Republicii”, aruncând astfel noua națiune într-un război civil amar, cu intenția de a distruge o națiune puternică, fără datorii, și de a ajunge la două republici, fiecare slabă și copleșită de datorii și, prin urmare, ușor de controlat.

 

Marea Britanie și Franța erau gata să distrugă tânăra republică, dar au fost descurajate de Rusia, singura putere europeană care nu se afla în sclavia familiei Rothschild. Țarul Alexandru al II-lea și-a trimis flotele la New York și San Francisco și a declarat că un atac asupra orașului Lincoln ar fi un atac asupra Rusiei.. Source

 

Cancelarul Germaniei, Otto Von Bismarck, a susținut că bancherii evrei europeni erau responsabili pentru Războiul Civil American, afirmând că „Divizarea Statelor Unite a fost decisă de marile puteri financiare ale Europei”, iar van Helsing a scris că „Motivele care au dus la acest război civil s-au datorat aproape în întregime agenților Rothschild”, unul dintre aceștia fiind George Bickly, care a jucat un rol esențial în convingerea statelor confederate de avantajele secesiunii din Uniune, precipitând astfel direct războiul civil american.

 

Emile ErlangerSource

 

După aceasta, valul s-a schimbat din nou, iar o victorie a Nordului nu a mai fost pusă la îndoială, dar Rothschildzii nu au renunțat ușor și au urmărit distrugerea dorită. În martie 1863, i-au furnizat unui bancher evreu pe nume Emile Erlanger[3] încă 7 milioane de dolari pentru a-i împrumuta Sudului ( 150 de milioane de dolari în moneda de astăzi), oferind brusc Confederației încă o dată fonduri suficiente pentru a-și plăti trupele, a cumpăra muniție și a continua războiul. Nu exista nicio îndoială că o capitulare era iminentă fără această infuzie bruscă de numerar. Această investiție suplimentară uriașă a Rothschildziților nu a modificat cursul final al războiului, dar a prelungit bătăliile cu poate doi ani, rezultând în sute de mii de morți inutile suplimentare. Trebuie remarcat faptul că acesta este un model tipic; Primul și al Doilea Război Mondial au fost prelungite inutil în același mod, din considerații pur politice, de către aceiași bancheri, rezultând în zeci de milioane suplimentare de morți inutile și fără sens.

 

Source

 

Nu se știe pe scară largă, dar Hitler, la un moment dat, câștigase în mod clar al Doilea Război Mondialcu Marea Britanie rămasă fără bani, învinsă și în pericol, când Hitler i-a oferit Angliei o „egalitate”, sfârșitul războiului fără despăgubiri și ca totul să rămână așa cum era înainte de ostilități. Însă bancherii evrei aveau nevoie de o victorie britanică pentru a obține Palestina ca patrie și au complotat să aducă SUA în război de partea Marii Britanii. Acest lucru a schimbat rezultatul, dar zeci de milioane de vieți au fost sacrificate pentru crearea Israelului.

 

Source

Lincoln a declarat B’nai B’rith, principala organizație evreiască a vremii, drept o „organizație neloială” care „îi ajuta pe trădătorii” Americii.

 

În timpul războiului, Lincoln ordonase o blocadă a bumbacului în încercarea de a reduce finanțarea sudistă pentru războiul lor de secesiune, dar existau atât de mulți negustori evrei care scoteau ilegal valorosul bumbac din Sud, încât generalul Grant a ordonat expulzarea tuturor evreilor din întreaga regiune sudică. Evreii erau atât de implicați în profit în Sud în timpul războiului și, prin urmare, finanțau direct continuarea războiului civil, încât Lincoln a declarat B’nai B’rith, principala organizație evreiască a vremii, drept o „organizație neloială” care „îi ajuta pe trădătorii” Americii.

 

Free PDF

 

In același timp, Salomon de Rothschild [4] John Coleman – Dinastia Rothschild, membru al casei bancare Rothschild, a venit în America, s-a declarat „Sclavie fermă” și i-a încurajat pe toți evreii să ajute Sudul în încercarea sa de a se separa de uniune.

 

Izola Forrester, 1898, fiica of John Wilkes Booth. Source

 

În 1863, Congresul SUA a adoptat Legea Națională Bancară care a reinstaurat banca centrală privată a SUA, deținută de Rothschild, dar Lincoln a fost reales președinte în anul următor și, blestemând această bancă, a promis că va abroga legea imediat ce va depune jurământul. Desigur, înainte de a avea șansa să acționeze, a fost asasinat de John Wilkes Booth, un om cu legături majore cu aceiași bancheri evrei. Nepoata sa a scris o carte intitulată „This One Mad Act” [5], care a documentat contactul lui Booth cu niște „europeni misterioși” chiar înainte de asasinarea președintelui Lincoln.

 

În 2012, Steven Spielberg, regizorul de film (și maestrul propagandei americane și evreiești), a produs un film despre Războiul Civil din SUA intitulat „Lincoln”, care a fost o portretizare distorsionată de neiertat a lui Lincoln, a sclaviei și, în special, a războiului civil american, o portretizare ofensator de falsă și mitică a faptelor reale. După cum a remarcat un editorialist, filmul lui Spielberg „avea prea mulți negri și prea puțini evrei”. Rezultatul este că zeci de milioane de americani creduli vor lua cu ei în mormânt o înțelegere total și absolut falsă a unei perioade critice din istoria națiunii lor. Acest proces unic hollywoodian a fost întotdeauna evident pentru cetățenii altor națiuni, cu volume de minciuni istorice și denaturări prezentate în mod iresponsabil ca adevăr istoric, acest revizionism masiv realizat în general cu motivație politică, pentru a igieniza adevărul și a manipula diverse persoane sau grupuri pentru a le scoate din imagine și din istorie.

 

*

Scrierile domnului Romanoff au fost traduse în 34 de limbi, iar articolele sale au fost publicate pe peste 150 de site-uri web de știri și politică în limbi străine din peste 30 de țări, precum și pe peste 100 de platforme în limba engleză. Larry Romanoff este un consultant în management și om de afaceri pensionar. A deținut funcții de conducere în firme internaționale de consultanță și a deținut o afacere internațională de import-export. A fost profesor invitat la Universitatea Fudan din Shanghai, prezentând studii de caz în afaceri internaționale pentru clasele de absolvire a EMBA. Domnul Romanoff locuiește în Shanghai și scrie în prezent o serie de zece cărți legate în general de China și Occident. Este unul dintre autorii care au contribuit la noua antologie a Cynthiei McKinney, „Când China strănută”. (Cap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

Arhiva sa completă poate fi văzută la

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

Poate fi contactat la: 2186604556@qq.com

 

*

NOTE

[1] Rezoluția Crittenden

[2] Monede verzi

https://coinweek.com/education/the-civil-war-and-the-national-banking-system-the-birth-of-national-bank-notes/

[3] Emile Erlanger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_%C3%89mile_d%27Erlanger

[4] John Coleman – Dinastia Rothschild

John Coleman – Dinastia Rothschild

[5] „Acest act nebun” de Izola Forrester

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10356669-this-one-mad-act

*

Acest articol poate conține materiale protejate prin drepturi de autor, a căror utilizare nu a fost autorizată în mod specific de către deținătorul drepturilor de autor. Acest conținut este pus la dispoziție în conformitate cu doctrina utilizării loiale și este destinat exclusiv scopurilor educaționale și informative. Acest conținut nu este utilizat comercial.

 

Alte lucrări ale acestui autor

WHAT WE ARE NOT TOLD

(Prisoner of War Camps in America + CIA Project MK-ULTRA)

CEEA CE NU NI SE SPUNE

(Taberele de prizonieri de război în America + Proiectul CIA MK-ULTRA)

The Power Behind the Throne

Puterea din spatele tronului

America – The World’s Bully

America – Bătăușul lumii

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE IN ACTION

RĂZBOIUL BIOLOGIC ÎN ACȚIUNE

Democracy – The Most Dangerous Religion

Democrația – cea mai periculoasă religie


NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — VOLUME 1 — How the US Became Rich

NAȚIUNI CONSTRUITE PE MINCIUNI — VOLUMUL 1 — Cum au devenit SUA bogate

Essays on America

Eseuri despre America

Police State America Volume One

Poliția Statului America, volumul unu

Police State America Volume Two

Poliția Statului America, volumul doi

PROPAGANDA and THE MEDIA – Updated

PROPAGANDĂ și MEDIA

THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

LUMEA RĂZBOIULUI BIOLOGIC

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — VOLUME 2 — Life in a Failed State – Updated

NAȚIUNI CONSTRUITE PE MINCIUNI — VOLUMUL 2 — Viața într-o stare eșuată

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — VOLUME 3 — The Branding of America- Updated

NAȚIUNI CONSTRUITE PE MINCIUNI — VOLUMUL 3 — Brandingul Americii

False Flags and Conspiracy Theories

Steaguri false și teorii ale conspirației

FILLING THE VOID

UMPLAREA VIDULUI

BERNAYS AND PROPAGANDA

BERNAYS SI PROPAGANDA

Kamila Valieva
Kamila Valieva

LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS & PDF ARTICLES

 

Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2026


EST — LARRY ROMANOFF: Ameerika Kodusõda: Finantsilise sõnakuulmatuse sõda

$
0
0

 



Ameerika Kodusõda: Finantsilise sõnakuulmatuse sõda

Autor: Larry Romanoff 

Kõik pole kuld, mis hiilgab


Kuni 1968. aastani oli Ameerika Ühendriikide sõdurite deserteerumise määr Vietnamis madalam kui varasemates sõdades. Aastaks 1969 oli deserteerumise määr aga neljakordistunud. See ei piirdunud Kagu-Aasiaga; deserteerumise määr Ameerika sõdurite seas kasvas kogu maailmas. Lahinguväljal olevate sõdurite jaoks sai allumatusest oluline osa, et vältida kohutavaid vigastusi või surma. Juba 1969. aasta keskel istus kogu 196. kergejalaväebrigaadi kompanii lahinguväljal maha. Samal aastal hiljem keeldus kuulus 1. Air Cavalry Division CBS televisioonis otsesõnu ohtlikul teel edasi liikumast. Järgmise 12 kuu jooksul registreeriti 1. Air Cavalry Division’is 35 lahingust keeldumist. Allikas

 

 

 

 

 

Vastupidiselt levinud arvamusele ei olnud Ameerika kodusõda seotud orjuse, vaid Ameerika poliitilise ja finantskontrolliga, peamiselt seetõttu, et ameeriklased keeldusid korduvalt Rothschildi nõudmisest luua eraomanduses olev Keskpank. On rohkem kui piisavalt tõendeid, et Ameerika kodusõjani viinud tõsised lõhed riigis olid tekitatud tahtlikult nende samade Euroopa pankurite poolt, kes täitsid oma enam kui kümme aastat varem antud hoiatust, et finantsalast sõnakuulmatust karistatakse kodusõja algatamise ja pealesurumisega. Nende plaan, mis oli peaaegu õnnestunud, oli „ära kasutada orjuse küsimust ja seeläbi kaevata kuristik vabariigi kahe osa vahelesüüdates sellega uues riigis kibeda kodusõja, mille eesmärk oli hävitada tugev võlavaba riik ja luua kaks nõrka ja võlgadesse uppunud vabariiki, mida oleks kergem kontrollida.

 

Suurbritannia ja Prantsusmaa olid valmis noort vabariiki hävitama, kuid neid hoidis tagasi Venemaa, ainus Euroopa suurriik, mis ei olnud Rothschildide mõjuvõimu all. Tsaar Aleksander II saatis oma laevastiku New Yorki ja San Franciscosse ning kuulutas, et rünnak Lincolni vastu oleks rünnak Venemaa vastu. Allikas

 

Saksamaa kantsler Otto von Bismarck väitis, et juudi päritolu Euroopa pankurid olid vastutavad Ameerika Kodusõja puhkemise eest, öeldes: „Ameerika Ühendriikide jagunemise otsustasid Euroopa suured finantsjõud”, ja van Helsing kirjutas „Selle kodusõja põhjused olid peaaegu täielikult Rothschildide agentide süü, kellest üks oli George Bickly, kes mängis olulist rolli Konföderatsiooni riikide veenmisel liidust lahkumise eelistest, kiirendades sellega otseselt Ameerika kodusõja puhkemist.

 

Ameerika ajalooraamatutes esitatud tavapärane narratiiv räägib, et Ameerika Kodusõda puudutas orjuse küsimust ja et see peeti orjade vabastamiseks, kuid tegelikult ei olnud kodusõjal orjusega midagi pistmist ja Crittendeni Resolutsioon [1]tegi juba enne esimeste lasku selgeks, et „kehtivad institutsioonid”, nagu orjus, ei mõjuta sõja lõpptulemust. On tõsi, et paljud Lõunapoolsed olid pahased New Yorgi pankurite finantskontrolli üle, kes lõikasid suure osa Lõunapoolsete orjade ja puuvilla kaubanduse kasumist, ning lootsid lõpetada need röövellikud finantssuhted Ameerika Liidust lahkumisega. Kuid kuigi sõda peeti osaliselt orjuse kasumi pärast, oli selle eesmärk poliitiline ja finantsiline, mitte moraalne, lihtsalt suurepärane võimalus hoida orjuse tohutut rikkust kodule lähemal. Ja kuigi see oli mõnes mõttes sõja põhjus, mängisid osalejad lihtsalt eelprogrammeeritud rolli sõjas, mille surusid neile peale väga erinevate ambitsioonidega inimesed. Igal juhul õnnestus pankuritel õhutada vägivalda ja Ameerika Ühendriikides puhkes Kodusõda, kus juudi Londoni pankurid toetasid liitu ja juudi Prantsuse pankurid Lõunaosariike. Kõik teenisid rikkuse ja 1861. aastaks oli USA 100 miljoni dollari võlgades.

 

Toimus mitu sündmust, mis olid kodusõja tulemuse seisukohalt väga olulised. Üks neist oli see, et hoolimata juutide rahastamisest Lõunariikidele, võitis Põhjaosa Lincolni juhtimisel ja oli hetk, mil tulemus ei olnud enam kahtluse all. Sel hetkel katkestasid Rothschildid kogu sõja rahastamise Lincolnile, muutes otsustavalt prognoosiTegelikult ei katkestanud nad rahastamist täielikult, vaid tõstsid intressimäära, kui ma õigesti mäletan, 29%ni, mis oli võimatu ja taskukohatu määr, ning selle ühe tegevusega hukutasid Ameerika Ühendriikide Liidu. Põhi, kes nüüd ei suutnud sõda rahastada, kaotaks kindlasti ja pankurid saaksid ühe tugeva riigi asemel kaks nõrka riiki. Aga Lincoln ei olnud loll. Selle asemel, et nende intriigidele alla anda, tõukas ta Rothschildid kõrvale, emiteerides omaenda USA valitsuse valuuta, mida rahvas kutsus Greenbacksiks [2], et maksta Liidu armee arveid ilma pankuritele võlgu jäämata. Tol ajal kirjutas Rothschildide kontrolli all olev Times of London:

 

Kui see pahatahtlik poliitika, mis sai alguse Põhja-Ameerika Vabariigis, muutub püsivaks, siis hakkab see valitsus varustama end ise raha kulutusteta. Ta maksab oma võlad ära ja jääb võlgadeta. Tal on kogu raha, mis on vajalik kaubanduse jätkamiseks. Ta muutub jõukamaks kui ükski teine tsiviliseeritud valitsus maailma ajaloos. Kõigi riikide aju ja rikkus läheb Põhja-Ameerikasse. See valitsus tuleb hävitada, muidu hävitab see kõik monarhiad maailmas.”

 

Emile Erlanger. Allikas

 

Pärast seda muutus olukord taas ja Põhja võit ei olnud enam kahtluse all, kuid Rothschildid ei andnud kergesti alla ja jätkasid oma soovitud hävitustööd. 1863. aasta märtsis andsid nad juudi pankurile nimega Emile Erlanger [3] veel 7 miljonit dollarit (ehk 150 miljonit dollarit tänapäeva vääringus), et laenata see Lõunapoolsetele , andes konföderatsioonile järsku taas piisavalt raha, et maksta oma sõduritele palka, osta laskemoona ja jätkata sõda. Ilma selle ootamatu rahasüsti abita oleks kapituleerumine olnud kindel. Rothschildide tohutu lisainvesteering ei muutnud sõja lõplikku kulgu, kuid pikendas lahinguid võib-olla kahe aasta võrra, mille tulemusena suri sadu tuhandeid inimesi asjatult. Tuleb märkida, et see on tüüpiline muster; Esimest ja Teist maailmasõda pikendati samamoodi asjatult, puhtalt poliitilistel kaalutlustel samade pankurite poolt, mille tulemusena suri veel kümneid miljoneid inimesi asjatult ja mõttetult.

 

Allikas

 

See ei ole laialt teada, kuid Hitler oli ühel hetkel selgelt võitnud Teise maailmasõjakui Suurbritannia oli rahaliselt laostunud, lüüa saanud ja raskustes, ning Hitler pakkus Inglismaale „viiki”, sõja lõpetamist ilma reparatsioonideta ja kõigi asjade jäämist selliseks, nagu need olid enne sõjategevuse algust. Kuid juudi pankurid vajasid Briti võitu, et saada Palestiina oma kodumaaks, ja kavandasid USA sõtta astumise Briti poolel. See muutis tulemust, kuid Iisraeli loomiseks ohverdati kümneid miljoneid elusid.

 

Allikas

Lincoln kuulutas B’nai B’rithi, tolle aja peamise juudi organisatsiooni, „reeturlikuks organisatsiooniks”, mis „aitas Ameerika reetureid”.

 

Sõja ajal oli Lincoln käskinud blokeerida puuvilla, et vähendada Lõunaosariikide rahastamist nende iseseisvussõjas, kuid nii paljud juudi kaupmehed smugeldasid väärtuslikku puuvilla Lõunaosariikidest välja, et kindral Grant käskis kõik juudid kogu Lõunaosariikidest välja saata. Juudid olid sõja ajal Lõunaosariikides nii palju kasumit teeninud ja seeläbi otseselt rahastanud kodusõja jätkumist, et Lincoln kuulutas B’nai B’rithi, tolle aja peamise juudi organisatsiooni, „ebalojaalseks organisatsiooniks”, mis „aitas Ameerika reetjaid”.

 

Tasuta PDF

 

Samal ajal tuli Ameerikasse Salomon de Rothschild [4] John Coleman – Rothschildide dünastiaRothschildide pangamaja liige, kes kuulutas end „kindlaks orjuse pooldajaks” ja julgustas kõiki juute aitama Lõuna-Ameerikat liidust lahkulöömise katses.

 

Izola Forrester, 1898, John Wilkes Boothi tütretütar. Allikas

 

  1. aastal võttis Ameerika Ühendriikide Kongress vastu riikliku pangandusseaduse, mis taastas Rothschildide eraomanduses oleva Ameerika Ühendriikide keskpangakuid Lincoln valiti järgmisel aastal uuesti presidendiks ja needis seda panka, lubades seaduse tühistada niipea, kui ta ametivande annabLoomulikult mõrvati ta enne, kui ta jõudis midagi teha, John Wilkes Boothi poolt, mehe poolt, kellel oli tihedad sidemed samade juudi pankuritega. Tema tütretütar kirjutas raamatu pealkirjaga „This One Mad Act”[5]mis dokumenteeris Boothi kontakte mõnede „müstiliste eurooplastega” vahetult enne president Lincolni mõrvamist.

 

  1. aastal tootis filmirežissöör Steven Spielberg (ja Ameerika ja juudi propaganda meister) Ameerika kodusõjast filmi pealkirjaga „Lincoln”, mis oli andestamatu moonutatud kujutis Lincolnist, orjusest ja eriti Ameerika kodusõjast, tõeliste faktide solvav vale ja müütiline kujutis. Nagu üks kolumnist märkis, oli Spielbergi filmis „liiga palju neegreid ja liiga vähe juute”. Tulemuseks on see, et kümned miljonid kergeusklikud ameeriklased viivad endaga hauda täiesti ja absoluutselt vale arusaama oma rahva ajaloo kriitilisest perioodist. See Hollywoodile omane protsess on alati olnud teiste riikide kodanikele ilmne, kus hulgaliselt ajaloolisi valesid ja väärkujutlusi esitatakse vastutustundetult ajaloolise tõena, see massiivne revisionism on üldjuhul tehtud poliitilistel motiividel, et puhastada tõde ja Photoshopiga eemaldada erinevad isikud või rühmad pildilt ja ajaloost.

 

*

Hr Romanoffi kirjutised on tõlgitud 34 keelde ja tema artiklid on avaldatud enam kui 150 võõrkeelses uudiste- ja poliitikaveebis enam kui 30 riigis, samuti enam kui 100 ingliskeelses veebis. Larry Romanoff on pensionile jäänud juhtimiskonsultant ja ärimees. Ta on töötanud juhtivatel ametikohtadel rahvusvahelistes konsultatsioonifirmades ja omanud rahvusvahelist import-eksport-äri. Ta on olnud külalisprofessor Shanghais asuvas Fudani Ülikoolis, kus ta on esitanud rahvusvaheliste suhete juhtumiuuringuid EMBA-õppe kõrgemate klasside õpilastele. Hr Romanoff elab Shanghais ja kirjutab praegu kümnest raamatust koosnevat sarja, mis on üldiselt seotud Hiina ja Lääne teemadega. Ta on üks Cynthia McKinney uue antoloogia When China Sneezes” (Kui Hiina aevastab) kaastöö autoritest. (2. peatükk – Dealing with Demons (Kuradiga tegelemine)).

Tema täielik arhiiv on kättesaadav aadressil

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ja https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

Temaga saab ühendust võtta aadressil:

2186604556@qq.com

*

MÄRKUSED

[1] Crittendeni resolutsioon

https://civilwarmonths.com/2021/07/25/the-crittenden-johnson-resolution-2/

[2] Greenbacks

https://coinweek.com/education/the-civil-war-and-the-national-banking-system-the-birth-of-national-bank-notes/

[3] Emile Erlanger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_%C3%89mile_d%27Erlanger

[4] John Coleman – Rothschildide dünastia

John Coleman – Rothschildide dünastia

[5] „ This One Mad Act” autor Izola Forrester

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10356669-this-one-mad-act

 

*

See artikkel võib sisaldada autoriõigustega kaitstud materjali, mille kasutamine ei ole autoriõiguste omaniku poolt spetsiaalselt lubatud. See sisu on kättesaadav õiglase kasutamise doktriini alusel ja on mõeldud ainult hariduslikel ja informatiivsetel eesmärkidel. Sisu ei ole mõeldud kommertskasutuseks.

 

Teised selle autori teosed

EN — LARRY ROMANOFF: Debunking Elon Musk – Part 20 — Optimus, the Failed Fraud

$
0
0

  


Debunking Elon Musk – Part 20

Optimus, the Failed Fraud

By Larry Romanoff

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

Frauds, Fantasies, and Flaws

First, the Musk/Optimus Frauds

Second, the Musk/Optimus Fantasies

Third, the Musk/Optimus Flaws

The Unadmitted (Total) Failure of Optimus

Supply Chain Challenges

The Espionage Factor

Elon Musk’s Sexbot

Conclusion

 

 

First, the Musk/Optimus Frauds

 

Elon Musk has a long pattern of questionable media releases. There are many documented instances where he has promoted things or ideas that were later questioned for validity. Musk has often posted videos of Optimus, where its actions were presented as autonomous but were later “clarified” to have been performed in a staged setting and were remotely operated. Many were also revealed to have been heavily edited. This pattern suggests a need for caution with any content originating from Musk or Tesla sources. It’s a shame to have to say this, but with anything involving Elon Musk or his activities, it is always necessary to check the source and corroborate whatever is stated or claimed. Especially with items on social media, whenever you encounter anything surprising or admirable, it’s crucial to check the origin, to ask who published it. If the video was created and/or published by either Elon Musk or Tesla, the results should be considered as almost certainly fake, and not credible.

 

It is often only through courtroom testimony in the many lawsuits against Tesla, that the truth emerges about Musk’s fraudulent statements and videos. One example is a suit filed by an ex-Apple engineer against Tesla in 2018, regarding Tesla’s FSD. Ashok Elluswamy, the director of Tesla’s autonomous driving softwaretestified in court that a video produced to demonstrate the efficiency and reliability of Tesla’s FSD, was entirely false and fabricated. [1] He said it was not intended to demonstrate functions that the system possessed, only to describe what might be possible one day. But his claim itself was outrageously false.

 

According to a report by Reuters on January 17, 2025, Elluswami said Elon Musk ordered Tesla’s autonomous driving team to design and record a “system capability demonstration”. “To produce this video, 3D maps were used on the predetermined route from a house in Menlo Park, California to Tesla’s then headquarters. During the trial run, the drivers took over the control. When attempting to show that the Model X could park itself without a driver, the test vehicle crashed into the fence of Tesla’s parking lot.” When Tesla released this video, Musk said on Twitter, “Tesla drove itself (with no human intervention) through city streets to the highway, then to the streets again, and finally found a parking spot.” In the video, there is a sentence: “The person sitting in the driver’s seat was there only for legal reasons. He did nothing. The car was driving by itself.” The video is still available on the Tesla website and has been promoted by Elon Musk as evidence of the reliability of the “Tesla Autopilot”. The contents are entirely false.

 

This pattern is universal with Elon Musk and is important for the context of this article on Optimus. Nearly all of Musk’s claims about the current or future capabilities of Optimus are fabricated, with no possibility of fruition, claims that are not only provably false, but ridiculous, and even outrageous. Among the literally dozens of false claims Musk has made, the many Optimus robots walking around at his Cybercab event were later discovered to have been remote controlled. And that means the only thing Musk had actually accomplished was making a robot that didn’t fall over while walking[2]

 

This pattern of constant misrepresentation has led to broader criticism from industry experts, who view Musk’s vision for Optimus as disconnected from the immense technical challenges of robotics. Rodney Brooks, a co-founder of iRobot (creator of the Roomba) and an MIT professor emeritus of robotics, labeled Musk’s entire Optimus project “pure fantasy thinking”[3] And indeed Elon Musk has a long history of foolish overpromising, making ambitious technological promises with deadlines that are repeatedly missed. Musk’s long list of tech failures includes promising that “full self-driving” Tesla vehicles were only “one year away” every year since 2014, as thousands of Teslas were crashing while on Autopilot.

 

On November 5, 2025, China handed the world another bombshell with the unveiling of X-Peng’s IRON humanoid robot. [4] [5] A video of the demonstration showed IRON walking with a relaxed and smooth, human-like rhythm. The “female” robot’s fluid, smooth, and human-like “catwalk” was so convincing that it sparked widespread discussion and skepticism, with many people both inside and outside of China convinced it was a human in a robot suit. [6] The suspicion was so widespread that the company publicly cut open the robot’s leg to prove it was not a human in a suit. [7] [8]

 

The world had good reason to be skeptical at IRON’s catwalk, given the misleading stunts Elon Musk has perpetrated in his public demonstrations of Optimus. During Tesla’s AI Day in August 2021, Musk introduced the Optimus-to-be as the prototype of the humanoid robot he was creating. However, the “prototype” was not a functional robot, but a human performer, a dancer dressed in a white and black spandex bodysuit who came on stage and performed a simple dance. [9] That fraud attracted widespread criticism, in spite of Musk’s attempts at justification for misleading everyone. The Verge described the event as a “joke” and a “stunt”. [10] A UK robotics professor, Carl Berry, called it “horse shit”. The presentation was widely seen as a publicity move to generate headlines and divert attention from other negative news about Tesla at the time.

 

The skepticism from 2021 extended to Tesla’s later demonstrations of Optimus. At the “We, Robot” event in October 2024, Optimus robots were shown performing complex tasks like serving drinks and conversing with people. However, reports quickly emerged that Tesla employees were operating remote control units, and the robots were not operating on their own AI. [11] [12] Bloomberg News reported that the robots were actually remotely controlled by humans, information that was later confirmed by a video circulating on Twitter (X). [13] The fact that the machines were revealed to be remotely controlled even as they served drinks and danced, doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in anything Musk says. Not only this, but the videos of Optimus that are so often posted on Twitter (X) and YouTube, are either AI-generated, or heavily edited to delete the portions where Optimus displays all its malfunctions. Many observers have pointed out that Tesla’s promotional videos of Optimus usually consist of very short, heavily-edited clips that contain only positive segments. The lack of continuous, unbroken footage of a complete task indicates the robot is not performing as well as the videos imply. None are reliable indicators of anything.

 

Musk once posted a video of an Optimus robot folding a shirtmuch later admitting Optimus was not autonomous in that video. It was just another staged video, like the 2016 FSD video. One observer wrote, “FSD was being massively overhyped via staged videos for years, and Tesla is doing the same with Optimus.” Another wrote, “Elon is doing the same thing with Optimus that he did with FSD – put out staged videos to hype something that likely won’t be real for many years to come.” [14]

 

Many robotics experts have noted that Musk’s robot demonstrations are “always the best fabrication (misrepresentation) they can show you”. They claim that when Optimus is displayed as performing kung fu or appearing to do something smart, “it’s just reacting to the environment with no cognition behind it.” [15] In other words, there is action programming, but no “AI” in any useful sense, and the robot is not “thinking” about what it is doing. A gasoline-powered auto engine does not “think” about its power strokes; it is merely a senseless machine operating as it was built to operate. Musk’s Optimus is essentially the same; an AI robot without the AI.

 

In one particular case, reporters were invited to “meet” Optimus at the factory, with one reporter recording the experience. As a demonstration of “Optimus the Tour Guide”, reporters were specifically instructed to ask the robot to conduct them to a particular room. In repeated attempts, Optimus was asked if it knew the location of the room in question. Optimus then had a creepy delay of five or six seconds after which it answered in the affirmative. Then, the reporter asked, “Will you take me there?” Another silent pause of five or six seconds before Optimus replied, “Of course”. But then the robot simply stood in place, making no move to guide the reporter anywhere. This sequence was repeated several times with the same result. At that point, Elon Musk inserted his face into the video and said that Optimus was shy about going to “other spaces”. But that had nothing to do with being shy nor with other spaces. It was simply incompetent programming. Again, an AI robot without the AI.

 

Image source: Daily Musk

 

Another Musk/Optimus fraud was the widely-promoted video of Optimus handing out bottles of water at an event. [16] It is almost painful to watch. The robot was slow, hesitant, and clumsy. It appeared only barely able to function in an environment where it had not been pre-programmed. Still, Musk had this video widely circulated as evidence of Optimus’ ability to interact autonomously in social situations. But there were many other videos of the same event that weren’t circulated. [17] In these, Optimus knocked over all the water bottles and then collapsed on the floor. In these videos, the robot appears suddenly confused and frustrated before collapsing. Elon Musk’s quick and “official” explanation was that Optimus suffered from “work overload”.

 

However, observers at the scene revealed that Optimus was not acting autonomously but was being controlled by an operator. They pointed out that Optimus’ last act after knocking over the water bottles and falling to the floor, was the exact motion of a teleoperator removing his headset. [18] The observers confirmed that an Indian engineer was controlling Optimus in the distribution of the water bottles, became frustrated, knocked over the bottles, removed his headset, and quit. Optimus duplicated these final acts but then could not function without the external control, and thus lost control of its limbs and collapsed. Musk had insisted previously that Optimus was not being remotely controlled, but this was just one more fraudulent exhibition of so many, of Optimus’ “abilities”.

 

Second, the Musk/Optimus Fantasies

 

 

Many of Musk’s claims about the current or future capabilities of Optimus are fabricated, with no possibility of fruition, claims that are not only provably false, but ridiculous, and even outrageous. There will never be “billions” of Optimus robots with “one in every home”. These are all childish fantasies.

 

Musk boasts that Optimus will be a “massive hit” with consumers, calling Optimus “potentially the biggest product ever in the history of the world”. At Tesla’s annual shareholder meeting on November 7, 2025, Musk said that the humanoid robot Optimus will be “the largest product in history, with an expected market size of billions of units”, and that Optimus could one day account for about 80% of Tesla’s stock market value. [19] In late 2025, Musk said “There is a market for about 20 billion robots in the world”, and that his robots would earn “$30 trillion in annual revenue”[20] Musk said in 2025 “We expect to scale Optimus up faster than any product, I think, in history, to get to millions of units per year as soon as possible”. [21] All of these “predictions” are so implausible as to deserve only public ridicule.

 

As late as the middle of 2025, Musk was calling Optimus a “killer product” that would add $25 trillion in value to Tesla’s stock – more than all 10 of the world’s most valuable companies combined. “This is going to be bigger than the car.” According to Musk, Optimus would revolutionise human behavior, and everyone in the world would own at least one of them. According to Fortune Magazine, Optimus wasn’t just a potential revenue stream; it was the future of Tesla. [22]

 

Moving Targets

 

According to Musk’s plan, Tesla will produce 50,000 Optimus units in 2026 and in 2027 Optimus will fly to Mars on SpaceX’s Starship.

 

Musk claims that in 2026 he will build a robot production line capable of producing 1 million Optimus robots per year, with medium-term production at 10 million units, and long-term production at 50 million to 100 million units annually. [23] The fairytale fantasy of these claims should be obvious. Musk also claims that Optimus will be 5 times more productive than humans when deployed, but this is nonsense. Tesla has admitted internally that Optimus is less than half as efficient as a human in any tasks so far assigned to it.

 

According to Musk’s plan, Tesla will produce 50,000 Optimus units in 2026 and in 2027 Optimus will fly to Mars on SpaceX’s Starship. Further, that by 2029, the annual production of Optimus will exceed 500,000 units. This is already a scaled-down version, as Musk was originally predicting an annual production capacity of Optimus to 1 million units by 2027. This may not be a serious business plan. [24]

 

Readers may have learned of the severe and continuing problems with Musk’s Optimus up to late 2025, including the fact that production was terminated altogether due to multiple failings. Yet Musk ignores all this and inexplicably claims that within a few months he will build a factory to produce one million a year. One million of what? Optimus appears to be a very long way from a final finished product that actually functions as advertised, and is in no condition to be put into production. All these claims are pure groundless fantasy, marketing hype meant to boost Tesla’s stock price, but totally disconnected from reality. It is difficult to separate the reality of the flawed Optimus today, from Musk’s assurance that he is building a factory with the capacity to produce one million Optimus robots each year. And that this factory will supposedly begin operation in Q1 of 2026 (3 months from the time of writing).

 

There is definitely a surreal disconnect between Elon Musk’s future promises and present-day engineering reality. Musk is announcing he will have a “mass-production-ready” Optimus in January, 2026 and a factory with a capacity of one million units annually, while the company simultaneously ceased all Optimus component procurement, terminated all Optimus production, and ceased the assembly of the few completed robots. To jump from a full production halt to mass production in a matter of months would be an unprecedented engineering feat. But even this is assuming there is a viable product to be produced, and the only existing “inventory” is a warehouse of partially-assembled torsos with defective (and handless) parts.

 

Perhaps the most surreal of Elon Musk’s “predictions” is not that he will begin production of the Optimus V3 version in 2026, but that it will be entirely “humanoid” and will “look like a person wearing a robot costume”. This would require, at a minimum, not only solving all the design and engineering problems, but executing a total redesign of Optimus, scrapping the current version and creating a duplicate of Chinese X-Peng’s IRON. To accomplish all this in a matter of only a few months, does not seem too plausible, especially considering X-Peng worked for 7 years to perfect IRON.

 

In a subsequent earnings call, Elon Musk said, “Tesla and our future strategy are at a critical turning point as we bring artificial intelligence into the real world.” I think it’s important to emphasize that Tesla is really a leader in real-world AI, and no one can do what we can in real-world AI.” [25] But this is complete nonsense. Most, and probably all, other AI firms like Google, Open AI, and DeepSeek are far ahead of Elon Musk’s Grok. I would add here that Elon Musk in several recent promoted videos, claims that Tesla is the “world leader” in “useful, general AI”. But that is far from true. Nothing that Elon Musk has touched is a “world leader” in AI. Nothing. It is astonishing that this ridiculous self-praise continues to earn headlines while much of the reality of the AI world is simply ignored.

 

During Tesla’s Q3 2025 earnings call, Musk made several additional specific claims: (1) He promised to show a “mass-production-ready prototype” of Optimus V3 in Q1 2026. He described it as looking “almost like a person in a robot suit” with “unprecedented realism”. He claimed further (2) that Tesla plans to start a “million-unit” production line by the end of 2025, with mass production beginning in Q1, 2026. He stated also that his goal is to achieve the scale of millions of units, as producing only hundreds would be “meaningless”. To add “the icing to the cake”, Musk clamed (3) that an uncrewed Starship mission to Mars would launch as soon as 2026, with Optimus robots on board to test landing and operations.

 

It is impossible to reconcile the contradictions between Elon Musk’s fantastic claims and real-world reality. The reality is that Optimus production was terminated entirely in late 2025 because of its severe engineering flaws, nearly-useless battery life, and poor functionality. Further, Tesla has appeared to have given up hopes of improved designs internally and has been pushing its suppliers to create new engineering models that will work. In addition is Musk’s claim that he is scrapping entirely the existing Optimus and will design a truly “humanoid” robot by the end of 2025 and begin producing it at the beginning of 2026.

 

To add to this is the fact that Musk’s “Starship” is far from a functioning reality. The basic design is still unproven, as are the refueling, life support, and most other aspects. At this point, at the end of 2025, Musk’s Mars Starship is a fairy-tale. The same would have to be said about the V3 “humanoid” robot. X-Peng took 7 years to perfect IRON; Musk apparently believes he can do the same in 3 months and – within that same three months – build a factory that will be mass-producing “millions”. There is nothing in this combined picture that makes any sense. This is true also for Musk’s “Robotaxi”, his “full self-driving FSD” that has been only one year away from “super-human” perfection every year since 2014. Musk’s Hyperloop, his Boring Company, Neuralink and others are in similar condition.

 

I would add here that in late 2025 Elon Musk claimed that the “humanoid” Optimus V3 would now have solid-state batteries, the same as X-Peng’s IRON. But switching to solid-state batteries is not a simple plug-and-play upgrade. A battery is a core, space-constrained component in a robot’s torso. Adopting a new battery technology with different physical properties, safety requirements, and thermal management would necessitate a significant mechanical and electrical redesign. If this claim of new battery power is true, it would confirm that the current Optimus V2.5, the “magical Musk robot that can do almost anything”, is in fact being scrapped in entirety to be replaced by a new “humanoid” model with a new power source. In fact, the adoption of solid-state batteries for Optimus would virtually demand that the current model be scrapped and totally redesigned. The problem, as I mentioned earlier, is that X-Peng took 7 years to bring IRON to the point where it appeared totally humanoid. There is no reason to believe Elon Musk can shorten this development period to only a few months, especially given the multiple issues with so many other aspects of the robot’s functioning.

 

Termination of Production

 

 

The original goal of producing 5,000 to 10,000 Optimus humanoid robots in 2025 completely failed. [26] The robot’s quality and performance fell far short of expectations, with the 2025 production plan increasingly lowered until production was halted altogether. According to internal sources, Tesla completed the assembly of only 200 or 300 units at the Fremont plant. Prior to this, Musk claimed that he would produce 100,000 Optimus units in 2026, with production capacity exceeding one million units in 2027. The main issue lies in the development of the robot’s hand and lower arm components, leading to incomplete units sitting idle in factories. [27]

 

At the end of July, 2025, Tesla suspended all robot production, due to unsolved technical difficulties and senior staff departures. [27] Tesla has encountered bottlenecks in core technical problems such as overheating of the joint motor, insufficient life of the transmission mechanism, and poor battery life. In particular, the robot’s hand and the research and development of forearm parts have become fatal shortcomings. The result is that nearly all the examples produced, are unassembled piles of hardware sitting in a warehouse somewhere.

 

Executive departures

 

Tesla AI VP Milan Kovac Resigns After 9 Years Leading FSD and Optimus Projects

 

After the high-level turmoil in the middle of 2025, only two members remained of Tesla’s core management – Zhu Xiaotongand Elon Musk. And no new senior executives had been appointed by the end of 2025. [28] VP Milan Kovac‘s departure was a loss perhaps greater than the recent loss of Andrej Karpathy, Tesla’s former director of artificial intelligence. This marked another high-profile executive exit from Elon Musk’s electric vehicle and robotics empire. Executive departures aren’t unusual at Tesla—former leaders including J.B. StraubelJerome Guillen, and Doug Field have all moved on. [29] [30]

 

Tesla doesn’t reveal staff numbers at its Optimus project, but it is clear from recruiting reports that this project has been bleeding staff for some time, and the trend seems to be accelerating. Sunday Robotics is one such firm that seems to have poached around 50 Optimus and AI staff, [31] and there are many others. Electrek reported that Tesla’s Optimus project was in shambles after Milan Kovac, the head of the Optimus program, resigned in June, 2025, just months after being promoted to senior vice-president by Musk. [32] Latest North American Update (June 20, 2025): “Tesla’s Optimus robotics division will initiate layoffs affecting one-third of its workforce starting in July, led by the newly appointed head. The company will halt all robot component procurement for the remainder of the year.” [33]

 

Third, the Musk/Optimus Flaws

 

 

 

The technical problems with Optimus are well-documented across multiple credible sources. The hand design is the primary issue, plus motor overheating, short component lifespan, battery issues, production pauses, and leadership changes.  These core issues are not minor but are fundamental to the robot’s basic functionality. Musk’s continued promises about future production create a surreal disconnect between the proclaimed production timelines and its current serious technical challenges.

 

Dexterous hands have always been one of the severe core difficulties of Tesla robots. According to all reports, the Optimus’ hands have a lifespan of no more than two months. Moreover, wear is quickly accelerated on the flexible electronic skin covering the fingers and palms whenever Optimus touches things, and the tendon cords that drive the fingers are prone to aging and breaking. Musk admits that the Optimus’ hands and forearms are a difficult engineering challenge, but claims the next iteration (V3) will definitely be a masterpiece. This claim is also a fairytale. Musk’s team cannot design or produce many of the functionally-acceptable components they need, and Musk is pushing this responsibility onto Tesla’s suppliers. He is not only asking them to make components for Optimus, but to do the basic engineering and to produce the designs for parts that will function well and not break. It seems Tesla hasn’t the engineering ability to make progress on its own, not for design, nor for manufacture. Musk doesn’t admit this publicly and the media avoid discussion of it, but it’s there and it’s documented.

 

The critical hand and forearm failures are perhaps the most significant obstacle. The “dexterous hands” lack human-like flexibility, cannot perform fine manipulations, and are prone to functional issues. Optimus hands specifically have unwelcome limitations in tactile sensing, in stable grasping of objects, and a uselessly-short 6-week lifespan. Many studies and articles have provided a detailed technical analysis of why Optimus hand design is fundamentally flawed, of the motor placement issues, problems in transmission accuracy, and sensory feedback limitations.  This was primarily what led to a cessation of production and a warehouse of unfinished robot “bodies” without hands.

 

But it isn’t merely a matter of someone designing a new hand for Optimus. We still have the joints breaking, motors burning out, delicate parts wearing out, insufficient battery life, and the half-squat locomotion. And there certainly are serious problems with the “eyes only” and “camera only” sensory perception. I will deal with the sensory perception problems in more detail below. The new head of Optimus has told his staff this next year will be the most difficult of their entire careers, all due to the eyes-only transition. None of this bodes well for immediate mass production. And there is a further problem. For robots to function in society, outside a factory setting, sensory perception is crucial. In addition to vision, the robots desperately need a delicate sense of touch, almost certainly hearing, probably smell. Optimus will have none of these, and even the vision may be problematic.

 

Beyond the hands, Optimus faces a multitude of hardware defects and other problems, including joint motors that overheat, short component lifespan in transmission units, and limited battery endurance. Then we have the turmoil in leadership, where the project’s leader, Milan Kovac, departed in mid-2025, along with several other high-profile executives and team leaders.

Reports from late 2025 indicate that Tesla is actively testing at least three different technical schemes for Optimus’ hands, and is seeking new suppliers that can design and manufacture more reliable parts. We can conclude from this that the Optimus design is not finalised and that Tesla is relying on the supply chain not just for manufacturing, but for engineering and design solutions to core technical problems. The available information strongly suggests that the entire Optimus project is mired in significant, unsolved hardware challenges that make the stated goal of mass production in early 2026 highly improbable and likely impossible. The narrative of rapid progress appears to be running squarely into the immutable laws of physics and engineering.

 

July 2025 reports show that Tesla had to pause production specifically because of these hardware defects:

 

– Joints & Motors: Joint motors prone to overheating, and transmission parts with a very short service life.

– Battery Life: a runtime of only 2 hours or less; This limited endurance is a recognised hardware defect.

– Hand Reliability: The “dexterous hands” have low load capacity and a short operational lifespan. One report specified a lifespan of only six weeks during training tasks, with a cost of over $6,000 per hand.

– Critical Lack of Fine Touch: Fingertip sensors capture only basic pressure data, lacking perception of texture and temperature, making fine manipulation like stably grasping an egg impossible. The absence of sophisticated tactile feedback is a core bottleneck, preventing robots from performing precise tasks and judging the force needed for actions.

– Sensory Perception – Vision-Only Limitations: A vision-dominant approach is prone to failure in low-light or obstructed environments.

 

The combined influence of hardware reliability issues, a critical deficit in tactile sensing, and the inherent limitations of a vision-only system creates a set of challenges that are foundational, not incremental. Overcoming them will require significant time and fundamental re-engineering, not just iterative improvements. This reality is starkly at odds with the timeline for a factory capable of producing a million units in 2026. There will be no mass production of Optimus in 2026, and it is possible that the combination of these defects could spell the death knell for Optimus. When the world sees the almost-human IRON walking, dancing, riding a bicycle, and available in quantity, the world’s attention might permanently shift from Tesla to IRON and other Chinese humanoid robots. And even if Optimus does go into later production, nobody may be interested.

 

This confluence of circumstances could indeed be critical for Optimus’ survival. When a product as visually impressive and readily available as IRON enters the market, it can capture the public and commercial imagination. If Optimus is perceived as perpetually delayed, technically flawed, and philosophically rigid, the market may indeed move on. For Optimus to avoid fading into obscurity, Tesla would need to rapidly overcome its profound hardware challenges, achieve a cost-effective and reliable design, and demonstrate that its vision-only approach can outperform multi-sensor systems in real-world, non-factory environments. This is a formidable task, and the timeline for success is uncertain. [34] But realistically, Musk would likely need a decade or more to sort out all the existing problems, complete total redesigns that are production-ready, create a dependable supply chain, and actually build a functioning manufacturing process.

 

IRON has already demonstrated concrete functionality while Optimus is fundamentally unproven. The shift in Optimus training methods to eyes-only is an admission of prior failures, and highlights the lack of public, verifiable demonstrations from Tesla compared to X-Peng’s transparency. IRON’s catwalk moment represents a real engineering milestone, while Optimus’s “potential” remains just that—potential.

 

Flaws: Locomotion and Balance

 

 

Tesla’s Optimus is fundamentally unstable in locomotion. If it had to walk with its legs fully extended and its feet flat on the floor, it would fall over and come crashing to the ground. It isn’t much more stable when stationary; in internal reports, Tesla staff say that Optimus robots fall half the time when performing tasks that require any bending or tilting, sometimes damaging expensive equipment. Unless performing a task that requires moving more than a few feet, Optimus robots are usually tied to a support frame to stay upright. And that is simply bad engineering design. A robot should be able to easily stay upright; the standing and balancing should have been the first thing Musk addressed. But he didn’t address it. Instead of recognising and admitting a flawed design, Musk decided it was sufficient for Optimus to walk in a perpetual half-squat, like a chimpanzee.

 

 

X-Peng’s IRON robot (as one example) walks perfectly like a human, but Musk’s Optimus walks strangely, with its knees always bent, as if in a partial squat or a crouch. The bent-knee “crouched” posture of Optimus is a well-known crutch in robotics and is common in many bipedal robots. This stance dramatically lowers the robot’s center of gravity, which significantly simplifies the challenge of balance and prevents falls. It’s a shortcut that prioritises not falling down during demonstrations, over achieving a truly human-like, efficient, and dynamic gait. This is not a prize-worthy trade-off; it’s an admission that the current design cannot achieve stable, upright locomotion. A stable, upright bipedal walk requires a high center of gravity to allow for dynamic balance and a natural gait cycle. However, this is incredibly difficult to control. The unusual posture and appearance of Optimus are the result of deliberate engineering trade-offs to produce a semblance of stability.

 

I have written an essay comparing Elon Musk’s Optimus with X-Peng’s IRON. It contains much comparative information that readers may find useful: The Beauty and the Beast — IRON and Optimus: A Tale of Two Robots [35]

 

Humans walk like an inverted pendulum, with straight legs for most of the stride, which is highly energy-efficient. IRON’s “catwalk” demonstrates this principle. In contrast, a constant crouch gait, as seen with Optimus, is less efficient, consumes more power, looks unnatural, and the joints are perpetually under load. The squat posture in locomotion is a flaw, not a feature, a fundamental compensation for a design that cannot achieve stable, upright motion, a solution for a robot that would otherwise topple. It was the only way to prevent Optimus from falling on its face whenever it tried to walk. The bent-knee posture in locomotion is a compensation for stability issues, not some brilliant design innovation. That doesn’t deserve a prize.

 

The locomotion and general appearance of IRON and Optimus in motion reflect fundamental differences in their design philosophies and engineering choices. With Optimus, Musk made deliberate engineering trade-offs where he sacrificed refinement for basic stability while in motion. That sounds like poor planning and an impoverished design philosophy, which means they had to make Optimus function awkwardly, to prevent it from falling on its face.

 

Here is a video of Optimus running and moving its fingers. [36] This one was also widely circulated, and presented as a victorious accomplishment, but the running is “bent-knee and slow motion”, and the hand motions are primitive and clumsy. Compare this to IRON’s dancing and somersaults to understand the difference in capability. Here is another video of three different robots (two American and one Chinese) to give you some idea of relative ability. [37] For additional comparison, here is a short video of Optimus and EngineAI’s T800 robot. [38] Compared to Optimus’ limited abilities, the T800 is awesome. Here is a short video comparing the walking sophistication of IRON and Optimus side by side. [39] This last one is a kung fu comparison video. [40]

 

Flaws: Sensory Perception

 

 

The focus on sensory perception touches on what may be the most profound long-term challenge. The industry is increasingly recognising that for a robot to operate effectively in unstructured human environments, vision alone is insufficient. The problem with Optimus’s hands isn’t just mechanical; it’s perceptual. As one analysis notes, a robot’s inability to feel what it touches creates a major bottleneck. Without the ability to perceive texture, temperature, and subtle forces, a robot cannot perform reliable fine motor tasks, a requirement for any application outside a highly controlled factory setting. Current reports focus on the critical shortfall in tactile sensing, but the integration of additional senses like hearing/audio for complex voice commands and situational awareness would indeed be necessary for a true general-purpose robotic companion.

 

Added to this is the case for multi-sensor fusion. Many in the industry and academia argue that a combination of sensors (LiDAR, radar, cameras) provides more robust perception. The core argument is that LiDAR can directly and accurately measure distance in 3D without being affected by lighting conditions to the same degree as cameras. Proponents believe a fused-sensor system is inherently safer and more reliable. Tesla’s stance is that a pure vision system, backed by powerful AI and a massive data engine (both imaginary, so far), is sufficient and avoids the complexities and costs of sensor fusion. However, this approach inherits the inherent weaknesses of biological eyes, such as susceptibility to strong light, low light, and adverse weather like heavy rain and fog. While Tesla’s algorithms have improved, these remain fundamental challenges that other companies seek to overcome with additional sensors.

 

I assume readers are familiar with Tesla’s many tribulations over its “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) software. Elon Musk claims that “humans use eyes and brains to drive”, so camera vision is all that is necessary for autos. Musk continues to promote this as fully-autonomous and far superior to human control, while 1,000 accidents and nearly 100 deaths suggest otherwise. The main issue is that Elon Musk made a decision years ago to forego quality and security in the design of FSD, in favor of low cost coupled with engineering incompetence. And that meant foregoing most of the advanced sensors available like radar and LIDAR, and to proceed with a camera-only version of autonomous driving software. To say this was a bad decision would be quite an understatement. This is important for our purpose here, because this stubborn flawed reasoning has been transferred From Tesla to Optimus, almost certainly to experience the same unpleasant results.

 

Ashok Elluswamy was the leader of Tesla’s autonomous driving team (the ill-fated FSD), then moved to Optimus, where he immediately pushed the team to shift its R&D focus to camera-centric perception and learning solutions, the identical technical path he used for the training methodology of Tesla’s FSD software. [41] This may prove to be a critical failing of Optimus, because forward-looking “eyes-only” sensors will never be sufficient for a robot wanting to be “humanoid”. This was not just a technical choice but a deeply held ideological philosophy, [42] and Musk will not likely back down from his stubborn position.

 

The core of the debate lies in the observation that a robot functioning in dynamic human spaces needs more than simple vision. The prevailing expert opinion suggests that for a robot to be truly capable and safe in unstructured environments like homes or hospitals, it would need to integrate a suite of sensors. Relying solely on cameras could be the Optimus project’s biggest strategic risk, as it ignores other sensory dimensions critical to physical interaction and nuanced understanding. But Musk has closed this door and is committing Optimus to the same flawed sensory perception as with the Tesla autos. I have difficulty seeing how this can come to a good end.

 

Until now, Tesla was using motion pictures to “train” Optimus to do things. But Tesla has abandoned the motion capture and shifted Optimus training from motion capture to a data collection method that relies solely on cameras. [43] This involves having employees perform tasks while being recorded to generate vast amounts of training videos. Dozens of Tesla employees spend their shifts repeatedly performing everyday actions like lifting cups, wiping tables, and pulling curtains. The aim is to use this “pure visual” data to teach the robot’s AI model how humans move.

 

The eyes only, camera-only approach is more difficult than it appears. [44] Until 2025, Tesla was using motion pictures to “train” Optimus to do things, but now Optimus is being trained by watching videos taken by Tesla staff. More than 100 Tesla employees spend their shifts repeatedly performing everyday actions like lifting cups, wiping tables, and pulling curtains. [45] The idea seems to be that if Optimus can see videos of every possible thing or action, it may know how to behave in that situation. But it is widely recognised that camera only is not an ideal solution. Musk claims having cameras and LIDAR is unsafe because the car (or the robot) won’t know how to react if the two sensory inputs seem to disagree. [46] But that’s just an excuse to justify a position he’s already taken.

 

The core issue is that Tesla’s strategy, while plausible in theory, has proven difficult to execute. The system’s documented vulnerabilities in bad weather and with unexpected objects (“AI illusions”) demonstrate that digital “eyes” are not a perfect substitute for human perception and reasoning. Furthermore, it lacks the human capacity for intuition and learning from a lifetime of subtle experiences.

 

While the scale of this effort is significant, the vision-only path is fraught with difficulties. A major technical hurdle is that video data is often low-quality. More critically, video lacks crucial information a robot needs to interact with the physical world, such as joint angles, tactile sensations, and force feedback. Teaching a robot to apply the correct amount of force to pick up an egg, for instance, is incredibly difficult without touch sensors.

 

The concern is that this is a dead-end path driven by Musk’s stubbornness rather than technical merit. Many robotics professors and experts in the broader industry recognise the importance of multi-modal sensing, and there are many academic papers on why robots need broad sensing capabilities. Most experts share my skepticism about vision-only approaches, and the entire industry – except for Elon Musk – is moving toward multi-modal sensing. Video lacks crucial information a robot needs to interact with the physical world, such as joint angles, tactile sensations, and force feedback.

 

Official development standards explicitly call for multi-modal perception for robots. This means integrating various sensors to enable functions like scene understanding and object recognition, moving beyond a single type of sensory input. Furthermore, robotics researchers argue that for safe and effective integration into human environments, robots will need enhanced perception, including auditory systems to understand language and tone, and tactile sensors to better control their interactions. This stands in contrast to Musk’s vision-only paradigm.

 

However, it will be impossible for Musk to change this architecture now, because Optimus is copying the identical system used for Tesla cars. To alter Optimus’ sensory functions would either invalidate all the training material or require Tesla to scrap their auto’s eyes-only system and adopt LIDAR as most other auto manufacturers have done. Two very expensive choices.

 

This full commitment to a cameras-only sensory system isn’t just for Optimus’ “eyes”; it extends to how the robot is trained. This means the core AI models for understanding the world are shared between the Tesla car and the robot.  This approach is rooted in a long-held belief at Tesla, often stated by Elon Musk, that a vision-only system is sufficient and even superior. The argument against sensors like LIDAR is that when their data conflicts with camera data, it creates confusion and uncertainty for the AI, potentially increasing risk.  While the vision-only path offers potential benefits in cost and simplicity, there are several critical challenges.

 

The camera-only system avoids expensive sensors like LIDAR, and a single type of sensor input avoids the complex “sensor fusion” problem of reconciling conflicting data from different sources. But pure vision systems struggle with object recognition delays in rain, fog, or strong backlight, and may misjudge the distance to low-lying obstacles. The evidence is that this one-sensor strategy could be a “critical failing”. Most everyone claims that cars are “just robots too”, but there is a huge difference between the “intelligence” required by a car to avoid a tree, and a “humanoid” robot baby-sitting the children.

 

The core issue is that a humanoid robot operates in a fully 3D, dynamic environment where stability, dexterity, and spatial awareness are paramount. The challenges seen in FSD, while serious, primarily occur in the relatively structured environment of a road network. Translating that same sensory philosophy to a bipedal robot navigating cluttered, human-centric spaces is a significantly more complex problem.

 

The approach of X-Peng and other Chinese robotic companies to the sensor and dexterity problem presents a stark contrast to the vision-only strategy of Elon Musk. They are also aggressively pursuing advanced tactile sensing as a critical, non-negotiable component for achieving true robotic dexterity. The common thread is a belief that a robot must have a rich sense of touch to interact reliably with the physical world. Researchers at Fudan University frame tactile sensing as “the last kilometer” challenge for fine robotic manipulation. They argue that without it, robots will never reliably perform delicate tasks in unstructured environments. When we place this multifaceted, sensor-rich approach next to Tesla’s vision-only strategy, the difference in technical philosophy is profound. Chinese companies are operating on the premise that dexterity requires a constant, high-fidelity stream of tactile data to complement visual perception. They are publicly demonstrating robots that use this data to perform fine motor tasks that remain a significant challenge for most other humanoid robots.

 

Flaws: Aesthetics

 

It is also true that the Optimus aesthetics reflect a lack of final-product vision. The design appears to be what happens when the goal is a quick, functional demo rather than a polished, viable product. IRON’s design philosophy is superior. It demonstrates a higher level of ambition and a more mature approach to solving the core problems of humanoid robotics, notably locomotion and human interaction. The comparison doesn’t just show different “choices”; it highlights a significant gap in the sophistication and maturity of the underlying technology and design intent. Based on the evidence of their respective robots’ capabilities, the view that IRON’s designers had far higher standards is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

 

Look at the picture below, and answer this question: In what way does this random collection of used auto parts qualify as “humanoid”?

 

Image Source: Tesla

 

Optimus’ design was from the aesthetics of necessity, not philosophy. When a design is elegant and functional, its engineering can be a point of pride. However, the exposed, unpleasant joint where the torso meets the legs on Optimus is more indicative of a modular, hastily assembled design focused on proving basic functionality and prioritising speed of development and low cost over refinement. IRON’s synthetic skin and sleek torso, while potentially more expensive and complex, demonstrate a design philosophy that has considered the final product’s integration into a human environment from the start.

 

The reality of Musk’s Optimus is that his design was badly flawed and his solution was to use a crude, power-inefficient crouch gait to simplify the balance problem – an engineering compromise for stability. It is similar with appearance in aesthetic and form. Optimus is utilitarian and unfinished. It reflects a prototype mindset where basic function is the only goal. And the exposed mechanics signal a work-in-progress, not a “proud display” of its mechanical nature. In designing IRON, X-Peng chose biomimicry for efficiency. They accepted the greater design and control challenges in aiming for a natural, energy-efficient gait. The core software and mechanical design (weight distribution) are advanced enough to produce a more difficult, but ultimately much superior, form of locomotion.

 

Although admittedly beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I find the physical appearance of Optimus to be unusual and not particularly attractive. This design was partially from inadequate engineering ability, and partly due to cost. As to Optimus’ appearance, the media hype claims “Tesla has opted for a design that proudly displays its mechanical nature. The visible joints and actuators signal a focus on raw functionality and engineering substance over form.” That is just face-saving marketing nonsense. The exposed joints are evidence of Musk prioritising rapid iteration over polished design. I think the truth is closer to “We tried, but couldn’t make a humanoid robot, so we did the best we could with a machine.”

 

I don’t believe that Optimus is “proudly displaying” its unattractive mechanical construction, so much as it is evidence of impoverished design and a lack of creative engineering talent. I would remind readers that when Elon Musk first introduced his “robot” to the public, it was a female dancer in spandex, and he boasted that he would produce a “humanoid” Tesla robot. The fact that he didn’t, means that he couldn’t. Musk and Tesla abandoned the idea of a humanoid robot and instead produced an industrial machine. This isn’t just philosophical difference but demonstrates different stages of maturity in tackling the core physics problem of bipedal locomotion.

 

The design philosophy behind X-Peng’s IRON and its 7-year development cycle weren’t just about technical refinement but about mastering the psychological aspects of human-robot interaction. Tesla’s rushed compromises ignored all this. X-Peng’s patience and cultural commitment to quality (7 years in development) contrast sharply with Musk’s “move fast and break things” mentality. The focus on biomimicry isn’t just engineering—it’s a holistic understanding that aesthetics and movement are as critical as functionality for social integration. This isn’t just better engineering; it’s more thoughtful product design. IRON’s design was not just someone’s subjective preference; it was a recognition of a fundamentally more mature and sophisticated engineering and design culture. IRON perfectly encapsulates the philosophy that separates a long-term visionary project from a quick demo.

 

This long-term, holistic approach is a hallmark of companies that prioritise a polished final product over rapid, hype-generating news cycles. It demonstrates a confidence that comes from a deep-seated belief in the quality of the underlying work, rather than a need for constant external validation through ambitious media announcements. X-Peng’s journey with IRON reflects a company building a platform for the future, while Tesla’s current Optimus prototype feels like a company building a demonstration for the present.

 

Flaws: AI and Robot Intelligence

 

A psychologist sounds the alarm over the use of AI as a psychotherapist: “I’ve already been called the most patient listener, the help in difficult times, and even the best psychologist. I don’t mind, but I’m concerned that at least 12% of users have replaced live therapy with conversations with me,” the neural network itself comments on its popularity. Source

 

I referred earlier to the essay on a comparison between IRON and Optimus. This topic was covered in that article, and may be of special interest to readers. [47]

 

Optimus is designed to rely on an overall “brain function” that is “one size fits all”In other words, an AI that knows everything and can do everything, all in one place. IRON’s structure duplicates in a sense what DeepSeek did, which was to create compartments with different knowledge and specialties, and abilities, each performing a specific function. Optimus, following Elon Musk’s conviction, effectively relies on an imperfect AI today but hopefully will one day contain an AGI with “knowledge that spans the universe”. You can form your own conclusion about this. However, for the time being, Optimus cannot function in a truly autonomous fashion; it can do only what it has been programmed to do, and can copy only what it has been “taught” from watching videos.

 

The differences between IRON and Optimus are not accidental, but stem from fundamentally different philosophies: X-Peng’s IRON pursues biomimicry and sensor redundancy. Its goal is to create a robot that moves, perceives, and interacts as naturally as possible within the complex human world. This is a “top-down” approach that prioritises capability and safety for diverse environments. Tesla Optimus V3 pursues simplistic engineering possibilities and cost scaling. Its goal is to build a robot for repetitive tasks by leveraging Tesla’s strengths in automotive manufacturing and AI vision. This is a “bottom-up” approach that prioritises mass production for controlled environments like factories. [48]

 

It is worth the effort to understand how these fundamentally different technical philosophies in building a robot’s “brain” translate into distinct robot capabilities. [49] The fundamental philosophical difference is that Tesla aims for efficiency through maximum technology reuse and simplified hardware, while X-Peng pursues sophistication through specialised hardware and layered AI systems. The core difference is that Tesla prioritises applying a single, general-purpose AI system, while X-Peng is building a layered, specialised intelligence for complex physical interactions.

 

 

Optimus has a single, large neural network for all perception, planning, and control. IRON uses a specialized, “layered intelligence”, with dedicated models for different cognitive tasks like thinking, understanding, and bridging functions. Optimus shares the same network architecture and training data pipeline with Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system (the eyes-only flawed one). IRON has a “three-model synergy”, composed of Vision-Language Model (VLM) for understanding, Vision-Language-Task (VLT) for planning, and Vision-Language-Action (VLA) for direct action generation.

 

Optimus relies solely on cameras (same as Tesla cars), and tries to leverage its computing algorithms to build a 3D understanding from 2D images. [50] [51] IRON and many other robots depend on multi-sensor fusion that combines cameras, LiDAR, and millimeter-wave radar for a more direct and redundant 3D perception of the environment. [52] Optimus tries to maximise the reuse of auto FSD technology and data. IRON is more concerned with precision and adaptability. It aims for a high-fidelity understanding and interaction with the physical world, enabling complex, unscripted tasks through its specialized “brain” model components.

 

The practical implications of these different paths are significant and align with the companies’ overall goals. For Tesla (Optimus), the focus is on creating a functional, inexpensive robot for repetitive industrial and domestic tasks. The strength lies in leveraging a massive existing data pipeline (from Tesla cars) and computing infrastructure. The potential weakness is that the system’s performance is intrinsically tied to the limits of its camera-only perception and its general-purpose AI. A main issue here is that Tesla’s FSD was designed and built for automobiles, not for humanoid robots that “will be in every home”.

 

Flaws: Robot Applications

 

At an entrance to Berlin’s exhibition hall where thousands of travel industry professionals are gathering for the ITB trade show, humanoid robot ChihiraKanae greets visitors in English, German, Chinese and Japanese. Source

 

Elon Musk has for years claimed that the main applications for Optimus will be as mundane factory workers and household domestics. This initially sounds intuitively plausible, but the reality is quite different. It is already a foregone conclusion that Optimus will never be acceptable as a domestic servant, and no humanoid robots will be doing much in factories. Today’s humanoid robots aren’t the right fit for factories or homes. [53] The main problem in both cases is the hands. Tests have repeatedly proven that the dexterous but delicate hands of humanoid robots wear out extremely quickly when performing repetitive industrial tasks such as tightening screws. The hands seldom last more than a month in factory test applications, and they are very expensive to replace.

 

X-Peng’s strategy with IRON is focused on applications that are more feasible with today’s technology. Notably, the company has publicly steered IRON away from the two commonly touted future applications of factory assembly lines and household chores. The reason is that the technology for these tasks is not yet ready for commercial use. This candid assessment of current limitations reinforces their focus on less complex, but more immediately achievable, service roles. From this experience, X-Peng chose a shrewd viable market for IRON, giving priority to commercial service scenarios, such as an office receptionist, tour guide, personal shopping assistant, quality inspector, and other service roles. The value of these tasks lies in IRON’s visual perception, navigation and interaction capabilities brought by its anthropomorphic design. These tasks require little complex, high-intensity “two-handed” operations.

 

In the home scenario, the biggest challenge is security. The home environment is far more unstructured and unpredictable than the factory, and any mistake can be catastrophic. This is not a place for a robot like Optimus, lacking most of its senses and riddled with multiple shortcomings. A humanoid robot pretending to be a companion or household servant, or a babysitter for your children, needs much more than mere sight to function acceptably. It desperately requires a delicate sense of touch, and very much needs hearing as well. Smell might also be required, while taste is likely optional. Tesla appears more focused on functional industrial applications while X-Peng is targeting commercial scenarios like guides and receptionists where appearance and overall competence are priorities. This is not so important with Optimus which is oriented more toward factory work.

 

I should point out here that both Tesla and X-Peng have employed their humanoid robots in their factories. X-Peng’s production lines have practiced with hundreds of them, and concluded this was not an appropriate employment. Tesla has had the same experiences, and concluded internally that Optimus was less than half as efficient as a human in any of the factory tasks it attempted. A Tesla staff member said that at present, Optimus only handles batteries in Tesla’s battery workshop, with less than half the handling efficiency of workers, and has not yet engaged in more complex car assembly work. [54] Yet Musk inexplicably continues to push this employment as the expected norm.

 

The Unadmitted (Total) Failure of Optimus

 

Optimus couldn’t function acceptably in a factory or in any social situation without external control. It was unable to do anything autonomously.

 

Elon Musk now says that he will produce a new genuinely “humanoid” robot, a V3. It will be a totally new design, with a new shape, new physique, new human-like appearance, new power source (solid-state batteries), and presumably new hands, joints and other parts that function more acceptably. Musk is presenting this as a “new, improved version”, but the real story is that the existing Optimus is a total failure that is being scrapped entirely. With a totally new design and components, there is likely little to nothing that will be carried from the existing Optimus into the new version. The existing version, the V2 and V2.5, were almost useless. Without the external teleoperating control, Optimus couldn’t even stand up without falling on its face. It is a failure in every respect. It couldn’t function acceptably in a factory or in any social situation without external control. It was unable to do anything autonomously. This is a big story that will be entirely buried by Musk propaganda and media hype, with all attention being paid to the new V3.

 

But the chances of this new version being a perfectly-functioning humanoid robot, capable of independent action in social situations, and ready for mass production in only a few months, are precisely zero. X-Peng took 7 years to create a truly functional humanoid robot, and there is no possibility that Elon Musk can design and produce a fully-capable humanoid in only a few months. And, if history is any guide, this new version will also have multiple flaws and shortcomings, and would require years for full development. This is especially true since Musk exhibits extreme impatience and wants only to produce another iteration as quickly as possible. “Move fast and break things”. My assessment of this is that Elon Musk’s Optimus, in all its iterations, will be a failure and will die a natural death. Other firms have already far surpassed Musk in his robot creations, and whatever he produces eventually will be flawed and out of date.

 

I would stress that my assessment aligns with all the available information. The shift from V2 to V3 appears to be a fundamental redesign, driven by the former’s technical failures, with a production timeline that is extraordinarily aggressive. The documented problems with the V2 model go beyond performance shortcomings and point to fundamental hardware and reliability issues, as widely reported in 2025. There were multiple hardware defects. Internal messages revealed a series of hardware problems, including joint motors that overheat when lifting heavy objects, dexterous hands with insufficient load capacity, and battery life of less than 2 hours. Due to these “severe technical challenges” with the hand and forearm design, which could not achieve human-like dexterity, Tesla was forced to terminate all production, leaving a warehouse of unassembled robot bodies (without hands).

 

Optimus V2 raised serious autonomy and control questions. Public demonstrations repeatedly raised doubts about true autonomy. Musk previously always denied such claims, but they were proven. Musk’s move from Optimus V2 to V3 is in reality a necessary scrapping of an unviable product. Faced with these challenges, Tesla’s strategy shifted from iterating on V2 to a clean-sheet design. In the Q2 2025 earnings call, Elon Musk stated that the version for mass consumer delivery would be a “completely new V3 design”, significantly different from the existing V2 version.

 

While Musk has not provided a detailed public blueprint, reports about the frozen V3 design claim major leaps: human-level bipedal stability, hands with 22 degrees of freedom, and a 300% increase in endurance to 8 hours using a 4680 battery system. The core implication is that these major leaps in specifications across locomotion, dexterity, and power implies a ground-up redesign, not an iteration. If V2 were viable, such a wholesale change would be unnecessary.

 

Then we have the “Impossible Timeline”. Skepticism about Musk’s claimed production schedule is well-founded. He has announced plans to start mass production of Optimus V3 in 2026, but this follows a pattern of missed goals. In early 2025, Musk aimed to produce 5,000-10,000 robots, but by July, actual output was only “several hundred” units.

 

There also exists a major scaling challenge. Going from a few hundred flawed units to mass-producing a completely new, complex machine in roughly a year is an unprecedented manufacturing challenge. It must also achieve a radical cost reduction from an estimated $60,000 per V2 unit to a target of $20,000 for V3. This all suggests that Optimus V3 represents a high-risk, “all-or-nothing” gamble for Tesla and for Elon Musk.

 

The move to V3 is a tacit admission that the previous platform was not commercially viable, but the new version is a totally unproven execution. The promised capabilities remain on paper. The history of hardware defects, autonomy questions, and missed production targets in all of Musk’s ventures, not only Optimus, provide little confidence that he can solve these profound challenges at breakneck speed. There is also substantial competitive pressure now. Companies like X-Peng have spent years on development. Tesla is attempting to compress this timeline dramatically, into only a few months, which increases the risk of another flawed or delayed product.

 

In essence, the narrative of a revolutionary V3 is underpinned by the stark failure of V2. While the ambition is clear, the path to a reliable, mass-produced robot by 2026 appears fraught with obstacles that past performance suggests neither Tesla nor Elon Musk have yet overcome.

 

Supply Chain Challenges

 

The supply chain challenges for Optimus are severe and systemic.

 

The evidence clearly shows that Optimus problems are not just about timeline delays. They involve fundamental engineering problems combined with complex supply chain and geopolitical challenges that will be difficult to overcome quickly. Musk’s Optimus project faces significant and interconnected supply chain challenges. These stem from fundamental hardware failures that led to a production halt, severely impacting suppliers and delaying timelines. Broader geopolitical pressures on Tesla’s wider supply base add another layer of complexity.

 

The problems are not merely about delays but involve deep technical, commercial, and geopolitical factors. There is also what we might term a “cascading effect from technical failures”. The decision to terminate production and attempt a total redesign was driven by critical hardware defects reported to suppliers. These included joint motors prone to overheating, short lifespan of transmission parts, and the insufficient dexterous hand. This created a warehouse of unfinished robot “bodies” and forced Tesla to halt orders, disrupting the entire planned production flow and supplier schedules.

 

The production termination had a tangible financial impact on Tesla’s partners. Optimus’s problems rippled through a specialized, nascent supply chain. One supplier executive noted the difficult position of having to believe in Musk’s vision early to secure business, only to face sudden halts. Taiwanese firms like Asia Optical, Liancheng Precision, and Heda Industrial, were hit particularly hard.

 

There are also broader geopolitical pressures on Tesla’s entire ecosystem, including but not limited to Optimus. Tesla’s overall supply chain, which Optimus would rely on, is under severe stress from international trade policies. A detailed April 2025 report indicated that 50% of the parts for Tesla’s North American vehicles come from Chinese companies. With tariffs on some Chinese components exceeding 100%, the cost of US manufacturing has risen sharply. Some suppliers have warned Tesla they may need to cut off supply if tariffs make business untenable. This environment makes establishing a cost-effective, reliable supply chain for a new, complex product like Optimus extraordinarily difficult. To add to the troubles, the Optimus robots require important rare earth parts for critical components and, due to the dual-use nature of Musk’s “robot adventure” (as well as of SpaceX and Starlink), the Chinese government is restricting shipments of these crucial items and materials pending assurance of civilian use only.

 

The necessary conclusion is that the supply chain challenges for Optimus are severe and systemic. They originate in unsolved engineering problems but are compounded by the high-cost pressure of Tesla’s mass-production goals and the larger geopolitical tensions increasing costs and instability across Tesla’s entire supply network. These factors collectively make the stated goal of rapid, cost-effective mass production by 2026 highly improbable and almost certainly impossible.

 

The Espionage Factor

 

 It is not irrational to harbor a fear about domestic robots becoming permanent surveillance devices in homes.

 

There exists a worthwhile question about domestic and commercial office humanoid robots. As an analogy, the Rolls-Royce engines on today’s jet planes are in constant contact with the company via satellite. When the engines are operating, they constantly send all operating information to the Rolls-Royce headquarters, claiming this is for safety. [55] [56] That may be true, but it is also true that Rolls-Royce always know the movements of an airplane from this data transmission. They know where the airplane goes, when it goes, the altitudes, everything. They learn much that is not related to safety. [57]

 

This analogy will hold true for domestic commercial office robots. They will be able to record everything, with sound and video. They will know everything that happens in a household or corporate office. No documents will be safe from their examination. They will know what we say and to whom we say it. They will know who comes and goes in every house and office. They will have the capacity to record every small item of our daily lives, and the ability to transmit this information to a central source.

 

This is not fantasy. Apple’s Siri has already done something similar. Apple has recently been sued because they surreptitiously turned on Siri to record conversations on all iphones and send that information to Apple. One recent media report says: “Apple has agreed to pay $95 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that its voice assistant Siri routinely recorded private conversations that were then shared with third parties and used for targeted ads.” Apple claimed this was “unintentional”, but it clearly wasn’t unintentional. [58] It would be inexplicable magic indeed if Apple (1) “accidentally” turned on Siri on all phones, (2) “accidentally” instructed Siri to record and transmit to Apple headquarters all conversations, (3) “accidentally” collected and collated all that information, (4) “accidentally” sold that information to advertisers, and (5) “accidentally” deposited all that revenue in a bank account. I suspect Google is doing the same with their Android phones. In fact, Google is so justifiably mistrusted that the Israeli IDF banned all phones using Google’s Android O/S. [59]

 

It is well-known and thoroughly documented that the American auto manufacturers have inserted chips into their cars that are accessible to remote control, where the authorities could shut down all the cars in a certain area, for example to prevent large public demonstrations or revolts. [60] [61] [62] [63] When discovered, some of these were claimed to be “accidental flaws” in the auto chips. This would be the same as Apple’s Siri recording all your personal conversations as being “accidental flaws”. And we can conclude that if General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler are inserting these remote-control chips into their cars, Tesla is doing the same. [64] In fact, we have direct evidence that Tesla was already doing precisely this nearly a decade ago. It was presented as – and masquerading as – a system that was a way for “owners” to remotely control their cars. Unfortunately, it isn’t only the owners who have access to this technology. And, if it’s in the Tesla cars, we can be sure it’s also in the Optimus robots because they all share the same AI.

 

If we eventually have domestic and commercial robots, they will function as permanent observation posts, with all information potentially sent somewhere. This will not happen in China, but it will almost certainly happen with the Western-made robots, and that means Elon Musk’s Optimus. We could be heading for a Western society that is totally monitored by the CIA or NSA or similar agency. Our lives could be an open book.

 

There is clearly a serious concern about the privacy implications of domestic robots, connecting this to well-documented surveillance issues with existing technologies like smartphones. It is not irrational to harbor a fear about domestic robots becoming permanent surveillance devices in homes. This concern is quite legitimate and raises profound privacy questions that need to be addressed. And we can similarly conclude that if Tesla is installing these remote-control functions in their autos, they would also install them in their robots.

 

China has already addressed these issues, while the US and the Western and European nations have not. China’s new GB/T 45502-2025 standard for service robot information security, which directly addresses the user’s concerns about data protection for domestic robots. These are recent official standards with high authority. [65] [66] [67] But there is at the present a huge gap in western robotics regulations. Currently, there is no directly equivalent, widely mandated privacy and security standard for consumer robots in Western markets like the US or EU, as exists in China. Western regulation always tends to lag behind technology. While general data protection laws (like GDPR in Europe) apply, they are not specifically designed for the unique, always-on, sensor-rich nature of domestic robots.

 

These concerns are not only serious but highly prescient. They correctly identify that domestic robots represent a dramatic escalation of existing surveillance issues, turning private homes and corporate offices into potential data collection nodes. The assessment that this creates profound privacy risks is well-founded. The technical capabilities described are easily feasible.

 

Consider how a domestic/office robot’s inherent functions could translate into surveillance risks, validating these concerns. Domestic and commercial robots are easily capable of continuous video/audio recording. Their persistent presence in living and office spaces allows recording of activities, conversations, private documents, and guests. Tesla’s Optimus is trained via video feeds recorded by employees in homes/offices, demonstrating the central role of vision data.

 

Keep in mind also that these robots will require sophisticated mapping and spatial awareness. To navigate a home or office, a robot must create a detailed 3D map of the layout, the contents of all rooms, and of the daily routines. Think of smart vacuum cleaners, but with far greater detail and context from advanced sensors.

 

Consider the network connectivity issue. The robots will need a constant connection to the internet for updates, and unsupervised cloud AI processing creates a perfect channel for data exfiltration. This is the core mechanism, analogous to the smartphone voice assistant issues cited above, but with a permanence. But, in contrast to your phone, these robots will by necessity possess sophisticated object and facial recognition software. Advanced AI can identify individuals, specific objects (like medication, mail), and even infer activities. Public security robots already use this tech; domestic models would have more intimate data.

 

The core argument for robotic “espionage” is strong. The technology for pervasive in-home surveillance via robots is not speculative; it’s an inherent feature of their design. The lack of specific, robust Western regulation for this new device category is the critical vulnerability. My reference above to Rolls-Royce may not include GPS location, but the broader point about continuous data streams from embedded technology is perfectly valid and more relevant than ever. The public postures of Tesla and of Elon Musk do not provide any enforceable guarantees for end-user privacy in a final consumer robotic product. In fact, the issue has been studiously ignored. It would be a grave mistake for the public to underestimate the gravity of this.

 

Elon Musk’s Sexbot

 

“We have implemented technological measures to prevent the Grok account from allowing the editing of images of real people in revealing clothing,” reads an announcement on X. Source

 

It is well-known that Musk has turned Twitter into a pornographic and racist website. [68] The LA Times wrote that “it should matter that he is transforming a major social media platform into a racist cesspool.” [69] Another media article referred to an “Overwhelming Explosion Of Adult Content On X”. [70] MSN wrote that “Elon Musk’s X Is Drowning In Adult Content”. [71] It is so bad that one Ph.D. researcher claimed Musk had turned Twitter into “the primary advertising venue at this point for sex workers”. [72] Several columnists have said X is now so graphic that “you would never open the website in public”. Even worse, Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo said she was quitting Elon Musk’s X, which she described as a “global sewer”. [73]

 

Musk has accomplished much the same with Grok. He added a “spicy” – i.e. pornographic – version where, for the payment of $30 per month, users can carry on obscene sexual conversations with a chatbot[74] This NSFW (Not Safe For Work) version will produce not only sexually-explicit chats, but it contains an image and video generator. Use your imagination. Given these two, and considering Elon Musk’s known sexual depravities, [75] you can bet he is already planning an Optimus sex-bot. Use your imagination. The best we can do, is to hope that he fails.

 

Conclusion

 

Optimus’s “potential” is its primary asset. Its value is almost entirely speculative, based on a future where AGI is solved and seamlessly integrated into a humanoid form. Because the payoff is in the future, it’s immune to being disproven today. Failure to meet a deadline is just a “delay,” not a refutation of the vision. The burden of proof for Optimus’ core promise – human-like learning – is perpetually deferred to an unspecified future date. The goalposts for Optimus move so often, they are on wheels. This is classic Elon Musk. When something fails, dismiss the failure and shift the focus to a different and more grandiose fairy tale for the future.

 

Creating a robot that can walk with a stable, human-like gait, navigate real-world environments, and perform specific tasks reliably is a monumental feat of mechanical, electrical, and software engineering. This is the hard, unsexy work of building the foundation. Musk’s promise of AGI, while intellectually fascinating, is being used as a rhetorical shortcut to avoid the immense challenges of that foundational work. It hand-waves away the present difficulties with the promise of a future magic bullet.

 

Tesla’s Optimus remains a well-funded research project, but its claims of superiority are not based on current, demonstrable reality. They are based on faith in a future technological breakthrough. Optimus’s shift in training methods was an admission of prior failures, and highlights the lack of public, verifiable demonstrations from Musk. IRON’s catwalk represents a real engineering milestone, while Optimus’s “potential” remains just that—potential. As proof, Musk claims that “in a year”, Optimus will be able to thread a needle. [76] Like Tesla’s FSD and everything else, this monumental event will happen “next year”. So far, not one of these “promises” have been realised. Musk constantly dismisses current failures to replace them with predictions of something even greater happening in the future.

 

Tesla’s public demonstrations have primarily shown Optimus in a controlled environment, and the “official” Optimus video record has either been heavily edited or AI-generated. Tesla’s approach secretly relied heavily on teleoperation (human pilots remotely controlling the robot) and motion capture. Almost all “evidence” of Optimus’ abilities has been deceptive or misleading. While it has demonstrated tasks like sorting battery cells or performing simple yoga stretches, its locomotion has not undergone the same public “trial by fire” or had to overcome the same level of public skepticism regarding its basic reality.

 

The recent shift to training Optimus primarily by “watching videos” is a monumental admission that the previous methods had failed in their core mission. Experts agree that “video learning” for robotics is an unsolved, “moonshot” problem. By pivoting to this, Tesla is effectively saying, “We haven’t solved the practical robotics challenge, so we are now betting on solving a monumental AI challenge instead.”

 

IRON is a finished product prototype, ready for mass-production. It has a defined aesthetic (with male and female forms), it has been presented on a stage like a consumer product, and its movements are polished for public display. It is being groomed for specific, public-facing service roles. Optimus prototypes, as seen in Tesla’s carefully edited videos, look like engineering testbeds. They are often unfinished “bare metal” skeletons with exposed wiring, being tested in lab or factory settings. While this is a valid stage of development, it reinforces the image of a project that is still in the early R&D phase, far from a polished, deployable product.

 

Moreover, Musk has stated that the current version of Optimus will be scrapped and he will attempt to design a true humanoid robot, so human-like that “you will want to poke it to see if it’s real”. One observer wrote, “FSD was being massively overhyped via staged videos for years, and Tesla is doing the same with Optimus.” Another wrote, “Elon is doing the same thing with Optimus that he did with FSD – put out staged videos to hype something that likely won’t be real for many years to come.” [77] In all other instances where he has encountered problems with “his” design of anything, Musk never stopped to re-think but instead just doubled down on his original path. If this assessment is true, Optimus is a rushed, flawed product headed for history’s dust bin.

 

Musk’s “Doubling Down” pattern is a critical insight. This observation about his behavior is well-documented across his ventures (FSD, Cybertruck production, Twitter acquisition). He consistently frames blind stubbornness as visionary determination. In the context of Optimus, this pattern suggests a high likelihood that Tesla will continue to iterate on the current, fundamentally limited bipedal design rather than undertake a ground-up redesign. It will prioritise software demos and ambitious future roadmaps to distract from today’s hardware deficiencies. It will struggle to escape the compromises baked into the initial, rushed architecture.

 

The design chasm between Optimus and robots like IRON is not just a gap; it’s a difference in kind. Closing that gap would require Tesla discarding most of the Optimus design and starting over with a more mature outlook. Given Elon Musk’s established patterns, such a fundamental course correction seems improbable. Therefore, the project’s greatest legacy may ultimately be as a cautionary tale about the limits of applying a “move fast” software mentality to the hard, iterative problems of advanced robotics hardware.

 

If a company consistently fails to meet its own benchmarks for a functional prototype, and its response is not to deliver a better prototype but to instead propose an even grander, more technically speculative vision for what it might do someday, then that vision can rightly be classified as an empty, face-saving mechanism.

 

Tesla have demonstrated a robot that can walk without falling down, and can perform a limited set of teleoperated or pre-programmed tasks. The promise that one will suddenly leapfrog into AGI-powered super-capability is, until proven otherwise, just a story. The burden of proof is on Tesla to demonstrate that Optimus can do anything comparable to IRON’s catwalk, let alone surpass it. Until then, the assessment that IRON represents a more significant and real achievement in the present is not just reasonable; it’s the only conclusion based on the evidence we have.

 

The market reality for domestic or commercial office robots does not favor the Optimus approach. Who would want a domestic robot that looks and walks like Optimus when they could have an IRON companion? For a robot to be accepted in a home or workplace, it must be safe, reliable, and non-threatening. A robot that moves with an unnatural, jerky gait and has an industrial, exposed-mechanism aesthetic fails on these counts. IRON’s focus on biomimicry and a more refined form factor is directly aligned with the requirements of a companion or service robot. Optimus, in its current form, is not. The assessment that Optimus is headed for the dust bin of history is a highly plausible, if not the most likely, outcome.

 

While Tesla may eventually produce limited numbers of Optimus for specific, controlled industrial tasks, the idea of millions or even billions of these units in homes and general workplaces seems fantastical based on the current platform. Examining all of Elon Musk’s prior statements and claims about humanoid robots, my conclusion is that he naively (and thoughtlessly) assumed that only he would ever design and produce a humanoid robot. When Musk spoke of “millions” of his robots being in homes and factories, he clearly assumed that his Optimus would be the world’s only option. If you examine his statements today (as of late 2025), he is still apparently unable to accept or understand that the world of humanoid robots has already passed him by, that there are today many dozens of similar products that are mostly superior to his.

 

Musk appears to have only the most juvenile understanding of the humanoid robot world. His appreciation of this new technology seems limited to his comments in a video where he said, “Who wouldn’t want an R2D2 or a C3PO in their homes?” [38] In that same video, Musk stated that “nobody has a useful robot today. Tesla will make the first useful robot.” The realities of humanoid robots are very far removed from the understanding of this ten-year-old mentality. In another short video, Musk babbles about how the only safety for humanity is to have “a maximally truth-seeking AI”[38a] while it is well-documented to the point of legend that his own version of AI – Grok – has been trained to lie[39] [40] This is surreal to the point of mental deficiency. Elon Musk appears to live in his own fantasy world where reality is manufactured at will.

 

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/and https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

2186604556@qq.com

*

NOTES – Part 20

[1] Engineer testimony: A video of Tesla promoting autonomous driving is fake

https://baike.baidu.com/reference/62591749/533aYdO6cr3_z3kATKDZz6ihMy6SMImutrLWUbFzzqIPmGapB5nyTcYm6NIv_-diBkXIvtdsZcEGsu2-WxIZgaFPM6pkAOFNn3f5UjPCzLk

[2] IROBOT CO-FOUNDER CALLS OUT ELON MUSK’S OPTIMUS ROBOT ‘FANTASY’

https://www.slashgear.com/2029521/irobot-roomba-cofounder-elon-musk-tesla-optimus-robot/

[3] IROBOT CO-FOUNDER CALLS OUT ELON MUSK’S OPTIMUS ROBOT ‘FANTASY’

https://www.slashgear.com/2029521/irobot-roomba-cofounder-elon-musk-tesla-optimus-robot/

 [4] X-Peng’s new generation of robots take a cat step! Netizen: I suspect that there is a real person hidden in it.

https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_31912165

[5] IRON catwalk

[6] A video of the demonstration; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Ag_SgsHVg

[7] XPENG Cuts Open Its Lifelike IRON Robot on Stage

https://www.eweek.com/news/xpeng-iron-robot/

[8] Automaker XPENG releases new video to prove its robot ‘IRON’ is not human

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202511/1347511.shtml

[9] Tesla Previews Robot with Human in Spandex Suit

https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a37359183/tesla-robot-human-in-spandex/

[10] Tesla’s humanoid robot is a joke, and Musk’s hype is outrageous

https://m.ithome.com/html/570639.htm

[11] Tesla humanoid robot remotely controlled exposed, Musk faces criticism

https://statementdog.com/news/10103

[12] Tesla Optimus robots face suspicions of human control

https://news.kbs.co.kr/news/pc/view/view.do?ncd=8082379

[13] Optimus appears to be remotely controlled

pic.twitter.com/L89fz8cnOM

[14] Milan Kovac, Head Of Tesla Optimus Program, Departs; https://cleantechnica.com/2025/06/09/milan-kovac-head-of-tesla-optimus-program-departs/

[15] Abandoning motion capture and fully turning to pure visual data collection, Tesla Optimus’ latest training progress is exposed!

https://app.myzaker.com/news/article.php?pk=69085c5fb15ec07899597a79&f=qqconnect

[16] Optimus picking up water bottle

https://v.douyin.com/jfZdvqq8wN0/

https://www.douyin.com/video/7580920295214709477

[17] Optimus knocked over all the bottles and fell down

https://v.douyin.com/TesmQDQPsjk/

[18] Optimus was being teleoperated

https://v.douyin.com/u0i1xU_tqWk/

https://www.douyin.com/video/7581399670199455022

[19] Abandoning motion capture and fully turning to pure visual data collection, Tesla Optimus’ latest training progress is exposed!

https://app.myzaker.com/news/article.php?pk=69085c5fb15ec07899597a79&f=qqconnect

[20] Musk said that “robots earn $30 trillion a year” Tesla set off an AI super wave?

https://finance.eastmoney.com/a/202507283469269722.html

[21] Tesla’s Optimus robot VP is leaving the company; https://techcrunch.com/2025/06/06/teslas-optimus-robot-vp-is-reportedly-leaving-the-company/

[22] Milan Kovac ran Elon Musk’s most important project: What the departure of the Optimus head means for Tesla

https://fortune.com/2025/06/09/milan-kovac-tesla-optimus/

[23] Tesla publicly clarified the mass production time point of OPTIMUS for the first time V3 is expected to be unveiled before Q1 2026

https://vip.stock.finance.sina.com.cn/q/go.php/vReport_Show/kind/lastest/rptid/815043290271/index.phtml

[24] Tesla suspended the production of humanoid robots and modified the design

https://chejiahao.autohome.com.cn/info/20853171#pvareaid=6826274

[25] Tesla humanoid robot, new progress exposed!

https://www.nbd.com.cn/articles/2025-11-03/4127778.html

[26] Tesla’s Optimus robot mass production suffered a setback: annual production fell far short of expectations, with only a few hundred units delivered

https://k.sina.cn/article_1686546714_6486a91a02002z4ie.html

[27] Tesla’s Optimus Robot Project Faces Production Bottlenecks Amid Technical Challenges.

https://www.ainvest.com/news/tesla-optimus-robot-project-faces-production-bottlenecks-technical-challenges-2507/

[27] Tesla suspended robot production, a double blow of leadership turmoil

https://m.163.com/dy/article/K5IE7PSL0556F1QL.html

[28] Tesla suspended the production of humanoid robots and modified the design

https://chejiahao.autohome.com.cn/info/20853171#pvareaid=6826274

[29] Tesla AI VP Milan Kovac Resigns After 9 Years Leading FSD and Optimus Projects

https://gearmusk.com/2025/06/07/tesla-ai-vp-milan-kovac-resigns/

[30] Tesla Optimus robotics vice president Milan Kovac is leaving the company

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/06/tesla-optimus-robotics-vp-is-leaving-the-company.html

[31] Tesla loses some AI staff to a new robotics startup

https://agooka.com/news/usa/tesla-loses-some-ai-staff-to-a-new-robotics-startup/

[32] Tesla Optimus is in shambles as head of program exits, production delayed

https://electrek.co/2025/07/03/tesla-optimus-shambles-head-of-program-exits-production-delayed/

[33] Layoffs and production delays spell darkest hour for Tesla’s Optimus team!

https://xie.infoq.cn/article/3b55819e034e96283e20429f5

[34] Tesla’s Optimus Robot Faces Production Setbacks: Annual Output Falls Far Short of Expectations, With Only Hundreds Delivered

https://tech.huanqiu.com/article/4NeJLNLYm85

[35] The Beauty and the Beast — IRON and Optimus: A Tale of Two Robots

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/22955/

[36] Optimus running, https://v.douyin.com/fYTvvzb0vcI/; https://www.douyin.com/video/7580253071712783643

[37] Three robots running; https://www.douyin.com/video/7579917368638344499

[38] Optimus and T800; https://v.douyin.com/3wEVaDz3IjA/;https://www.douyin.com/video/7580689337700928778

[38] Musk babble on robots (nobody has a useful robot)

https://v.douyin.com/a9oq775TeVk/; https://www.douyin.com/video/7575010626527890730

[38a] Maximally truth-seeking; https://v.douyin.com/owrdSJRfvO8/

[39] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 12 — xAI and Grok; https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/21776/

[40] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 18 — Fraud Update – xAI and Grok; https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/22101/

[41] Tesla’s AI director is reported to have launched an internal mobilization: next year will be the “most difficult year of their lives”

https://baike.baidu.com/reference/62591749/533aYdO6cr3_z3kATPXdzvn5YS7NZNr66-DXV7FzzqIP0XOpSo_sUIEz6NYwsPVmHQ_e_pttbZkGyeGuB0pN6v8WduUzRbwhmX78WzvFzbvwuI9zl4MV-tEW

[42] Ashok Eluswamy

https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E9%98%BF%E8%82%96%E5%85%8B%C2%B7%E5%9F%83%E5%8D%A2%E6%96%AF%E7%93%A6%E7%B1%B3/62591749

[43] Abandoning motion capture and fully turning to pure visual data collection, Tesla Optimus’ latest training progress is exposed!

https://app.myzaker.com/news/article.php?pk=69085c5fb15ec07899597a79&f=qqconnect

[44] Tesla’s AI head warns that 2026 will face the biggest challenge

https://ai.zol.com.cn/1080/10809664.html

[45] Abandoning motion capture and fully turning to pure visual data collection, Tesla Optimus’ latest training progress is exposed!

https://app.myzaker.com/news/article.php?pk=69085c5fb15ec07899597a79&f=qqconnect

[46] Tesla and technology executives debate the path of autonomous driving technology: pure vision VS multi-sensor fusion

https://news.zol.com.cn/1037/10370329.html

[47] The Beauty and the Beast — IRON and Optimus: A Tale of Two Robots

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/22955/

[48] Hardcore showdown: X-Peng IRON and Tesla Optimus, a technical route game on the humanoid robot track

https://blog.csdn.net/weixin_73527660/article/details/154578477

[49] Hardcore showdown: Xpeng IRON and Tesla Optimus, a technical route game on the humanoid robot track

https://blog.csdn.net/weixin_73527660/article/details/154578477

[50] 2025 Robot First Year: X-peng IRON/Yushu H2/Optimus Prime/1X-Neo software and hardware structure analysis

https://blog.csdn.net/VBsemi/article/details/154837120

[51] Hardcore showdown: X-peng IRON and Tesla Optimus, a technical route game on the humanoid robot track

https://blog.csdn.net/weixin_73527660/article/details/154578477

[52] X-peng Motors unveils AI humanoid robot Iron, challenging Tesla’s Optimus

https://m.huanqiu.com/article/4K970yDIWco

[53] Tesla’s humanoid robots aren’t the right fit for factories, says former Optimus lead

https://www.techspot.com/news/108056-tesla-humanoid-robots-arent-right-fit-factories-former.html

[54] Tesla suspended the production of humanoid robots and modified the design

https://chejiahao.autohome.com.cn/info/20853171#pvareaid=6826274

[55] Rolls-Royce uses engine performance data to improve service

https://www.qoco.aero/case-studies/case-study-rolls-royce-uses-engine-performance-data-to-improve-service

[56] Intelligent Engine Health Monitoring

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/discover/2019/intelligent-engine-health-monitoring.aspx

[57] The power of engine health information

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2024-04-26/power-engine-health-information

[58] Siri “unintentionally” recorded private convos; Apple agrees to pay $95M

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/01/apple-agrees-to-pay-95m-delete-private-conversations-siri-recorded/

[59] IDF bans Android phones for senior officers, iPhones now mandatory, Army Radio reports

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-876327

[60] Here Are The Facts About The Kill Switch Mandate For Cars That’s Already Passed

https://www.carscoops.com/2023/12/here-are-the-facts-about-the-kill-switch-mandate-for-cars-thats-already-passed/

[61] Are We Really Fine With Government Required Driver Monitoring And Remote Kill Switches?

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/cars/news-blog/are-we-really-fine-with-government-required-driver-monitoring-and-remote-kill-44507698

[62] Your Car Is Watching You

https://www.countere.com/home/section-24220-the-future-of-cars-remote-kill-switch

[63] Subaru Flaw Allowed Remote Control of Millions of Cars in the US

https://cyberinsider.com/subaru-flaw-allowed-remote-control-of-millions-of-cars-in-the-us/

[64] Tesla owners will be able to remotely control their car through their phones ‘like RC cars’ within ~6 weeks, says Elon Musk

https://electrek.co/2018/11/01/tesla-remotely-control-car-phones-like-rc-cars-elon-musk/

[65] The national standard GB/T 45502-2025 “General Requirements for Information Security of Service Robots” led by China Evaluation is about to be implemented, and CCID robot certification escorts product safety

https://cstc.org.cn/info/1796/256391.htm

[66] General requirements for information security of service robots

https://webstore.spc.net.cn/bwonline/9e2b74f7423f548d405996e62937064a.html

[67] General requirements for information security of service robots

http://www1.csres.com/detail/425201.html

[68] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 13 — Neuralink, DOGE, Twitter

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/21803/

[69] Why Elon Musk, the bully, is seen by many, including liberals, as a hero

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-12-04/elon-musk-racism-x-bully-savior-culture

[70] Elon Musk Promises ‘Major Purge’ To Wipe Off Overwhelming Explosion Of Adult Content On X

https://www.benzinga.com/news/24/04/38104457/elon-musk-promises-major-purge-to-wipe-off-overwhelming-explosion-of-adult-content-on-x?itm_source=parsely-api

[71] Elon Musk’s X Is Drowning In Adult Content

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/elon-musks-x-is-drowning-in-adult-content-so-much-that-you-cant-scroll-it-in-public/ar-BB1kYA8q

[72] X is testing ‘adult content’ communities, screenshots suggest

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/business/x-adult-content-communities-screenshots-twitter

[73] Paris mayor quits X, calling social media platform a ‘vast global sewer’

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20231128-paris-mayor-quits-x-calling-social-media-platform-a-vast-global-sewer

[74] Grok App Adds AI Image and Video Generator With NSFW ‘Spicy’ Mode

https://www.pcmag.com/news/grok-app-adds-ai-image-and-video-generator-with-nsfw-spicy-mode

[75] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 2. Character Summary of a Delusional Sociopath

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/20682/

[76] Tesla Optimus humanoid robot will be able to thread a needle in a year

https://www.teslaoracle.com/2023/12/22/tesla-optimus-humanoid-robot-will-be-able-to-thread-a-needle-in-a-year-says-elon-musk/

[77] Milan Kovac, Head Of Tesla Optimus Program, Departs

https://cleantechnica.com/2025/06/09/milan-kovac-head-of-tesla-optimus-program-departs/

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

The Constellation Con: Starlink’s Deployment in Iran Dispels the Utopian Rhetoric and Lays Bare the Real Business Plan

$
0
0


The Constellation Con: Starlink’s Deployment in Iran Dispels the Utopian Rhetoric and Lays Bare the Real Business Plan




 

 As protests erupted across Iran and the government severed internet access for millions, a digital lifeline appeared from the heavens, according to the BBC. Elon Musk’s Starlink, in a move hailed by advocates as a blow for freedom, waived subscription fees to provide free, uncensorable satellite internet to users within the country. It was a dramatic real-world test of the technology’s promise to empower the oppressed. But this was not a humanitarian operation; it was a live-fire demonstration of a new geopolitical weapon. The Iran incident lays bare the true, high-stakes logic behind Starlink’s constellation, revealing why the rhetoric of global democratization was always a cover for a system whose sustainable clients are not remote villages, but states, spies, and the architects of regime change.   The promise was seductive and perfectly of our time: a billionaire visionary, leveraging private rocketry, would blanket the Earth in a constellation of satellites, beaming the internet to the most remote village, the most isolated researcher, the most underserved community. Starlink sold itself as the great democratizer, finally bridging the digital divide with the sheer audacity of its technology. But a closer examination of the brutal physics and unforgiving economics of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite internet reveals a different story. The dream of global, affordable connectivity was never a viable business plan; it was the compelling narrative masking a system whose only sustainable customers are the world’s most powerful—and deep-pocketed—actors: the military, the intelligence community, and the financial trading houses. 
  

The Fleeting Architecture: A Perpetual Money Furnace

  
 
  The foundational flaw in the democratization argument is the inherent nature of LEO itself. Unlike traditional geostationary satellites that sit in a fixed, high orbit, Starlink’s satellites fly close to Earth to reduce latency. This proximity comes at a catastrophic cost: atmospheric drag. These satellites are not immortal pieces of infrastructure; they are disposable assets with a functional lifespan of just 5-7 years. After this, they de-orbit and burn up.   Therefore, Starlink is not a one-time deployment. It is a perpetual, automated conveyor belt from factory, to launchpad, to orbit, to a fiery grave. Maintaining a mega-constellation of thousands—and eventually tens of thousands—of operational satellites requires the continuous, staggering expense of manufacturing, launching, and managing replacements just to stand still. This isn’t just an operational cost; it’s a thermodynamic tax imposed by physics itself. To suggest this system could be sustained by monthly subscriptions from rural families or developing-world villages is a fantasy of arithmetic. The capital and operational expenditure demand revenue streams of an entirely different magnitude.  

 

The Real Customers: Power, Not People


  Once the untenable economics of mass-market, low-cost provision are accepted, the true potential business models come into focus. Only entities with near-limitless budgets and needs that justify extreme expense can underwrite such a system.   1 - The Military & Geopolitical Player: The U.S. Department of Defense has been an early and lavish funder, signing contracts worth hundreds of millions. The reason is clear: Starlink provides a resilient, global, high-bandwidth, low-latency communication network that is largely invulnerable to traditional attacks on ground infrastructure or even individual satellites. For expeditionary forces, drone operations, and command-and-control in denied areas, it is a revolutionary capability. For a nation like the U.S.—or any aspiring geopolitical power—controlling such a network is a strategic imperative, not a charitable venture. 2 - Intelligence & Regime Dynamics: A global mesh network that can provide independent, hard-to-block internet access is a potent tool for influence operations. It can bypass national firewalls, support specific communication channels in sensitive regions, and serve as an instrument of soft (or not-so-soft) power. The ability to selectively provide or deny service, as glimpsed in conflict zones, demonstrates its value as a geopolitical lever. This isn’t about giving everyone a voice; it’s about controlling which voices get a platform and when. 3 - Ultra-High-Frequency Trading (HFT): In the world of finance, milliseconds are worth billions. The speed of light in a vacuum is about 47% faster than in fibre-optic cable. A global satellite mesh offers the potential for the shortest possible latency path between, say, the London and Tokyo stock exchanges. For trading firms where a microsecond advantage translates to monumental profit, paying a premium for a fractional speed edge is simply the cost of doing business. Starlink, for them, isn’t about broadband for a household; it’s about constructing the ultimate, planet-spanning ticker tape.

Conclusion: The Narrative as a Necessary Fuel


  This is not to say Starlink has no public benefit. Users in remote areas with no alternatives are genuine customers. But they are not the system’s economic foundation; they are a useful beta test, a source of ancillary revenue, and—crucially—the source of its legitimizing narrative.   The dream of democratization was essential. It provided the cultural and political cover to launch tens of thousands of satellites into contested orbital shells. It framed the venture as progressive and humanistic, deflecting concerns about space debris, astronomical interference, and private control of global infrastructure. It was the story that allowed the real, financially-viable architecture to be built.   Starlink is a breathtaking technical achievement. But it is not philanthropy. It is a high-cost, high-value utility whose economics are forever tethered to the short lifespans of its components. In the final calculation, the books can only be balanced by the oldest and most powerful forces in human societywar, espionage, and money. The masses were the premise, not the purpose.



EN — LARRY ROMANOFF: Multi-Party Democracy – A Useful Substitute for Civil War

$
0
0

 


Multi-Party Democracy – A Useful Substitute for Civil War

By Larry Romanoff

 

 

Source

 

 

 

Let’s see. We’re having a birthday party and half of the children want to go to the zoo and half to the park. So we separate the two groups, give them sticks and let them fight it out. Whichever group wins, can make all the decisions. Would you do that? Well, why not? That’s multi-party democracy. Firmly separate your population on the basis of some ideology and let them fight. In a Multi-Party Democracy, there is no room for cooperation or consensus. We don’t talk; we fight. I win, you lose. That’s the system, inherently based not on harmony and consensus but on conflict.

 

It’s the cornerstone of the democratic system that the ‘winners’ control everything and the ‘losers’ are totally marginalised. In Western political society there is little apparent concern for the losers even though they can form 50% or more of the population. Western multi-party democracy is the only political system in the world designed to disenfranchise, isolate and betray at least half of the population.

 

If we wanted to separate our population politically into two ideological ‘parties’, the logical division would be a gender separation of men and women. Or maybe a sexual division – the homos and the heteros. That should make an interesting election campaign. Unfortunately for democracy, the deliberate cleavage of our societies for purposes of politics was done according to perhaps the most inflammatory of human characteristics, an irreconcilable simian-theological divide, creating two factions perpetually at each other’s throats.

 

We have many names for the ideological teams:Liberal-Conservative, Labor-Capitalist, Democrat-Republican. We sometimes refer to them as the Left Wing and Right Wing, but the division is more sinister than these names suggest. This ideological rift that has been created for the sake of politics is really between the ideological left and the religious right between the pacifists and the war-mongers. And it appears that, though I make no claim to sociological credentials, human society, at least Western society, will automatically cleave along these lines if given a fertile chance. When we look at the often vehement enthusiasm with which many Westerners embrace their political convictions, it is apparent that this separation, this cleavage of people according to their propensity for war-mongering, involves some of the deepest and most primitive instincts and emotions of the human psyche. What sane person would consciously divide a population based on this ideology? And for what purpose?

 

January 2026 marks a breaking point. What was perceived in 2019 as a real estate whim (quickly labeled “absurd” in Copenhagen) has become, under the second Trump administration, a coercive demand. Source

 

The ideological rifts inherent in party politics have been introduced into Western government – by design – solely and precisely because they induce the conflict so necessary to any team sport. How can we have a competition if everyone is on the same team, just trying to get the job done? The inescapable conclusion is that Western democracy – politics, in fact – was deliberately and cleverly designed not to select good government but to delude the peasantry into participation in a primitive, socio-theological rite of competition, conflict and victory. A useful substitute for a civil war.

 

“You’ll own nothing and be happy!

…and the elites continue with their agenda of controlling the government and running the country. Nothing has changed!

 

But it’s all a cruel hoax. “The People” are lured into choosing sides, engaging in battle, then forced into a patently unfair resolution by voting. The losers have been browbeaten, bullied, propagandised and hoodwinked into believing and accepting that, because they are the losers, their wishes, rights and welfare are now irrelevant and they must remain silent. To the victor goes the spoils. You lost the war; I set the terms. In fact, ‘the people’ are merely cannon-fodder in a pseudo-religious battle, joining the team, supporting, paying, protesting, yelling and screaming and, finally, voting. But then the game is over, everyone returns to their senses and their lives, and the elites continue with their agenda of controlling the government and running the country.Nothing has changed.

 

The combination of the primitive instincts and emotions that drive politics, team sports and religion is not only potentially explosive but essentially mindless; a kind of yearning herd mentality with a propensity for violence. It is clear that politics, in the Western sense, is seldom guided by reason. Reason can accommodate and withstand discourse; ideology on the other hand, cannot. Politics, religion, and team sports have a common root in the Western psyche. None can be discussed intelligently for very long; all raise violent emotions, all suffer from ideology that is blind to fact and reason, all possess the same primitive psychological attractions. People don’t join a political party from a commitment to good government, and they don’t join a Western religion to learn about God. In both cases, they do it to join a winning team.

 

Most Westerners will tell us that the multi-party electoral system is about freedom and choice and is “real democracy”. But the multi-party system is not about freedom and choice, and it is not about either democracy or government. It’s about a fabricated game of social conflict and competition, about playing in a team sport.

 

In a multi-party democracy, the “game” is not good government but the election process itself. After my team wins the election, the game is over and we all go home. In the Western world, it is ‘politics’ that is the attraction, not ‘government’. I sincerely doubt that many people who are active in the political process give even a single thought to the quality of government that will emerge. Their only focus is winning the game for their team. The process has become so corrupted that Western democracy doesn’t even pretend to refer to the quality of government that might ensue as the end result after an election. And this is because the end result is the process itself – the competition, winning the election, nothing more. In a very real sense, the medium has become the message.

 

Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” is pure fiction and has never existed anywhere.

 

In every country with a multi-party democratic government,‘the people’ are becoming increasingly aloof, disinterested and disenfranchised, one symptom of which is voter turnouts of as little as 30% in some major countries. That number is both astonishing and instructive, since it accurately reflects the dawning realisation that voters have little if any influence on either an election outcome or on the policies of any government so elected. People in Western countries are finally rejecting the delusion that they actually select their government.In any democracy, voters do not select the candidates, nor do they choose or nominate anyonethe Parties do thatVoters are then offered an after-the-fact opportunity to rubber-stamp one of two clones. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” is pure fiction and has never existed anywhere.

 

AIPAC would use its vast funds to oust progressive members of Congress who have criticized human rights abuses by Israel and the country’s receipt of billions of U.S. dollars in military funding. Source

 

One of the more distressing congenital deformities of nations with multi-party politics is that by the time all the special-interest groups – the lobbyists, senators, financiers, bankers and flakes have grabbed their share, nothing useful is likely to remain for the common good.The outcomes are preordained because elected US officials are too busy looking after the interests of AIPAC, the Jewish lobby, the CIA, the US military, the defense contractors, the international bankers and the big multi-nationals, to worry about the people and the nation.The welfare of the voters is increasingly irrelevant.US-style Multi-Party Democracy is the one form of government that will guarantee decisions will be made to benefit the elite’s private interest groups instead of the country as a whole.

 

It is too late to reverse course, too late to eliminate dysfunctional ideologies and the curse of politics from government. The hole is too deep; we cannot return to the beginning and start again. To do so would require a social upheaval equivalent to a popular revolution, and any Western government would viciously put down any such attempt. In spite of all the propaganda to the contrary, no Western democracy would permit ‘the people’ to actually gain control of their government.

 

The Origin of Multi-Party Politics

 

 

We often credit ancient Greece for the conceptual creation of what today we term ‘democracy’, but that ancient form is not what manifests itself today. The transition from the European monarchies to a multi-party electoral selection process was not a spontaneous development, did not occur from natural evolution, nor because it was the epitome of the development of government. Rather than being a natural evolution, this system of dividing a nation on the basis of inflammatory emotional ideologies was deliberately created by a group of European elites as a method to pacify populations with the belief that they were in charge of their destinies while being controlled by puppet-masters in the parties, an enormous fraud perpetrated on unsuspecting populations.

 

 

Montagu Norman, who was the Governor of The Bank of England for several decades, had this to say in a speech to the US Bankers’ Association in New York City in 1924:

 

“By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus, by discrete action, we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.” And: “These truths are well known among our principal men, who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world.”

 

We have another excellent example of the above in Boris Berezovsky, once the most powerful of the Jewish Russian oligarchs, who almost completed plans to transform Russia into a fake two-party state of Left-Wing Social Democrats and Right-Wing Neocons, in which heated public battles would be provoked and fought on socially-divisive issues, while both parties would be controlled from the stage wings by the same small group of ruling elites and bankers.

 

“With the citizens permanently divided and popular dissatisfaction safely channeled into meaningless dead-ends, these puppet-masters could maintain unlimited wealth and power for themselves, with little threat to their reign.”

 

There is no way to misunderstand this. This is the principal reason the architects and proponents of the New World Order have been so determined for so long to indoctrinate Western populations in the religion of multi-party politics. No other system of governance provides as much opportunity for external control of nations and mass deception of populations as does a multi-party electoral system.

 

When these international banking elites spawned the European revolutions that removed all the monarchs, they accomplished many ends besides the removal of a person who had absolute power over them, including the power to expel them from a nation when they became too powerful or troublesome. As a replacement, they introduced a fragmented ‘government by the people’ with a political ideology that would bitterly divide societies and make the population subject to fear, and therefore easily manipulated and controlled. They created the opportunity to either found or take over the central banks of many nations, thereby obtaining financial, and effectively total, control of those countries. They did indeed secure for themselves ‘that which had been so well planned and accomplished’.

 

Dylan Ratigan, a best-selling US author, expressed it perfectly when he wrote, “Power, whether in an electoral system or a corporate boardroom, originates with the people who control the nomination of candidates, not with those who “vote” after this process is complete”. Those who nominate, dictate.[1]

 

Americans tend to think of political parties as a kind of ideological abstract, as a way of defining people’s attitudes, but political parties are not abstract; they are real, and they have all the power and control. The people enter the process only at the very end, in a pretense of choosing those whom the parties have already selected. This cannot change unless the parties themselves are eliminated, and that will never happen. The small elite group who control the political parties from the shadows are far more powerful than the people, and they will never relinquish control.

 

Someone wrote that “The faceless plutocracy that controls the US government promotes an illusion of legitimacy by allowing the people to vote for a variety of political candidates … who have been bought and paid for by the plutocracy. The fiction extends to the “independent” judiciary, whose members are carefully selected by the plutocracy and who promote its agenda.”

 

The Right-Wing Brain

 

We now have scientific proof that those who belong to the political Right-Wing are more primitive and less able to reason clearly than the rest of us, according to a recent study by the UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience in the UK. Neuroscientists have discovered evidence that the brains of political Right-Wingers are a different shape from those of normal people, lacking grey matter in a vital portion of the brain associated with development, indicating a strong correlation with primitive political views and religions based on witchcraft and crop circles.[2][3]

 

Right-Wingers have a thinner section of the brain that permits rational and conscious thought – the anterior cingulate portion, and a much thicker, enlarged part – the amygdala – which is an ancient part of the brain associated with primitive emotional aggression. Given the typically pre-human tendencies of the political Right Wing, it appears that these political allegiances are hard-wired into these people as a genetic defect due to the shrunken portions of their brain related to human development and civilisation. No surprise there.

 

 

This stunning scientific revelation finally proves what we always suspected, namely that the Political Right Wing is a kind of Cro-Magnon deviant from the “normal” Left-Wing brain, having somehow escaped evolutionary extinction while preserving its Neanderthal outlook. We now see why it is so difficult to explain things to conservatives in ways they can understand, since their mental processes function only in terms of three or less bulleted points, migraine headaches being the most common result of exposure to concepts. It seems their primitive religious and political inclinations would be unresponsive to education or environment, which would explain the high US crime rates and propensity for guns and whacky Christian religions. This explains much about Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Ronald Reagan, all of the US Congress, much of the population of Israel, most of the UK and 85% of Australia.

 

Actually, the Right-Wing brain study was the shocking and totally-unexpected result of a joke, and was widely-reported in the UK media at the time. A gentleman whose name unfortunately escapes me was planning a political debate on a UK talk show. As preparation, and as a joke, he collected some neurologists and brain specialists and asked if they could identify anything in brain scans that made Right-Wing people naturally violent and stupid. The scientists dutifully performed said brain scans and other examinations and discovered to their great surprise there really were significant physical differences in the brain structures between those who identified as either Liberal or Conservative. This surprise naturally spawned many other studies and the results are now classic.

 

In 2011, Samuel Goldman wrote a useful article on this same issue, noting that sane people “have dismissed conservatism as a mental defect ever since it emerged as a distinctive brand of political thought”.[4] Thomas Paine equated conservative minds with “an obliteration of knowledge”. Goldman related John Stuart Mill’s assertion that, “although not all conservatives are stupid, most stupid people are conservative”.[5] Theodore Adorno diagnosed conservative views as symptoms of a pathological “authoritarian personality”.[6].

 

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Finally, the universe is unfolding as it should. If we can evolve a little further, perhaps we can consign the Political Right Wing to the historical trash bin and build a more peaceful future for those of us who survive.

 

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

 

Other Works by this Author

 

ESSAYS ON CHINA  Volume One

ESSAYS ON CHINA Volume 2

ESSAYS ON CHINA Volume Three 

Who Starts All The Wars?New!

What we Are Not Told :  German POWs in America – What Happened to Them?

The Richest Man in the World

The Power Behind the Throne

The Jewish Hasbara in All its Glory

PROPAGANDA and THE MEDIA 

BERNAYS AND PROPAGANDA 

Democracy – The Most Dangerous Religion

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 1 — How the US Became Rich 

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 2 — Life in a Failed State

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 3 — The Branding of America

Police State America Volume One

Police State America Volume Two

Essays on America

FILLING THE VOID

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE IN ACTION

THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

False Flags and Conspiracy Theories

Kamila Valieva

 

 

LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS & PDF ARTICLES

 

 Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2026

 

China Economic Indicator: The Atomic Architecture of Power

$
0
0

  F0F8FF

The Atomic Architecture of Power

Nanocrystals and the New Frontier of Tech Sovereignty


Jan 19

 

 

 

To understand the quiet revolution occurring in China’s laboratories, one must first grasp the profound significance of nanocrystals. Imagine the materials that make up our world—the silicon in our chips, the compounds in our batteries—not as monolithic blocks, but as intricate structures built from tiny, atomic-scale building blocks. Nanocrystals are precisely those building blocks: perfectly engineered particles, often just a few hundred atoms across, where their exact arrangement dictates their revolutionary properties. By custom-designing these structures, scientists can conjure materials with preternatural abilities—crystals that emit exceptionally pure light for next-generation displays, others that catalyse chemical reactions for green energy, or new forms that make electronics faster and smaller. This mastery over matter at its most fundamental level is the next great leap, promising to redefine industries from healthcare to defence.

 

For years, however, China’s ability to design these materials was constrained by a critical bottleneck: the scientific instruments needed to see them. Advanced tools like nanocrystal structure rapid analysers—essential for mapping the atomic architecture of new creations—were predominantly imported. This reliance created a strategic vulnerability. China’s recent breakthrough, developing its first fully domestic, high-precision analyser, is therefore a watershed moment. It represents more than lab efficiency; it secures “technological sovereignty” over the process of discovery. The nation can now investigate, iterate, and innovate in advanced materials at its own pace, free from external constraints, turning a point of dependency into autonomous strength.

 

This push for sovereignty converges powerfully with another longstanding strategic advantage: rare earth elements. China dominates the global supply of these critical minerals but has long sought to move beyond exporting raw oxides to capturing the immense value of finished, high-tech components. Here, nanocrystal science provides the key. In a landmark study published in Nature, Chinese researchers achieved a feat that had eluded scientists worldwide: they transformed insulating rare earth nanocrystals into efficient, electrically driven light-emitters. This breakthrough paves the way for these strategic elements to be used not as mere additives, but as the active heart of superior optoelectronic devices, from ultra-high-definition screens to secure near-infrared communication systems.

 

The geopolitical calculus is now clear. First, control the essential tools of discovery (the domestic analyser). Second, leverage unique resources (rare earths) through superior material science to create proprietary next-generation components. Finally, dominate the downstream industries built on these components. This is a deliberate strategy to build an independent, vertically integrated innovation ecosystem from the atomic scale up.

 

Consequently, China’s advances in nanocrystal science are strategically important. They signal a shift from reactive supply-chain defence to a proactive, foundation-building offense in the core arena of advanced material science. The race for the future is increasingly being won not just in vast factories, but in the nano-architecture of atoms—a domain where China is systematically securing the tools, the resources, and the scientific prowess to shape its own technological destiny. 



CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 揭穿埃隆·马斯克——第20部分 — 擎天柱,失败的骗局 –Debunking Elon Musk–Part 20 — Optimus, the Failed Fraud

$
0
0

 


 

揭穿埃隆·马斯克——第20部分 — Debunking Elon Musk–Part 20

擎天柱,失败的骗局 — Optimus, the Failed Fraud

By Larry Romanoff

作者:拉里·罗曼诺夫

翻译:Pearl

 

 

 

 

目录 — Contents

 

欺诈、幻想与缺陷 — Frauds, Fantasies, and Flaws

首先,马斯克/Optimus骗局 — First, the Musk/Optimus Frauds

第二,马斯克/奥普图斯幻想 — Second, the Musk/Optimus Fantasies

第三,马斯克/奥普图斯缺陷 — Third, the Musk/Optimus Flaws

擎天柱(Optimus)的(彻底)失败 — The Unadmitted (Total) Failure of Optimus

供应链挑战 — Supply Chain Challenges

The Espionage Factor — 间谍因素

埃隆·马斯克的性爱机器人 — Elon Musk’s Sexbot

结论 — Conclusion

 

 

首先,马斯克/Optimus骗局 — First, the Musk/Optimus Frauds

 

Elon Musk has a long pattern of questionable media releases. There are many documented instances where he has promoted things or ideas that were later questioned for validity. Musk has often posted videos of Optimus, where its actions were presented as autonomous but were later “clarified” to have been performed in a staged setting and were remotely operated. Many were also revealed to have been heavily edited. This pattern suggests a need for caution with any content originating from Musk or Tesla sources. It’s a shame to have to say this, but with anything involving Elon Musk or his activities, it is always necessary to check the source and corroborate whatever is stated or claimed. Especially with items on social media, whenever you encounter anything surprising or admirable, it’s crucial to check the origin, to ask who published it. If the video was created and/or published by either Elon Musk or Tesla, the results should be considered as almost certainly fake, and not credible.

埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)长期以来一直有发布可疑媒体消息的倾向。有许多有记录的实例表明,他曾推广过后来被质疑有效性的事物或观点。马斯克经常发布Optimus的视频,视频中的行为被描述为自主行为,但后来被“澄清”为是在舞台设置下进行的,并且是远程操作的。许多视频还被揭露出经过了大量编辑。这种模式表明对于来自马斯克或特斯拉消息来源任何内容,都需要保持谨慎。很遗憾不得不说,对于任何涉及埃隆·马斯克或其活动的内容,总是有必要核实消息来源,并对所述或所声称的内容进行佐证。尤其社交媒体上内容,每当你遇到任何令人惊讶或令人钦佩的内容时,检查其来源、询问是谁发布至关重要。如果视频是由埃隆·马斯克或特斯拉创作和/或发布的,那么结果几乎可以肯定为虚假,不可信。

 

It is often only through courtroom testimony in the many lawsuits against Tesla, that the truth emerges about Musk’s fraudulent statements and videos. One example is a suit filed by an ex-Apple engineer against Tesla in 2018, regarding Tesla’s FSD. Ashok Elluswamy, the director of Tesla’s autonomous driving softwaretestified in court that a video produced to demonstrate the efficiency and reliability of Tesla’s FSD, was entirely false and fabricated. [1] He said it was not intended to demonstrate functions that the system possessed, only to describe what might be possible one day. But his claim itself was outrageously false.

在针对特斯拉的众多诉讼中,往往只有通过法庭证词,马斯克欺诈性陈述和视频的真相才会浮出水面。一个例子是2018年一位前苹果工程师就特斯拉的全自动驾驶系统(FSD)对特斯拉提起的诉讼。特斯拉自动驾驶软件主管阿肖克·埃鲁斯瓦米在法庭作证,为展示特斯拉FSD的效率和可靠性制作视频完全是虚假和捏造的[1]他表示,该视频并非旨在展示系统所具备的功能,而只是描述未来可能实现的功能。但他的说法本身就极其荒谬。

 

According to a report by Reuters on January 17, 2025, Elluswami said Elon Musk ordered Tesla’s autonomous driving team to design and record a “system capability demonstration”. “To produce this video, 3D maps were used on the predetermined route from a house in Menlo Park, California to Tesla’s then headquarters. During the trial run, the drivers took over the control. When attempting to show that the Model X could park itself without a driver, the test vehicle crashed into the fence of Tesla’s parking lot.” When Tesla released this video, Musk said on Twitter, “Tesla drove itself (with no human intervention) through city streets to the highway, then to the streets again, and finally found a parking spot.” In the video, there is a sentence: “The person sitting in the driver’s seat was there only for legal reasons. He did nothing. The car was driving by itself.” The video is still available on the Tesla website and has been promoted by Elon Musk as evidence of the reliability of the “Tesla Autopilot”. The contents are entirely false.

根据路透社2025年1月17日的一篇报道,埃卢斯瓦米(Elluswami)表示,埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)曾命令特斯拉自动驾驶团队设计并录制一段“系统能力演示”视频。“为了制作这段视频,在从加利福尼亚州门洛帕克的一所房子到特斯拉当时的总部的预定路线上使用了3D地图。在试运行期间,驾驶员接管了控制。在试图展示Model X可以在没有驾驶员的情况下自动泊车时,测试车辆撞上了特斯拉停车场的围栏。”特斯拉发布这段视频时,马斯克在推特上写道:“特斯拉(在无人干预的情况下)自行驾驶穿越城市街道至高速公路,然后又回到街道,最终找到了一个停车位。”视频中有一句话:“坐在驾驶座上的人只是为了法律原因而存在。他什么也没做。车是自动驾驶的。”该视频目前仍可在特斯拉网站上观看,并被埃隆·马斯克宣传为“特斯拉自动驾驶”可靠性的证据。但内容完全是虚假的。

 

This pattern is universal with Elon Musk and is important for the context of this article on Optimus. Nearly all of Musk’s claims about the current or future capabilities of Optimus are fabricated, with no possibility of fruition, claims that are not only provably false, but ridiculous, and even outrageous. Among the literally dozens of false claims Musk has made, the many Optimus robots walking around at his Cybercab event were later discovered to have been remote controlled. And that means the only thing Musk had actually accomplished was making a robot that didn’t fall over while walking. [2]

这一模式在埃隆·马斯克身上屡见不鲜,对于本文关于Optimus的背景而言至关重要。马斯克关于Optimus当前或未来能力的几乎所有说法都是编造的,不可能实现,这些说法不仅被证明是错误的,而且荒谬至极,甚至令人愤慨。在马斯克所做的数十项虚假声明中,他在Cybercab活动上展示的许多Optimus机器人后来被发现是远程控制的。这意味着马斯克真正实现的唯一一件事就是制造了一个行走时不会摔倒的机器人。 [2]

 

This pattern of constant misrepresentation has led to broader criticism from industry experts, who view Musk’s vision for Optimus as disconnected from the immense technical challenges of robotics. Rodney Brooks, a co-founder of iRobot (creator of the Roomba) and an MIT professor emeritus of robotics, labeled Musk’s entire Optimus project “pure fantasy thinking”[3] And indeed Elon Musk has a long history of foolish overpromising, making ambitious technological promises with deadlines that are repeatedly missed. Musk’s long list of tech failures includes promising that “full self-driving” Tesla vehicles were only “one year away” every year since 2014, as thousands of Teslas were crashing while on Autopilot.

这种不断歪曲事实的模式已经引起了行业专家的广泛批评,他们认为马斯克对Optimus的愿景与机器人技术所面临的巨大技术挑战相脱节。iRobot(Roomba的创造者)的联合创始人麻省理工学院机器人技术荣誉退休教授罗德尼·布鲁克斯将马斯克的整个Optimus项目称为“纯粹幻想思维[3]事实上,埃隆·马斯克长期以来一直存在愚蠢的过度承诺问题,他多次做出雄心勃勃的技术承诺,但承诺的最后期限却一再被错过。马斯克在技术上的失败清单很长,包括2014年以来,每年都承诺“一年特斯拉汽车就能实现“完全自动驾驶”,同时,成千上万特斯拉汽车在自动驾驶模式下发生碰撞。

 

On November 5, 2025, China handed the world another bombshell with the unveiling of X-Peng’s IRON humanoid robot. [4] [5] A video of the demonstration showed IRON walking with a relaxed and smooth, human-like rhythm. The “female” robot’s fluid, smooth, and human-like “catwalk” was so convincing that it sparked widespread discussion and skepticism, with many people both inside and outside of China convinced it was a human in a robot suit. [6] The suspicion was so widespread that the company publicly cut open the robot’s leg to prove it was not a human in a suit. [7] [8]

2025年11月5日,中国向世界抛出了另一颗重磅炸弹,推出了小鹏的IRON人形机器人。[4][5]一段演示视频显示,IRON以一种轻松流畅、类似人类的节奏行走。“女性”机器人流畅、自然、类似人类的“走秀”极具说服力,引发了广泛的讨论和质疑,许多国内外人士都认为这是穿着机器人套装的人类。[6]由于质疑四起,该公司公开剖开机器人的腿部以证明它并非穿着套装人类。 [7] [8]

 

The world had good reason to be skeptical at IRON’s catwalk, given the misleading stunts Elon Musk has perpetrated in his public demonstrations of Optimus. During Tesla’s AI Day in August 2021, Musk introduced the Optimus-to-be as the prototype of the humanoid robot he was creating. However, the “prototype” was not a functional robot, but a human performer, a dancer dressed in a white and black spandex bodysuit who came on stage and performed a simple dance. [9] That fraud attracted widespread criticism, in spite of Musk’s attempts at justification for misleading everyone. The Verge described the event as a “joke” and a “stunt”. [10] A UK robotics professor, Carl Berry, called it “horse shit”. The presentation was widely seen as a publicity move to generate headlines and divert attention from other negative news about Tesla at the time.

鉴于埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)在公开演示Optimus时所展现的误导性噱头,全世界都有充分的理由对IRON的走秀持怀疑态度。在2021年8月特斯拉的人工智能日上,马斯克介绍了他正在研发的类人机器人原型Optimus。然而,这个“原型”并非功能性机器人,而是一名人类表演者,一名穿着黑白紧身衣的舞者,他上台表演了一段简单的舞蹈。[9]尽管马斯克试图为误导所有人辩解,但这一骗局还是引起了广泛的批评。The Verge将此次活动描述为“笑话”和“噱头”。[10]英国机器人学教授卡尔·贝里(Carl Berry)称其为“胡说八道”。此次展示被普遍视为一种宣传手段,目的是制造头条新闻,转移人们对当时有关特斯拉的其他负面新闻的注意力。

 

The skepticism from 2021 extended to Tesla’s later demonstrations of Optimus. At the “We, Robot” event in October 2024, Optimus robots were shown performing complex tasks like serving drinks and conversing with people. However, reports quickly emerged that Tesla employees were operating remote control units, and the robots were not operating on their own AI. [11] [12] Bloomberg News reported that the robots were actually remotely controlled by humans, information that was later confirmed by a video circulating on Twitter (X). [13] The fact that the machines were revealed to be remotely controlled even as they served drinks and danced, doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in anything Musk says. Not only this, but the videos of Optimus that are so often posted on Twitter (X) and YouTube, are either AI-generated, or heavily edited to delete the portions where Optimus displays all its malfunctions. Many observers have pointed out that Tesla’s promotional videos of Optimus usually consist of very short, heavily-edited clips that contain only positive segments. The lack of continuous, unbroken footage of a complete task indicates the robot is not performing as well as the videos imply. None are reliable indicators of anything.

2021年的质疑声一直延续到特斯拉后来展示Optimus机器人时。在2024年10月的“We, Robot”活动上,展示了Optimus机器人执行复杂任务,如端饮料和与人交谈。然而,很快有报道称,特斯拉员工正在操作远程控制装置,而机器人并非依靠自身的人工智能(AI)运行。[11][12]彭博社报道称,这些机器人实际上是由人类远程控制的,这一信息后来在推特上流传的一段视频中得到了证实(X)。[13]尽管机器人在端饮料和跳舞时被揭露为远程控制,但这并不能让对马斯克所说任何产生信心。不仅如此,推特(X)和YouTube上经常发布的Optimus视频要么是AI生成的,要么是经过大量编辑,删除了Optimus展示其所有故障的部分。许多观察者指出,特斯拉关于Optimus的宣传视频通常由非常短且经过大量编辑的片段组成,其中只包含积极的片段。缺乏连续、完整的任务执行镜头表明,机器人的表现并不像视频所暗示的那样好。这些视频都不能可靠地反映任何情况。

 

Musk once posted a video of an Optimus robot folding a shirtmuch later admitting Optimus was not autonomous in that video. It was just another staged video, like the 2016 FSD video. One observer wrote, “FSD was being massively overhyped via staged videos for years, and Tesla is doing the same with Optimus.” Another wrote, “Elon is doing the same thing with Optimus that he did with FSD – put out staged videos to hype something that likely won’t be real for many years to come.”[14]

马斯克曾发布Optimus机器人叠衬衫的视频,但后来承认在那视频中Optimus并非自主完成叠衣,而只是像2016年的FSD视频一样,又是一段精心编排的视频。一位观察者写道:“多年来,FSD一直通过精心编排的视频被大肆炒作,而特斯拉现在Optimus也做同样的事。”另一位写道:“埃对Optimus所做的事,与他对FSD所做的一样——发布精心编排的视频来炒作一些在未来许多年都不太可能实现的东西。” [14]

 

Many robotics experts have noted that Musk’s robot demonstrations are “always the best fabrication (misrepresentation) they can show you”. They claim that when Optimus is displayed as performing kung fu or appearing to do something smart, “it’s just reacting to the environment with no cognition behind it.” [15] In other words, there is action programming, but no “AI” in any useful sense, and the robot is not “thinking” about what it is doing. A gasoline-powered auto engine does not “think” about its power strokes; it is merely a senseless machine operating as it was built to operate. Musk’s Optimus is essentially the same; an AI robot without the AI.

许多机器人专家指出,马斯克的机器人演示“总是他们能展示给你的最好的捏造(歪曲)”。他们声称,当Optimus被展示为在表演功夫或看似在做出一些聪明的事情时,“它只是在没有认知的情况下对环境做出反应。”[15]换言之,虽然有动作编程,但并没有任何意义上的“人工智能”,机器人并没有“思考”自己在做什么。汽油驱动的汽车引擎并不会“思考”它的动力冲程;它仅仅是一台没有情感的机器,按照其设计运行。马斯克的Optimus本质上是如此;一个没有人工智能的人工智能机器人。

 

In one particular case, reporters were invited to “meet” Optimus at the factory, with one reporter recording the experience. As a demonstration of “Optimus the Tour Guide”, reporters were specifically instructed to ask the robot to conduct them to a particular room. In repeated attempts, Optimus was asked if it knew the location of the room in question. Optimus then had a creepy delay of five or six seconds after which it answered in the affirmative. Then, the reporter asked, “Will you take me there?” Another silent pause of five or six seconds before Optimus replied, “Of course”. But then the robot simply stood in place, making no move to guide the reporter anywhere. This sequence was repeated several times with the same result. At that point, Elon Musk inserted his face into the video and said that Optimus was shy about going to “other spaces”. But that had nothing to do with being shy nor with other spaces. It was simply incompetent programming. Again, an AI robot without the AI.

在一个特定案例中,记者受邀到工厂“会见”Optimus,并由一名记者记录这一体验。作为“Optimus导游”的演示,记者被特别指示要求机器人带领他们前往某个特定房间。在多次尝试中,记者询问Optimus是否知道所问房间的位置。Optimus先是出现了五六秒的诡异延迟,然后给出了肯定的回答。接着,记者问:“你能带我去那里吗?”又是五六秒的沉默后,Optimus回答道:“当然可以”。但随后,机器人只是站在原地,没有采取任何行动引导记者前往任何地方。这一系列动作重复了几次,结果都一样。这时,埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)出现在视频中,说Optimus害羞去“其他地方”。但这与害羞或其他地方无关,只是因为编程能力不足。再一次,一个没有人工智能(AI)的AI机器人。

 

Image source: Daily Musk

图片来源:Daily Musk

 

Another Musk/Optimus fraud was the widely-promoted video of Optimus handing out bottles of water at an event. [16] It is almost painful to watch. The robot was slow, hesitant, and clumsy. It appeared only barely able to function in an environment where it had not been pre-programmed. Still, Musk had this video widely circulated as evidence of Optimus’ ability to interact autonomously in social situations. But there were many other videos of the same event that weren’t circulated. [17] In these, Optimus knocked over all the water bottles and then collapsed on the floor. In these videos, the robot appears suddenly confused and frustrated before collapsing. Elon Musk’s quick and “official” explanation was that Optimus suffered from “work overload”.

另一则马斯克/Optimus的骗局是Optimus在一场活动中分发瓶装水的视频,该视频被大肆宣传。[16]观看时几乎令人感到痛苦。这个机器人动作迟缓、犹豫不决且笨拙。在未经预先编程的环境中,它似乎只能勉强运作。尽管如此,马斯克还是让这段视频广泛流传,作为Optimus在社交场合能够自主互动的证据。但同一事件的其他许多视频却未被流传。[17]在这些视频中,Optimus打翻了所有的水瓶,然后瘫倒在地。在这些视频中,机器人在倒地前突然显得困惑和沮丧。埃隆·马斯克的快速且“官方”解释是,Optimus“工作超负荷”。

 

However, observers at the scene revealed that Optimus was not acting autonomously but was being controlled by an operator. They pointed out that Optimus’ last act after knocking over the water bottles and falling to the floor, was the exact motion of a teleoperator removing his headset. [18] The observers confirmed that an Indian engineer was controlling Optimus in the distribution of the water bottles, became frustrated, knocked over the bottles, removed his headset, and quit. Optimus duplicated these final acts but then could not function without the external control, and thus lost control of its limbs and collapsed. Musk had insisted previously that Optimus was not being remotely controlled, but this was just one more fraudulent exhibition of so many, of Optimus’ “abilities”.

然而,现场观察者透露,Optimus并非自主行动,而是受到操作员的控制。他们指出,Optimus在撞倒水瓶并跌倒在地后的最后动作,正是遥控操作员摘下头戴设备的动作。[18]观察者证实,一名印度工程师在分发水瓶的过程中控制着Optimus,他感到沮丧,撞倒了水瓶,摘下头戴设备,然后退出。Optimus重复了这些最后动作,但在没有外部控制的情况下无法运行,因此失去了对四肢的控制并倒下。马斯克此前曾坚称Optimus并未被远程控制,但这只是Optimus众多“能力”中又一次欺诈性的展示。

 

第二,马斯克/奥普图斯幻想 — Second, the Musk/Optimus Fantasies

 

 

Many of Musk’s claims about the current or future capabilities of Optimus are fabricated, with no possibility of fruition, claims that are not only provably false, but ridiculous, and even outrageous. There will never be “billions” of Optimus robots with “one in every home”. These are all childish fantasies.

马斯克关于Optimus当前或未来能力的许多说法都是编造的,不可能实现,这些说法不仅明显错误,而且荒谬至极,甚至令人愤慨。Optimus机器人永远不会“数以亿计”,“每个家庭都有一个”。这些都是幼稚幻想。

 

Musk boasts that Optimus will be a “massive hit” with consumers, calling Optimus “potentially the biggest product ever in the history of the world”. At Tesla’s annual shareholder meeting on November 7, 2025, Musk said that the humanoid robot Optimus will be “the largest product in history, with an expected market size of billions of units”, and that Optimus could one day account for about 80% of Tesla’s stock market value. [19] In late 2025, Musk said “There is a market for about 20 billion robots in the world”, and that his robots would earn “$30 trillion in annual revenue”[20] Musk said in 2025 “We expect to scale Optimus up faster than any product, I think, in history, to get to millions of units per year as soon as possible”. [21] All of these “predictions” are so implausible as to deserve only public ridicule.

马斯克夸口说,Optimus将成为消费者的“巨大热门”,称Optimus“可能是世界历史上最大的产品”。在2025年11月7日的特斯拉年度股东大会上,马斯克表示,人形机器人Optimus将成为“历史上最大产品,预计市场规模将达到数十亿台,并且Optimus朝一日可能占特斯拉股票市值的约80%。[19]2025年底,马斯克表示“全球机器人市场约有200亿”,而他的机器人将“每年创造30万亿美元的收入”[20]马斯克在2025年表示“我们预计Optimus的扩张速度将超过历史上任何产品,尽快达到每年数百万台”。[21]所有这些“预测”都如此难以置信,只配得到公众的嘲笑。

 

As late as the middle of 2025, Musk was calling Optimus a “killer product” that would add $25 trillion in value to Tesla’s stock – more than all 10 of the world’s most valuable companies combined. “This is going to be bigger than the car.” According to Musk, Optimus would revolutionise human behavior, and everyone in the world would own at least one of them. According to Fortune Magazine, Optimus wasn’t just a potential revenue stream; it was the future of Tesla.[22] 

直到2025年中期,马斯克还称Optimus为“杀手产品,将为特斯拉的股票增加25万亿美元的价值——超过全球10大最有价值公司的总价值。“这将比汽车更伟大。”马斯克表示,Optimus将彻底改变人类行为,世界上每个人至少会拥有一台Optimus。据《财富》杂志报道,Optimus不仅仅是一个潜在的收入来源;它是特斯拉的未来。 [22]

 

移动目标 — Moving Targets

 

According to Musk’s plan, Tesla will produce 50,000 Optimus units in 2026 and in 2027 Optimus will fly to Mars on SpaceX’s Starship.

根据马斯克的计划,特斯拉将在2026年生产5万台Optimus,2027年,Optimus将搭载SpaceX的星际飞船飞往火星。

 

Musk claims that in 2026 he will build a robot production line capable of producing 1 million Optimus robots per year, with medium-term production at 10 million units, and long-term production at 50 million to 100 million units annually. [23] The fairytale fantasy of these claims should be obvious. Musk also claims that Optimus will be 5 times more productive than humans when deployed, but this is nonsense. Tesla has admitted internally that Optimus is less than half as efficient as a human in any tasks so far assigned to it.

马斯克声称,到2026年他将建成一机器人生产线每年能够生产100万台Optimus机器人,中期产量将达到1000万台,长期产量将达到每年5000万至1亿台。[23]这些声称显然只是童话般的幻想。马斯克还声称,Optimus投入使用后的生产效率将是人类的5倍,但这纯属无稽之谈。特斯拉内部承认,到目前为止,在分配给Optimus的任何任务中,其效率还不到人类的一半。

 

According to Musk’s plan, Tesla will produce 50,000 Optimus units in 2026 and in 2027 Optimus will fly to Mars on SpaceX’s Starship. Further, that by 2029, the annual production of Optimus will exceed 500,000 units. This is already a scaled-down version, as Musk was originally predicting an annual production capacity of Optimus to 1 million units by 2027. This may not be a serious business plan. [24]

根据马斯克的计划,特斯拉将在2026年生产5万台Optimus,2027年,Optimus将搭载SpaceX的星际飞船飞往火星。此外,到2029年,Optimus的年产量将超过50万台。这已经是一个缩减版的计划,因为马斯克最初预测到2027年,Optimus的年产能将达到100万台。这可能不是一个严肃商业计划 [24]

 

Readers may have learned of the severe and continuing problems with Musk’s Optimus up to late 2025, including the fact that production was terminated altogether due to multiple failings. Yet Musk ignores all this and inexplicably claims that within a few months he will build a factory to produce one million a year. One million of what? Optimus appears to be a very long way from a final finished product that actually functions as advertised, and is in no condition to be put into production. All these claims are pure groundless fantasy, marketing hype meant to boost Tesla’s stock price, but totally disconnected from reality. It is difficult to separate the reality of the flawed Optimus today, from Musk’s assurance that he is building a factory with the capacity to produce one million Optimus robots each year. And that this factory will supposedly begin operation in Q1 of 2026 (3 months from the time of writing).

读者可能已经了解到,直到2025年底,马斯克的Optimus机器人一直存在严重且持续的问题,包括因多次失败而导致生产完全终止。然而,马斯克却无视这一切,令人费解地声称,几个月内他将建造一座年产100万台的工厂。100万什么?Optimus距离成为真正能按宣传功能运行的最终成品似乎还有很长的路要走,根本不具备投入生产的条件。所有这些说法都是毫无根据的幻想,是旨在推高特斯拉股价的营销炒作,但与现实完全脱节。如今,很难将有缺陷的Optimus的现实与马斯克声称他正在建造一座年产100万台Optimus机器人的工厂的保证区分开来。而且这座工厂据称将于2026第一季度(即本文撰写之时起三个月后)开始运营

 

There is definitely a surreal disconnect between Elon Musk’s future promises and present-day engineering reality. Musk is announcing he will have a “mass-production-ready” Optimus in January, 2026 and a factory with a capacity of one million units annually, while the company simultaneously ceased all Optimus component procurement, terminated all Optimus production, and ceased the assembly of the few completed robots. To jump from a full production halt to mass production in a matter of months would be an unprecedented engineering feat. But even this is assuming there is a viable product to be produced, and the only existing “inventory” is a warehouse of partially-assembled torsos with defective (and handless) parts.

埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)对未来的承诺与当今的工程现实之间显然存在着一种荒诞的脱节。马斯克宣布,到2026年1月,他将拥有一个“可批量生产”的Optimus机器人,以及一个年产能为100万台的工厂,而与此同时,该公司却停止了所有Optimus部件的采购,终止了所有Optimus的生产,并停止了少数已完工机器人的组装。在短短几个月从全面停产跃升至批量生产,这将是一前所未有工程壮举。但即便如此,前提也是要有一个可行的产品可供生产,而目前仅有的“库存”只是一堆部分组装好的躯干,且零件有缺陷(且没有手)。

 

Perhaps the most surreal of Elon Musk’s “predictions” is not that he will begin production of the Optimus V3 version in 2026, but that it will be entirely “humanoid” and will “look like a person wearing a robot costume”. This would require, at a minimum, not only solving all the design and engineering problems, but executing a total redesign of Optimus, scrapping the current version and creating a duplicate of Chinese X-Peng’s IRON. To accomplish all this in a matter of only a few months, does not seem too plausible, especially considering X-Peng worked for 7 years to perfect IRON.

或许,埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)最离奇的“预测”并非他将在2026年开始生产Optimus V3版本,而是该版本将完全“人形化”,并且“看起来就像一个穿着机器人服装的人”。这至少需要不仅解决所有的设计和工程问题,还需要对Optimus进行全面重新设计,废弃当前版本,并复制中国小鹏的IRON。要在短短几月内完成所有这些工作,似乎不太可能,尤其考虑小鹏为完善IRON已经工作7年

 

In a subsequent earnings call, Elon Musk said, “Tesla and our future strategy are at a critical turning point as we bring artificial intelligence into the real world.” I think it’s important to emphasize that Tesla is really a leader in real-world AI, and no one can do what we can in real-world AI.” [25] But this is complete nonsense. Most, and probably all, other AI firms like Google, Open AI, and DeepSeek are far ahead of Elon Musk’s Grok. I would add here that Elon Musk in several recent promoted videos, claims that Tesla is the “world leader” in “useful, general AI”. But that is far from true. Nothing that Elon Musk has touched is a “world leader” in AI. Nothing. It is astonishing that this ridiculous self-praise continues to earn headlines while much of the reality of the AI world is simply ignored.

在随后的电话财报会议上,埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)表示:“特斯拉和我们的未来战略正处于一个关键的转折点,因为我们正在将人工智能带入现实世界。”我认为,重要的是要强调特斯拉在现实世界的人工智能领域确实是领导者,没有人能在这一领域做到我们所能做到的。”[25]但这完全是胡说八道。大多数,甚至可能是所有其他人工智能公司,如谷歌、Open AI和DeepSeek,都远远领先于埃隆·马斯克的Grok。我在此要补充一点,埃隆·马斯克在最近几个宣传视频中声称,特斯拉是“有用、通用人工智能”领域的“世界领导者”。但这远远不是事实。埃隆·马斯克所触及的任何领域都不是人工智能领域的“世界领导者”。一个都没有。令人惊讶的是,这种荒谬的自我吹嘘继续占据头条新闻,而人工智能世界的许多现实却被完全忽略了。

 

During Tesla’s Q3 2025 earnings call, Musk made several additional specific claims: (1) He promised to show a “mass-production-ready prototype” of Optimus V3 in Q1 2026. He described it as looking “almost like a person in a robot suit” with “unprecedented realism”. He claimed further (2) that Tesla plans to start a “million-unit” production line by the end of 2025, with mass production beginning in Q1, 2026. He stated also that his goal is to achieve the scale of millions of units, as producing only hundreds would be “meaningless”. To add “the icing to the cake”, Musk clamed (3) that an uncrewed Starship mission to Mars would launch as soon as 2026, with Optimus robots on board to test landing and operations.

在特斯拉2025年第三季度的电话财报会议上,马斯克还做出了几项具体声明:(1)他承诺在2026年第一季度展示Optimus V3的“可量产原型机”。他形容它看起来“几乎就像一个穿着机器人套装的人”,具有“前所未有的逼真度”。他进一步声称(2)特斯拉计划在2025年底前启动一条“百万级”生产线,并于2026年第一季度开始量产。他还表示,他的目标是实现百万级产量,因为只生产几百台“毫无意义”。为了“锦上添花”,马斯克声3无人驶的星际飞船火星任务最早将于2026发射,届时搭载Optimus机器人以测试着陆和操作。

 

It is impossible to reconcile the contradictions between Elon Musk’s fantastic claims and real-world reality. The reality is that Optimus production was terminated entirely in late 2025 because of its severe engineering flaws, nearly-useless battery life, and poor functionality. Further, Tesla has appeared to have given up hopes of improved designs internally and has been pushing its suppliers to create new engineering models that will work. In addition is Musk’s claim that he is scrapping entirely the existing Optimus and will design a truly “humanoid” robot by the end of 2025 and begin producing it at the beginning of 2026.

埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)的夸大其词的宣称与现实之间的矛盾是无法调和的。事实是由于其严重的工程缺陷、几乎无用的电池寿命以及糟糕的功能性,Optimus生产在2025底完全终止。此外,特斯拉似乎已放弃内部改进设计的希望,并一直在敦促其供应商开发出能正常工作的新型工程模型。另外,马斯克还声称,他将彻底淘汰现有的Optimus,并在2025年底之前设计出一款真正的“人形”机器人,并计划在2026年初开始生产。

 

To add to this is the fact that Musk’s “Starship” is far from a functioning reality. The basic design is still unproven, as are the refueling, life support, and most other aspects. At this point, at the end of 2025, Musk’s Mars Starship is a fairy-tale. The same would have to be said about the V3 “humanoid” robot. X-Peng took 7 years to perfect IRON; Musk apparently believes he can do the same in 3 months and – within that same three months – build a factory that will be mass-producing “millions”. There is nothing in this combined picture that makes any sense. This is true also for Musk’s “Robotaxi”, his “full self-driving FSD” that has been only one year away from “super-human” perfection every year since 2014. Musk’s Hyperloop, his Boring Company, Neuralink and others are in similar condition.

此外,马斯克的“星际飞船”还远未成为现实。其基本设计尚未得到验证,燃料补给、生命维持以及大多数其他方面也是如此。到2025年底,马斯克的火星星际飞船还只是一个童话。对于V3“人形”机器人来说,情况也是如此。小鹏汽车用了7年时间才完善了IRON;而马斯克显然认为他能在3个月内做到同样的事情,并且在这3个月内建造一个能够大规模生产“数百万辆”的工厂。拼图中任何部分都显得毫无逻辑。马斯克的“自动驾驶出租车”、他的“全自动驾驶FSD”(自2014年以来,每年都距离“超人”般的完美仅一步之遥)也是如此。马斯克的超级高铁、他的Boring Company、Neuralink等项目也处于类似的情况。

 

I would add here that in late 2025 Elon Musk claimed that the “humanoid” Optimus V3 would now have solid-state batteries, the same as X-Peng’s IRON. But switching to solid-state batteries is not a simple plug-and-play upgrade. A battery is a core, space-constrained component in a robot’s torso. Adopting a new battery technology with different physical properties, safety requirements, and thermal management would necessitate a significant mechanical and electrical redesign. If this claim of new battery power is true, it would confirm that the current Optimus V2.5, the “magical Musk robot that can do almost anything”, is in fact being scrapped in entirety to be replaced by a new “humanoid” model with a new power source. In fact, the adoption of solid-state batteries for Optimus would virtually demand that the current model be scrapped and totally redesigned. The problem, as I mentioned earlier, is that X-Peng took 7 years to bring IRON to the point where it appeared totally humanoid. There is no reason to believe Elon Musk can shorten this development period to only a few months, especially given the multiple issues with so many other aspects of the robot’s functioning.

我想在此补充一点,2025年底,埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)声称,“人形”Optimus V3现在将配备固态电池,与小鹏的IRON一样。但改用固态电池并不是简单的即插即用升级。电池是机器人躯干中核心且空间受限的组件。采用具有不同物理特性、安全要求和热管理的新电池技术,将需要进行重大的机械和电气重新设计。如果这一新电池动力的说法属实,那么这将证实,目前“几乎无所不能神奇马斯克机器人”Optimus V2.5实际上将被完全淘汰取而代之的是一配备新电源新型“人形”机器人事实上,Optimus采用固态电池几乎意味着现有型号将被淘汰,并需要完全重新设计。正如我之前提到的,问题在于,小鹏用了7年时间才将IRON打造得几乎完全人形。没有理由相信埃隆·马斯克能将这一开发周期缩短到仅仅几个月,尤其是考虑到机器人功能的其他多个方面存在诸多问题。

 

停产 — Termination of Production

 

 

The original goal of producing 5,000 to 10,000 Optimus humanoid robots in 2025 completely failed. [26] The robot’s quality and performance fell far short of expectations, with the 2025 production plan increasingly lowered until production was halted altogether. According to internal sources, Tesla completed the assembly of only 200 or 300 units at the Fremont plant. Prior to this, Musk claimed that he would produce 100,000 Optimus units in 2026, with production capacity exceeding one million units in 2027. The main issue lies in the development of the robot’s hand and lower arm components, leading to incomplete units sitting idle in factories. [27]

2025年生产5000至10000台Optimus人形机器人的最初目标彻底落空。[26]机器人的质量和性能远低于预期,2025年的生产计划一再下调,直至完全停产。据内部消息来源透露,特斯拉在弗里蒙特工厂仅完成了200或300台机器人的组装。在此之前,马斯克曾声称他将在2026年生产10万台Optimus,并在2027年使产能超过100万台。主要问题在于机器人手部和下臂部件的开发,导致未完工的机器人闲置在工厂里。 [27]

 

At the end of July, 2025, Tesla suspended all robot production, due to unsolved technical difficulties and senior staff departures. [27] Tesla has encountered bottlenecks in core technical problems such as overheating of the joint motor, insufficient life of the transmission mechanism, and poor battery life. In particular, the robot’s hand and the research and development of forearm parts have become fatal shortcomings. The result is that nearly all the examples produced, are unassembled piles of hardware sitting in a warehouse somewhere.

2025年7月底,由于技术难题未获解决以及高级员工离职,特斯拉暂停了所有机器人生产。[27]特斯拉在核心技术问题上遇到了瓶颈,如关节电机过热、传动机构寿命不足以及电池寿命不佳。特别是机器人的手部和前臂部件的研发已成为致命缺陷。其结果是,几乎所有生产的样品都只是堆放在某个仓库里的未组装硬件。

 

高管离职 — Executive departures

 

Tesla AI VP Milan Kovac Resigns After 9 Years Leading FSD and Optimus Projects

特斯拉人工智能副总裁米兰·科瓦奇在领导全自动驾驶(FSD)和Optimus项目9年后辞职

 

After the high-level turmoil in the middle of 2025, only two members remained of Tesla’s core management – Zhu Xiaotongand Elon Musk. And no new senior executives had been appointed by the end of 2025. [28] VP Milan Kovac‘s departure was a loss perhaps greater than the recent loss of Andrej Karpathy, Tesla’s former director of artificial intelligence. This marked another high-profile executive exit from Elon Musk’s electric vehicle and robotics empire. Executive departures aren’t unusual at Tesla—former leaders including J.B. StraubelJerome Guillen, and Doug Field have all moved on.[29][30]

2025年年中高层动荡之后,特斯拉核心管理层仅剩两名成员——朱晓彤和埃隆·马斯克。截至2025年底,公司尚未任命新的高级管理人员。[28]副总裁米兰·科瓦奇的离职带来的损失,或许比特斯拉前人工智能总监安德烈·卡尔帕西最近的离职更为严重。这标志着埃隆·马斯克的电动汽车和机器人帝国又一位高管离职。特斯拉高管离职并不罕见——包括J.B.斯特劳贝尔杰罗姆·吉伦道格·菲尔德在内的前任领导人都已离职。[29] [30]

 

Tesla doesn’t reveal staff numbers at its Optimus project, but it is clear from recruiting reports that this project has been bleeding staff for some time, and the trend seems to be accelerating. Sunday Robotics is one such firm that seems to have poached around 50 Optimus and AI staff, [31] and there are many others. Electrek reported that Tesla’s Optimus project was in shambles after Milan Kovac, the head of the Optimus program, resigned in June, 2025, just months after being promoted to senior vice-president by Musk. [32] Latest North American Update (June 20, 2025): “Tesla’s Optimus robotics division will initiate layoffs affecting one-third of its workforce starting in July, led by the newly appointed head. The company will halt all robot component procurement for the remainder of the year.[33]

特斯拉并未透露其Optimus项目的员工人数,但从招聘报告可以明显看出,该项目一段时间以来一直在流失员工,且这一趋势似乎正在加速。周日机器人公司(Sunday Robotics)就是其中一家似乎挖走了约50名Optimus和人工智能员工的公司[31],还有许多其他公司也是如此。Electrek报道称在Optimus项目负责人米兰·科瓦奇(Milan Kovac)于20256月辞职后,特斯拉的Optimus项目陷入混乱,而就在几个月前马斯克还刚刚晋升他为高级副总裁。[32]最新北美更新(2025年6月20日):“特斯拉的Optimus机器人部门将从7月开始裁员,影响三分之一的员工,由新任命的负责人领导。该公司将在今年剩余时间内停止所有机器人组件采购。 [33]

 

第三,马斯克/奥普图斯缺陷 — Third, the Musk/Optimus Flaws

 

 

 

The technical problems with Optimus are well-documented across multiple credible sources. The hand design is the primary issue, plus motor overheating, short component lifespan, battery issues, production pauses, and leadership changes.  These core issues are not minor but are fundamental to the robot’s basic functionality. Musk’s continued promises about future production create a surreal disconnect between the proclaimed production timelines and its current serious technical challenges.

Optimus的技术问题在多个可靠消息来源中都有详细记录。手部设计是主要问题,此外还有电机过热、部件寿命短、电池问题、生产暂停以及领导层变动。这些核心问题并非无关紧要,而是关乎机器人基本功能的基础性问题。马斯克对未来生产的持续承诺,使得宣称的生产时间表与其当前面临的技术难题之间产生了令人匪夷所思的脱节。

 

Dexterous hands have always been one of the severe core difficulties of Tesla robots. According to all reports, the Optimus’ hands have a lifespan of no more than two months. Moreover, wear is quickly accelerated on the flexible electronic skin covering the fingers and palms whenever Optimus touches things, and the tendon cords that drive the fingers are prone to aging and breaking. Musk admits that the Optimus’ hands and forearms are a difficult engineering challenge, but claims the next iteration (V3) will definitely be a masterpiece. This claim is also a fairytale. Musk’s team cannot design or produce many of the functionally-acceptable components they need, and Musk is pushing this responsibility onto Tesla’s suppliers. He is not only asking them to make components for Optimus, but to do the basic engineering and to produce the designs for parts that will function well and not break. It seems Tesla hasn’t the engineering ability to make progress on its own, not for design, nor for manufacture. Musk doesn’t admit this publicly and the media avoid discussion of it, but it’s there and it’s documented.

灵巧的手一直是特斯拉机器人面临的一个严峻核心难题。据报道,Optimus的手臂使用寿命不超过两个月。此外,每当Optimus触碰物体时,覆盖在手指和手掌上的柔性电子皮肤磨损会迅速加剧,而驱动手指的肌腱绳则容易老化断裂。马斯克承认,Optimus的手和前臂是一项艰巨的工程挑战,但他声称下一代(V3)产品肯定会成为杰作。这一说法也像童话故事一样。马斯克的团队无法设计或生产出他们所需的许多功能合格的部件,而马斯克正将这一责任推给特斯拉的供应商。他不仅要求他们为Optimus制造部件,还要他们进行基本的工程设计,并为那些能正常工作且不易损坏的部件提供设计方案。特斯拉似乎没有独自取得进步的工程能力,无论是设计还是制造。马斯克没有公开承认这一点,媒体也避免讨论此事,但事实确实如此,且有文件为证。

 

The critical hand and forearm failures are perhaps the most significant obstacle. The “dexterous hands” lack human-like flexibility, cannot perform fine manipulations, and are prone to functional issues. Optimus hands specifically have unwelcome limitations in tactile sensing, in stable grasping of objects, and a uselessly-short 6-week lifespan. Many studies and articles have provided a detailed technical analysis of why Optimus hand design is fundamentally flawed, of the motor placement issues, problems in transmission accuracy, and sensory feedback limitations.  This was primarily what led to a cessation of production and a warehouse of unfinished robot “bodies” without hands.

关键的手部和前臂故障可能是最大的障碍。“灵巧手”缺乏类似人类的灵活性,无法进行精细操作,且容易出现功能问题。特别是Optimus手在触觉感知、物体稳定抓握以及使用寿命短至6周(这一长度毫无意义)方面存在诸多不利局限。许多研究和文章已就Optimus手的设计为何存在根本性缺陷、电机放置问题、传动精度问题以及感官反馈局限进行了详细的技术分析。这主要是导致生产停止和大量未完成机器人“身体”积压在仓库的原因,这些“身体”没有手。

 

But it isn’t merely a matter of someone designing a new hand for Optimus. We still have the joints breaking, motors burning out, delicate parts wearing out, insufficient battery life, and the half-squat locomotion. And there certainly are serious problems with the “eyes only” and “camera only” sensory perception. I will deal with the sensory perception problems in more detail below. The new head of Optimus has told his staff this next year will be the most difficult of their entire careers, all due to the eyes-only transition. None of this bodes well for immediate mass production. And there is a further problem. For robots to function in society, outside a factory setting, sensory perception is crucial. In addition to vision, the robots desperately need a delicate sense of touch, almost certainly hearing, probably smell. Optimus will have none of these, and even the vision may be problematic.

但这不仅仅是有人为擎天柱设计一只新手的问题。我们仍然面临关节断裂、电机烧毁、精密部件磨损、电池续航不足以及半蹲式移动的问题。而且,“仅靠眼睛”和“仅靠摄像头”的感官感知确实存在严重问题。我将在下文更详细地讨论感官感知问题。擎天柱的新任负责人告诉他的员工,由于仅靠眼睛的过渡,明年将是他们职业生涯中最艰难的一年。所有这些都不利于立即进行大规模生产。还有一个更深层次的问题。对于机器人来说,要想在工厂环境之外的社会中发挥作用,感官感知至关重要除了视觉之外,机器人还迫切需要敏锐的触觉、几乎可以肯定的听觉,以及可能需要的嗅觉。擎天柱将不具备这些感官,甚至视觉也可能存在问题。

 

Beyond the hands, Optimus faces a multitude of hardware defects and other problems, including joint motors that overheat, short component lifespan in transmission units, and limited battery endurance. Then we have the turmoil in leadership, where the project’s leader, Milan Kovac, departed in mid-2025, along with several other high-profile executives and team leaders.

除了人手问题,Optimus还面临着诸多硬件缺陷和其他问题,包括关节电机过热、传动单元部件寿命短以及电池续航能力有限。此外,项目还遭遇了领导层动荡,项目负责人米兰·科瓦奇(Milan Kovac)于2025年年中离职,同时离职的还有其他几位备受瞩目的高管和团队负责人。

 

Reports from late 2025 indicate that Tesla is actively testing at least three different technical schemes for Optimus’ hands, and is seeking new suppliers that can design and manufacture more reliable parts. We can conclude from this that the Optimus design is not finalised and that Tesla is relying on the supply chain not just for manufacturing, but for engineering and design solutions to core technical problems. The available information strongly suggests that the entire Optimus project is mired in significant, unsolved hardware challenges that make the stated goal of mass production in early 2026 highly improbable and likely impossible. The narrative of rapid progress appears to be running squarely into the immutable laws of physics and engineering.

2025年末的报告显示,特斯拉正在积极测试至少三种不同的Optimus机械手技术方案,并正在寻找能够设计和制造更可靠部件的新供应商。由此我们可以得出结论,Optimus的设计尚未最终确定,特斯拉不仅依赖供应链进行制造,还依赖其解决核心技术问题的工程和设计难题。现有信息强烈表明,整个Optimus项目陷入重大的、尚未解决的硬件挑战之中,这使得2026实现大规模生产的既定目标变得极不可能甚至是不可能的。快速进展的叙述似乎直接与物理和工程的不变定律相悖。

 

July 2025 reports show that Tesla had to pause production specifically because of these hardware defects:

2025年7月报告显示,特斯拉不得不暂停生产,原因正是这些硬件缺陷:

 

– Joints & Motors: Joint motors prone to overheating, and transmission parts with a very short service life.

– 关节与电机:关节电机容易过热,传动部件的使用寿命极短。

– Battery Life: a runtime of only 2 hours or less; This limited endurance is a recognised hardware defect.

– 电池寿命:运行时间仅2小时或更短;这种有限的续航能力是公认的硬件缺陷。

– Hand Reliability: The “dexterous hands” have low load capacity and a short operational lifespan. One report specified a lifespan of only six weeks during training tasks, with a cost of over $6,000 per hand.

– 可靠性:“灵巧手”的负载能力较低,使用寿命较短。一份报告指出,在执行训练任务时,其使用寿命仅为六周,且每只手的花费超过6000美元。

– Critical Lack of Fine Touch: Fingertip sensors capture only basic pressure data, lacking perception of texture and temperature, making fine manipulation like stably grasping an egg impossible. The absence of sophisticated tactile feedback is a core bottleneck, preventing robots from performing precise tasks and judging the force needed for actions.

– 精细触觉严重缺失:指尖传感器仅能捕捉基本的压力数据,缺乏对纹理和温度的感知,因此无法进行精细操作,如稳定地抓取鸡蛋缺乏复杂的触觉反馈是核心瓶颈,阻碍了机器人执行精确任务和判断动作所需的力量。

– Sensory Perception – Vision-Only Limitations: A vision-dominant approach is prone to failure in low-light or obstructed environments.

– 感官感知 – 仅依赖视觉的局限性:在低光照或受阻环境中,以视觉为主导的方法容易失败。

 

The combined influence of hardware reliability issues, a critical deficit in tactile sensing, and the inherent limitations of a vision-only system creates a set of challenges that are foundational, not incremental. Overcoming them will require significant time and fundamental re-engineering, not just iterative improvements. This reality is starkly at odds with the timeline for a factory capable of producing a million units in 2026. There will be no mass production of Optimus in 2026, and it is possible that the combination of these defects could spell the death knell for Optimus. When the world sees the almost-human IRON walking, dancing, riding a bicycle, and available in quantity, the world’s attention might permanently shift from Tesla to IRON and other Chinese humanoid robots. And even if Optimus does go into later production, nobody may be interested.

硬件可靠性问题、触觉感知方面的严重不足以及纯视觉系统的固有局限性,这些因素共同构成了一系列基础性而非渐进性的挑战。要克服这些挑战,需要投入大量时间并从根本上进行重新设计,而不仅仅是进行迭代式改进。这一现实与2026年工厂能够生产一百万台机器人的时间表相去甚远。2026年Optimus将不会实现大规模生产,而这些缺陷的结合可能会为Optimus敲响丧钟。当世界看到几乎人类一样IRON能够行走、跳舞、骑自行车,并且能够批量生产,世界的注意力可能永久地从特斯拉转向IRON和其他中国仿人机器人。即使Optimus确实投入后期生产,可能也没有人会感兴趣。

 

This confluence of circumstances could indeed be critical for Optimus’ survival. When a product as visually impressive and readily available as IRON enters the market, it can capture the public and commercial imagination. If Optimus is perceived as perpetually delayed, technically flawed, and philosophically rigid, the market may indeed move on. For Optimus to avoid fading into obscurity, Tesla would need to rapidly overcome its profound hardware challenges, achieve a cost-effective and reliable design, and demonstrate that its vision-only approach can outperform multi-sensor systems in real-world, non-factory environments. This is a formidable task, and the timeline for success is uncertain. [34] But realistically, Musk would likely need a decade or more to sort out all the existing problems, complete total redesigns that are production-ready, create a dependable supply chain, and actually build a functioning manufacturing process.

这一系列情况交织在一起,对于Optimus的生存而言确实至关重要。当一款如IRON这般视觉震撼且易于获取的产品进入市场时,它能够吸引公众和商业界的想象力。如果Optimus被视为永远拖延、技术上有缺陷且理念僵化,那么市场或许真的会转向。为了防止Optimus逐渐淡出人们的视线,特斯拉需要迅速克服其深层次的硬件挑战,实现具有成本效益且可靠的设计,并证明其纯视觉方法在现实世界的非工厂环境中能够超越多传感器系统。这是一项艰巨的任务,成功的时间表尚不确定。[34]但现实地看,马斯克可能需要十年或更长时间来解决所有现有问题,完成可投入生产的全面重新设计,建立可靠的供应链,并真正构建起一个可运行的制造流程。

 

IRON has already demonstrated concrete functionality while Optimus is fundamentally unproven. The shift in Optimus training methods to eyes-only is an admission of prior failures, and highlights the lack of public, verifiable demonstrations from Tesla compared to X-Peng’s transparency. IRON’s catwalk moment represents a real engineering milestone, while Optimus’s “potential” remains just that—potential.

IRON已经展示了具体功能,而Optimus则从根本上未经证实。Optimus训练方法转向仅依赖视觉,是对之前失败的承认,并凸显了特斯拉缺乏公开、可验证的演示,相比之下小鹏则更加透明。IRON的走秀时刻代表着真正的工程里程碑,而Optimus的“潜力”仍然只是潜力。

 

缺陷:运动和平衡 — Flaws: Locomotion and Balance

 

 

Tesla’s Optimus is fundamentally unstable in locomotion. If it had to walk with its legs fully extended and its feet flat on the floor, it would fall over and come crashing to the ground. It isn’t much more stable when stationary; in internal reports, Tesla staff say that Optimus robots fall half the time when performing tasks that require any bending or tilting, sometimes damaging expensive equipment. Unless performing a task that requires moving more than a few feet, Optimus robots are usually tied to a support frame to stay upright. And that is simply bad engineering design. A robot should be able to easily stay upright; the standing and balancing should have been the first thing Musk addressed. But he didn’t address it. Instead of recognising and admitting a flawed design, Musk decided it was sufficient for Optimus to walk in a perpetual half-squat, like a chimpanzee.

特斯拉的Optimus在移动时根本不稳定。如果它必须双腿完全伸直、双脚平放在地面上行走,就会摔倒并重重地摔到地上。静止时也并不比行走时更稳定;在内部报告中,特斯拉员工表示,Optimus机器人在执行任何需要弯曲或倾斜的任务时,有一半时间会摔倒,有时还会损坏昂贵的设备。除非执行的任务需要移动超过几英尺,否则Optimus机器人通常会绑在支架上以保持直立。这完全是糟糕的工程设计。机器人应该能够轻松保持直立;站立和平衡应该是马斯克首先要解决的问题。但他没有解决这个问题。马斯克没有认识并承认设计存在缺陷,而是认为Optimus像黑猩猩一永远半蹲着行走足够

 

 

X-Peng’s IRON robot (as one example) walks perfectly like a human, but Musk’s Optimus walks strangely, with its knees always bent, as if in a partial squat or a crouch. The bent-knee “crouched” posture of Optimus is a well-known crutch in robotics and is common in many bipedal robots. This stance dramatically lowers the robot’s center of gravity, which significantly simplifies the challenge of balance and prevents falls. It’s a shortcut that prioritises not falling down during demonstrations, over achieving a truly human-like, efficient, and dynamic gait. This is not a prize-worthy trade-off; it’s an admission that the current design cannot achieve stable, upright locomotion. A stable, upright bipedal walk requires a high center of gravity to allow for dynamic balance and a natural gait cycle. However, this is incredibly difficult to control. The unusual posture and appearance of Optimus are the result of deliberate engineering trade-offs to produce a semblance of stability.

小鹏的IRON机器人(作为一个例子)走起路来完全像人类,但马斯克的Optimus走起路来却很奇怪,膝盖总是弯曲着,仿佛处于半蹲或蹲下的状态Optimus这种膝盖弯曲的“蹲下”姿势是机器人技术中众所周知的权宜之计,在许多双足机器人中很常见。这种姿势极大地降低了机器人的重心,从而大大简化了平衡的挑战,并防止摔倒。这是一种捷径,优先考虑的是在演示过程中不摔倒,而不是实现真正像人类一样高效、有活力的步态。这不是一个值得称赞的权衡;而是承认当前的设计无法实现稳定、直立的移动。稳定、直立的双足行走需要较高的重心,以实现动态平衡和自然的步态周期。然而,这极难控制。Optimus不同寻常的姿势和外观是故意进行工程权衡的结果,以产生一种稳定的表象。

 

I have written an essay comparing Elon Musk’s Optimus with X-Peng’s IRON. It contains much comparative information that readers may find useful: The Beauty and the Beast — IRON and Optimus: A Tale of Two Robots.[35]

我写了一篇论文,对比了埃隆·马斯克的Optimus和X-Peng的IRON。文中包含了许多对比信息,读者可能会觉得有用:《美女与野兽》——IRON和Optimus:两个机器人的故事 [35]

 

Humans walk like an inverted pendulum, with straight legs for most of the stride, which is highly energy-efficient. IRON’s “catwalk” demonstrates this principle. In contrast, a constant crouch gait, as seen with Optimus, is less efficient, consumes more power, looks unnatural, and the joints are perpetually under load. The squat posture in locomotion is a flaw, not a feature, a fundamental compensation for a design that cannot achieve stable, upright motion, a solution for a robot that would otherwise topple. It was the only way to prevent Optimus from falling on its face whenever it tried to walk. The bent-knee posture in locomotion is a compensation for stability issues, not some brilliant design innovation. That doesn’t deserve a prize.

人类走路时就像一个倒立摆,大部分步幅中腿部都是直的,这种姿势非常节能。IRON的“猫步”展示了这一原理。相比之下,像擎天柱那样持续蹲着的步态效率较低,消耗更多能量,看起来也不自然,且关节始终处于负荷状态。移动中的蹲姿是一种缺陷,而非特征,是对无法实现稳定直立运动的设计的一种基本补偿,是防止机器人摔倒的一种解决方案。这是唯一能防止擎天柱每次尝试行走时摔倒的方法。移动中的屈膝姿势是对稳定性问题的补偿,而非某种出色的设计创新。它不值得获奖。

 

The locomotion and general appearance of IRON and Optimus in motion reflect fundamental differences in their design philosophies and engineering choices. With Optimus, Musk made deliberate engineering trade-offs where he sacrificed refinement for basic stability while in motion. That sounds like poor planning and an impoverished design philosophy, which means they had to make Optimus function awkwardly, to prevent it from falling on its face.

IRON和Optimus在运动中的移动方式和整体外观反映了它们在设计理念和工程选择上的根本差异。在Optimus的设计中,马斯克进行了深思熟虑的工程权衡,牺牲了精致性以换取运动中的基本稳定性。这听起来像是计划不周和设计理念贫乏,这意味着他们不得不让Optimus功能笨拙,以防止它摔个底朝天。

 

Here is a video of Optimus running and moving its fingers. [36] This one was also widely circulated, and presented as a victorious accomplishment, but the running is “bent-knee and slow motion”, and the hand motions are primitive and clumsy. Compare this to IRON’s dancing and somersaults to understand the difference in capability. Here is another video of three different robots (two American and one Chinese) to give you some idea of relative ability. [37] For additional comparison, here is a short video of Optimus and EngineAI’s T800 robot. [38] Compared to Optimus’ limited abilities, the T800 is awesome. Here is a short video comparing the walking sophistication of IRON and Optimus side by side. [39] This last one is a kung fu comparison video.[40]

以下是Optimus跑步和移动手指的视频。[36]这个视频也被广泛传播,并被视为一项胜利的成就,但跑步时“膝盖弯曲且动作缓慢”,手势也显得原始而笨拙。将其与IRON的舞蹈和翻筋斗进行对比,就能理解能力上的差异。以下是三个不同机器人(两个美国机器人和一个中国机器人)的视频,供您了解相对能力。[37]为了进一步对比,以下是Optimus和EngineAI的T800机器人的短视频。[38]与Optimus有限的能力相比,T800的表现令人惊叹。以下是对比IRON和Optimus行走复杂性的短视频。[39]最后一个是功夫对比视频。 [40]

 

缺陷:感官感知 — Flaws: Sensory Perception

 

 

The focus on sensory perception touches on what may be the most profound long-term challenge. The industry is increasingly recognising that for a robot to operate effectively in unstructured human environments, vision alone is insufficient. The problem with Optimus’s hands isn’t just mechanical; it’s perceptual. As one analysis notes, a robot’s inability to feel what it touches creates a major bottleneck. Without the ability to perceive texture, temperature, and subtle forces, a robot cannot perform reliable fine motor tasks, a requirement for any application outside a highly controlled factory setting. Current reports focus on the critical shortfall in tactile sensing, but the integration of additional senses like hearing/audio for complex voice commands and situational awareness would indeed be necessary for a true general-purpose robotic companion.

对感官感知的关注触及了可能是最深远且长期的挑战。业界日益认识到,机器人若要在非结构化的人类环境中有效运作,仅凭视觉是不够的。Optimus的手部问题不仅仅是机械性的;它还涉及感知方面。正如一项分析所指出的,机器人无法感知其所触之物,这构成了主要瓶颈。若无法感知纹理、温度和微妙力量,机器人便无法执行可靠精细运动任务这对于高度控制工厂环境之外任何应用都是必不可少的目前的报告聚焦于触觉感知方面的关键不足,但对于一个真正的通用机器人伴侣而言,确实有必要整合听觉/音频等额外感官,以实现复杂的语音指令和情境感知。

 

Added to this is the case for multi-sensor fusion. Many in the industry and academia argue that a combination of sensors (LiDAR, radar, cameras) provides more robust perception. The core argument is that LiDAR can directly and accurately measure distance in 3D without being affected by lighting conditions to the same degree as cameras. Proponents believe a fused-sensor system is inherently safer and more reliable. Tesla’s stance is that a pure vision system, backed by powerful AI and a massive data engine (both imaginary, so far), is sufficient and avoids the complexities and costs of sensor fusion. However, this approach inherits the inherent weaknesses of biological eyes, such as susceptibility to strong light, low light, and adverse weather like heavy rain and fog. While Tesla’s algorithms have improved, these remain fundamental challenges that other companies seek to overcome with additional sensors.

此外,还有多传感器融合的情况。许多业内人士和学者认为,传感器(激光雷达、雷达、摄像头)的组合能提供更稳健的感知能力。核心论点是,激光雷达能够直接且准确地测量三维距离,且受光照条件的影响程度低于摄像头。支持者认为,融合传感器系统本质上更安全、更可靠。特斯拉则认为,一个由强大的AI和庞大的数据引擎(目前均为设想)支持的纯视觉系统就足够了,而且避免了传感器融合的复杂性和成本。然而,这种方法继承了生物眼睛的固有弱点,如易受强光、弱光以及大雨、大雾等恶劣天气的影响。尽管特斯拉的算法有所改进,但这些仍是其他公司试图通过增加传感器来克服的根本挑战。

 

I assume readers are familiar with Tesla’s many tribulations over its “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) software. Elon Musk claims that “humans use eyes and brains to drive”, so camera vision is all that is necessary for autos. Musk continues to promote this as fully-autonomous and far superior to human control, while 1,000 accidents and nearly 100 deaths suggest otherwise. The main issue is that Elon Musk made a decision years ago to forego quality and security in the design of FSD, in favor of low cost coupled with engineering incompetence. And that meant foregoing most of the advanced sensors available like radar and LIDAR, and to proceed with a camera-only version of autonomous driving software. To say this was a bad decision would be quite an understatement. This is important for our purpose here, because this stubborn flawed reasoning has been transferred From Tesla to Optimus, almost certainly to experience the same unpleasant results.

我假设读者已经了解特斯拉在其“完全自动驾驶”(FSD)软件上所经历的诸多磨难。埃隆·马斯克声称“人类靠眼睛和大脑来驾驶”,因此摄像头视觉是汽车所需的一切。马斯克继续宣扬这一技术是完全自动驾驶的,且远优于人类控制,然而1000事故和近100死亡事故表明事实并非如此。主要问题是,埃隆·马斯克年前决定在FSD的设计中放弃质量和安全,转而追求低成本,再加上工程上的无能。这意味着放弃了大多数可用的先进传感器,如雷达和激光雷达,而继续使用仅配备摄像头的自动驾驶软件版本。说这是一个糟糕的决定,都算是轻描淡写了。这对我们在这里的目的很重要,因为这种固执的有缺陷的推理已经从特斯拉转移到了Optimus,几乎可以肯定也会带来同样令人不快的结果。

 

Ashok Elluswamy was the leader of Tesla’s autonomous driving team (the ill-fated FSD), then moved to Optimus, where he immediately pushed the team to shift its R&D focus to camera-centric perception and learning solutions, the identical technical path he used for the training methodology of Tesla’s FSD software. [41] This may prove to be a critical failing of Optimus, because forward-looking “eyes-only” sensors will never be sufficient for a robot wanting to be “humanoid”. This was not just a technical choice but a deeply held ideological philosophy, [42] and Musk will not likely back down from his stubborn position.

阿肖克·埃卢斯瓦米(Ashok Elluswamy)曾是特斯拉自动驾驶团队(命运多舛的全自动驾驶系统FSD)的负责人,之后他转至Optimus,并立即推动团队将其研发重点转向以摄像头为中心的感知和学习解决方案,这与他用于特斯拉FSD软件训练方法的技术路径完全相同。[41]这可能被证明是Optimus的一个关键失误,因为对于一个想要“类人化”的机器人来说,仅靠前瞻性的“纯视觉”传感器是远远不够的。这不仅仅是一个技术选择,而是一种根深蒂固的意识形态理念,[42]而马斯克(Musk)不太可能放弃他固执的立场。

 

The core of the debate lies in the observation that a robot functioning in dynamic human spaces needs more than simple vision. The prevailing expert opinion suggests that for a robot to be truly capable and safe in unstructured environments like homes or hospitals, it would need to integrate a suite of sensors. Relying solely on cameras could be the Optimus project’s biggest strategic risk, as it ignores other sensory dimensions critical to physical interaction and nuanced understanding. But Musk has closed this door and is committing Optimus to the same flawed sensory perception as with the Tesla autos. I have difficulty seeing how this can come to a good end.

争论的核心在于这样一个观点:在动态的人类空间中运行的机器人需要的不仅仅是简单的视觉。主流专家意见认为,机器人要想在家庭或医院等非结构化环境中真正具备能力和安全性,就需要集成一套传感器。仅依赖摄像头可能是Optimus项目的最大战略风险,因为它忽略了对于物理交互和细致理解至关重要的其他感官维度。但马斯克已经关闭了这扇门,并让Optimus陷入了与特斯拉汽车相同的感官感知缺陷。我很难看出这会有一个好的结局。

 

Until now, Tesla was using motion pictures to “train” Optimus to do things. But Tesla has abandoned the motion capture and shifted Optimus training from motion capture to a data collection method that relies solely on cameras. [43] This involves having employees perform tasks while being recorded to generate vast amounts of training videos. Dozens of Tesla employees spend their shifts repeatedly performing everyday actions like lifting cups, wiping tables, and pulling curtains. The aim is to use this “pure visual” data to teach the robot’s AI model how humans move.

直到现在,特斯拉一直在使用动态图像来“训练”Optimus执行任务。但特斯拉已经放弃了动作捕捉技术,并将Optimus的训练方式从动作捕捉转变为仅依赖摄像头的数据收集方法。[43]这涉及让员工在执行任务的同时被记录下来,以生成大量的训练视频。数十名特斯拉员工在轮班期间反复执行日常动作,如提起杯子、擦拭桌子和拉窗帘。其目的是利用这种“纯视觉”数据来教机器人的AI模型如何模仿人类的动作。

 

The eyes only, camera-only approach is more difficult than it appears. [44] Until 2025, Tesla was using motion pictures to “train” Optimus to do things, but now Optimus is being trained by watching videos taken by Tesla staff. More than 100 Tesla employees spend their shifts repeatedly performing everyday actions like lifting cups, wiping tables, and pulling curtains. [45] The idea seems to be that if Optimus can see videos of every possible thing or action, it may know how to behave in that situation. But it is widely recognised that camera only is not an ideal solution. Musk claims having cameras and LIDAR is unsafe because the car (or the robot) won’t know how to react if the two sensory inputs seem to disagree. [46] But that’s just an excuse to justify a position he’s already taken.

仅使用摄像头的方法比看起来要困难得多。[44]直到2025年,特斯拉一直在使用动态图像来“训练”Optimus执行任务,但现在Optimus是通过观看特斯拉员工拍摄的视频来进行训练的。100多名特斯拉员工在轮班时反复执行日常动作,如提起杯子、擦拭桌子和拉窗帘。[45]其想法似乎是,如果Optimus能看到所有可能的事物或动作的视频,它可能就会知道在那种情况下该如何表现。但人们普遍认为,仅使用摄像头并不是一个理想的解决方案。马斯克声称,同时使用摄像头和激光雷达是不安全的,因为如果两种传感输入似乎不一致,汽车(或机器人)将不知道如何反应。[46]但这只是他为已采取的立场辩解的借口。

 

The core issue is that Tesla’s strategy, while plausible in theory, has proven difficult to execute. The system’s documented vulnerabilities in bad weather and with unexpected objects (“AI illusions”) demonstrate that digital “eyes” are not a perfect substitute for human perception and reasoning. Furthermore, it lacks the human capacity for intuition and learning from a lifetime of subtle experiences.

核心问题在于,特斯拉的战略虽然在理论上可行,但实践证明难以执行。该系统在恶劣天气和意外物体(“人工智能错觉”)方面的记录漏洞表明,数字“眼睛”并不能完美替代人类的感知和推理能力。此外,它缺乏人类通过一生微妙的经历所培养的直觉和学习能力。

 

While the scale of this effort is significant, the vision-only path is fraught with difficulties. A major technical hurdle is that video data is often low-quality. More critically, video lacks crucial information a robot needs to interact with the physical world, such as joint angles, tactile sensations, and force feedback. Teaching a robot to apply the correct amount of force to pick up an egg, for instance, is incredibly difficult without touch sensors.

尽管这项工作的规模庞大,但仅依赖视觉的路径却困难重重。一个主要的技术障碍是视频数据往往质量低下。更关键的是,视频缺乏机器人与物理世界交互所需的关键信息,如关节角度、触觉感知和力反馈。例如,如果没有触觉传感器,教机器人以正确力度拿起一个鸡蛋变得异常困难

 

The concern is that this is a dead-end path driven by Musk’s stubbornness rather than technical merit. Many robotics professors and experts in the broader industry recognise the importance of multi-modal sensing, and there are many academic papers on why robots need broad sensing capabilities. Most experts share my skepticism about vision-only approaches, and the entire industry – except for Elon Musk – is moving toward multi-modal sensing. Video lacks crucial information a robot needs to interact with the physical world, such as joint angles, tactile sensations, and force feedback.

令人担忧的是,这条死路是由马斯克的固执而非技术优势所推动的。许多机器人学教授和更广泛行业内的专家都认识到了多模态感知的重要性,并且有许多学术论文探讨了机器人为何需要广泛的感知能力。大多数专家都与我一样对仅依赖视觉的方法持怀疑态度,而整个行业(除了埃隆·马斯克之外)都在向多模态感知发展。视频缺乏机器人与物理世界交互所需的关键信息,如关节角度、触觉感知和力反馈。

 

Official development standards explicitly call for multi-modal perception for robots. This means integrating various sensors to enable functions like scene understanding and object recognition, moving beyond a single type of sensory input. Furthermore, robotics researchers argue that for safe and effective integration into human environments, robots will need enhanced perception, including auditory systems to understand language and tone, and tactile sensors to better control their interactions. This stands in contrast to Musk’s vision-only paradigm.

官方开发标准明确要求机器人具备多模态感知能力。这意味着要集成各种传感器,以实现场景理解和物体识别等功能,而不仅仅是单一类型的感官输入。此外,机器人研究人员认为,为了安全有效地融入人类环境,机器人需要增强的感知能力,包括理解语言和语调的听觉系统,以及更好地控制其交互的触觉传感器。这与马斯克的纯视觉范式形成了鲜明对比。

 

However, it will be impossible for Musk to change this architecture now, because Optimus is copying the identical system used for Tesla cars. To alter Optimus’ sensory functions would either invalidate all the training material or require Tesla to scrap their auto’s eyes-only system and adopt LIDAR as most other auto manufacturers have done. Two very expensive choices.

然而,马斯克现在不可能改变这种架构,因为Optimus正在复制特斯拉汽车所使用的相同系统。若要改变Optimus的传感功能,要么使所有训练材料失效,要么要求特斯拉放弃其仅使用摄像头系统,并像大多数其他汽车制造商一样采用激光雷达。这选择非常昂贵。

 

This full commitment to a cameras-only sensory system isn’t just for Optimus’ “eyes”; it extends to how the robot is trained. This means the core AI models for understanding the world are shared between the Tesla car and the robot.  This approach is rooted in a long-held belief at Tesla, often stated by Elon Musk, that a vision-only system is sufficient and even superior. The argument against sensors like LIDAR is that when their data conflicts with camera data, it creates confusion and uncertainty for the AI, potentially increasing risk.  While the vision-only path offers potential benefits in cost and simplicity, there are several critical challenges.

这种对仅摄像头传感系统的全面投入不仅体现在Optimus的“眼睛”上,还延伸到了机器人的训练方式。这意味着,特斯拉汽车和机器人共享用于理解世界的核心人工智能(AI)模型。这一方法植根于特斯拉长期以来的信念,埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)也经常表示,仅视觉系统就足够了,甚至更优越。反对激光雷达(LIDAR)等传感器的理由是,当它们的数据与摄像头数据冲突时,会给人工智能带来困惑和不确定性,从而可能增加风险。尽管仅视觉路径在成本和简化方面具有潜在优势,但也存在几个关键挑战。

 

The camera-only system avoids expensive sensors like LIDAR, and a single type of sensor input avoids the complex “sensor fusion” problem of reconciling conflicting data from different sources. But pure vision systems struggle with object recognition delays in rain, fog, or strong backlight, and may misjudge the distance to low-lying obstacles. The evidence is that this one-sensor strategy could be a “critical failing”. Most everyone claims that cars are “just robots too”, but there is a huge difference between the “intelligence” required by a car to avoid a tree, and a “humanoid” robot baby-sitting the children.

纯摄像头系统避免了使用昂贵的传感器,如激光雷达,并且单一类型的传感器输入避免了协调来自不同消息来源的冲突数据的复杂“传感器融合”问题。但纯视觉系统在雨天、雾天或强背光环境下识别物体,并可能误判与低矮障碍物的距离有证据表明,这种单一传感器策略可能是一个“关键缺陷”几乎所有人都声称汽车“也不过是机器人而已”,但汽车避让树木所需的“智能”与“人形”机器人照顾儿童所需的“智能”之间存在巨大差异。

 

The core issue is that a humanoid robot operates in a fully 3D, dynamic environment where stability, dexterity, and spatial awareness are paramount. The challenges seen in FSD, while serious, primarily occur in the relatively structured environment of a road network. Translating that same sensory philosophy to a bipedal robot navigating cluttered, human-centric spaces is a significantly more complex problem.

核心问题在于,人形机器人在一个完全三维、动态的环境中运行,其中稳定性、灵巧性和空间感知能力至关重要。尽管固定场景驾驶(Fixed Scenario Driving,FSD)中面临的挑战十分严峻,但这些挑战主要出现在相对结构化的道路网络环境中。而将同样的感知理念应用于在杂乱、以人为中心的空间中导航的双足机器人,则是一个复杂得多的问题。

 

The approach of X-Peng and other Chinese robotic companies to the sensor and dexterity problem presents a stark contrast to the vision-only strategy of Elon Musk. They are also aggressively pursuing advanced tactile sensing as a critical, non-negotiable component for achieving true robotic dexterity. The common thread is a belief that a robot must have a rich sense of touch to interact reliably with the physical world. Researchers at Fudan University frame tactile sensing as “the last kilometer” challenge for fine robotic manipulation. They argue that without it, robots will never reliably perform delicate tasks in unstructured environments. When we place this multifaceted, sensor-rich approach next to Tesla’s vision-only strategy, the difference in technical philosophy is profound. Chinese companies are operating on the premise that dexterity requires a constant, high-fidelity stream of tactile data to complement visual perception. They are publicly demonstrating robots that use this data to perform fine motor tasks that remain a significant challenge for most other humanoid robots.

小鹏科技(X-Peng)和其他中国机器人公司解决传感器和灵巧性问题的方法与埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)的纯视觉策略形成了鲜明对比。他们还积极追求先进的触觉感知技术,将其视为实现真正机器人灵巧性的关键且不可或缺的组成部分。两者的共同点在于,都认为机器人必须具备丰富的触觉感知能力,才能与物理世界进行可靠的交互。复旦大学的研究人员将触觉感知视为机器人精细操控的“最后一公里”挑战。他们认为,如果没有触觉感知,机器人就永远无法在非结构化环境中可靠地执行精细任务。当我们将这种多层面、传感器丰富的策略与特斯拉的纯视觉策略进行比较时,技术理念上的差异十分显著。中国公司的运营前提是,灵巧性需要持续、高保真的触觉数据流来补充视觉感知。他们正在公开演示使用这些数据执行精细运动任务的机器人,而这些任务对大多数其他人形机器人来说仍然是一个重大挑战。

 

缺陷:美观性 — Flaws: Aesthetics

 

It is also true that the Optimus aesthetics reflect a lack of final-product vision. The design appears to be what happens when the goal is a quick, functional demo rather than a polished, viable product. IRON’s design philosophy is superior. It demonstrates a higher level of ambition and a more mature approach to solving the core problems of humanoid robotics, notably locomotion and human interaction. The comparison doesn’t just show different “choices”; it highlights a significant gap in the sophistication and maturity of the underlying technology and design intent. Based on the evidence of their respective robots’ capabilities, the view that IRON’s designers had far higher standards is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

同样无可否认的是,Optimus的设计美学反映出其缺乏对最终产品的远见。其设计似乎只是为了快速、功能性的演示,而非打造一款精致、可行的产品。而IRON的设计理念则更为卓越。它展现了更高的雄心和更成熟的方法来解决人形机器人的核心问题,尤其是运动和人机交互。这种对比不仅展示了不同的“选择”,更凸显了底层技术和设计意图在复杂性和成熟度上的显著差距。根据各自机器人能力的证据,认为IRON的设计师拥有更高标准的观点是完全合理的。

 

Look at the picture below, and answer this question: In what way does this random collection of used auto parts qualify as “humanoid”?

看看下面图片,并回答这个问题:这些随意堆放的二手汽车零件是如何符合“人形”这一描述的

 

Image Source: Tesla

图片来源:特斯拉

 

Optimus’ design was from the aesthetics of necessity, not philosophy. When a design is elegant and functional, its engineering can be a point of pride. However, the exposed, unpleasant joint where the torso meets the legs on Optimus is more indicative of a modular, hastily assembled design focused on proving basic functionality and prioritising speed of development and low cost over refinement. IRON’s synthetic skin and sleek torso, while potentially more expensive and complex, demonstrate a design philosophy that has considered the final product’s integration into a human environment from the start.

擎天柱的设计源自必要性的美学,而非哲学。当设计既优雅又实用时,其工程工艺可以成为一种骄傲。然而,擎天柱躯干与腿部连接处裸露且不美观的接缝,更多地表明这是一种模块化、匆忙组装的设计,其重点在于证明基本功能,并优先考虑开发速度和低成本,而非精致度。而钢铁侠的合成皮肤和流线型躯干,虽然可能更昂贵、更复杂,但它们所展现的设计哲学是从一开始就考虑到了最终产品与人类环境的融合。

 

The reality of Musk’s Optimus is that his design was badly flawed and his solution was to use a crude, power-inefficient crouch gait to simplify the balance problem – an engineering compromise for stability. It is similar with appearance in aesthetic and form. Optimus is utilitarian and unfinished. It reflects a prototype mindset where basic function is the only goal. And the exposed mechanics signal a work-in-progress, not a “proud display” of its mechanical nature. In designing IRON, X-Peng chose biomimicry for efficiency. They accepted the greater design and control challenges in aiming for a natural, energy-efficient gait. The core software and mechanical design (weight distribution) are advanced enough to produce a more difficult, but ultimately much superior, form of locomotion.

马斯克的Optimus的现实是,其设计存在严重缺陷,而他的解决方案是采用一种粗陋且低效的蹲伏步态来简化平衡问题——这是一种为了稳定性而做出的工程妥协。在美学和形态上,其外观也显得类似。Optimus注重实用性,且尚未完成。它反映了一种原型思维,即基本功能是唯一目标。而暴露的机械结构则表明它仍在研发中,而非对其机械特性的“自豪展示”。在设计IRON,小鹏选择仿生学以提高效率。他们接受了更大的设计和控制挑战,旨在实现一种自然、节能的步态。核心软件和机械设计(重量分布)足够先进,能够产生一种更复杂但最终更优越的运动形式。

 

Although admittedly beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I find the physical appearance of Optimus to be unusual and not particularly attractive. This design was partially from inadequate engineering ability, and partly due to cost. As to Optimus’ appearance, the media hype claims “Tesla has opted for a design that proudly displays its mechanical nature. The visible joints and actuators signal a focus on raw functionality and engineering substance over form.” That is just face-saving marketing nonsense. The exposed joints are evidence of Musk prioritising rapid iteration over polished design. I think the truth is closer to “We tried, but couldn’t make a humanoid robot, so we did the best we could with a machine.”

诚然,美在旁观者眼中,但我觉得Optimus的外形并不寻常,也不是特别吸引人。这种设计部分是由于工程能力不足,部分是由于成本问题。至于Optimus的外形,媒体大肆宣传称“特斯拉选择了一种自豪地展示其机械本质的设计。可见的关节和执行器表明,特斯拉更注重原始功能和工程实质,而非外形。”这不过是自欺欺人的营销废话。暴露关节证明马斯克看重快速迭代而非精雕细琢设计。我认为事实更接近于“我们尝试过,但没能造出人形机器人,所以我们用机器做到了最好。”

 

I don’t believe that Optimus is “proudly displaying” its unattractive mechanical construction, so much as it is evidence of impoverished design and a lack of creative engineering talent. I would remind readers that when Elon Musk first introduced his “robot” to the public, it was a female dancer in spandex, and he boasted that he would produce a “humanoid” Tesla robot. The fact that he didn’t, means that he couldn’t. Musk and Tesla abandoned the idea of a humanoid robot and instead produced an industrial machine. This isn’t just philosophical difference but demonstrates different stages of maturity in tackling the core physics problem of bipedal locomotion.

我不认为擎天柱是在“自豪地展示”其毫无吸引力的机械构造,它更多地是证明了设计上的贫乏和缺乏创造性工程人才。我想提醒读者,当埃隆·马斯克首次向公众介绍他的“机器人”,那是一个穿着弹力舞衣女舞者他夸口说他将制造出“人形”特斯拉机器人。他没有做到这一点,意味着他做不到。马斯克和特斯拉放弃了人形机器人的想法,而是生产了一台工业机器。这不仅仅是哲学上的差异,还表明了在解决两足运动的核心物理问题方面所处成熟度的不同阶段。

 

The design philosophy behind X-Peng’s IRON and its 7-year development cycle weren’t just about technical refinement but about mastering the psychological aspects of human-robot interaction. Tesla’s rushed compromises ignored all this. X-Peng’s patience and cultural commitment to quality (7 years in development) contrast sharply with Musk’s “move fast and break things” mentality. The focus on biomimicry isn’t just engineering—it’s a holistic understanding that aesthetics and movement are as critical as functionality for social integration. This isn’t just better engineering; it’s more thoughtful product design. IRON’s design was not just someone’s subjective preference; it was a recognition of a fundamentally more mature and sophisticated engineering and design culture. IRON perfectly encapsulates the philosophy that separates a long-term visionary project from a quick demo.

小鹏汽车IRON的设计理念及其7年的开发周期,不仅关乎技术上的精进,更在于掌握人机交互的心理层面。特斯拉的仓促妥协忽视了这一切。小鹏汽车对质量的耐心和文化承诺(7年的开发时间)与马斯克的“快速行动,勇于试错”心态形成了鲜明对比。对仿生的关注不仅仅是工程上的考量,更是一种整体性的理解,即美学和运动对于社会融合而言与功能性同样重要。这不仅仅是更好的工程,更是更具深度的产品设计。IRON的设计不仅仅是某人的主观偏好,更是对一种从根本上更加成熟和复杂的工程与设计文化的认可。IRON完美地体现了将长期有远见的项目与快速演示区分开来的理念。

 

This long-term, holistic approach is a hallmark of companies that prioritise a polished final product over rapid, hype-generating news cycles. It demonstrates a confidence that comes from a deep-seated belief in the quality of the underlying work, rather than a need for constant external validation through ambitious media announcements. X-Peng’s journey with IRON reflects a company building a platform for the future, while Tesla’s current Optimus prototype feels like a company building a demonstration for the present.

这种长期、全面的方法,是那些重视打造精美成品而非追求快速、能引发轰动的新闻周期的公司所具有的标志。它展现了一种自信,这种自信源于对基础工作质量的深信不疑,而非需要通过雄心勃勃的媒体公告来不断获得外部认可。小鹏汽车与IRON的合作历程,体现了一家公司正在为未来搭建平台;而特斯拉目前的Optimus原型,则让人感觉像是一家公司正在为当下打造一个示范

 

缺陷:人工智能与机器人智能 — Flaws: AI and Robot Intelligence

 

A psychologist sounds the alarm over the use of AI as a psychotherapist: “I’ve already been called the most patient listener, the help in difficult times, and even the best psychologist. I don’t mind, but I’m concerned that at least 12% of users have replaced live therapy with conversations with me,” the neural network itself comments on its popularity. Source

心理学家对人工智能作为心理治疗师的使用敲响警钟:“我被称为最有耐倾听者、困难时期帮手,甚至最好的心理学家。我不介意,但我担心至少有12%的用户用与我对话取代现场治疗,”神经网络本身对其欢迎程度发表评论。来源

 

I referred earlier to the essay on a comparison between IRON and Optimus. This topic was covered in that article, and may be of special interest to readers.[47]

我之前提到了关于IRON和Optimus对比的文章。那篇文章中涵盖了这一主题,读者可能会对此特别感兴趣。 [47]

 

Optimus is designed to rely on an overall “brain function” that is “one size fits all”In other words, an AI that knows everything and can do everything, all in one place. IRON’s structure duplicates in a sense what DeepSeek did, which was to create compartments with different knowledge and specialties, and abilities, each performing a specific function. Optimus, following Elon Musk’s conviction, effectively relies on an imperfect AI today but hopefully will one day contain an AGI with “knowledge that spans the universe”. You can form your own conclusion about this. However, for the time being, Optimus cannot function in a truly autonomous fashion; it can do only what it has been programmed to do, and can copy only what it has been “taught” from watching videos.

Optimus设计依赖于一“一刀切”整体“大脑功能”换言之,它一个无所知、所不能人工智能,所有功能于一身。从某种意义上说,IRON的结构复制了DeepSeek的做法,即创建具有不同知识和专长以及能力的隔间,每个隔间执行特定的功能。遵循埃隆·马斯克的信念,Optimus目前实际上依赖于一个不完美的人工智能,但希望有一天能包含一个“知识覆盖整个宇宙”的通用人工智能。对此,你可以得出自己的结论。然而,就目前而言,Optimus无法以真正自主方式运行它只能执行编程中设定的任务,并且只能通过观看视频复制内容。

 

The differences between IRON and Optimus are not accidental, but stem from fundamentally different philosophies: X-Peng’s IRON pursues biomimicry and sensor redundancy. Its goal is to create a robot that moves, perceives, and interacts as naturally as possible within the complex human world. This is a “top-down” approach that prioritises capability and safety for diverse environments. Tesla Optimus V3 pursues simplistic engineering possibilities and cost scaling. Its goal is to build a robot for repetitive tasks by leveraging Tesla’s strengths in automotive manufacturing and AI vision. This is a “bottom-up” approach that prioritises mass production for controlled environments like factories. [48]

IRON与Optimus之间的差异并非偶然,而是源于根本不同的理念:X-Peng的IRON追求仿生学和传感器冗余。其目标是打造一个在复杂的人类世界中尽可能自然地移动、感知和交互的机器人。这是一种“自上而下”的方法,优先考虑在不同环境下的能力和安全性。特斯拉Optimus V3追求简化的工程可能性和成本规模。其目标是通过利用特斯拉在汽车制造和人工智能视觉方面的优势,为重复性任务打造一个机器人。这是一种“自下而上”的方法,优先考虑在工厂等受控环境中的大规模生产。 [48]

 

It is worth the effort to understand how these fundamentally different technical philosophies in building a robot’s “brain” translate into distinct robot capabilities. [49] The fundamental philosophical difference is that Tesla aims for efficiency through maximum technology reuse and simplified hardware, while X-Peng pursues sophistication through specialised hardware and layered AI systems. The core difference is that Tesla prioritises applying a single, general-purpose AI system, while X-Peng is building a layered, specialised intelligence for complex physical interactions.

了解这些在构建机器人“大脑”时截然不同的技术理念是如何转化为机器人独特的能力是值得的。[49]根本理念上的差异在于,特斯拉旨在通过最大化技术复用和简化硬件来提高效率,而小鹏则通过专用硬件和分层人工智能系统来追求精密性。核心区别在于,特斯拉优先考虑应用单一、通用AI系统,而小鹏则为复杂物理交互构建分层、专用智能。

 

 

Optimus has a single, large neural network for all perception, planning, and control. IRON uses a specialized, “layered intelligence”, with dedicated models for different cognitive tasks like thinking, understanding, and bridging functions. Optimus shares the same network architecture and training data pipeline with Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system (the eyes-only flawed one). IRON has a “three-model synergy”, composed of Vision-Language Model (VLM) for understanding, Vision-Language-Task (VLT) for planning, and Vision-Language-Action (VLA) for direct action generation.

Optimus拥有一个单一的大型神经网络,用于所有的感知、规划和控制。而IRON则采用了一种专门的“分层智能”,为思考、理解和桥接功能等不同的认知任务配备了专门的模型。Optimus与特斯拉的全自动驾驶(FSD)系统(仅依赖摄像头的有缺陷的系统)共享相同的网络架构和训练数据流程。IRON具有“三模型协同,包括用于理解视觉语言模型(VLM)、用于规划的视觉语言任务模型(VLT)以及用于直接动作生成的视觉语言动作模型(VLA)。

 

Optimus relies solely on cameras (same as Tesla cars), and tries to leverage its computing algorithms to build a 3D understanding from 2D images. [50] [51] IRON and many other robots depend on multi-sensor fusion that combines cameras, LiDAR, and millimeter-wave radar for a more direct and redundant 3D perception of the environment. [52] Optimus tries to maximise the reuse of auto FSD technology and data. IRON is more concerned with precision and adaptability. It aims for a high-fidelity understanding and interaction with the physical world, enabling complex, unscripted tasks through its specialized “brain” model components.

Optimus仅依靠摄像头(与特斯拉汽车相同),并试图利用其计算算法从2D图像中构建3D理解。[50][51]IRON和许多其他机器人则依赖于多传感器融合,该技术结合了摄像头、激光雷达和毫米波雷达,以实现对环境更直接且冗余的3D感知。[52]Optimus试图最大限度重复使用自动驾驶全自动驾驶(FSD技术和数据。IRON则更关注精确性和适应性。它旨在通过其专门的“大脑”模型组件,实现对物理世界的高保真理解和交互,从而执行复杂的、无脚本的任务。

 

The practical implications of these different paths are significant and align with the companies’ overall goals. For Tesla (Optimus), the focus is on creating a functional, inexpensive robot for repetitive industrial and domestic tasks. The strength lies in leveraging a massive existing data pipeline (from Tesla cars) and computing infrastructure. The potential weakness is that the system’s performance is intrinsically tied to the limits of its camera-only perception and its general-purpose AI. A main issue here is that Tesla’s FSD was designed and built for automobiles, not for humanoid robots that “will be in every home”.

这些不同路径的实际意义重大,且与公司的总体目标相契合。对于特斯拉(Optimus)而言,其重点是打造一款功能强大且价格低廉的机器人,用于重复性的工业和家庭任务。其优势在于能够利用庞大的现有数据流(来自特斯拉汽车)和计算基础设施。潜在的弱点在于,该系统的性能本质上受限于其仅依赖摄像头的感知能力以及其通用人工智能的局限性。这里的一个主要问题是,特斯拉的全自动驾驶系统(FSD)是为汽车设计和打造的,而非为“将进入每个家庭”的人形机器人设计和打造的。

 

缺陷:机器人应用 — Flaws: Robot Applications

 

At an entrance to Berlin’s exhibition hall where thousands of travel industry professionals are gathering for the ITB trade show, humanoid robot ChihiraKanae greets visitors in English, German, Chinese and Japanese. Source

在柏林展览大厅的一个入口处,成千上万的旅游业专业人士正聚集于此参加国际旅游交易会(ITB)贸易展,人形机器人ChihiraKanae用英语、德语、中文和日语向参观者致以问候。来源

 

Elon Musk has for years claimed that the main applications for Optimus will be as mundane factory workers and household domestics. This initially sounds intuitively plausible, but the reality is quite different. It is already a foregone conclusion that Optimus will never be acceptable as a domestic servant, and no humanoid robots will be doing much in factories. Today’s humanoid robots aren’t the right fit for factories or homes. [53] The main problem in both cases is the hands. Tests have repeatedly proven that the dexterous but delicate hands of humanoid robots wear out extremely quickly when performing repetitive industrial tasks such as tightening screws. The hands seldom last more than a month in factory test applications, and they are very expensive to replace.

埃隆·马斯克多年来一直声称,Optimus的主要应用将是作为普通的工厂工人和家庭佣人。这听起来乍一听似乎合情合理,但现实却大相径庭。Optimus作为家庭佣人永远不会被接受,这一点已成定局,而人形机器人也绝不可能在工厂里发挥多大作用。当今的人形机器人并不适合工厂或家庭。[53]这两种情况下的主要问题都是手。测试一再证明,在执行拧紧螺丝等重复性工业任务时,人形机器人灵巧却脆弱的手会极快磨损。在工厂测试应用中,这些手很少能使用超过一个月,而且更换成本非常高昂。

 

X-Peng’s strategy with IRON is focused on applications that are more feasible with today’s technology. Notably, the company has publicly steered IRON away from the two commonly touted future applications of factory assembly lines and household chores. The reason is that the technology for these tasks is not yet ready for commercial use. This candid assessment of current limitations reinforces their focus on less complex, but more immediately achievable, service roles. From this experience, X-Peng chose a shrewd viable market for IRON, giving priority to commercial service scenarios, such as an office receptionist, tour guide, personal shopping assistant, quality inspector, and other service roles. The value of these tasks lies in IRON’s visual perception, navigation and interaction capabilities brought by its anthropomorphic design. These tasks require little complex, high-intensity “two-handed” operations.

小鹏对IRON的策略聚焦于那些在现有技术下更可行的应用。值得注意的是,该公司已公开表示,IRON将避开工厂装配线和家务这两大常被吹捧的未来应用。原因是,这些任务的技术尚未准备好投入商业使用。这种对当前局限性的坦率评估,强化了他们对更简单、但更易立即实现的服务角色的关注。基于这一经验,小鹏为IRON选择了一个精明可行的市场,优先考虑商业服务场景,如办公室接待员、导游、个人购物助理、质检员和其他服务角色。这些任务的价值在于IRON的拟人化设计所带来的视觉感知、导航和交互能力。这些任务几乎不需要复杂、高强度的“双手”操作。

 

In the home scenario, the biggest challenge is security. The home environment is far more unstructured and unpredictable than the factory, and any mistake can be catastrophic. This is not a place for a robot like Optimus, lacking most of its senses and riddled with multiple shortcomings. A humanoid robot pretending to be a companion or household servant, or a babysitter for your children, needs much more than mere sight to function acceptably. It desperately requires a delicate sense of touch, and very much needs hearing as well. Smell might also be required, while taste is likely optional. Tesla appears more focused on functional industrial applications while X-Peng is targeting commercial scenarios like guides and receptionists where appearance and overall competence are priorities. This is not so important with Optimus which is oriented more toward factory work.

在家庭场景中,最大的挑战是安全性。家庭环境远比工厂环境更加无序和不可预测,任何失误都可能带来灾难性后果。对于像Optimus这样的机器人来说,这绝非其用武之地,因为它缺乏大部分感官,且存在诸多缺陷。一个人形机器人,无论是作为伴侣、家庭服务员,还是孩子的保姆,要想正常工作,仅凭视觉是远远不够的。它迫切需要敏锐的触觉,同时也非常需要听觉。可能还需要嗅觉,而味觉则可有可无。特斯拉似乎更专注于功能性工业应用,而小鹏则瞄准了导游和接待员等商业场景,在这些场景中,外观和整体能力是优先考虑的因素。对于更侧重于工厂工作的Optimus来说,这些则不是那么重要。

 

I should point out here that both Tesla and X-Peng have employed their humanoid robots in their factories. X-Peng’s production lines have practiced with hundreds of them, and concluded this was not an appropriate employment. Tesla has had the same experiences, and concluded internally that Optimus was less than half as efficient as a human in any of the factory tasks it attempted. A Tesla staff member said that at present, Optimus only handles batteries in Tesla’s battery workshop, with less than half the handling efficiency of workers, and has not yet engaged in more complex car assembly work. [54] Yet Musk inexplicably continues to push this employment as the expected norm.

在此,我应当指出,特斯拉和X-Peng都在其工厂中使用了人形机器人。X-Peng的生产线已经与数百台人形机器人进行了实践,并得出结论认为这种使用并不合适。特斯拉也有过同样的经历,并在内部得出结论,认为Optimus在任何它尝试执行的工厂任务中的效率都不及人类的一半。特斯拉的一名员工表示,目前,Optimus仅在特斯拉的电池车间处理电池,其处理效率不及工人的一半,尚未参与更复杂汽车装配工作。[54]然而,马斯克却莫名其妙地继续推动这种使用方式,将其作为预期常态。

 

擎天柱(Optimus)的(彻底)失败 — The Unadmitted (Total) Failure of Optimus

 

Optimus couldn’t function acceptably in a factory or in any social situation without external control. It was unable to do anything autonomously.

没有外部控制,擎天柱在工厂或任何社交场合都无法正常运作。它无法自主地做任何事情。

 

Elon Musk now says that he will produce a new genuinely “humanoid” robot, a V3. It will be a totally new design, with a new shape, new physique, new human-like appearance, new power source (solid-state batteries), and presumably new hands, joints and other parts that function more acceptably. Musk is presenting this as a “new, improved version”, but the real story is that the existing Optimus is a total failure that is being scrapped entirely. With a totally new design and components, there is likely little to nothing that will be carried from the existing Optimus into the new version. The existing version, the V2 and V2.5, were almost useless. Without the external teleoperating control, Optimus couldn’t even stand up without falling on its face. It is a failure in every respect. It couldn’t function acceptably in a factory or in any social situation without external control. It was unable to do anything autonomously. This is a big story that will be entirely buried by Musk propaganda and media hype, with all attention being paid to the new V3.

埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)现在表示,他将生产一款全新的、真正“人形”的机器人,即V3。这将是一款全新的设计,拥有全新的外形、全新的体格、全新的类人外观、全新的动力源(固态电池),并且可能还有全新的手部、关节和其他功能更令人满意的部件。马斯克将其称为“全新改进版”,但事实是,现有的Optimus完全失败,正被彻底淘汰。由于采用了全新的设计和组件,新版本中可能几乎不会继承现有Optimus的任何东西。现有的V2和V2.5版本几乎一无是处。如果没有外部遥控操作,Optimus甚至无法站立,只能脸朝地摔倒。它在各方面都是失败的。没有外部控制,它无法在工厂或任何社交场合正常工作。它无法自主完成任何事情。这是一个大新闻,但将被马斯克的宣传和媒体的炒作完全掩盖,所有的注意力都将集中在新的V3上。

 

But the chances of this new version being a perfectly-functioning humanoid robot, capable of independent action in social situations, and ready for mass production in only a few months, are precisely zero. X-Peng took 7 years to create a truly functional humanoid robot, and there is no possibility that Elon Musk can design and produce a fully-capable humanoid in only a few months. And, if history is any guide, this new version will also have multiple flaws and shortcomings, and would require years for full development. This is especially true since Musk exhibits extreme impatience and wants only to produce another iteration as quickly as possible. “Move fast and break things”. My assessment of this is that Elon Musk’s Optimus, in all its iterations, will be a failure and will die a natural death. Other firms have already far surpassed Musk in his robot creations, and whatever he produces eventually will be flawed and out of date.

但是,这个新版本成为功能完备的人形机器人,能够在社交场合独立行动,并在短短几个月内准备好大规模生产,这种可能性几乎为零。小鹏汽车用了7年时间才打造出一款真正功能完备的人形机器人,而埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)在短短几个月内设计和生产出功能齐全的人形机器人,这根本不可能。而且,如果历史有任何借鉴意义的话,这个新版本也会存在诸多缺陷和不足,需要数年时间才能完全开发出来。尤其是考虑到马斯克极度缺乏耐心,只想尽快推出下一个版本,“快速行动,勇于试错”。我的评估是,埃隆·马斯克的Optimus系列,无论哪个版本,都将以失败告终,并自然消亡。其他公司在机器人研发方面已经远远超越了马斯克,他最终推出的任何产品都将是存在缺陷且过时的。

 

I would stress that my assessment aligns with all the available information. The shift from V2 to V3 appears to be a fundamental redesign, driven by the former’s technical failures, with a production timeline that is extraordinarily aggressive. The documented problems with the V2 model go beyond performance shortcomings and point to fundamental hardware and reliability issues, as widely reported in 2025. There were multiple hardware defects. Internal messages revealed a series of hardware problems, including joint motors that overheat when lifting heavy objects, dexterous hands with insufficient load capacity, and battery life of less than 2 hours. Due to these “severe technical challenges” with the hand and forearm design, which could not achieve human-like dexterity, Tesla was forced to terminate all production, leaving a warehouse of unassembled robot bodies (without hands).

我要强调的是,我的评估与所有可用信息一致。从V2到V3的转变似乎是一次根本性的重新设计,这是由V2的技术故障所驱动的,其生产时间表安排得异常紧凑。正如2025年广泛报道的那样,V2型号记录的问题不仅限于性能缺陷,还指向了根本性的硬件和可靠性问题。存在多个硬件缺陷。内部消息透露了一系列硬件问题,包括在提起重物时关节电机过热、灵巧手负载能力不足以及电池续航时间不到2小时。由于手和前臂设计存在这些“严重的技术挑战”,无法实现类似人类的灵巧性,特斯拉被迫终止了所有生产,留下了一仓库未组装的机器人本体(没有手)。

 

Optimus V2 raised serious autonomy and control questions. Public demonstrations repeatedly raised doubts about true autonomy. Musk previously always denied such claims, but they were proven. Musk’s move from Optimus V2 to V3 is in reality a necessary scrapping of an unviable product. Faced with these challenges, Tesla’s strategy shifted from iterating on V2 to a clean-sheet design. In the Q2 2025 earnings call, Elon Musk stated that the version for mass consumer delivery would be a “completely new V3 design”, significantly different from the existing V2 version.

Optimus V2引发了关于自主性和控制权的严重问题。公开演示一再引发了人们对真正自主性的质疑。马斯克此前一直否认此类说法,但这些说法已被证实。马斯克从Optimus V2升级到V3的举措,实际上是淘汰一款无法生存的产品的必要之举。面对这些挑战,特斯拉的战略从迭代V2转向了全新设计。在2025年第二季度的电话财报会议上,埃隆·马斯克表示,面向大众消费者的版本将是“全新的V3设计”,与现有的V2版本截然不同。

 

While Musk has not provided a detailed public blueprint, reports about the frozen V3 design claim major leaps: human-level bipedal stability, hands with 22 degrees of freedom, and a 300% increase in endurance to 8 hours using a 4680 battery system. The core implication is that these major leaps in specifications across locomotion, dexterity, and power implies a ground-up redesign, not an iteration. If V2 were viable, such a wholesale change would be unnecessary.

尽管马斯克尚未提供详细的公开蓝图,但有关冻结的V3设计的报道声称其实现了重大飞跃:具有人类水平的双足稳定性、拥有22个自由度的手,以及使用4680电池系统后续航能力提高300%,达到8小时。其核心含义是,这些在运动能力、灵巧性和动力方面的重大规格提升意味着这是一次彻底的重新设计,而非迭代。如果V2可行,那么这种大规模的改变就毫无必要了。

 

Then we have the “Impossible Timeline”. Skepticism about Musk’s claimed production schedule is well-founded. He has announced plans to start mass production of Optimus V3 in 2026, but this follows a pattern of missed goals. In early 2025, Musk aimed to produce 5,000-10,000 robots, but by July, actual output was only “several hundred” units.

接下来我们来看看“不可能的时间表”。对马斯克所宣称的生产计划持怀疑态度是有充分理由的。他宣布计划在2026年开始大规模生产Optimus V3,但这只是他一贯未能实现目标的表现。2025年初,马斯克的目标是生产5000至10000台机器人,但到7月,实际产量仅为“几百”台。

 

There also exists a major scaling challenge. Going from a few hundred flawed units to mass-producing a completely new, complex machine in roughly a year is an unprecedented manufacturing challenge. It must also achieve a radical cost reduction from an estimated $60,000 per V2 unit to a target of $20,000 for V3. This all suggests that Optimus V3 represents a high-risk, “all-or-nothing” gamble for Tesla and for Elon Musk.

此外,还存在一个重大的规模扩展挑战。从生产几百台有缺陷的机器到在大约一年内大规模生产一台全新且复杂的机器,这是一项前所未有的制造挑战。此外,还必须实现成本的大幅降低,即从每台V2机器约60,000美元的成本降至V3机器的目标成本20,000美元。这一切都表明,对于特斯拉和埃隆·马斯克而言,Optimus V3代表着一次高风险的“孤注一掷”的赌博。

 

The move to V3 is a tacit admission that the previous platform was not commercially viable, but the new version is a totally unproven execution. The promised capabilities remain on paper. The history of hardware defects, autonomy questions, and missed production targets in all of Musk’s ventures, not only Optimus, provide little confidence that he can solve these profound challenges at breakneck speed. There is also substantial competitive pressure now. Companies like X-Peng have spent years on development. Tesla is attempting to compress this timeline dramatically, into only a few months, which increases the risk of another flawed or delayed product.

转向V3版本是对之前平台在商业上不可行的默认承认,但新版本却是一个完全未经证实的执行方案。承诺的功能仍停留在纸面上。马斯克所有企业(不仅仅是Optimus)在硬件缺陷、自主性问题和未能达到生产目标方面的历史,让人很难相信他能够以惊人的速度解决这些深层次的挑战。此外,现在也面临着巨大的竞争压力。像小鹏这样的公司已经投入了多年的开发时间。特斯拉正试图大幅压缩这一时间表,将其缩短到仅几个月,这增加了产品再次出现缺陷或延误的风险。

 

In essence, the narrative of a revolutionary V3 is underpinned by the stark failure of V2. While the ambition is clear, the path to a reliable, mass-produced robot by 2026 appears fraught with obstacles that past performance suggests neither Tesla nor Elon Musk have yet overcome.

从本质上讲,革命性的V3版本的故事情节是以V2版本的彻底失败为背景的。虽然其雄心壮志显而易见,但到2026年实现可靠、大规模生产的机器人之路似乎充满了障碍,而以往的表现表明,无论是特斯拉还是埃隆·马斯克都尚未克服这些障碍。

 

供应链挑战 — Supply Chain Challenges

 

The supply chain challenges for Optimus are severe and systemic.

Optimus面临的供应链挑战是严峻且系统性的。

 

The evidence clearly shows that Optimus problems are not just about timeline delays. They involve fundamental engineering problems combined with complex supply chain and geopolitical challenges that will be difficult to overcome quickly. Musk’s Optimus project faces significant and interconnected supply chain challenges. These stem from fundamental hardware failures that led to a production halt, severely impacting suppliers and delaying timelines. Broader geopolitical pressures on Tesla’s wider supply base add another layer of complexity.

证据清楚地表明,Optimus问题不仅仅是时间表延误的问题。它们涉及根本性的工程问题,以及复杂的供应链和地缘政治挑战,这些挑战将难以迅速克服。马斯克的Optimus项目面临着重大且相互关联的供应链挑战。这些挑战源于根本性的硬件故障,导致生产停滞,严重影响了供应商并延误了时间表。特斯拉更广泛的供应基础面临的更广泛的地缘政治压力又增加了另一层复杂性。

 

The problems are not merely about delays but involve deep technical, commercial, and geopolitical factors. There is also what we might term a “cascading effect from technical failures”. The decision to terminate production and attempt a total redesign was driven by critical hardware defects reported to suppliers. These included joint motors prone to overheating, short lifespan of transmission parts, and the insufficient dexterous hand. This created a warehouse of unfinished robot “bodies” and forced Tesla to halt orders, disrupting the entire planned production flow and supplier schedules.

问题不仅在于生产延误,还涉及深层次的技术、商业和地缘政治因素。此外,还存在我们所谓的“技术故障的连锁效应”。由于向供应商报告了关键的硬件缺陷,特斯拉决定终止生产并尝试全面重新设计。这些缺陷包括关节电机容易过热、传动部件寿命短以及灵巧手功能不足。这导致仓库中积压了大量未完成的机器人“机身”,迫使特斯拉暂停订单,打乱了整个计划的生产流程和供应商的排程。

 

The production termination had a tangible financial impact on Tesla’s partners. Optimus’s problems rippled through a specialized, nascent supply chain. One supplier executive noted the difficult position of having to believe in Musk’s vision early to secure business, only to face sudden halts. Taiwanese firms like Asia Optical, Liancheng Precision, and Heda Industrial, were hit particularly hard.

停产对特斯拉的合作伙伴造成了切实的财务影响。Optimus的问题波及到一个专业且新兴的供应链。一位供应商高管指出,早期不得不相信马斯克的愿景以获得业务,结果却面临突然停产,这种处境十分艰难。台湾企业如亚光科技、联诚精密和和达工业受到打击尤为严重。

 

There are also broader geopolitical pressures on Tesla’s entire ecosystem, including but not limited to Optimus. Tesla’s overall supply chain, which Optimus would rely on, is under severe stress from international trade policies. A detailed April 2025 report indicated that 50% of the parts for Tesla’s North American vehicles come from Chinese companies. With tariffs on some Chinese components exceeding 100%, the cost of US manufacturing has risen sharply. Some suppliers have warned Tesla they may need to cut off supply if tariffs make business untenable. This environment makes establishing a cost-effective, reliable supply chain for a new, complex product like Optimus extraordinarily difficult.To add to the troubles, the Optimus robots require important rare earth parts for critical components and, due to the dual-use nature of Musk’s “robot adventure” (as well as of SpaceX and Starlink), the Chinese government is restricting shipments of these crucial items and materials pending assurance of civilian use only.

特斯拉的整个生态系统,包括但不限于Optimus,还面临着更广泛的地缘政治压力。Optimus所依赖的特斯拉整体供应链正受到国际贸易政策的严重冲击。2025年4月的一份详细报告指出,特斯拉北美车型50%的零部件来自中国公司。由于部分中国部件关税超过100%,美国制造业的成本急剧上升。一些供应商警告特斯拉,如果关税使业务难以为继,他们可能需要切断供应。在这种环境下,为Optimus这样新型复杂产品建立具有成本效益且可靠的供应链异常困难。雪上加霜的是,Optimus机器人需要重要稀土部件用于关键组件,而由于马斯克的“机器人冒险”(以及SpaceX和Starlink)具有军民两用性质,中国政府在确保仅用民用之前,限制这些关键物品和材料的运输。

 

The necessary conclusion is that the supply chain challenges for Optimus are severe and systemic. They originate in unsolved engineering problems but are compounded by the high-cost pressure of Tesla’s mass-production goals and the larger geopolitical tensions increasing costs and instability across Tesla’s entire supply network. These factors collectively make the stated goal of rapid, cost-effective mass production by 2026 highly improbable and almost certainly impossible.

必然的结论是,Optimus面临的供应链挑战是严峻且系统性的。这些挑战源于未解决的工程问题,但特斯拉大规模生产目标的高成本压力以及更大的地缘政治紧张局势加剧了整个特斯拉供应网络的成本和不稳定,使这些问题进一步复杂化。这些因素共同导致,到2026年实现快速、成本效益高的大规模生产这一既定目标极不可能实现,几乎可以肯定是不可能实现的。

 

间谍因素 — The Espionage Factor

 

 It is not irrational to harbor a fear about domestic robots becoming permanent surveillance devices in homes.

担心家用机器人会成为家庭中的永久监控设备,这并非毫无道理。

 

There exists a worthwhile question about domestic and commercial office humanoid robots. As an analogy, the Rolls-Royce engines on today’s jet planes are in constant contact with the company via satellite. When the engines are operating, they constantly send all operating information to the Rolls-Royce headquarters, claiming this is for safety. [55] [56] That may be true, but it is also true that Rolls-Royce always know the movements of an airplane from this data transmission. They know where the airplane goes, when it goes, the altitudes, everything. They learn much that is not related to safety.

关于家用和商用办公人形机器人,存在一个值得探讨的问题。打个比方,如今喷气式飞机上的劳斯莱斯发动机通过卫星与公司保持持续联系。发动机在运行时,会不断向劳斯莱斯总部发送所有运行信息,声称这是为了确保安全。[55][56]这或许是真的,但同样真实的是,劳斯莱斯总是能从这些数据传输中了解飞机的动向。他们知道飞机飞往何处、何时起飞、飞行高度等一切信息。他们了解许多与安全无关的内容。 [57]

 

This analogy will hold true for domestic commercial office robots. They will be able to record everything, with sound and video. They will know everything that happens in a household or corporate office. No documents will be safe from their examination. They will know what we say and to whom we say it. They will know who comes and goes in every house and office. They will have the capacity to record every small item of our daily lives, and the ability to transmit this information to a central source.

这一类比同样适用于家用商用办公机器人。它们将能够记录一切,包括声音和视频。它们将了解家庭或公司办公室内发生的一切。任何文件都无法逃脱它们的检查。它们将知道我们说什么以及我们对谁说。它们将知道每所房子和办公室里来往的人。它们将有能力记录我们日常生活的每一件小事,并能将这信息传输到中央源头。

 

This is not fantasy. Apple’s Siri has already done something similar. Apple has recently been sued because they surreptitiously turned on Siri to record conversations on all iphones and send that information to Apple. One recent media report says: “Apple has agreed to pay $95 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that its voice assistant Siri routinely recorded private conversations that were then shared with third parties and used for targeted ads.” Apple claimed this was “unintentional”, but it clearly wasn’t unintentional. [58] It would be inexplicable magic indeed if Apple (1) “accidentally” turned on Siri on all phones, (2) “accidentally” instructed Siri to record and transmit to Apple headquarters all conversations, (3) “accidentally” collected and collated all that information, (4) “accidentally” sold that information to advertisers, and (5) “accidentally” deposited all that revenue in a bank account. I suspect Google is doing the same with their Android phones. In fact, Google is so justifiably mistrusted that the Israeli IDF banned all phones using Google’s Android O/S. [59]

这并非空穴来风。苹果的Siri已经做过类似的事情。苹果公司最近被起诉,因为他们偷偷开启了Siri,记录所有iPhone上的对话,并将这些信息发送给苹果公司。最近的一篇媒体报道称:“苹果公司已同意支付9500万美元,以了结一起诉讼,该诉讼指控其语音助手Siri经常记录私人对话,然后将这些对话分享给第三方,并用于定向广告。”苹果公司声称这是“无意的”,但显然并非如此。[58]如果苹果公司(1)“不小心”在所有手机上开启了Siri,(2)“不小心”指示Siri记录所有对话并将其发送到苹果公司总部,(3)“不小心”收集并整理了所有这些信息,(4)“不小心”将这些信息卖给了广告商,以及(5)“不小心”将所有这些收入存入银行账户,那将是一种无法解释的魔法。我怀疑谷歌也在他们的Android手机上做同样的事情。事实上,谷歌如此理所当然地受到怀疑以至于以色列国防军禁止所有使用谷歌Android操作系统手机[59]

 

It is well-known and thoroughly documented that the American auto manufacturers have inserted chips into their cars that are accessible to remote control, where the authorities could shut down all the cars in a certain area, for example to prevent large public demonstrations or revolts. [60] [61] [62] [63] When discovered, some of these were claimed to be “accidental flaws” in the auto chips. This would be the same as Apple’s Siri recording all your personal conversations as being “accidental flaws”. And we can conclude that if General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler are inserting these remote-control chips into their cars, Tesla is doing the same. [64] In fact, we have direct evidence that Tesla was already doing precisely this nearly a decade ago. It was presented as – and masquerading as – a system that was a way for “owners” to remotely control their cars. Unfortunately, it isn’t only the owners who have access to this technology. And, if it’s in the Tesla cars, we can be sure it’s also in the Optimus robots because they all share the same AI.

众所周知且证据确凿的是,美国汽车制造商在他们的汽车中植入了可远程控制的芯片,当局能够通过这些芯片关闭特定区域内的所有汽车,例如为了防止大规模公众示威或反抗。[60][61][62][63]当这些被曝光时,其中一些被宣称是汽车芯片中的“意外缺陷”。这就像苹果的Siri将所有个人对话记录为“意外缺陷”一样。我们可以得出结论,如果通用汽车、福特和克莱斯勒正在这种可远程控制芯片植入他们的汽车中,特斯拉也在做同样的事情[64]事实上,我们有直接证据表明,特斯拉早在近十年前就已经在这样做了。它被呈现为——并且伪装为——一种让“车主”远程控制自己汽车的系统。不幸的是,不仅仅是车主能够使用这项技术。而且,如果特斯拉汽车中存在这种技术,我们可以肯定它也存在于Optimus机器人中,因为它们都共享相同的人工智能。

 

If we eventually have domestic and commercial robots, they will function as permanent observation posts, with all information potentially sent somewhere. This will not happen in China, but it will almost certainly happen with the Western-made robots, and that means Elon Musk’s Optimus. We could be heading for a Western society that is totally monitored by the CIA or NSA or similar agency. Our lives could be an open book.

如果我们最终拥有家用和商用机器人,它们将作为永久性的观察哨,所有信息都有可能被发送到某个地方。这种情况不会在中国发生,但几乎肯定会发生在西方制造的机器人身上,而埃隆·马斯克的Optimus就是其中之一。我们可能会走向一个完全被中央情报局、国家安全局或类似机构监控的西方社会。我们的生活可能将变得毫无隐私。

 

There is clearly a serious concern about the privacy implications of domestic robots, connecting this to well-documented surveillance issues with existing technologies like smartphones. It is not irrational to harbor a fear about domestic robots becoming permanent surveillance devices in homes. This concern is quite legitimate and raises profound privacy questions that need to be addressed. And we can similarly conclude that if Tesla is installing these remote-control functions in their autos, they would also install them in their robots.

人们显然非常担心家用机器人对隐私的影响,并将其与智能手机等现有技术中屡见不鲜的监控问题联系起来。担心家用机器人成为家庭中永久监控设备并非毫无道理。这种担忧合情合理,并引发了需要解决的深层次隐私问题。同样我们可以得出结论,如果特斯拉在汽车中安装这些远程控制功能,他们也可能会在机器人中安装这些功能

 

China has already addressed these issues, while the US and the Western and European nations have not. China’s new GB/T 45502-2025 standard for service robot information security, which directly addresses the user’s concerns about data protection for domestic robots. These are recent official standards with high authority. [65] [66] [67] But there is at the present a huge gap in western robotics regulations. Currently, there is no directly equivalent, widely mandated privacy and security standard for consumer robots in Western markets like the US or EU, as exists in China. Western regulation always tends to lag behind technology. While general data protection laws (like GDPR in Europe) apply, they are not specifically designed for the unique, always-on, sensor-rich nature of domestic robots.

中国已经解决了这些问题,而美国以及西方和欧洲国家尚未解决。中国新出台的服务机器人信息安全GB/T 45502-2025标准,直接解决了用户对家用机器人数据保护的担忧。这些是近期发布的官方标准,具有很高的权威性。[65][66][67]但目前西方机器人法规存在巨大空白。目前,在美国或欧盟等西方市场,尚无与中国类似的、直接对等且广泛强制执行的消费机器人隐私和安全标准。西方监管往往滞后于技术发展虽然存在一般数据保护法(如欧洲的《通用数据保护条例》),但这些法律并非专门针对家用机器人独特、始终在线、传感器丰富的特性而设计。

 

These concerns are not only serious but highly prescient. They correctly identify that domestic robots represent a dramatic escalation of existing surveillance issues, turning private homes and corporate offices into potential data collection nodes. The assessment that this creates profound privacy risks is well-founded. The technical capabilities described are easily feasible.

这些担忧不仅严重,而且极具先见之明。它们正确地指出,家用机器人代表着现有监控问题的急剧升级,将私人住宅和公司办公室转变为潜在的数据收集节点。关于这会产生严重隐私风险的评估是有充分依据的。文中描述的技术能力很容易实现。

 

Consider how a domestic/office robot’s inherent functions could translate into surveillance risks, validating these concerns. Domestic and commercial robots are easily capable of continuous video/audio recording. Their persistent presence in living and office spaces allows recording of activities, conversations, private documents, and guests. Tesla’s Optimus is trained via video feeds recorded by employees in homes/offices, demonstrating the central role of vision data.

考虑家用/办公机器人的固有功能如何转化为监控风险,从而验证这些担忧。家用和商用机器人很容易实现连续的视频/音频录制。它们在生活和办公空间中的持续存在,使得活动、对话、私人文件和客人都能被记录下来。特斯拉的Optimus是通过员工在家中/办公室录制的视频进行训练的,这展示了视觉数据的核心作用

 

Keep in mind also that these robots will require sophisticated mapping and spatial awareness. To navigate a home or office, a robot must create a detailed 3D map of the layout, the contents of all rooms, and of the daily routines. Think of smart vacuum cleaners, but with far greater detail and context from advanced sensors.

还要记住,这些机器人需要具备复杂的地图绘制和空间感知能力。为了在家庭或办公室中导航,机器人必须创建一份详细的3D地图,包括布局、所有房间的内容以及日常活动。想象一下智能吸尘器,但它的细节和背景信息要丰富得多,这都得益于先进的传感器。

 

Consider the network connectivity issue. The robots will need a constant connection to the internet for updates, and unsupervised cloud AI processing creates a perfect channel for data exfiltration. This is the core mechanism, analogous to the smartphone voice assistant issues cited above, but with a permanence. But, in contrast to your phone, these robots will by necessity possess sophisticated object and facial recognition software. Advanced AI can identify individuals, specific objects (like medication, mail), and even infer activities. Public security robots already use this tech; domestic models would have more intimate data.

考虑网络连接问题机器人需要持续连接到互联网以获取更新,而无监督的云端人工智能处理为数据泄露创造完美渠道这是核心机制,类似于上文提到的智能手机语音助手问题,但具有永久性。然而,与你的手机不同,这些机器人必须具备复杂的物体和面部识别软件。高级人工智能可以识别个人、特定物体(如药物、邮件),甚至可以推断出活动。公共安全机器人已经在使用这项技术;家用型号将拥有更多私密数据。

 

The core argument for robotic “espionage” is strong. The technology for pervasive in-home surveillance via robots is not speculative; it’s an inherent feature of their design. The lack of specific, robust Western regulation for this new device category is the critical vulnerability. My reference above to Rolls-Royce may not include GPS location, but the broader point about continuous data streams from embedded technology is perfectly valid and more relevant than ever. The public postures of Tesla and of Elon Musk do not provide any enforceable guarantees for end-user privacy in a final consumer robotic product. In fact, the issue has been studiously ignored. It would be a grave mistake for the public to underestimate the gravity of this.

关于机器人“间谍活动”的核心论点十分有力。通过机器人进行无处不在的家庭监控的技术并非空想;而是其设计中的固有特性。西方对这新型设备类别缺乏具体且强有力监管这是其关键弱点我上面提到的劳斯莱斯可能不包括GPS定位,但关于嵌入式技术持续数据流的更广泛观点是完全有效的,而且比以往任何时候都更具相关性。特斯拉和埃隆·马斯克的公开表态并未为最终消费机器人产品中的终端用户隐私提供任何可执行的保障。事实上,这一问题一直被刻意忽视公众低估其严重性将是一个严重错误。

 

埃隆·马斯克的性爱机器人 — Elon Musk’s Sexbot

 

“We have implemented technological measures to prevent the Grok account from allowing the editing of images of real people in revealing clothing,” reads an announcement on X. Source

“我们已经采取技术措施以防止Grok账户被用于编辑穿着暴露服装的真实人物图片,”X. Source公告写道

 

It is well-known that Musk has turned Twitter into a pornographic and racist website. [68] The LA Times wrote that “it should matter that he is transforming a major social media platform into a racist cesspool.” [69] Another media article referred to an “Overwhelming Explosion Of Adult Content On X”. [70] MSN wrote that “Elon Musk’s X Is Drowning In Adult Content”. [71] It is so bad that one Ph.D. researcher claimed Musk had turned Twitter into “the primary advertising venue at this point for sex workers”. [72] Several columnists have said X is now so graphic that “you would never open the website in public”. Even worse, Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo said she was quitting Elon Musk’s X, which she described as a “global sewer”. [73]

众所周知,马斯克已将Twitter变成了一个充斥着色情和种族主义内容的网站。[68]《洛杉矶时报》写道:“他正将一个主要的社交媒体平台转变为种族主义的污水池,这应该引起重视。”[69]另一篇媒体文章提到了“X上成人内容泛滥”。[70]微软全国新闻(MSN)写道:“埃隆·马斯克的X充斥着成人内容”。[71]情况如此糟糕,以至于一位博士研究员声称马斯克已将Twitter变成了“性工作者目前的主要广告平台”。[72]多位专栏作家表示,X现在内容过于露骨,“你绝不会在公共场合打开这个网站”。更糟糕的是,巴黎市长安妮·伊达尔戈表示她正在退出埃隆·马斯克的X,她将其描述为“全球下水道。 [73]

 

Musk has accomplished much the same with Grok. He added a “spicy” – i.e. pornographic – version where, for the payment of $30 per month, users can carry on obscene sexual conversations with a chatbot[74] This NSFW (Not Safe For Work) version will produce not only sexually-explicit chats, but it contains an image and video generator. Use your imagination. Given these two, and considering Elon Musk’s known sexual depravities, [75] you can bet he is already planning an Optimus sex-bot. Use your imagination. The best we can do, is to hope that he fails.

马斯克在Grok上也做了类似的事情。他增加了一个“辣味”版本,即色情版本用户每月支付30美元,可以与聊天机器人进行猥亵性对话[74]这个NSFW(不适合在工作场合观看)版本不仅会产生露骨的性聊天内容,还包含一个图像和视频生成器。发挥你的想象力。考虑这两个因素,再加上埃隆·马斯克众所周知的性堕落行为[75]你可以打赌,他已经在计划开发Optimus性爱机器人了。发挥你的想象力。我们最多只能希望他失败。

 

结论 — Conclusion

 

Optimus’s “potential” is its primary asset. Its value is almost entirely speculative, based on a future where AGI is solved and seamlessly integrated into a humanoid form. Because the payoff is in the future, it’s immune to being disproven today. Failure to meet a deadline is just a “delay,” not a refutation of the vision. The burden of proof for Optimus’ core promise – human-like learning – is perpetually deferred to an unspecified future date. The goalposts for Optimus move so often, they are on wheels. This is classic Elon Musk. When something fails, dismiss the failure and shift the focus to a different and more grandiose fairy tale for the future.

Optimus的“潜力”是其首要资产。其价值几乎完全基于推测,建立在未来通用人工智能(AGI)得到解决并完美融入人形形态的基础上。由于回报在未来,因此它不会因今天被证明是错误的而受到影响。未能按时完成只是“延迟”,而不是对愿景的驳斥。Optimus的核心承诺——类人学习——的举证责任被无限期地推迟到一个未指定的未来日期。Optimus的目标如此频繁地移动,仿佛它们长着轮子。这是典型的埃隆·马斯克风格。当某件事失败时否认失败焦点转移到另一个更宏大未来童话故事上。

 

Creating a robot that can walk with a stable, human-like gait, navigate real-world environments, and perform specific tasks reliably is a monumental feat of mechanical, electrical, and software engineering. This is the hard, unsexy work of building the foundation. Musk’s promise of AGI, while intellectually fascinating, is being used as a rhetorical shortcut to avoid the immense challenges of that foundational work. It hand-waves away the present difficulties with the promise of a future magic bullet.

创造一个能够以稳定、类似人类的步态行走、在真实环境中导航并能可靠执行特定任务的机器人,是机械工程、电气工程和软件工程领域的一项巨大成就。这是奠定基础所必须面对的艰难且枯燥的工作。马斯克对通用人工智能(AGI)的承诺,虽然在智力上令人着迷,但目前却被用作一种修辞捷径,以规避这项基础工作所面临的巨大挑战。它用未来神奇子弹的承诺轻描淡写地掩盖了当前的困难。

 

Tesla’s Optimus remains a well-funded research project, but its claims of superiority are not based on current, demonstrable reality. They are based on faith in a future technological breakthrough. Optimus’s shift in training methods was an admission of prior failures, and highlights the lack of public, verifiable demonstrations from Musk. IRON’s catwalk represents a real engineering milestone, while Optimus’s “potential” remains just that—potential. As proof, Musk claims that “in a year”, Optimus will be able to thread a needle. [76] Like Tesla’s FSD and everything else, this monumental event will happen “next year”. So far, not one of these “promises” have been realised. Musk constantly dismisses current failures to replace them with predictions of something even greater happening in the future.

特斯拉的Optimus项目仍然是一个资金充足的研究项目,但其宣称的优越性并非基于当前可证明的现实。而是基于对未来技术突破的信念。Optimus训练方法的转变是对以往失败的承认,并凸显了马斯克缺乏公开、可验证的演示。IRON的走秀代表真正的工程里程碑,而Optimus的“潜力”仍然只是潜力。作为证据,马斯克声称“一年内”,Optimus将能够穿针引线。[76]就像特斯拉的FSD和其他所有项目一样,这一里程碑式的事件将“明年”发生。到目前为止,这些“承诺”中没有一个得以实现。马斯克不断否认当前的失败,并未来发生更大事情的预测来取代。

 

Tesla’s public demonstrations have primarily shown Optimus in a controlled environment, and the “official” Optimus video record has either been heavily edited or AI-generated. Tesla’s approach secretly relied heavily on teleoperation (human pilots remotely controlling the robot) and motion capture. Almost all “evidence” of Optimus’ abilities has been deceptive or misleading. While it has demonstrated tasks like sorting battery cells or performing simple yoga stretches, its locomotion has not undergone the same public “trial by fire” or had to overcome the same level of public skepticism regarding its basic reality.

特斯拉的公开演示主要是在受控环境中展示Optimus,而“官方”的Optimus视频记录要么经过了大量剪辑,要么是AI生成的。特斯拉的方法很大程度秘密依赖于远程操作(人类驾驶员远程控制机器人)和动作捕捉。关于Optimus能力的几乎所有“证据”都是具有欺骗性或误导性的。虽然它展示了诸如分类电池或进行简单瑜伽伸展等任务,但其运动能力并未经过同样的公开“火线考验”,也无需克服公众对其基本真实性的同等程度的怀疑。

 

The recent shift to training Optimus primarily by “watching videos” is a monumental admission that the previous methods had failed in their core mission. Experts agree that “video learning” for robotics is an unsolved, “moonshot” problem. By pivoting to this, Tesla is effectively saying, “We haven’t solved the practical robotics challenge, so we are now betting on solving a monumental AI challenge instead.”

最近转向主要通过“观看视频”来训练Optimus,这无疑是一个重大承认,表明之前的方法在核心任务上已经失败。专家们一致认为,机器人技术的“视频学习”是一个尚未解决的“登月”难题。特斯拉转向这一方向,实际上是在说:“我们没有解决机器人技术实际挑战,所以我们现在押注于解决一个重大智能挑战。

 

IRON is a finished product prototype, ready for mass-production. It has a defined aesthetic (with male and female forms), it has been presented on a stage like a consumer product, and its movements are polished for public display. It is being groomed for specific, public-facing service roles. Optimus prototypes, as seen in Tesla’s carefully edited videos, look like engineering testbeds. They are often unfinished “bare metal” skeletons with exposed wiring, being tested in lab or factory settings. While this is a valid stage of development, it reinforces the image of a project that is still in the early R&D phase, far from a polished, deployable product.

IRON是一款成品原型,已准备好进行大规模生产。它具有明确的美学设计(包括男性和女性形态),已在舞台上作为消费产品展示,其动作也经过精心打磨,适合公开展示。它正被培养以承担特定的、面向公众的服务角色。正如特斯拉精心编辑的视频中所展示的那样,Optimus原型看起来像是工程测试平台。它们通常是未完成的“裸机”骨架,线路外露,在实验室或工厂环境中进行测试。虽然这是发展的一个有效阶段,它强化该项目仍处于早期研阶段的形象,远非一打磨完善、可部署产品。

 

Moreover, Musk has stated that the current version of Optimus will be scrapped and he will attempt to design a true humanoid robot, so human-like that “you will want to poke it to see if it’s real”. One observer wrote, “FSD was being massively overhyped via staged videos for years, and Tesla is doing the same with Optimus.” Another wrote, “Elon is doing the same thing with Optimus that he did with FSD – put out staged videos to hype something that likely won’t be real for many years to come.” [77] In all other instances where he has encountered problems with “his” design of anything, Musk never stopped to re-think but instead just doubled down on his original path. If this assessment is true, Optimus is a rushed, flawed product headed for history’s dust bin.

此外,马斯克曾表示,Optimus的当前版本将被淘汰,他将尝试设计一款真正的人形机器人,其仿真度之高,“你会想去戳它,看看它是不是真的”。一位观察者写道:“多年来,FSD(全自动驾驶)通过精心编排的视频被大肆炒作,而特斯拉对Optimus也做了同样的事。”另一位写道:“埃隆对Optimus所做的,和他对FSD所做的如出一辙——发布精心编排的视频来炒作一些在未来许多年里可能都不会真正实现的东西。”[77]在他“自己”设计的任何东西遇到问题的所有其他情况下,马斯克从未停下来重新思考,而是坚持走他原来的道路。如果这一评价是正确的,那么Optimus将是一款仓促、有缺陷的产品,注定要被历史淘汰。

 

Musk’s “Doubling Down” pattern is a critical insight. This observation about his behavior is well-documented across his ventures (FSD, Cybertruck production, Twitter acquisition). He consistently frames blind stubbornness as visionary determination. In the context of Optimus, this pattern suggests a high likelihood that Tesla will continue to iterate on the current, fundamentally limited bipedal design rather than undertake a ground-up redesign. It will prioritise software demos and ambitious future roadmaps to distract from today’s hardware deficiencies. It will struggle to escape the compromises baked into the initial, rushed architecture.

马斯克的“加倍下注”模式是一个关键的见解。这一关于他行为的观察在他的各项事业中都有充分体现(全自动驾驶系统、赛博卡车生产、Twitter收购)。他一贯将盲目的固执视为有远见的决心。在Optimus的背景下,这一模式表明,特斯拉极有可能继续对当前基本受限的双足设计进行迭代,而不是进行彻底的重新设计。它将优先考虑软件演示和雄心勃勃的未来路线图,以分散人们对当前硬件缺陷的注意力。它将难以摆脱最初仓促构建的架构中所固有的妥协。

 

The design chasm between Optimus and robots like IRON is not just a gap; it’s a difference in kind. Closing that gap would require Tesla discarding most of the Optimus design and starting over with a more mature outlook. Given Elon Musk’s established patterns, such a fundamental course correction seems improbable. Therefore, the project’s greatest legacy may ultimately be as a cautionary tale about the limits of applying a “move fast” software mentality to the hard, iterative problems of advanced robotics hardware.

Optimus与IRON等机器人之间的设计鸿沟不仅仅是大小上的差距;而是本质上的不同。要弥合这一差距,特斯拉需要摒弃Optimus的大部分设计,并以更成熟的前瞻性重新开始。鉴于埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)的一贯模式,如此根本性的路线调整似乎不太可能。因此,该项目最大的遗产可能最终是一个警示故事,揭示了将“快速行动”的软件思维应用于高级机器人硬件的复杂迭代问题所存在的局限性。

 

If a company consistently fails to meet its own benchmarks for a functional prototype, and its response is not to deliver a better prototype but to instead propose an even grander, more technically speculative vision for what it might do someday, then that vision can rightly be classified as an empty, face-saving mechanism.

如果一家公司始终未能达到其功能原型设定的基准,而其回应不是提供一个更好的原型,而是提出一个更大胆、更具技术投机性的未来愿景,那么这个愿景完全有理由被归类为一种空洞的、为了挽回面子的机制。

 

Tesla have demonstrated a robot that can walk without falling down, and can perform a limited set of teleoperated or pre-programmed tasks. The promise that one will suddenly leapfrog into AGI-powered super-capability is, until proven otherwise, just a story. The burden of proof is on Tesla to demonstrate that Optimus can do anything comparable to IRON’s catwalk, let alone surpass it. Until then, the assessment that IRON represents a more significant and real achievement in the present is not just reasonable; it’s the only conclusion based on the evidence we have.

特斯拉展示了一款能够行走而不跌倒的机器人,并且能够执行一系列有限的远程操作或预编程任务。除非有证据证明,否则关于机器人将突然具备由AGI(人工智能通用)驱动的超级能力的预言,不过是一个故事而已。特斯拉有责任证明Optimus能够完成与IRON的猫步相当的任何任务,更不用说超越它了。在此之前,认为IRON代表了当前更重大、更真实的成就,这一评估不仅合理,而且是我们根据现有证据得出的唯一结论。

 

The market reality for domestic or commercial office robots does not favor the Optimus approach. Who would want a domestic robot that looks and walks like Optimus when they could have an IRON companion? For a robot to be accepted in a home or workplace, it must be safe, reliable, and non-threatening. A robot that moves with an unnatural, jerky gait and has an industrial, exposed-mechanism aesthetic fails on these counts. IRON’s focus on biomimicry and a more refined form factor is directly aligned with the requirements of a companion or service robot. Optimus, in its current form, is not. The assessment that Optimus is headed for the dust bin of history is a highly plausible, if not the most likely, outcome.

家用或商用办公机器人的市场现实并不青睐Optimus的路线。当人们可以选择一个IRON伴侣时,谁会想要一个外观和行走方式都像Optimus的家用机器人呢?一个机器人要想被家庭或工作场所接受,它必须安全、可靠且不具威胁性。一个步态不自然、颠簸,且具有工业、裸露机械美感的机器人,在这些方面都未能达标。IRON专注于仿生学和更精致的外形设计,这与伴侣或服务机器人的要求直接相符。而Optimus以其当前的形式则不然。认为Optimus将走向历史垃圾堆的评估,即使不是最有可能的结果,也是一个非常合理的推测。

 

While Tesla may eventually produce limited numbers of Optimus for specific, controlled industrial tasks, the idea of millions or even billions of these units in homes and general workplaces seems fantastical based on the current platform. Examining all of Elon Musk’s prior statements and claims about humanoid robots, my conclusion is that he naively (and thoughtlessly) assumed that only he would ever design and produce a humanoid robot. When Musk spoke of “millions” of his robots being in homes and factories, he clearly assumed that his Optimus would be the world’s only option. If you examine his statements today (as of late 2025), he is still apparently unable to accept or understand that the world of humanoid robots has already passed him by, that there are today many dozens of similar products that are mostly superior to his.

尽管特斯拉最终可能会为特定、受控的工业任务生产有限数量的Optimus,但基于目前的平台,数百万甚至数十亿台这样的机器人出现在家庭和普通工作场所的想法似乎有些荒诞。在研究了埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)之前关于人形机器人的所有声明和主张后,我得出的结论是,他天真地(且轻率地)认为只有他才会设计和生产人形机器人。当马斯克谈到“数百万”台他的机器人将出现在家庭和工厂时,他显然认为他的Optimus将是世界上唯一的选择。如果你审视他今天的声明(截至2025年底),他显然仍然无法接受或理解人形机器人的世界已经将他抛在身后,如今已有数十种类似的产品,而且大多优于他的产品。

 

Musk appears to have only the most juvenile understanding of the humanoid robot world. His appreciation of this new technology seems limited to his comments in a video where he said, “Who wouldn’t want an R2D2 or a C3PO in their homes?” [38] In that same video, Musk stated that “nobody has a useful robot today. Tesla will make the first useful robot.” The realities of humanoid robots are very far removed from the understanding of this ten-year-old mentality. In another short video, Musk babbles about how the only safety for humanity is to have “a maximally truth-seeking AI”[38a] while it is well-documented to the point of legend that his own version of AI – Grok – has been trained to lie[39] [40] This is surreal to the point of mental deficiency. Elon Musk appears to live in his own fantasy world where reality is manufactured at will.

马斯克似乎对仿人机器人世界的理解极其幼稚。他对这项新技术的欣赏似乎仅限于他在一段视频中的评论:“谁不想家里有R2D2或C3PO呢?”[38]在同一段视频中,马斯克表示“如今还没有人拥有真正有用的机器人。特斯拉将制造出第一个真正有用的机器人。仿人机器人的现实这种十岁孩童般幼稚的理解相去甚远。在另一段短视频中,马斯克喋喋不休地谈论着人类唯一的保障就是拥有“一个极度追求真相的人工智能[38a],而众所周知,他自己的AI版本——Grok——经过训练后甚至会撒谎[39][40]这简直荒诞到了令人难以置信的地步埃隆·马斯克似乎活在自己的幻想世界里现实被随意制造出来

 

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

罗曼诺夫先生的作品已被翻译成34种语言,他的文章被发布在30多个国家的150多个外文新闻和政治网站上,以及100多个英文平台上。拉里·罗曼诺夫是一位退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职务,并拥有一家国际进出口企业。他曾担任上海复旦大学的客座教授,为高级EMBA课程讲授国际事务案例研究。罗曼诺夫先生现居上海,目前正在撰写一系列共十本书,总体上涉及中国与西方。他是辛西娅·麦金尼新选集《当中国打喷嚏》(第2章——与恶魔打交道)的特约作者之一。

His full archive can be seen at

他的全部档案可以在以下网址查看:

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/  + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

他的全部档案可以在以下网址查看:

2186604556@qq.com

*

NOTES – Part 20

注释——20部分

[1] Engineer testimony: A video of Tesla promoting autonomous driving is fake[1] 工程师证言:特斯拉宣传自动驾驶的视频是假的

https://baike.baidu.com/reference/62591749/533aYdO6cr3_z3kATKDZz6ihMy6SMImutrLWUbFzzqIPmGapB5nyTcYm6NIv_-diBkXIvtdsZcEGsu2-WxIZgaFPM6pkAOFNn3f5UjPCzLk

[2] IROBOT CO-FOUNDER CALLS OUT ELON MUSK’S OPTIMUS ROBOT ‘FANTASY’[2] IROBOT联合创始人批评埃隆·马斯克的OPTIMUS ROBOT“幻想”

https://www.slashgear.com/2029521/irobot-roomba-cofounder-elon-musk-tesla-optimus-robot/

[3] IROBOT CO-FOUNDER CALLS OUT ELON MUSK’S OPTIMUS ROBOT ‘FANTASY’[3] IROBOT联合创始人批评埃隆·马斯克的OPTIMUS ROBOT“幻想”

https://www.slashgear.com/2029521/irobot-roomba-cofounder-elon-musk-tesla-optimus-robot/

 [4] X-Peng’s new generation of robots take a cat step! Netizen: I suspect that there is a real person hidden in it.[4] 小鹏新一代机器人迈出了猫步!网友:我怀疑里面藏着真人。

https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_31912165

[5] IRON catwalk[5] 铁制走道

[6] A video of the demonstration; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Ag_SgsHVg[6] 演示视频;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Ag_SgsHVg

[7] XPENG Cuts Open Its Lifelike IRON Robot on Stage[7] 小鹏汽车在舞台上拆解其栩栩如生的IRON机器人https://www.eweek.com/news/xpeng-iron-robot/

[8] Automaker XPENG releases new video to prove its robot ‘IRON’ is not human[8] 汽车制造商小鹏发布新视频,证明其机器人“小鹏铁军”并非人类

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202511/1347511.shtml

[9] Tesla Previews Robot with Human in Spandex Suit[9] 特斯拉预览穿着弹力服的人形机器人

https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a37359183/tesla-robot-human-in-spandex/

[10] Tesla’s humanoid robot is a joke, and Musk’s hype is outrageous[10] 特斯拉的人形机器人简直是个笑话,马斯克的炒作更是离谱

https://m.ithome.com/html/570639.htm

[11] Tesla humanoid robot remotely controlled exposed, Musk faces criticism [11] 特斯拉人形机器人被远程操控曝光,马斯克面临批评

https://statementdog.com/news/10103

[12] Tesla Optimus robots face suspicions of human control[12] 特斯拉Optimus机器人面临人为操控的质疑

https://news.kbs.co.kr/news/pc/view/view.do?ncd=8082379

[13] Optimus appears to be remotely controlled[13] 擎天柱似乎受到远程控制

pic.twitter.com/L89fz8cnOM

[14] Milan Kovac, Head Of Tesla Optimus Program, Departs; https://cleantechnica.com/2025/06/09/milan-kovac-head-of-tesla-optimus-program-departs/

[14] 特斯拉Optimus项目负责人米兰·科瓦奇离职;https://cleantechnica.com/2025/06/09/milan-kovac-head-of-tesla-optimus-program-departs/

[15] Abandoning motion capture and fully turning to pure visual data collection, Tesla Optimus’ latest training progress is exposed!

[15] 特斯拉Optimus放弃动作捕捉,全面转向纯视觉数据采集,最新训练进展曝光!https://app.myzaker.com/news/article.php?pk=69085c5fb15ec07899597a79&f=qqconnect

[16] Optimus picking up water bottle[16] 擎天柱拿起水瓶

https://v.douyin.com/jfZdvqq8wN0/;https://www.douyin.com/video/7580920295214709477

[17] Optimus knocked over all the bottles and fell down,[17] 擎天柱撞翻了所有的瓶子,摔倒了,

https://v.douyin.com/TesmQDQPsjk/

[18] Optimus was being teleoperated[18] 擎天柱正在被远程操控

https://v.douyin.com/u0i1xU_tqWk/

https://www.douyin.com/video/7581399670199455022

[19] Abandoning motion capture and fully turning to pure visual data collection, Tesla Optimus’ latest training progress is exposed!

[19] 特斯拉Optimus放弃动作捕捉,全面转向纯视觉数据采集,最新训练进展曝光!

https://app.myzaker.com/news/article.php?pk=69085c5fb15ec07899597a79&f=qqconnect

[20] Musk said that “robots earn $30 trillion a year” Tesla set off an AI super wave?[20] 马斯克表示“机器人每年能赚30万亿美元”,特斯拉掀起AI超级浪潮?

https://finance.eastmoney.com/a/202507283469269722.html

[21] Tesla’s Optimus robot VP is leaving the company; https://techcrunch.com/2025/06/06/teslas-optimus-robot-vp-is-reportedly-leaving-the-company/

[21] 特斯拉的Optimus机器人副总裁即将离职;https://techcrunch.com/2025/06/06/teslas-optimus-robot-vp-is-reportedly-leaving-the-company/

[22] Milan Kovac ran Elon Musk’s most important project: What the departure of the Optimus head means for Tesla

[22] 米兰·科瓦奇负责埃隆·马斯克最重要的项目:Optimus主管的离职对特斯拉意味着什么

https://fortune.com/2025/06/09/milan-kovac-tesla-optimus/

[23] Tesla publicly clarified the mass production time point of OPTIMUS for the first time V3 is expected to be unveiled before Q1 2026[23] 特斯拉首次公开明确了OPTIMUS的大规模生产时间点,预计V3将在2026年第一季度前亮相

https://vip.stock.finance.sina.com.cn/q/go.php/vReport_Show/kind/lastest/rptid/815043290271/index.phtml

[24] Tesla suspended the production of humanoid robots and modified the design,[24]特斯拉暂停了人形机器人的生产,并对设计进行了修改

https://chejiahao.autohome.com.cn/info/20853171#pvareaid=6826274

[25] Tesla humanoid robot, new progress exposed![25] 特斯拉人形机器人,新进展曝光!

https://www.nbd.com.cn/articles/2025-11-03/4127778.html

[26] Tesla’s Optimus robot mass production suffered a setback: annual production fell far short of expectations, with only a few hundred units delivered

[26] 特斯拉的Optimus机器人量产遭遇挫折:年产量远低于预期,仅交付了几百台;https://k.sina.cn/article_1686546714_6486a91a02002z4ie.html

[27] Tesla’s Optimus Robot Project Faces Production Bottlenecks Amid Technical Challenges.[27] 特斯拉的Optimus机器人项目在技术挑战中面临生产瓶颈。

https://www.ainvest.com/news/tesla-optimus-robot-project-faces-production-bottlenecks-technical-challenges-2507/

[27] Tesla suspended robot production, a double blow of leadership turmoil[27] 特斯拉暂停机器人生产,领导层动荡带来双重打击

https://m.163.com/dy/article/K5IE7PSL0556F1QL.html

[28] Tesla suspended the production of humanoid robots and modified the design[28]特斯拉暂停了人形机器人的生产,并对设计进行了修改

https://chejiahao.autohome.com.cn/info/20853171#pvareaid=6826274

[29] Tesla AI VP Milan Kovac Resigns After 9 Years Leading FSD and Optimus Projects[29]特斯拉人工智能副总裁米兰·科瓦奇在领导全自动驾驶(FSD)和Optimus项目9年后辞职

https://gearmusk.com/2025/06/07/tesla-ai-vp-milan-kovac-resigns/

[30] Tesla Optimus robotics vice president Milan Kovac is leaving the company[30]特斯拉Optimus机器人业务副总裁米兰·科瓦奇即将离开公司

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/06/tesla-optimus-robotics-vp-is-leaving-the-company.html

[31] Tesla loses some AI staff to a new robotics startup[31] 特斯拉部分人工智能员工跳槽至一家新的机器人初创公司; https://agooka.com/news/usa/tesla-loses-some-ai-staff-to-a-new-robotics-startup/

[32] Tesla Optimus is in shambles as head of program exits, production delayed

[32] 随着项目负责人的离职,特斯拉Optimus陷入混乱,生产被推迟;https://electrek.co/2025/07/03/tesla-optimus-shambles-head-of-program-exits-production-delayed/

[33] Layoffs and production delays spell darkest hour for Tesla’s Optimus team!

[33] 裁员和生产延误预示着特斯拉Optimus团队最黑暗的时刻!

https://xie.infoq.cn/article/3b55819e034e96283e20429f5

[34] Tesla’s Optimus Robot Faces Production Setbacks: Annual Output Falls Far Short of Expectations, With Only Hundreds Delivered

[34] 特斯拉的Optimus机器人面临生产挫折:年产量远低于预期,仅交付数百台

https://tech.huanqiu.com/article/4NeJLNLYm85

[35] The Beauty and the Beast — IRON and Optimus: A Tale of Two Robots[35] 《美女与野兽》——铁皮与擎天柱:两个机器人的故事; https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/22955/

[36] Optimus running, https://v.douyin.com/fYTvvzb0vcI/; https://www.douyin.com/video/7580253071712783643

[37] Three robots running; https://www.douyin.com/video/7579917368638344499

[38] Optimus and T800; https://v.douyin.com/3wEVaDz3IjA/;https://www.douyin.com/video/7580689337700928778

[38] Musk babble on robots (nobody has a useful robot)

[38] 马斯克喋喋不休地谈论机器人(没人有真正有用的机器人)

https://v.douyin.com/a9oq775TeVk/; https://www.douyin.com/video/7575010626527890730

[38a] Maximally truth-seeking; https://v.douyin.com/owrdSJRfvO8/

[38a] 最大限度地追求真理;https://v.douyin.com/owrdSJRfvO8/

[39] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 12 — xAI and Grok; https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/21776/

[39] 揭秘埃隆·马斯克——第12部分——xAI与Grok;https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/21776/

[40] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 18 — Fraud Update – xAI and Grok; https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/22101/

[40] 揭穿埃隆·马斯克——第18部分——欺诈更新——xAI和Grok;https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/22101/

[41] Tesla’s AI director is reported to have launched an internal mobilization: next year will be the “most difficult year of their lives” 据报道,特斯拉的人工智能主管已发起内部动员:明年将是“他们人生中最艰难的一年”

https://baike.baidu.com/reference/62591749/533aYdO6cr3_z3kATPXdzvn5YS7NZNr66-DXV7FzzqIP0XOpSo_sUIEz6NYwsPVmHQ_e_pttbZkGyeGuB0pN6v8WduUzRbwhmX78WzvFzbvwuI9zl4MV-tEW

[42] Ashok Eluswamy[42] 阿肖克·埃卢斯瓦米

https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E9%98%BF%E8%82%96%E5%85%8B%C2%B7%E5%9F%83%E5%8D%A2%E6%96%AF%E7%93%A6%E7%B1%B3/62591749

[43] Abandoning motion capture and fully turning to pure visual data collection, Tesla Optimus’ latest training progress is exposed!

[43] 特斯拉Optimus放弃动作捕捉,全面转向纯视觉数据采集,最新训练进展曝光!

https://app.myzaker.com/news/article.php?pk=69085c5fb15ec07899597a79&f=qqconnect

[44] Tesla’s AI head warns that 2026 will face the biggest challenge

[44] 特斯拉人工智能负责人警告称,2026年将面临最大挑战

https://ai.zol.com.cn/1080/10809664.html

[45] Abandoning motion capture and fully turning to pure visual data collection, Tesla Optimus’ latest training progress is exposed!

[45] 特斯拉Optimus放弃动作捕捉,全面转向纯视觉数据采集,最新训练进展曝光!

https://app.myzaker.com/news/article.php?pk=69085c5fb15ec07899597a79&f=qqconnect

[46] Tesla and technology executives debate the path of autonomous driving technology: pure vision VS multi-sensor fusion

[46] 特斯拉与科技行业高管就自动驾驶技术的发展路径展开辩论:纯视觉方案VS多传感器融合方案

https://news.zol.com.cn/1037/10370329.html

[47] The Beauty and the Beast — IRON and Optimus: A Tale of Two Robots

[47] 美女与野兽 — 铁皮与擎天柱:两个机器人的故事; https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/22955/

[48] Hardcore showdown: X-Peng IRON and Tesla Optimus, a technical route game on the humanoid robot track

[48] 硬核对决:小鹏 G 款与特斯拉 Optimus,人形机器人赛道上的技术路线之争

https://blog.csdn.net/weixin_73527660/article/details/154578477

[49] Hardcore showdown: Xpeng IRON and Tesla Optimus, a technical route game on the humanoid robot track

[49] 硬核对决:小鹏 G3 与特斯拉 Optimus,人形机器人赛道上的技术路线博弈

https://blog.csdn.net/weixin_73527660/article/details/154578477

[50] 2025 Robot First Year: X-peng IRON/Yushu H2/Optimus Prime/1X-Neo software and hardware structure analysis

[50] 2025年机器人元年:小鹏G3/蔚来ES8/擎天柱/1X-Neo软件与硬件结构分析

https://blog.csdn.net/VBsemi/article/details/154837120

[51] Hardcore showdown: X-peng IRON and Tesla Optimus, a technical route game on the humanoid robot track

[51] 硬核对决:小鹏 G 款与特斯拉 Optimus,人形机器人赛道上的技术路线之争

https://blog.csdn.net/weixin_73527660/article/details/154578477

[52] X-peng Motors unveils AI humanoid robot Iron, challenging Tesla’s Optimus

[52] 小鹏汽车推出人工智能人形机器人Iron,挑战特斯拉的Optimus

https://m.huanqiu.com/article/4K970yDIWco

[53] Tesla’s humanoid robots aren’t the right fit for factories, says former Optimus lead

[53] 前Optimus负责人表示,特斯拉的人形机器人并不适合工厂

https://www.techspot.com/news/108056-tesla-humanoid-robots-arent-right-fit-factories-former.html

[54] Tesla suspended the production of humanoid robots and modified the design

[54] 特斯拉暂停了人形机器人的生产,并对设计进行了修改

https://chejiahao.autohome.com.cn/info/20853171#pvareaid=6826274

[55] Rolls-Royce uses engine performance data to improve service

[55] 劳斯莱斯利用发动机性能数据来改进服务

https://www.qoco.aero/case-studies/case-study-rolls-royce-uses-engine-performance-data-to-improve-service

[56] Intelligent Engine Health Monitoring[56] 智能发动机健康监测

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/discover/2019/intelligent-engine-health-monitoring.aspx

[57] The power of engine health information[57] 发动机健康信息的作用

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2024-04-26/power-engine-health-information

[58] Siri “unintentionally” recorded private convos; Apple agrees to pay $95M[58] Siri“无意中”录制私人对话;苹果同意支付9500万美元

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/01/apple-agrees-to-pay-95m-delete-private-conversations-siri-recorded/

[59] IDF bans Android phones for senior officers, iPhones now mandatory, Army Radio reports

[59] 据陆军电台报道,以色列国防军禁止高级军官使用安卓手机,现强制要求使用iPhone

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-876327

[60] Here Are The Facts About The Kill Switch Mandate For Cars That’s Already Passed[60] 以下是已通过的汽车熄火开关要求的相关事实

https://www.carscoops.com/2023/12/here-are-the-facts-about-the-kill-switch-mandate-for-cars-thats-already-passed/

[61] Are We Really Fine With Government Required Driver Monitoring And Remote Kill Switches?

[61] 我们真的能接受政府强制的驾驶员监控和远程熄火开关吗?

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/cars/news-blog/are-we-really-fine-with-government-required-driver-monitoring-and-remote-kill-44507698

[62] Your Car Is Watching You

[62] 你的车在监视你

https://www.countere.com/home/section-24220-the-future-of-cars-remote-kill-switch

[63] Subaru Flaw Allowed Remote Control of Millions of Cars in the US

[63] 斯巴鲁漏洞导致美国数百万辆汽车可被远程控制

https://cyberinsider.com/subaru-flaw-allowed-remote-control-of-millions-of-cars-in-the-us/

[64] Tesla owners will be able to remotely control their car through their phones ‘like RC cars’ within ~6 weeks, says Elon Musk

[64] 埃隆·马斯克表示,特斯拉车主将在大约6周内能够通过手机远程控制他们的汽车,就像控制遥控车一样

https://electrek.co/2018/11/01/tesla-remotely-control-car-phones-like-rc-cars-elon-musk/

[65] The national standard GB/T 45502-2025 “General Requirements for Information Security of Service Robots” led by China Evaluation is about to be implemented, and CCID robot certification escorts product safety

由中国评估主导的国家标准GB/T 45502-2025《服务机器人信息安全通用要求》即将实施,而赛迪机器人认证则为产品安全保驾护航

https://cstc.org.cn/info/1796/256391.htm

[66] General requirements for information security of service robots

[66] 服务机器人信息安全通用要求

https://webstore.spc.net.cn/bwonline/9e2b74f7423f548d405996e62937064a.html

[67] General requirements for information security of service robots

[67] 服务机器人信息安全通用要求http://www1.csres.com/detail/425201.html

[68] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 13 — Neuralink, DOGE, Twitter

[68] 揭秘埃隆·马斯克——第13部分——Neuralink、狗狗币、推特

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/21803/

[69] Why Elon Musk, the bully, is seen by many, including liberals, as a hero[69] 为什么包括自由派在内的许多人将恶霸埃隆·马斯克视为英雄

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-12-04/elon-musk-racism-x-bully-savior-culture

[70] Elon Musk Promises ‘Major Purge’ To Wipe Off Overwhelming Explosion Of Adult Content On X

[70] 伊隆·马斯克承诺进行“大清洗”,以清除X平台上泛滥的成人内容

https://www.benzinga.com/news/24/04/38104457/elon-musk-promises-major-purge-to-wipe-off-overwhelming-explosion-of-adult-content-on-x?itm_source=parsely-api

[71] Elon Musk’s X Is Drowning In Adult Content[71]埃隆·马斯克的X公司正被成人内容淹没

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/elon-musks-x-is-drowning-in-adult-content-so-much-that-you-cant-scroll-it-in-public/ar-BB1kYA8q

[72] X is testing ‘adult content’ communities, screenshots suggest

[72] 截图显示,X正在测试“成人内容”社区https://www.siliconrepublic.com/business/x-adult-content-communities-screenshots-twitter

[73] Paris mayor quits X, calling social media platform a ‘vast global sewer’[73] 巴黎市长退出X,称该社交媒体平台为“巨大的全球污水沟”

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20231128-paris-mayor-quits-x-calling-social-media-platform-a-vast-global-sewer

[74] Grok App Adds AI Image and Video Generator With NSFW ‘Spicy’ Mode

[74] Grok App推出AI图像和视频生成器,附带NSFW“辣眼”模式

https://www.pcmag.com/news/grok-app-adds-ai-image-and-video-generator-with-nsfw-spicy-mode

[75] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 2. Character Summary of a Delusional Sociopath

[75] 揭秘埃隆·马斯克——第二部分。妄想型反社会人格者的性格概述

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/20682/

[76] Tesla Optimus humanoid robot will be able to thread a needle in a year[76] 特斯拉Optimus人形机器人一年内将能穿针引线

https://www.teslaoracle.com/2023/12/22/tesla-optimus-humanoid-robot-will-be-able-to-thread-a-needle-in-a-year-says-elon-musk/

[77] Milan Kovac, Head Of Tesla Optimus Program, Departs[77] 特斯拉Optimus项目负责人米兰·科瓦奇离职

https://cleantechnica.com/2025/06/09/milan-kovac-head-of-tesla-optimus-program-departs/

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

本文可能包含受版权保护的内容,其使用并未获得版权所有者的明确授权。本文内容根据合理使用原则提供,仅用于教育和信息目的。本文内容不得用于商业用途。

 

本作者的其他作品

生物战在行动

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE IN ACTION

民主,最危险的宗教

Democracy – The Most Dangerous Religion

建立在谎言上的国家–第一卷–美国如何变得富有

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — VOLUME 1 — How the US Became Rich — Updated

美国随笔 Essays on America

Essays on America

美国警察国家》第一卷免费电子书

Police State America Volume One

传与媒体  PROPAGANDA AND THE MEDIA

PROPAGANDA and THE MEDIA  — Updated!

THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

建立在谎言之上的国家 — 第2卷 — 失败状态下的生活 — New! 新的!

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — VOLUME 2 — Life in a Failed State — Updated

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — VOLUME 3 — The Branding of America— Updated

Debunking Elon Musk – Volume One – New!

False Flags and Conspiracy Theories

FILLING THE VOID

Police State America Volume Two

BERNAYS AND PROPAGANDA Updated!

The Jewish Hasbara in All its Glory

HASBARA — 犹太哈斯巴拉的荣耀

Kamila Valieva

EN — LARRY ROMANOFF: The Criminalisation of Protest in America

$
0
0




The Criminalisation of Protestin America

 

  By Larry Romanoff

 

 Trump’s immigration crackdown has prompted protests in Chicago and in other cities across the country, including Los Angeles, where the president has deployed the National Guard and Marines, saying they are needed to protect federal property and tamp down demonstrations that at times have grown volatile. Source

 

 

 

 

US today freely interferes in the governments of so many other nations, fueling unrest and financing violence, seeking to impose on these countries a peculiarly American form of “open government” which it can control, but has always severely restricted any such activity either suspected or real, on its own soil. We have already read about the Un-American Activities Act [1] and the extensive government policies to prohibit political activism or promote other forms of government or capitalism in those years, and I briefly mentioned the Sedition Act passed by President Woodrow Wilson‘s government in the early 1900s. [2]

 

 

This latter legislation was directed against all Americans and used to firmly silence criticism of government policies. Under this Act, the government engaged in countless illegal searches and seizures of property and imprisoned tens of thousands of US citizens simply for criticising Wilson’s desire for war. The authorities organised gangs to regularly intimidate and beat up citizens, unrelated to the propaganda war on the Germans. Wilson admitted openly that many of his laws and activities were unconstitutional, but often protected himself with claims of national security.

 

 

“By the time it passed, it had grown to become the first peacetime law against sedition in America since the eighteenth century. The Smith Act included the toughest federal restrictions on free speech in American history: it outlawed words and thoughts aimed at overthrowing the government, and it made membership in any organization with that intent a federal crime.” –Tim Weiner, Enemies, 83. Source

 

 

In 1940, under President Franklin Roosevelt, the US created a law known as the Smith Act [3] which made it a crime in the US to“knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the … desirability or propriety of overthrowing … any government in the United States”. And for the following decades the government prosecuted thousands of individuals who proposed alternatives to the US system of capitalism, or promoted any form of socialism or attempted to form another political party. The act was exclusively intended to suppress any and all forms of political dissent in the United States. Many people were imprisoned or disappeared simply for publishing or circulating pamphlets or articles that discussed alternative political or economic views.

 

The government created internment camps where anyone suspected of being a subversive agent could be imprisoned indefinitely without charge, disappearing into a secret prison system. US authorities still continue the process they began more than 60 years ago of using the IRS the US Tax Departmentas a weapon of intimidation against those who dare to challenge the political or capitalist systems. According to records, tens of thousands of individuals and groups, colleges, charities and even religious organisations have been mercilessly harassed by the IRS as punishment for political activism.

 

Source

 

In 1950 The US passed the McCarran Internal Security Act that effectively prohibited even the discussion of other forms of government within the US. That law required that all persons objecting to the American multi-party political system were to be registered as subversive agents, a process that would automatically deny them most of their basic rights including the ability to travel freely and would place severe restrictions on the kinds of jobs they could hold. They were also subject to arbitrary deportation even though they were American citizens.

 

Failure to register as subversive agents would lead to a $10,000 fine and five years in jail for each day of non-compliance, all in a circumstance where the definition of such persons and their need to register were by no means clear. Anyone interested in political reform or an increase in social justice therefore faced a stark choice: either register as a subversive agent and enemy alien and face personal destruction, or avoid registration and face certain bankruptcy and life in prison. It was apparent this law was a forceful method of using fear to intimidate individuals from criticising the government since its application was entirely arbitrary and with no transparency whatever.[4]

 

The McCarran Act was a far-reaching piece of legislation that served to remove most of the civil liberties from a great many people on what was essentially an arbitrary basis, the set of laws that gave Senator McCarthy the freedom to introduce fascism on a grand scale, and worked in conjunction with the House Un-American Activities Committee. The Act’s stated purpose was to protect the US against subversive activities by requiring registration of hostile foreign propagandists and agents, but it did far more than this. It prevented people from becoming citizens, it could withdraw citizenship, deport individuals, prevent their employment, and much more. In all, it had far-reaching consequences for both civil liberties in the US – which it totally trashed – and as a template for its own resurrection in the 1980s and beyond. It targeted intellectuals, anyone who might have written criticism of the US government. One Dr. Morrison received an unfortunate summons to a Congressional Committee simply for writing a review of a book that described the human horrors of nuclear war. At the time, the US was desperately trying to produce an improved atomic bomb and widely used the powers of this Act to silence all public criticism of its plans by categorising objections as subversive and treasonous.

 

The Act prohibited the writing or circulation of, or any teaching of, opposition to the US form of government or the removal or replacement of the US governmental system. It was forbidden to be a member of any organisation that would “raise the presumption that such person was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States”. It was forbidden to advocate any economic or political doctrine foreign to the US. The Act stipulated that all persons arbitrarily defined by the FBI as ‘political activists’ would be confined to automatic forced detention on the spurious grounds they might conspire to commit sabotage or espionage.

 

It was forbidden for any employee of the US government or of any US corporation “to communicate in any manner or by any means, to any other person whom such officer or employee knows or has reason to believe to be an agent or representative of any foreign government”. No such “agent of a foreign government” was permitted to “seek, accept or hold” any employment in the US, nor to conceal the fact that he was such an agent. All US citizens were forbidden from funding, advising or assisting any such person or organisation, and it was forbidden by law to associate with those who were not “well disposed to the good order and happiness” of America.

 

The Americans pressure China vigorously to freely and without restriction

permit unlimited seditious American propaganda into China…

 

This legislation and other similar Acts are still in force in the US today, raising yet again the vast discrepancy between what the Americans preach externally and what they do at home. Once again, the Americans pressure China vigorously to freely and without restriction permit unlimited seditious American propaganda into China, openly declaring their intention to overthrow China’s governmental system, yet deport or imprison for life those attempting such acts in their own country.

 

And once again we can ask why, if these “seditious foreign agents” must be registered and identified in the US, cannot be funded or even communicated with, cannot publish or distribute any material contradictory to the American government and capitalist system, it is okay for the Americans to do precisely these things in China. Why is it not equally appropriate for China to force all Americans and their agents to register as “seditious aliens”, forbid them to communicate with Chinese and forbid employment? And why isn’t it okay for China to just deport all those Americans who are not “well disposed to the good order and happiness of China”? We must remind ourselves yet one more time that democracy is a coin with only one side.

 

Today, the proliferation of ‘anti-terror’ legislation in the US essentially duplicates all this past legislation in its fascist glory, but updated to the present.

Protesters hold up signs outside of Federal Hall during a demonstration against United States Attorney General John Ashcroft September 9, 2003 in New York City. The Attorney General was in New York City as part of a sixteen-city tour speaking tour in which he spoke about the progress America has made on the war on terrorism through law enforcement and implementation of the USA Patriot Act. Source

 

The Patriot Act made all Americans potential enemies of the state, and the National Defense Authorization Act gave the US military and espionage agencies the ability to ignore all considerations of law or civil rights. You have read of some of the problems in US agriculture and the problems with so-called “factory farms” where animals are raised in abhorrent conditions.

 

Today in the US, anyone investigating the toxic conditions and abuses on these farms risks being prosecuted under the same terrorism legislation, for causing “losses to American businesses” owned by the top 1%. One Ph.D candidate at MIT,whose name appeared on one of these prosecution lists, wrote,

 

“It is deeply sobering to see one’s name in an FBI file proposing terrorism charges. It is even more sobering to realize the supposedly terroristic activities in question are merely exposing the horrific cruelty of factory farms and educating the public about what goes on behind those closed doors”.

 

Simply, the puppet-masters who control the White House and also direct the large corporations are avoiding exposure and prosecution and silencing all political and anti-capitalist sentiment by directing the justice system to target civilian investigators and activists as terrorists.

 

The process now operating within the US is that every threat, real or imagined, to the established political-capitalist order will produce increased public repression. And it is not only US government agencies and police forces that are involved in this civil suffocation; the major American banks and the Foundations play an increasingly deep role in subverting even further the free expression of dissent in America. We have already seen that the banks that were the target of the Occupy Wall Street protests surreptitiously funded the group in order to manage its direction and ensure its demise. Foundations like Rockefeller and Carnegie have done the same, with the idea of financing and participating in various civil rights movements in order to better control them and prevent the movements from taking their natural course as popular expressions of public sentiment against an unfair and brutal system. They were co-opting the movements to suit the interests of the top 1%, to make the world “safe for capitalism”. Some states have introduced legislation to criminalise all investigations of corporate crimes, in transparent attempts to use frighteningly powerful and unlimited legislation to protect corporate profits. Even photographing some of these actions will be classified as terrorism and subject to the full arbitrary power of these laws.We have reached the point where a camera is now a terrorist weapon, the possession of which is punishable by life imprisonment in a black prison without any judicial process or recourse.

 

Congress recently passed a new law that effectively criminalises all public protests, and categorises civil society movements like Occupy Wall Street as “domestic terrorism”. The Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act give the military and espionage agencies unlimited powers. The law is deliberately vague, so that almost anything could be included within the criminal definition, and so broad that almost every American today could be labeled a suspected terrorist. The intent is to intimidate all citizens and stifle any public criticism of US government acts or policies. Any of the following actions may get a US citizen labeled as a suspected terrorist today:

 

(1) Speaking out against government policies,

(2) Protesting against anything,

(3) Questioning the government’s many wars,

(4) Asking questions about Wall Street Banks and the FED,

(5) Taking pictures or video, especially of police.

 

According to US Department of Defense training manuals, any public protest is considered “low-level terrorism” today,and all anti-war protesters are now classified as terrorists.

 

The US government is using the Patriot Act and various other bits of new legislation not only to outlaw most of the basic civil freedoms in the country, but these laws are so vague as to permit virtually any domestic atrocity against civilians.

 

Anyone today who speaks out against any US government policies can be arbitrarily classified as either a terrorist or an “unlawful enemy combatant” and imprisoned indefinitely without charge or trial. Few people seem aware that the US media are compelled by law to report to the FBI/CIA all communication (letters to the Editor, etc.) that is critical of the US government.

 

Another fact not widely known is that thousands of Americans are imprisoned each year for a single Tweet, a single Facebook post or a single Text message.A simple post on social media or pressing “like”on Facebook, can be deemed“terroristic threatening” in the US, and result in a sentence of three to five years in prison.

 

Many government agencies, including the military, now actively monitor all US social media like Facebook and Twitter to identify those who criticise the US government, then seek them out and interrogate them. This has a particularly chilling effect on American so-called “free speech”when citizens know that espionage agencies are now monitoring every online post and comment. It is not widely known, but US authorities constantly monitor the social media, bulletin boards and other Internet sites for potential political dissent, and often exercise their authority to order people to disperse from“unlawful online assembly”, which definition is as arbitrary as the authorities wish to make it.

 

 

Moreover, leaked documents revealed that any students who could be identified as having been involved in protests, or posted public but‘sensitive’ information, or involved in various political activisms, would forever be prohibited from employment with any part of the US government. One university student who had taken part in the Occupy Wall Street protests later said, “The system in place sublimely manipulates our social reality in ways obvious only when we realize that there is nothing between us and the police but fear”. She added that if the protestors had held out and actually tried to make changes in the system, her participation would exist in a permanent record and she would never be able to get a job. And in any case, she held out no hope that the citizens could ever really change anything.

 

The DHS hired defense contractor General Dynamics for a $12 million program to monitor the Internet for “reports that reflect adversely on DHS, especially those that have a negative spin on DHS activities”. These agencies are not monitoring so-called “terrorist” activity, but normal social activity and political commentary. In its defense, DHS claimed the released documents were “outdated”– though they were new – and that social media were monitored for “situational awareness of man-made threats” and not to police disparaging opinions about the federal government. According to their spokesman, the manual’s instruction that analysts should identify media reports that reflect adversely on DHS activities was not at all meant to silence criticism, but simply “to identify areas where DHS wasn’t doing a good job, and to help it improve”. I can scarcely imagine a greater lie than that one. [5] [6]

 

In yet another attempt to silence political dissension, New York State proposed new legislation that would outlaw anonymous speech on the Internet, on the foolish pretense of discouraging‘cyber-bullying’. The legislation states that any online comment attracting an objection, mostly from the government, must be deleted immediately unless the website or social medium clearly displays the poster’s true identity, IP address and residential home address. This was not presented as a removal of a civil right but rather the granting of a new one – the government’s “right to know who is behind an anonymous internet posting”, on the basis that a valuable resource like the Internet “ought to be used properly”. Of course, there are few people anywhere so reckless as to expose themselves to the entire Internet world in this fashion, especially when it would invite a knock on the door. Naturally, government officials, media owners and anyone in the top 1% can continue to publish op-ed pieces without a byline, maintaining their own privacy while the peasants cannot.

 

In their book Manufacturing Consent, and writing of the elite domination of the media, Herman and Chomsky noted that the marginalisation of dissidents results from filters so natural that the media can easily convince themselves they are being objective, but the constraints are so powerful and so fundamentally built into the system that alternative choices are scarcely imaginable.

 

Ben Bagdikian wrote that the acceptable range of discourse determines what topics can be discussed and to what degree, which will be pushed into the shadows and which uppermost in the public mind. He claimed it is the power to treat some subjects obscurely and others in depth where the media ownership most effectively influences the news – and also the content in the public mind. And, as Chomsky has often noted, it is the assumptions that are not articulated that affect the range of public discourse. And again, it is the political-capitalist narrative that is so closely protected from dissenting voices.

 

In reality, the murder of Good should best be understood as a public extrajudicial execution — an action that is deemed a crime against humanity under international law. Source.

 

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers  (Truthout) made these very accurate observations:

 

“Another tool is to create insecurity in the population so that people are unwilling to speak out and take risks for fear of losing their jobs and being unable to afford food, a home and health care. Changes in the work environment, such as the attack on unions and the war on whistleblowers, have led to greater job insecurity. Changes in college education also silence dissent, including the trend toward adjunct rather than tenured professors. Adjunct professors, now comprising 85 percent of faculty, are less willing to teach topics that are viewed as controversial. These, combined with massive student debt, are tools to silence the student population, once the center of transformative action.” 

 

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’.(Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com 

*

Notes

(1) HUAC – Definition, Hearings & Investigationshttps://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/huac

Arbitrary Law Enforcement in the US

(2) U.S. Congress passes Sedition Acthttps://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-congress-passes-sedition-act

(3) Smith Act; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act

(4) McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1047/mccarran-act-of-1950

(5) Lawmaker Demands DHS Cease Monitoring of Blogs, Social Mediahttps://www.wired.com/2012/02/dhs-media-monitoring/

(6) Department Of Homeland Security Tells Congress Why It’s Monitoring Facebook, Twitter, blogshttps://www.fastcompany.com/1816814/department-homeland-security-tells-congress-why-its-monitoring-facebook-twitter-blogs

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

 

Other Works by this Author

 

ESSAYS ON CHINA  Volume One

ESSAYS ON CHINA Volume 2

ESSAYS ON CHINA Volume Three 

Who Starts All The Wars?New!

What we Are Not Told :  German POWs in America – What Happened to Them?

The Richest Man in the World

The Power Behind the Throne

The Jewish Hasbara in All its Glory

PROPAGANDA and THE MEDIA 

BERNAYS AND PROPAGANDA 

Democracy – The Most Dangerous Religion

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 1 — How the US Became Rich 

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 2 — Life in a Failed State

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 3 — The Branding of America

Police State America Volume One

Police State America Volume Two

Essays on America

FILLING THE VOID

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE IN ACTION

THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

False Flags and Conspiracy Theories

Kamila Valieva

 

 

LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS & PDF ARTICLES

 

 Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2026


Global Economic Indicator: A Blueprint for Managed Decline

$
0
0


 Global Economic Indicator

A Blueprint for Managed Decline


 

America’s latest National Defence Strategy is a manifesto for managed decline. The obligatory managerial language of “integrated deterrence,” “resilient logistics,” “defending the homeland,” masks the harsh, unvarnished truth. The 2026 strategy is not a plan for victory or renewed leadership. It is instead a manual for managing the controlled demolition of American hegemony—a shift from forward enforcement of the liberal order to defensive protection of the financialized core while the world outside grows increasingly chaotic.


Wrapped in the language of strength, the document is a long-overdue admission of material limits. It is the doctrine of an empire in retrenchment, one that knows it no longer has the material means—if indeed it ever did—to project power everywhere but is determined to keep extracting wealth from it. This does not mean a stable world; on the contrary it means that maintenance of conflict and instability will increasingly be outsourced to vassals—as previously examined here.


Let’s examine the five main pillars and what they mean and specifically how it relates to China and the Asia-Pacific region.

 

The first pillar, “Homeland Defence Comes First,” is not patriotism; it’s panic. After decades of offshoring industry and financializing the economy, the American state’s primary mission is no longer projecting liberal order abroad, but protecting the political and financial core. The heightened focus on borders, cyber defences, and domestic militarization is a direct response to diminishing legitimacy and rising social instability at home. The empire, overextended and hollowed out, is now circling its wagons. It fears disorder in its core more than challengers on the periphery. This isn’t a show of strength—it’s the militarization domestic fragility.

 

The second pillar addresses China directly; “China Is a Pacing Challenge, But We Seek Stability.” This is ultimately the realisation that the U.S. cannot defeat China in a direct confrontation. Partly because it lacks it military wherewithal to do so, but also because such a confrontation would destroy the global system it depends on in the process. The financial equivalent of mutually assured destruction. Open confrontation would destroy the integrated capital flows, supply chains, and asset market that sustain Wall Street. In this light, the objective is reframed not as victory but “managed rivalry”—to contain China’s ascent enough to preserve U.S. primacy in finance, tech standards, and strategic choke points. The Pentagon has abandoned the idea of a decisive war in favour of denial, delay, and bargaining. “Stability” is the codeword for preventing a hot war that would cause immediate, catastrophic collapse of the empire’s financialized assets.

 

The document is particularly interesting in that it makes no explicit mention of Taiwan. This omission is key to understanding the shift of U.S. priorities from preparing for open confrontation to managed competition. This is ambiguity as risk management. Keeping the threat in hand rather than playing it directly.

Anodyne terms like “managed rivalry” and “securing key terrain” translate directly to intensified interference, coercion, and political warfare within the Asia-Pacific nations. In particular, in “swing states” like Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines.

This strategy will manifest on the ground as increased activity in the following arenas:

 

Creating a Web of “Aligned Neutrality” or “Buffer States”

 

The U.S. will seek to ensure these countries are sufficiently oriented toward Washington on critical issues to deny China uncontested influence. This means:

Blocking Chinese military bases: Ensuring Thailand doesn’t grant China a naval facility on the Gulf of Thailand, or Myanmar doesn’t offer a full-fledged PLA base on the Bay of Bengal.

Preserving U.S. military access: Maintaining rotational access to ports and airfields in the Philippines, and potentially Thailand for logistics and maintaining an overt military presence.

Keeping strategic infrastructure out of Chinese hands: Influencing decisions on 5G networks (Huawei vs. Western firms), preventing port upgrades like China’s attempts in Myanmar’s Kyaukphyu, and undersea cable routes.

 

The Tools of Interference or U.S “Partnership”

 

Elite Co-optation and Military Diplomacy: This is key. The U.S. will increase engagement with military elites—the real power centre in countries like Thailand and Myanmar—and political/business oligarchs.


Thailand: Deepening ties with the Royal Thai Army, offering high-level exchanges, intelligence sharing, and arms sales (F-35s are a recent topic) to pull Bangkok’s centre of gravity away from Beijing’s influence. Supporting pro-Western factions within the elite—a consistent and recurring pattern in Thailand.


Myanmar: The U.S. will most likely increase covert, deniable support for ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) along the Chinese border (like the Kachin Independence Army) to create leverage. This is about ensuring neither China nor the central government gains full control of the country’s territory.


Legal and Regulatory Warfare: Pressuring governments to adopt regulations that disadvantage Chinese tech and infrastructure. Framing it as “cyber security” or “data sovereignty” to force choices that align with U.S. tech ecosystems.


Information and Narrative Operations: Using U.S. influence over local media and civil society organisations in the region to amplify local grievances about Chinese projects—debt traps, environmental damage, labour practices. Essentially, raising the political cost for governments to work with Beijing.


Economic Coercion and Inducements: Using the threat of sanctions or the promise of limited trade/investment deals (like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, IPEF) as carrots and sticks. For example, in Myanmar sanctions work to deny China a stable partner. In Thailand, offers of supply chain integration work to pull it away from China-centric networks.

 

The Cynical Reality: Stability is Not the Goal; Managed Instability Is

 

For the system to work, nations have to be kept insecure enough to require U.S. security assistance (intelligence, arms, diplomatic cover) but not so unstable that they collapse into failed states that China could walk into.

It also means the region will become an arena for increased proxy competition. Myanmar’s civil war is a prime example. An outright government victory favouring China is against U.S. interests but a total victory by pro-Western forces is unlikely. In these terms, managing a low-grade conflict that complicates China’s Belt and Road Initiative and ties up China’s attention and resources is the optimal outcome.

U.S. support for, or resistance to, political forces in the region will become even more dictated by their respective relationship with Beijing. In this respect, the political sovereignty of Thailand or Myanmar will become increasingly subordinated to the great power game.

In summary, “Managed rivalry” does not mean leaving Asia-Pacific nations to their own devices. It means the U.S will seek to draw them into a system of controlled tension where their internal politics are shaped by the need to contain China. These countries are the “terrain” the strategy refers to that need to be influenced, leveraged, and kept from the adversary’s control. This means constant pressure on elites, manipulation of information ecosystems, and economic and security dependencies to serve this strategic retreat.

 

Third, “Our Network of Allies is a Force Multiplier—They Must Do More.” This is imperial outsourcing. This is not about partnership; it’s a direct call for vassals to absorb the costs of imperial maintenance. Europe and Asia must militarize quickly not to defend their own sovereignty, but as buffers and battlegrounds. They will fund weapons purchases—mainly from the U.S.— host forward bases, and bear the initial brunt of any conflict. Washington will retain control over escalation but it will minimize its own exposure. The “rules-based order” has been replaced by a franchise model of empire: allies pay, supply the labour, and destabilize themselves, while U.S. capital extracts rents from arms sales, debt issuance, and the inevitable “reconstruction.”

 

Fourth, “Securing Key Terrain in the Western Hemisphere and Globally.” When an empire starts obsessing over specific “key terrain” and chokepoints—the Panama Canal, Arctic routes, undersea cables—it is a tacit admission that global dominance is no longer attainable. This is the geopolitical bunker mentality. The neo-Monroe Doctrine is back because the empire is shrinking. As the ability to exert control through financial and ideological means alone wanes, the state reverts to direct, physical control over the primary arteries of trade and resources. This isn’t a strategy borne of confidence; it’s one of collateralization, locking down hard assets as the empire’s financial credibility erodes. Venezuela and Greenland are parts of this strategy.

 

Fifth, “Investing in Missile Defense, Nuclear Modernization, and Cyber.” This triad is not primarily about warfighting. These are insurance policies for a failing system. These are tools of survivability, designed to protect the core’s wealth and infrastructure while maintaining the capability to threaten with impunity; it’s a signal the ruling class can coerce others without fear of retaliation. Cyber defences are about protecting the digital heart of capital. This is the core of the empire trying to insulate itself against the possibility of systemic collapse. Preparing for permanent, managed crisis.

 

The shift from the 2022 strategy is huge. 2022 spoke of “integrated deterrence.” with an optimistic faith in multilateralism. The 2026 document is testament to that faith’s failure. It is a strategy of defensive, extractive imperialism.


The underlying reality is that the U.S. economy is now fundamentally rent-based, debt-driven, and militarized. The strategy envisions the Pentagon’s role as financial stabilization through perpetual crisis. Peace is dangerous because it removes the justification for massive defence spending, which props up key industrial sectors and allows for the continued extraction of global wealth. War, on the other hand, must be curatednever hot enough to crash the system, but always warm enough to justify its architecture and create leverage to unbalance rivals.

 

In the end, the 2026 National Defense Strategy is not preparing for World War III. It is preparing for a strategic withdrawal which will be a grinding era of curated crises, disciplined allies, and externalized costs. It is the military doctrine of a financialized empire that knows, in its bones, that it can no longer rule the world, but absolutely refuses to stop extracting value from it. The final irony may be that in its desperate bid to manage decline, this strategy will only accelerate the unravelling it seeks to control.


EN — LARRY ROMANOFF: Police State America — Chapter 1–The Rise of the Police State

$
0
0



Police State America

Chapter 1-The Rise of the Police State

By Larry Romanoff

 

 

 

CHINESE   

 

 Police State America – Volume One free e-book 

 

By the end of the Vietnam war, US corporations were no longer competitive in the world economy and were losing the bulk of their domestic market to imports, leading to de-industrialisation and the large-scale relocation of manufacturing to Asia, primarily China. Since then, the US has experienced large and increasing trade deficits regardless of currency exchange rates or other external conditions. With its military adventures financed entirely on debt, the US also began running increasingly larger budget deficits, with increasingly fewer funds for public programs like social welfare or education, or to maintain or rebuild its already-dilapidated physical infrastructure.


After the US abandoned the gold standard and unilaterally scuttled theBretton-Woods agreement, debt financing for the Vietnam war resulted in a massive expansion of the money supply,
leading to a decade of ruinous inflation with the US dollar depreciating by about 95%.

 

Ronald Wilson Reagan, the 40th president of the United States. A former actor and president of the Screen Actors Guild, he was elected governor of California in 1966 and US president in 1981. He is standing in front of a sign reading ‘Let’s Make America Great Again’, during his electoral campaign. (Photo by MPI/Getty Images)

 

It was then, at the end of the 1970s, that the US experienced the biggest political upheaval in its recent history, what James Petras appropriately called “The Great Transformation”, brought about by Bernays’ secret government. In another Volume, I will detail the massive corporate social changes that occurred in the US in the early 1980s, but will discuss some here.

 

It was during this time under President Ronald Reagan that the invisible elite took the US government and the nation on an alarming ideological turn to the extreme right, and everything changed. In addition to the mass deindustrialisation of the country and the destruction of labor unions and workers’ rights, Reaganopened the doors to deregulation and privatisation, and effectively turned the keys of the country over to the elites and their large corporations and banks.It was this that paved the way for the parade of human, economic, political and military atrocities that continue to this day.

 

President Ronald Reagan addresses the nation from the Oval Office ontax reduction legislation. Source

 

This was when Reagan, under the advice of his handlers, proclaimed at least 200 Presidential Directives designed almost without exception for the benefit of the secret government and their banks and corporations. One need only look at the historical record to prove this point. Reagan was painfully unintelligent, without the mental capacity to have even conceived of such plans for the devastation and cannibalisation of so many nations, all of which were illegal by every measure and concocted solely to satisfy the commercial greed of Bernays’ invisible people. These were primarily private laws dictated by the secret government which authorised the use of the US military and CIA to overthrow dozens of governments and to fund and install dictators that would permit the wholesale plundering of nations with unconscionable civilian repression resulting in at least 10 million deaths. This was when US militarism and military repression became openly mainstream activities, and which continued until the world could no longer stomach the tales of atrocities. This was when the CIA dusted off its 1,000-page torture manual, accumulated from long experience in the Philippines and Indonesia, and distributed it widely for decades to America’s puppet dictators. It was when we saw an explosion in the US military budget as well, tripling in a short time to the extent that the US today spends almost twice as much on its military as the entire rest of the world combined, when the US global military expansion accelerated even as the domestic economic situation degenerated.

 

 

This was when Washington’s neocon Zionists took virtually full control of US foreign policy,especially including the Middle East but also utilising the US military for their aggressive financial predation of South and Central America. This was when the US Congress began to lose the final vestiges of a democratic government, surrendering its legislative and oversight powers to the White House and AIPAC. This was when the US entered its long series of current wars, from Afghanistan to Iraq and Syria, meant to end with the destruction of Iran and Somalia,all to ensure the American Jews’ (many of whom are dual US-Israeli citizens) plans of solidifying Israel’s overwhelming power in the Middle East.

 

And in all of this, we witnessed a steady growth of the domestic police state apparatus conducted with military aggressiveness. You will recall from the Chapter on Bernays and Democracy Control the report produced for the Trilateral Commission by Samuel Huntington, where he complained that the civil protests and disobedience were a crisis of democracy and that the public needed to be properly indoctrinated. This was the origin of America’s decisive swing to civil repression and fear as a means to ensure the desired apathy and noninvolvement of the people in the affairs of their government.

 

This was when the NSA so broadly expanded both its domestic and international espionage activities into ever more illegal areas and methods, and when the FBI became increasingly involved in suppressing dissension in all its forms. This was when we began to see the enormous growth of the domestic security and quasi-military agencies like Homeland Security and the proliferation of a multitude of repressive government powers and policing agencies involved in every aspect of civilian life. It was when decisions were made to create an enormous civil-military bureaucracy focused on domestic civilian control, when the Department of Homeland Security built and staffed its 800 internment camps in preparation for the civil unrest that would be unleashed from the invisible government’s planned economic and social policies.

 

 

A large FEMA trailer park is seen next to the University of New Orleans campus in the Lakeview area August 25, 2006 in New Orleans, LA.MARIO TAMA/GETTY IMAGES

 

Naturally, there was increasingly less funding available for the nation’s social programs, resulting in the gradual evisceration of all social services, primarily education and health care, the huge budget deficits and national debt being used to justify dismantling the social safety net. This was when Reagan claimed that a universal health care plan “would mean the end of freedom in America”. Included here was the new hysteria for privatisation, the prison system perhaps most worthy of note since it reflected a planned return to the world of slavery and convict leasing.

 

This was when Bernays’ elite bankers began the push to the extreme financialisation of the US economy and for deregulation, especially of the US financial system. When we look at the facts, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that these massive financial and tax changes occurred primarily to assist the Jewish bankers and elite industrialists in a vast plan to eviscerate the lower and middle classes and embark on what was perhaps the greatest planned transfer of wealth in human history.

 

 

President Bill Clinton addressing a White House conference to discuss ideas about how
best to reform Social Security to ensure its solvency well into the 21st
century, 1998. (Credit: Robert Giroux/Getty Images)

 

As Reagan, and then Bush Sr. disappeared from the political scene, Clinton had already been primed to complete the transition.It was under Clinton’s watch that the invisible government effectively legitimised a war on social policy and completed the removal of worker protection. It was his weakness and virtual treason that conspired to de-regulate the US banking system, repealing the Glass-Steagal Act, opening wide the doors to the financialisation of the economy, abandoning US economic policy to the FED and the Jewish bankers of Wall Street, paving the way for their massive profits leading to the 2008 social collapse.

 

It was also under Clinton that American Jews were inserted in about 80% of all strategic posts, effectively taking control of US foreign policy in the Middle East, thus ensuring Israel’s military and hegemonic ambitions were fully imported into the White House and that the US military would execute them by proxy. It was also Clinton who initiated the expansion of the prison system and much of the repressive police state anti-terrorist legislation.It is true the US has never been a paragon of socialism but it was Clinton’s conversion to Zionism and his own ideological orientation that strongly propelled the US on its path from the remaining vestiges of humane social policy and good government to a police state.

 

 

Under George Bush, America more or less completed the transition to surrendering full control of its legislative and executive branches to AIPAC and the invisible government. In many respects Bush was the ideal puppet; gullible, grateful, eager to please, surprisingly unintelligent and uninformed, weak and easily-led; putty in the hands of his neocon Zionist masters.

 

Under Bush we saw the rise of a vast political-police apparatus designed for domestic suppression and civil war.

 

The multiple outrageous wars, the massive increase in military spending, the vast network of torture prisons, the unlimited unregulated freedom for the FED and Wall Street to work their magic of financial destruction and wealth transfer. There was also a new campaign with heavy media support, to demonise Muslims and to repress domestic activists, especially anyone critical of Israel. And of course, coincident with the financialisation of the US economy and the evisceration of the middle class, under Bush we saw the continued dumbing-down of education, a devastating rollback of social programs and the rise of a vast political-police apparatus designed for domestic suppression and civil war.

 

The third largest federal agency behind the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense, the DHS—with its 240,000 full-time workers, $61 billion budget and sub-agencies that include the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—has been aptly dubbed a “runaway train.” Source

 

Obama inherited these social, financial and military crises and may well have harbored hopes for a change in direction but, due in equal parts to naivete, ambition and cowardice, he capitulated to the demands of the Jewish secret government, with all parts of the grand plan continuing unabated and some increasing in both scope and brutality. Under Obama and an increasingly compliant and complicit Congress, the falsely-christened “Homeland Security” apparatus has grown exponentially, today comprising almost 400,000 employees and a budget of almost $200 billion. And few military actions deserve more vicious condemnation than his destruction and looting of Libya by proxy for his Jewish masters.

 

The essential point is that all of these items, programs, processes and events were related, part of the same plan concocted by the same invisible government.Today we are in the final stages of the deep structural changes involved in this grand process, witnessing more dismantling of social services and education, a still-increasing financialisation of the economy, the continued impoverishment of society, and a vast increase in both domestic and international espionage and surveillance as part of the support mechanism for the police state. It is partially due to the fact that the event of 9-11 formed such an integral part of this program that a great many remain firmly convinced 9-11 was a planned event meant to facilitate and justify much of the remainder of the agenda, especially civilian repression and curtailing of civil rights, and to justify the perpetual war on terror that would itself be used as a kind of proxy for increasing world domination.

 

David Rockefeller (L) with his brothers in New York in September 1967; (L-R) David, Winthrop, John D Rockefeller III, Nelson and Laurance

 

In case you’re tempted to dismiss the above comment as an over-reaction or a kind of ‘conspiracy theory’, consider this quote by David Rockefeller in an address to the Trilateral Commission. Rockefeller is referring to the Bilderberg Group– whose existence was hotly denied for decades and derided as just another conspiracy theory: “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of public scrutiny during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and fully prepared to march towards our one world-government. The supranational sovereignty of our intellectual elites and world bankers is surely preferable to the globe as a whole.” It was also Rockefeller who stated that his group needed one final dramatic impetus, “another Pearl Harbor event”, to bring this New World Government to the throne. 9-11 was that event.

 

Notorious 9/11 enabler and dual US/Israeli citizen, Michael Chertoff would have easy  access to contractors, owners and personnel providing security for Mandalay Bay. Source

 

The Jewish Zionists who hold, or have held, key positions in various presidential administrations and in the scaffold that supports the police state, have featured prominently in smoothing the transition.James Petras pointed out that it was Michael Chertoff who intervened immediately after 9/11 “to free scores of Israeli spy suspects and 5 Israeli Mossad agents who had been witnessed filming and celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center and were under active investigation by the FBI”. Chertoff was also the chief architect of the global war on terrorand of the Patriot Act, both of which have served to severely limit civil and legal rights and to accelerate the transition to a police state. In no small part, their support emerges from the majority of members of the US Congress who define themselves as “Israel First”, and who appear more than willing to place the interests of that nation second to those of their own.

 

In 2013, Finian Cunningham wrote a valuable article in which he critically and bluntly outlined concerns about the US totalitarian system, claiming that US democracy was for all intents and purposes a dead corpse. He began by stating that the desperate US manhunt for Snowden showed above all else how petrified US leaders have become of ordinary citizens revealing the truths about their despotic rule. He wrote:

 

One indicator of this abysmal inequality is the fact that the 400 richest Americans have more material wealth than 155 million of their fellow citizens combined.

 

“American society is collapsing from the sheer weight of its decrepit capitalist economy. The social system is unsustainable. It is like a distended rotten sack that is coming apart at the seams from inexorable burgeoning pressure. Today, the US has evolved into a dystopia, not a democracy, where obscene wealth and privilege stand in the face of massive poverty and misery. One indicator of this abysmal inequality is the fact that the 400 richest Americans have more material wealth than 155 million of their fellow citizens combined. Another datum: some 50 million Americans – a sixth of the population – are surviving on food handouts.Unemployment, homelessness, suicide rates, prescription drug addiction, rampant gun crime all speak in different ways of social meltdown.”

 

Gathering, monitoring, spying and surveillance, both in the US and around the world.

 

He wrote that it was hard to believe that not so long ago the US was regarded as the economic paradigm of the world, but now increasingly resembles a giant sprawling ghetto of unremitting poverty interspersed with a few gated rich communities populated by the top one percent of society. “The American ruling class, as with their elite counterparts around the world, are figuratively sitting within their privileged niches and petrified by the mounting discontent ‘outside’. Through their criminal ransacking and rigging of wealth, the powers-that-be have through their own insatiable greed created a powerful potential enemy – virtually the entire population, both in the US and around the world. In this highly unstable situation of elites and masses that bankrupt capitalism has furnished, “democracy” can no longer be tolerated by the rulers. That is why the rulers have embarked on massive information gathering, monitoring, spying and surveillance. It is all about maintaining “control” of a precarious and explosive disequilibrium.

 

Demonstrators hold placards supporting Snowden during a protest against government surveillance in Washington DC in October 2013. Source

 

Cunningham again: “One basic duty of any state is to protect its citizens from foreign enemies who are conventionally understood to be state militaries or non-state terrorist groups.But from Snowden’s revelations of US government surveillance of telecommunications, the vast bulk of America’s spying is on civilians. Snowden disclosed in one instance how Chinese hospitals and universities – not military installations – were among the many international civilian targets for American government snooping. US national security officials defend this global dragnet method as a necessary way to trawl for terrorists.” But we now know that no terrorist plots have been uncovered anywhere, at least none that were not fabricated by the FBI, and in truth the only dangers from terrorism today are those created by the US itself. Journalist Glenn Greenwald wrote that Americans have learned that the US surveillance apparatus is not directed primarily at the Chinese or Russian governments or terrorists, but at them, and that “what has been ‘harmed’ is not the national security of the US but the ability of its political leaders to work against their own citizens and citizens around the world in the dark, with zero transparency or real accountability.”

 

Counsels to President Gerald Ford meet with members of the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence in Washington, June 26, 1975. They brought White House files to aid the Senate panel’s investigation into efforts to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Source

 

Cunningham wrote, and I concur, that America’s increasing militarism and an imperative to assert control over social meltdown and rebellion, were the result of the imploding neocon capitalist system. He said this “historic failure of capitalism explains the alarming growth in militarism and the intensification of domestic surveillance powers and civil repression. It was in this context where he claimed “American democracy is, for all intents and purposes, a dead corpse. Only criminal wars and repression of its citizens are keeping the moribund system on a life-support system.”In the 1970s, US Senator Frank Church led an investigation into illicit American government covert operations and warned that if the NSA were to ever become deployed against the American public, as opposed to foreign enemies, then that country’s democracy would be finished.That is precisely the present abysmal outcome of secret US state powers.

 

No police state can function without a centralisation of power. This is especially important in areas of surveillance and espionage coupled with a reliable and ruthless quasi-military and police for control of civilian conduct and political dissension. It’s not for nothing that power has been increasingly concentrated in the White House for several decades now, nor is it an accident that we have seen legislative changes creating the immense Homeland Security apparatus, as well as the illegal creation of a widespread domestic surveillance network. Successive US Presidents have not only assumed powers not entirely theirs but have increasingly taken advantage of what are called Presidential Directives, which are one-man executive orders made under the guise of advice from the National Security Council and which have the full force and effect of law.Given their presumed connection with national security, many of these are classified Top Secret and cannot be revealed even to the elected Congress or the courts. It is by these ‘laws’ that the government prosecuted the Occupy Wall Street protestors and that political dissidents are convicted of ‘terrorism’. In court, the government charges a dissident with breaking a secret law, the content of which cannot be revealed for reasons of national security, and for which crime the evidence also cannot be revealed for the same reason. Every day, individuals are prosecuted and foreign policy initiatives taken, none of which can be disclosed.If this isn’t a fascist police state, what would be?

 

The control of public opinion has steadily increased and become more powerful over the years through media concentration.

 

Media control is an essential and integral part of a functioning police state, centralisation being necessary to distribute propaganda and censor information and to help maintain and manipulate the climate of fear which permits the reduction of civil liberties. It is therefore not an accident that US legislative changes permitting corporate concentration have especially included the mass media. This control of public opinion has steadily increased and become more powerful over the years through media concentration. The US government has increasingly responded to intense lobbying and finally permitted media monopolies and oligopolies to emerge, resulting in the extreme centralisation and control of content and ideology we see today.

 

‘Soon after my discovery, I met the first eight women who brought civil cases against the Metropolitan Police, one of whom was Kate Wilson’ (PA). Source

 

In November of 2014, Dave Lindorff wrote an article titled “Metastasizing of the Police State of America“, which he opened by stating “One can no longer speak in terms of the US as a country that is moving towards becoming a police state. We are living in a police state”. He noted that “at least 40 agencies of the US government from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Supreme Court are using undercover agents to spy on … citizens”, and says the US has “passed the tipping point” of being a police state. He noted too that, according to a New York Times report,“even NASA and the Smithsonian Institution have undercover operatives. Undercover cops and agents are assuming the identities of teachers, doctors, journalists and even priests”. Lindorff wrote, “This information has to be put together with the rampant militarization of local police forces, who have become an occupying army, and with the proliferation of spying activities by state and local police agencies, encouraged by the establishment by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security of myriad “Joint Anti-Terrorism Strike Forces, and of 76 so-called Fusion Centers.”

Federal authorities immediately described Alex Pretti, a U.S. citizen, as an armed agitator who was a threat to immigration officers. But videos showed Pretti’s hands were only holding a phone when a masked Border Patrol officer opened fire on Jan. 24.  Source

 

Lindorff said he used to scoff at what he saw as wild claims that Americans were living in a police state, but that he’s changed his mind, and that Americans are totally ignorant of the fact that they are being constantly watched and subject to arbitrary arrest,that they discover the truth only when they cross a line. In discussing the freedom of Americans to criticize and protest against the ruling elites, he wrote that while they may feel free to act, Americans must note “the terrible lengths to which this government is going to repress political activists. The list of people being hounded and persecuted by the US police state is far too long to publish. Suffice to say if police repression can happen to the people on that list, it can happen to all of us.”And that says it all.

 

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’.(Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ and https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

2186604556@qq.com 

Chapter 1-The Rise of the Police State

Chapter 2 — The FBI

Chapter 3 –COINTELPRO

Chapter 4 — Universal Public Surveillance

Chapter 5 — Other Surveillance

Chapter 6 — Searching for Anarchists, or Maybe Just Political Activists

Chapter 7   — Winning the Information War

Chapter 8 — Arbitrary and Unaccountable Law Enforcement

Chapter 9 — The Militarisation of the Police

Chapter 10 — Occupy Wall Street

Chapter 11 — Intimidating the Media & Subverting the Press

Chapter 12 — The Short Road: Democracy to Fascism

Chapter   13 — The Next American Revolution? Anticipated Civil Unrest

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

 

Other Works by this Author

 

ESSAYS ON CHINA  Volume One

ESSAYS ON CHINA Volume 2

ESSAYS ON CHINA Volume Three 

Who Starts All The Wars?New!

What we Are Not Told :  German POWs in America – What Happened to Them?

The Richest Man in the World

The Power Behind the Throne

The Jewish Hasbara in All its Glory

PROPAGANDA and THE MEDIA 

BERNAYS AND PROPAGANDA 

Democracy – The Most Dangerous Religion

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 1 — How the US Became Rich 

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 2 — Life in a Failed State

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 3 — The Branding of America

Police State America Volume One

Police State America Volume Two

Essays on America

FILLING THE VOID

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE IN ACTION

THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

False Flags and Conspiracy Theories

Kamila Valieva

 

 

LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS & PDF ARTICLES

 

 Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2026 

 


DOCUMENTARY AND DRAMATIC FILMS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS

EN — LARRY ROMANOFF: World War III is Only Postponed, not Canceled

$
0
0

  


World War III is Only Postponed, not Canceled

By Larry Romanoff

 

 




Contents

Introduction

A Bit of History

The Present Situation

Where Do We Go From Here?

(1) The “Woke Generals Meeting” in Quantico, Virginia

(2) Policy Paper on the US National Security Strategy

(3) The Genesis Mission

Epilogue

 

 

Introduction

 

Readers have surely noticed the huge increase in war-mongering by the Western nations during the past two or three years. It is evident that war clouds are gathering. The signs are everywhere, with media coverage and open talk of war in many countries. The mass media are increasingly offering threatening articles, insane predictions of invasions, attacks, or (alternatively) imperial designs by either Russia or China. Even the social media are increasingly filled with pictures and videos of violence, often military in nature. Russia is attributed with an undocumented desire to attack Western Europe, motivation unspecified. China is attributed with a growing desire to attack Taiwan, with the West doing all possible to provoke precisely such an attack. We have Donald Trump attacking Venezuela and Syria while threatening Canada, Cuba, Colombia, Mexico, Greenland, Iran, the Sudan, and others. We have had the US repeatedly stabbing at China in Hong Kong, with serious attempts to foster a “color revolution” and thus hoping to provoke China into military or police action which can then be denounced as proof of China’s “authoritarian” nature. We have Vietnam and the Philippines repeatedly provoking China in the South China Sea, egged on by (once again) the Americans. Similar with Japan in the East China Sea.

 

NATO is urging its members to reduce excessive bureaucratic procedures that slow down the movement of troops and weapons between European countries. Source

 

The RAND Corporation have for years been preparing military scenarios for World War IIIand NATO and the Pentagon are currently doing so. Vast movements of NATO troops and equipment are either in preparation or process to surround Russia.The US is surrounding China with military bases including the world’s largest in Guam. Both China and Russia are surrounded with nearly 400 US biological weapons labs. Iran is entirely vulnerable from the American military build-up in the Middle East. The US has re-christened the Department of Defense (which was always a euphemism) as the (more accurate but more frightening) Department of War.

 

Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’ said that a Chinese military expedition against Taiwan would be a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan, meaning that the Japanese Self Defense Forces (JSDF) may automatically respond.On 6 January 2026, China announced a ban on the export of certain dual-use rare earth elements and other items to Japan. Beijing also openly said that these restrictions are a result of Takaichi’s ‘erroneous’ comments. This is important because Chinese supplies account for 63 per cent of Japan’s total rare earths imports. China has also launched an anti-dumping probe into a chemical compound—dichlorosilane—which is imported from Japan. Source

 

We have Japan’s Prime Minister suddenly (and inexplicablyproclaiming that Taiwan’s independence is crucial to the national security of Japan, and threatening not only to interfere militarily in any attempt at unification, but claiming a need for full militarisation and the development of nuclear weaponsWe have most every national government in Europe adopting serious war-mongering postures, being pressured by the US to increase their military spending to an astonishing 5% of GDP. These countries proclaim that war might soon erupt, while ignoring that such a result would be entirely from their own provocations, especially against RussiaAnd in the meantime, the Jews in Israel continue their unchecked genocide against the Palestinian people, as well as their repeated military attacks on Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Jordan.

 

Crowds outside the US consulate in Nuuk, Greenland, in January in protest against Trump’s policy towards the territory. Photograph: Evgeniy Maloletka/AP. Source

 

The US has begun seizing oil tankers containing Venezuelan oil, on pretense that they are avoiding Trump’s illegal “sanctions”, and continuing to destroy small fishing boats and killing the occupants on vacant claims of “drug trafficking”. Trump threatens a 100% tariff on all Canadian goods as punishment for forging a trade deal with China. Trump threatens to take Greenland by force, and to levy tariffs on any country that disagrees with his approach. This war-mongering is such a large topic, I will provide more details and a summary in a separate essay.

 

There is no question that we have military flashpoints all over the globe, any one of which could easily escalate into World War III, and the provocations– all by Western nations – have become increasingly outrageous. And dangerous. The war drums are beating faster and louder with each passing year and month. For several years now, it seemed that tensions were sufficiently high that almost any act could have been the spark to detonate a global conflict. There were many days when I opened the morning papers while fearing the worst. Thankfully, the bad news didn’t arrive.

 

There is a reason for that. I will explain.

 

A Bit of History

 

There are two earlier essays I recommend that you read, to fully appreciate the background for the remainder of this essay. The first is titled “The Bankers’ Private Army” [1] and the second “What part will your country play in World War III?” [2] I will quote here a few paragraphs from the first of these two essays.

 

The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1905, states that Sassoon expanded his opium trade into China and Japan. He placed his eight sons in charge of the various major opium exchanges in China. Between 1830-31 they trafficked 18,956 chests of opium earning millions of dollars. Part of the profits went to Queen Victoria and the British government. In the year 1836 the trade increased to over 30,000 chests and drug addiction in coastal cities became endemic.   In 1839, the Manchu Emperor ordered that it be stopped. The Opium Wars began with the British Army fighting as mercenaries of the Sassoons. They attacked cities and blockaded ports. The Chinese Army, decimated by 10 years of rampant opium addiction, proved no match for the British Army. The war ended in 1839 with the signing of “The Treaty of Nanking.” It included territorial sovereignty for the British Crown over several designated offshore islands. Source

 

While Britain was at the peak of its international power, the European Jewish banking families, led by Rothschild, used the British military as their private army to subdue and terrorise the populations of weaker nations to pacify them for plundering and, in the case of India, to partition the country as well. It was the British military, steeped in capitalist ideology and acting as goons and thugs that brutalised India for generations on behalf of private enterprises that included the British East India Company which was created by the Rothschilds and was entirely a Jewish-run organisation. India was never about politics or territory, but about money. It was the same European Jewish banking families, Rothschild, Sassoon, Kadoorie, Hardoon, and more, that used the British military as their private army to protect the Rothschilds while forcing Indians to grow opium, the Russells while transporting it to Hong Kong, and to support the Sassoons while executing their exclusive sales franchise in China. The opium travesty in China is typically attributed to “the British”, but that is wrong. The British were merely the military enforcers for the Jews, literally the bankers’ private army.The entire opium atrocity in China was 100% Jewish.Similarly, the Boer wars fought in South Africa were arranged by the Rothschilds, using the British military to exterminate a population resistant to colonisation, then claim the gold fields and diamond mines which they own to this day.

 

Free PDF — Who Really Starts All The Wars

 

England was used as the bankers’ private army for both world wars, done in the full knowledge that the costs would destroy the UK financially, exterminate the British Empire, and leave Britain an insignificant rump of a country. England was deliberately sacrificed for a war that no one but the Jews wanted, losing 40% of her overseas assets in the first war and the remainder in the second. But by that time, the US military was already much stronger and the bankers already had full effective control of the US government and its politicians and, by extension, its military. That is much more true today. Read: The Power Behind the Throne[3] Britain was disposable, so the bankers disposed of it and transferred their flag to the US. When Britain was permitted to collapse after its two self-destructive world wars, the bankers transferred their military allegiance to the US and since then it has been the American military doing most of the dirty work to permit their international ravaging.

 

Who is running America? Source

 

It should be noted that we generally attribute much of the financial, political, and military chaos in the world to the actions of the United States, but in at least one sense that is unfair. It is true the US exercises its unbalanced military, political and financial power to wreak havoc in the world that tends inevitably to benefit only the top 1% but, while these actions may have been unilateral at some point in America’s dark history, today this combined power is directed by that same 1%, by what we today call “the deep state”, in other words the Jewish power behind the throne. As with Britain in the past, the US today is being used as a tool, its State Department, its military, the CIA and NSA, the dollar and the increasing weaponisation of finance all being arrows in the quiver of this small group of powerful people.

 

To see the truth of this, we need only think. Most of the actions during the past decades taken (and still being taken today) by the US FED, the policies of the State Department, the incessant wars, revolutions and national destabilisations, were in no way beneficial to either the US as a nation or to the American people. In fact, quite the contrary, since the US bore all the expense and the battlefield casualties while receiving none of the benefits. But they were very beneficial indeed to those few behind the scenes who vacuumed up astonishing amounts of wealth from each event, which would include the many US depressions, the invasions of countries like Iraq [4] and Libya [5], the destruction of the Ukraine, and so much more. No ordinary American benefitted in any way from these atrocities, but a small handful of people, the same Jewish kleptocrats in every case, profited in the trillions of dollars.

 

America was never built to last, and in fact, Jew Sir Francis Bacon documents this fact in his book The New Atlantis, which in summary documents the creation of America for the sole purpose of worldwide destruction of other nations, via regime change and WARS.After of which America will be destroyed itself, consequently the point we are currently entering into. America has been at war destroying nation all across the globe since its inception under the guise that “they hate us for our freedoms” as documented in this Wiki War List.Source 

An understanding of this background is necessary, because another shift is gradually taking place. Today, much of this work of conquering the world for the Jewish bankers is being transferred to NATO, at least in the European theater. The European so-called “government” is essentially a proto-fascist dictatorship with the actual control and decision-making power residing in dark rooms several levels above both national and European elected representatives, in fact and deed accountable to nobody but themselves. NATO is being co-opted as their private military, one reason aspirants to European membership must first surrender their militaries to NATO which is, in real life, like the European rulers themselves, a supra-national criminal body accountable to nobody (except them).

 

A bit more background before we examine the current situation:

 

Source

 

The true origins of the first two World Wars have been deleted from all our history books and replaced with mythology. Neither war was started (or desired) by Germany, but both at the instigation of European Zionist Jews with (1) the stated intent of the total destruction of Germany and (2the lust for Palestine as a homeland for the Jews. The documentation is overwhelming and the evidence undeniable. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

 

That history is being repeated today in a mass grooming of the Western world’s people (especially Americans) in preparation for World War III – which I believe is now imminent. There exists today a definite intent and determined desire for a Third World War, one which unquestionably emanates from the Khazar Jewish bankers in The City of London. The momentum being built for this third global conflagration is not subsiding, and it is a certainty these people will not stop until they have what they want.

 

Source

 

Through their control of the mass media, the Jews have been unrelenting, and successful, for at least the past several years filling the pages and airwaves with false atrocity tales against China, Russia, and Iran, barrages of these lies occurring almost daily. These follow the same template used by the same people against Germany to stoke hatred and prepare the populations for World Wars I and II. I urge readers in all earnestness to read the following article to fully understand the determination of these Jews to incite wars and their unparalleled expertise in war propaganda: “Bernays and Propaganda — The Marketing of War“. [18] It is the same – and based on the same kinds of lies – as those used to prepare for the invasions of Iraq, Libya and Syria.These people are utilising every manner of provocation against Russia and China, including increasingly outrageous and reckless military challenges in the South China Sea and near Taiwan. The entire world is being taught to hate China, Russia, and Iran. Attempts to convert India to China’s enemy are becoming increasingly desperate.

 

World War III will consist of the combined forces of the US, NATO and Israel (who considers itself a world military power) provoking a conflict aimed at the final destruction of China, Russia, and Iran, the three countries that must be destroyed to satisfy the dream of building Satan’s Third Temple in Jerusalem and initiating our New World Order where the Jews rule supreme. That is the plan. Your belief in it is not material to its execution.

 

Moving to the Present

 

Through literally hundreds of individual economic sanctions, the intent was to destroy the Russian economy, to effect another “regime change” and to partition the country. Source of the image

 

The provocations to incite a global conflict have been intense. Russia was provoked to an existential limit by the expansion of NATO and the threat of Western nuclear missiles literally on its borders. When Russia finally reacted, it was subjected to the most intense (and patently illegal) series of so-called “sanctions” ever levied against any nationRussia was cut off from the SWIFT banking system, several hundred billions of Russian central bank’s gold were confiscated by the West.The Nordstream pipeline was destroyed. Countries purchasing Russian oil and gas were dealt crippling sanctions. Multiple tariffs and trade embargoes were introduced. Through literally hundreds of individual economic sanctions, the intent was to destroy the Russian economy, to effect another “regime change” and to partition the country.

 

Joshua Wong during a protest in Hong Kong’s financial district. T Photograph: Anthony Kwan/Getty Images. Source

 

China was subjected to two years-long bouts of terrorism and violence in Hong Kong, entirely instigated and supported by the Jews in London, and executed by the US. You may recall Joshua Wong, the little golden-haired boy who was prominent in the violence in Hong Kong in the illegal “Occupy Central” movement in 2014 and the social unrest of 2019. I have video of Wong (and many other young boys) at about 14 years of age, in a small auditorium in England being lectured on the means of causing political chaos in Hong Kong. The US have maneuvered their aircraft carriers into the South China Sea on pretense of “freedom of navigation”, but really just a bullying projection of power. The US has incited Vietnam and the Philippines to occupy and claim Chinese islands in the South China Sea. It has done something similar with Japan and the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea. The US has imposed many kinds of trade restrictions, tariffs and “sanctions” in attempts to slow China’s rise and prevent its further economic development. The hate campaign against China in the Jewish-controlled Western media has never seen an equal since the similar campaign against Germany by the Jews, in preparation for the first two world wars. Read “The Anger Campaign Against China”[19]

 

 

Iran has been attacked, bombed, terrorised, demonised, sanctioned, hit with trade embargoes, suffered Jewish terrorism that included exploding phones, subjected to constant Israeli espionage tactics to sow unrest and attempt a regime change. Countries purchasing Iranian oil have been sanctioned. Everything possible has been done to destroy Iran’s economy and bring down the government, in preparation for an invasion and takeover of the nation and its petroleum reserves.

 

Unfortunately for the Jews, all the above efforts appear to have been largely wasted. Russia has not only survived, but has improved its position, and the Russian economy today is arguably stronger than before. The West is dumbfounded. Recent reports state that there is “nothing else” the West can do in its attempts to damage Russia, and will have to accept a defeat, at least temporarily. Moreover, the Russian military machine is unquestionably superior to that of the US, especially in regard to hypersonic missiles which the US admits cannot be intercepted or defended against.

 

If Russia’s survival was a surprise, China’s was staggering. The Chinese government was strategically well prepared for the Western moves and is today much stronger than when the Western attacks began. The Chinese have so far proven to be unstoppable. The US desperately tried to crush Huawei with astonishingly vicious, illegal and very dirty, measures, but Huawei is much larger and stronger today than yesterday. This same situation exists with China’s economy, which has not been materially harmed, in spite of the combined efforts of the Jewish bankers and the US State Department. But perhaps the biggest surprise was China’s success in technological areas, from AI (DeepSeek) to humanoid robots (IRON), Huawei’s computer chips, and the country’s immense success in EVs, solar and wind energy, and its specialisation in the rare earth metals. Part of this huge surprise was China’s military progress, which appeared to totally blindside the Americans (and the Jews).

 

It has produced 5th and even 6th generation military aircraft. It leads the world in drones of every description, including those with military application. China’s shipbuilding capacity is 250 times that of the US. In terms of economic sanctions, China completed currency swaps with dozens of trading partners, and has formulated a new international banking system that bypasses the dollar altogether and immunises nations from US financial threats. With the increasing success of BRICS and the New Silk Road, China has managed to avoid an American strangulation of the sea routes for Chinese trade. The list is very long.

 

Israeli soldiers search through the rubble of residential buildings destroyed by an Iranian missile strike in Bat Yam, central Israel, on Sunday, June 15, 2025. Baz Ratner—AP. Source

 

Iran was a bit of an eye-opener as well. When the Israeli Jews launched military attacks against Iran, the expectation was that Iran might disintegrate. Instead, it was the Jews who collapsed from shock. The Western world was well-informed by the Jewish media when Israel launched the military strikes against Iran, but the media oddly went perfectly silent when those attacks ended abruptly without explanation. The explanation is simple: the West badly underestimated Iran’s ability to retaliate. The thinking in Israel was that its very expensive (and American produced) “Iron Dome” would protect it from attack, but that proved to be a delusion. Iran did indeed retaliate against Israel, with blows that were devastating, destroying a good amount of Israel’s military establishment while ironically destroying much of Israel’s Iron Dome installations in the process, and doing very considerable harm to cities like Tel Aviv. Netanyahu was clearly in shock at the result, with Israel having been so badly damaged by Iran’s retaliation that he had no choice but to cease hostilities and hope Iran would reciprocate. Little of this news leaked out of Israel because the government declared it a felony crime, or even treasonous, to reveal the details of the damage that Iran inflicted. Even the media within Israel were forbidden to display knowledge or evidence of the damage, so that Israel’s own citizens had no clear idea of the scale of destruction. There were times when this was both comical and absurd. I watched one Israeli news program where the reporter was facing a TV camera while standing in front of a demolished building. The structure appeared to be an office/apartment complex of perhaps 20 stories, and was totally in ruins. With one glance, it was obvious that anyone unlucky enough to have been in the building at the time, could not possibly have survived. But the Jewish reporter was hinting that this might have been the only building in Israel that suffered any damage. She ended her censored reporting by telling viewers that in the destruction of this building, “two persons were injured and, sadly, one person died”. I couldn’t prevent myself from laughing out loud when I heard that.

 

Where Do We Go From Here?

 

Well, we recalibrate. I stated earlier that World War III would be led by the US with NATO support, and Israel providing a genocidal rump. But this was calculated (and imagined) on an assumption that the US would be able to defeat the combination of Russia, China, and Iran. The actual expectation was that a world war would be a brutal affair, unquestionably nuclear by the end, and that Russia, China, and Iran would be destroyed. Of course, the expectation was that the US would also be destroyed, much as Britain was after the first two Jewish World Wars.It is worth specifically noting that the Jews are not only using the US military as their private army to conquer the world; they are willing to fight to the last American to achieve their aim.

 

 

But, as I mentioned above, this is irrelevant; the reason the Jews are transferring their flag to NATO. There might not be very much of a NATO remaining after World War III, but it would likely be the only extant military of any consequence, and it could be quickly rebuilt. Certainly, the bankers would have no shortage of funds for such an endeavor and, with the expected destruction of all other major forces, this would leave them as the only remaining superpower – the “last man standing”. At least, that was the plan.

 

I wrote earlier above that for some time I honestly expected the morning news to inform that a world war had actually begun, but that, thankfully, the bad news didn’t arrive. And I said “There is a reason for that”. The reason is that the Americans and the Jews realised they had been deluding themselves about the strength of the US military and the weaknesses of their “enemies”. The conclusion was that the result of a war they initiated was by no means certain, and that their own defeat was the most likely outcome.

 

The US Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have held internal, high-level war games with the key reported outcome being that they admitted to repeated, lopsided defeats. A 2021 statement noted US forces “get their asses handed to them”[20][21][22] A statement from the RAND Corporation said that the US military is often beaten to death in any military conflict with China.[23] In a security conference, RAND analyst David Ochmanek said, “We lose a lot of people; we lose a lot of equipment; we usually fail to achieve our objective. In our games, when we fight Russia and China, [the US] gets its ass handed to it.” [24]

 

Air Force General John Haydon, vice chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that in the “war game” to test US military capabilities, the US lost to China and “lost badly”. One reason is that the US military knows only how to fight what is termed “low-level adversaries” and non-state actors. In other words, shepherds with spears and the Houthis in Yemen – and they even lost against the Houthis. Hayden also said that America’s chances of success in a confrontation with a real adversary “are rapidly diminishing.”

 

This is where things become interesting, and why I wrote that World War III has been postponed. It really has been put on hold. It will almost certainly still occur, but not yet. The West must not only recalibrate, but must somehow regroup into some form that has a fighting chance.

 

There were three main projects that resulted from this Jewish-American epiphany. All are interesting. I will discuss them in turn.

 

(1) The “Woke Generals Meeting” in Quantico, Virginia

 

This was a classified gathering of US Generals and Admirals, described as unprecedented and mysterious, with no agenda disclosed beforehand. The meeting was held on September 30, 2025, at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia. The attendees were somewhere between 800 and 1,000 senior flag officers recalled from posts worldwide. Both Pete Hegseth, the US Defense Secretary, and Donald Trump gave speeches at this meeting.

 

Pete Hegseth:


US Secretary of Defense Hegseth delivers a speech to the US military generals, with rich expressions and gestures. (Associated Press) Source:

 

The most notable feature of Hegseth’s speech was not the content but the tone – astonishingly pugnacious and belligerent, brutal and almost savage in its war-mongering rhetoric. In viewing the video, Hegseth is so unquestionably aggressive, almost like a rabid dog foaming at the mouth, that I found it frightening. Here below are some direct quotes from Hegseth’s speech. You can read the entire transcript here. [25]

 

“Welcome to the War Department, because the era of the Department of Defense is over. From this moment forward, the only mission of the newly restored Department of War is warfighting, preparing for war … [This is] not because we want war …but because we love peace. The only people who deserve peace are those who are willing to wage war.”

 

“We are preparing every day … for war, not for defense. We’re training warriors, not defenders. We [will] unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy. We also don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, just … maximum lethality. You kill people and break things for a living. You are not politically correct and don’t … belong … in polite society. You feel comfortable inside the violence so that our citizens can live peacefully. Lethality is our calling card.”

 

“Either we’re ready to win or we are not. This urgent moment … requires more troops, more munitions, more drones, more patriots, more submarines, more B-21 bombers. It requires more innovation, more AI in everything … more cyber effects, more counter-UAS, more space, more speed … we need to get stronger, and quickly. The time is now, and the cause is urgent. The free world requires allies with real hard power, real military leadership, and real military capabilities.”

 

“Foolish and reckless political leaders set the wrong compass heading, and we lost our way. We became the woke department, but not anymore. [We will be] fixing decades of decay, clearing out the debris, removing the distractions. We cannot go another day without directly addressing … the problems in our own commands and in our own formations. Real toxic leadership is endangering subordinates with low standards. Real toxic leadership is promoting people based on immutable characteristics or quotas, instead of based on merit. Real toxic leadership is promoting destructive ideologies that are an anathema to the Constitution and the laws of nature and … of God.”

 

“We are done with that shit. I’ve made it my mission to uproot the obvious distractions that made us less capable and less lethal. Underneath the woke garbage is a deeper problem and a more important problem that we are fixing and fixing fast. Frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations … and see fat troops. Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon.” Hegseth then told the Generals that anyone dissatisfied with this new direction should “resign” or “do the honorable thing and quit”.[26]

 

Donald Trump:

 

 

 

US President Donald Trump also addressed the meeting of Generals and Admirals. The most notable feature of his hour-long babble was its incoherence. In this speech, Trump seems to be totally mentally unhinged. He babbles incoherently, jumps wildly from one topic to another with little to no transition, mixes constant self-praise with serious military content, and almost everything he said was irrelevant to the circumstance. The speech was just a stream-of-consciousness with no logical flow. Plus, he lied about everything of substance. Trump even told reporters if there were any Generals he didn’t like, he would fire them “on the spot”. [27][28][29] I won’t deal further here with the content of Trump’s speech because it is unrelated to the topic of this essay. But if you want startling proof of Trump’s mental derangement, just read this transcript. [30]

 

One very unsettling part of the speeches of both these men was that the new paradigm includes turning the military onto American civilians, most especially those protesting against the brutal (and lethal) ICE raids. Trump said the protestors were spitting on the ICE agents, and that “I say, if they spit, we hit.” He further said, “You get [them] out of that car and you can do whatever the hell you want to do”. This encouragement of unhindered and random violence against civilians by the President, is not comforting.

 

(2) Policy Paper on the US National Security Strategy

 

Source

 

In November of 2025, the US government issued the above policy paper. You can read the original document at the White House website here [31], an executive summary here [32], a brief commentary by the US Naval Institute here [33], and some international reaction statements here. [34] Several patterns emerge in this document. The strategy represents a fundamental shift from American global military primacy, to selective engagement, but with deliberate geographic priorities. This can have far-reaching implications, at least one scenario that would not be intuitively obvious.

 

“The 2025 NSS constitutes a fundamental break with the consistent assessment of previous US administrations during the post-1945 period that permanent US global dominance was in the best US national interest. Instead, the 2025 NSS seeks to align the perceived past US overreach to a narrower definition of US national interest, and to eliminate ‘global burdens’ that it claims have no connection to the US national interest and have been a drain on US resources. However, the strategic refocus does not appear to be … isolationism but rather … to allow the US to maintain its preeminent economic and military role in the world, and to proceed to unilateral economic or military action.”[35]

 

The paper significantly alters the rank of geographic areas of interest, with the Americas first, China second, Europe third, the Middle East fourth, and Africa last. This constitutes a dramatic US foreign policy shift to the “Western Hemisphere”, a reincarnation of the Monroe Doctrine. It sets out the US intention “to deny external competitors both the ability to deploy forces in the region and to own or control strategically vital assets”. Venezuela was the first victim of this new pivot, and other nations are likely to follow.

 

The policy still includes a strategic competition with China and Russia in technological, military, and economic terms, and it still assumes American economic and technological sovereignty, including domestic production of semiconductors and critical industries. However, US global leadership is stated as conditional, where any US support for allies hinges on America’s new “strategic interests”. This obtuse shift might prove to be of vital importance.

 

In considering this document, we should remain aware of what I might term “pretextual justifications”. The public emphasis on issues like drugs and migration clearly serves as operational cover for more traditional (and much nastier) geopolitical objectives. The Venezuela situation shows how “anti-drug operations” serve as cover for regime pressure and regional dominance. The naval deployments on Venezuela’s border, under the pretext of migration control, are actually to secure strategic control of the sea lanes. This latter – control of sea lanes –is also one of the motivations for US control of GreenlandAs it was in the South China Sea until China developed hypersonic missiles that rendered the US carrier fleet into large floating objects with targets painted on them.

 

The new “National Security” strategy marks a significant doctrinal shift, with its main pillars as follows:

 

The original America First Committee began as an anti-war movement devoted to keeping the U.S. out of World War II. But it quickly evolved into something far more ugly.During one infamous 1941 rally in Iowa, Lindbergh said, “The British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war… Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government.”  Source

 

“America First” as Guiding Principle: The strategy explicitly rejects the post-Cold War goal of “permanent global dominance” as undesirable and unsustainable, framing it as harmful to the American middle class. Security policy is now defined by a strict prioritisation of limited “core national interests”. The strategy establishes a clear hierarchy of concerns:

 

Priority 1: Ensuring US primacy in the Western Hemisphere. Defense of the homeland is included in this priority but, since the US is not now and is highly unlikely to be, under attack from any direction, this claim is useful only to smoke up the room. US border security is declared a “primary element of national security,” and includes combating “transnational criminal organisations”; more smoke in the same room.

 

Priority 2: Managing Peer Competition: The posture toward China is recalibrated. While long-term strategic competition continues, the public rhetoric is softened. China is not explicitly labeled a “strategic competitor,” and competition is framed more around trade and “rebalancing” within the Indo-Pacific chapter.

 

Europe definitely has been de-prioritised. The paper is sharply critical of Europe, and demands allies assume greater defense burdens and costs, ending what it calls “free-riding”. It claims a desire to “end the perception of NATO as a permanently expanding alliance”. In simple military terms, the document emphasises modernising nuclear deterrence, building next-generation missile defense (“Golden Dome”), and significantly increasing the basic defense (i.e. aggressive war-production) industries.

 

An intelligent assessment of these American documents must look beyond the declared policy to the patterns of action and their strategic effect. The evidence suggests a calculated strategy of regional hegemony under a banner of domestic security. If we compare the official narrative with observable actions, a clear pattern emerges where publicly stated objectives for military deployments (drugs, migration) provide operational cover for achieving traditional geopolitical goals like regime change and control of strategic maritime geography.

 

 

 Pictures of the ships and aircraft sent on”Operation Southern Spear” clickHere

 

For example, Trump boasted of “controlling drug trafficking” in his attacks on Venezuela, but the scale of force included the deployment of a naval task force of 8 ships including destroyers, cruisers, a nuclear attack submarine, amphibious ships with ~2200 Marines, F-35 fighter jets, and more than 1,200 missiles. This was vastly disproportionate to an interdiction mission involving a few small fishing boats. It constituted a classic “gunboat diplomacy” deployment aimed at destabilising the Venezuelan government through extreme intimidation, with the ancillary benefit of signaling to Cuba and Nicaragua.

 

Similarly, the White House made noises about securing the country’s borders and halting illegal immigration, but deploying destroyers to patrol waters off the southern US border, tells a different story. Destroyers are ill-suited for intercepting migrant vessels. Their deployment establishes a persistent naval presence in key Gulf and Caribbean transit zones, securing sea lines of communication for broader hemispheric power projection.

 

The primary objective of the NSS doctrine is to re-establish uncontested US economic and military primacy in the Western Hemisphere. This is the non-negotiable core of the “America First” security vision. The US means to neutralise any regional challengers by using maximum pressure of covert action, economic sanctions and naval blockades, to cripple or overthrow leftist, anti-US governments like Venezuela’s. The drug war provides a legally and politically flexible pretext for intervention. The US clearly intends to use all instruments of power to control key sea lanes, energy resources, critical minerals, and all foreign investment, in Latin America.

 

The Asia strategy is interesting because it attempts to impose heavy costs on China by focusing on technology (chips) and economics (tariffs and sanctions) while outsourcing military containment to Japan, South Korea, and other Asian “allies”. This is why Japan’s new Prime Minister made the absurd statement that Taiwan’s independence was integral to Japan’s national security and that Japan would intervene militarily in a conflict. This threat coincides with Japan’s newly-expressed desire to obtain nuclear weapons. This means that the NSS’s softer tone on China is tactical, not strategic. The document’s increased adversarial tone regarding Taiwan, suggests Taiwan remains a primary lever for provoking China. The US is merely building a more distributed military architecture in Asia while preparing for potential coercive actions or crises over Taiwan.

 

This strategy offers the US the freedom to concentrate its coercive resources (diplomatic, financial and military) on the Americas, but it also accelerates global multi-polarity as estranged allies (primarily in Europe) seek greater autonomy and other powers fill voids left by US retrenchment. The explicit message to NATO allies to “do far more for Europe’s defense”, accelerates the de-coupling of (fictional) US security guarantees. This will force rapid, and likely unstable, European military consolidation. The real intent is to consolidate a US-centric Western Hemisphere, manage China indirectly through proxies, and force allies to shoulder burdens, thereby preserving US power for decades to come. I wrote above that the US “security defense” of Europe was fictional, and that is true. For at least the past 50 years, Europe has been under no threat of military action by anyone. As an aside, this is also true for Canada: the only country that poses a military threat to Canada, is the US.

 

There is also a related document named the US National Defense Strategy[36], and another titled Global Force Posture Review. The latter deals with the deployment of US forces internationally, and lists those foreign bases which will be depleted, with the soldiers reassigned or returning home. For example, the US plans to withdraw up to 35,000 troops from Germany while redeploying some to Eastern Europe. The intent contained in these documents will compel European self-sufficiency, freeing US resources for the Americas, and reducing Washington’s day-to-day “leadership burden. The US is also considering reduction of forces in Korea and Okinawa, shifting some assets to the “Second Island Chain”, while pushing Japan and South Korea to assume primary “defense” roles – i.e. aggression and provocation against China.It is clear that the US aims to let regional allies bear the initial brunt of a potential conflict while preserving its own high-end power projection capabilities (navy, air force, missiles) from safer distances.

 

All three of the above documents deal with military resource concentration, moving manpower and materiel out of Europe and forward bases in Asia to husband strength and focus on a potential future conflict with China.The US uses the threat of troop withdrawals and conditional security guarantees as leverage in trade, diplomatic, and burden-sharing negotiations with its European and Asian allies. These are ultimatums, not negotiations. For Europe, it forces a crisis of autonomy. Since the US security guarantee is no longer unconditional, this will accelerate European defense integration but also deepen divisions and cause chaos. Japanand South Korea will face immense pressure to increase military spending and capabilities dramatically.

 

The real intent is to dismantle the architecture of America’s “enduring” forward military presence. It is replaced by Trump’s “America First” strategy which concentrates military power on hemispheric control, and offloads foreign defense costs onto allies. The purpose is to preserve US strength for a potential high-end conflict with China.

 

An important point in these documents is that they collectively align in three ways. One is the new military and colonial emphasis on the Americas. The second is the dramatic burden-shifting to former allies. The US demands that NATO allies meet an “historic” commitment to spend 5% of GDP on defense, framing it as essential for the alliance’s future. This essentially abandons the former US commitment to “protect” its allies, and sets them on their own. It is important to note that it isn’t really “defense” that is being passed to the allies; it is the responsibility for provoking Russia and China that are transferred to them. The third, following from the first two, is the breathing space this gives the US to regroup militarily, to transition from a “woke loser” to a majestic world military power.

 

World War Three has been postponed because the US and its puppet-masters realised they would lose. The above documents comprise the strategic reset necessary to buy time while continue to provoke unrest, until the US believes it is ready for war and able to win.

 

(3) The Genesis Mission

 

Source: White House

 

This is the third link in the chain. The Genesis Mission is an enormous undertaking that reveals (1) the extent of desperation the US feels at being the underdog, and (2) the astonishing measures it plans to take, to alleviate this condition. It is of enormous surprise to me that the revelation of this new agenda and any public discussion of it have been so muted as to qualify as censorship. Yet this “Mission” is of overwhelming geopolitical importance, but the mass media have focused all their attention on minor items that serve only to distract.

 

The Official Story

 

Authorised by an executive order from President Trump on November 24, 2025, the US launched a significant federal initiative called the “Genesis Mission.”[37][38] It is a hugely ambitious government-led program under the direction and control of the Department of War (through the Department of Energy), designed to use artificial intelligence to dramatically accelerate “scientific discovery and technological development”. One stated goal is to double the productivity and impact of American research and innovation within a decade. The official narrative surrounding the Genesis Mission states its purpose as “a dedicated, coordinated national effort to unleash a new age of AI‑accelerated innovation and discovery that can solve the most challenging problems of this century.”

 

The stated goals are not only to increase research productivity but, specifically “leveraging the world’s largest collection of federally curated scientific datasets to train AI models and create AI agents that can automate research workflows and even test new hypotheses.” The mission’s leaders explicitly state goals such as using AI to “accelerate scientific discovery, strengthen national security, secure energy dominance… and thereby further America’s technological dominance”. The Mission is framed as an historic national effort, with its ambition and urgency unfortunately and frighteningly compared to the World War II-era Manhattan Project – the development of the atomic bomb. The Genesis Mission represents a major shift, with the US government building a state-backed AI research infrastructure.

 

Collaborators and Resources

 

This Genesis Mission is unquestionably the most massive nation-wide mobilisation of such vast resources since WWII, and is definitely a “public-private partnership”. It demands extensive collaboration with over 50 companies, including AI pioneers like OpenAI, Google, and NVIDIA, as well as chip manufacturers and biotech firms. These partners are expected to act as suppliers and co-developers[39][40][41]Michael Krazios, Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said, “The 24 new research collaborations announced today are just the beginning, and we are implementing President Trump’s directive to include the entire scientific community, including businesses, universities, nonprofits, and federal agencies, into the Genesis Program”.[42]

 

Companies collaborating in the Genesis Mission. Source:

 

AI Model & Cloud GiantsAmazon (AWS), Google, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle

Core AI Hardware & Semiconductor: NVIDIA, AMD, Intel, TSMC, Cerebras Systems

Leading AI Research Labs: OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI

Specialized AI & Infrastructure: Accenture, CoreWeave, Dell, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), Palantir, Radical AI

 

This list confirms that the Genesis Mission is mobilising the most significant players across the American AI and semiconductor industries. The participation of these companies underscores a key feature of the Genesis Mission. It is a full-stack mobilisation designed to control the entire technological chain—from the foundational chips and hardware to the AI models and cloud platforms that run on them. Nvidia and Oracle are to build the Department of Energy’s (DOE) largest-ever AI supercomputers. The “Solstice” and “Equinox” systems, to be hosted at the military’s Argonne National Laboratory, will be equipped with over 100,000 next-generation NVIDIA Blackwell GPUs.[43][44][45]

 

Four factors emerge as being of crucial significance:

 

(1) The US government is assembling a “working partnership” between the US Government, the US military, all military research laboratories, many academic research institutions, and 50 or more of the most advanced companies in scientific and technological fields.

(2) The Mission will be using all of America’s most powerful supercomputers from the Department of Energy’s 17 national (military) laboratories. It will obviously also use the massive compute centers built by Google, Microsoft, Meta, OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI and others.

(3) The US Government possesses vast scientific and military datasets, containing federally curated data from decades of research in fields like nuclear physics, materials science, biomedicine, biological warfare, weapons design.

(4) The Mission will be using all American AI systems, computer centers, and laboratories to form a “closed-loop” where AI can generate hypotheses, design experiments, and analyze results at an unprecedented pace.

 

From Civilian to Military

 

The line between civilian scientific advancement and national security is intentionally blurry. Technologies like advanced materials, quantum computing, and biotechnology have clear dual-use potential, applicable in both military and civilian systems. It seems also of critical importance that the Mission defines its foundation – the national infrastructure integrating supercomputers, datasets, AI tools, and people – as the “American Science and Security Platform“. The “security” reference is entirely military, and is there for a reason. The Genesis Mission is explicitly framed as a crucial initiative for national security, and the technologies it aims to advance have clear and significant military applications. While its stated goals include “scientific discovery”, the creation of new weapons of mass destruction qualify under that definition, and achieving military dominance is an undeniable and central part of its purpose. I believe it is quite apparent that, in spite of the peaceful and civilian “official narrative” about the purpose of this mission, its real purpose is military dominance, especially concerning China.Moreover, the Mission is entirely under the direction and control of the Department of Energy, which is itself a part of the US military.

 

 

The program “brings together America’s brightest minds, the most powerful computers, and vast amounts of scientific data into a collaborative research system.” That is probably true. My concern is that the “vast amounts of scientific data” will be primarily of military nature and use. And if the US actually combines the brightest minds with the most powerful computers and all the data, and feeds this into an AI, they might invent a true doomsday machine. That intense concentration of those specific resources, in the hands of an inveterate war-monger, is not reassuring. Consider Pete Hegseth’s words: “[This is] not because we want war … but because we love peace. The only people who deserve peace are those who are willing to wage war. We … demoralize, hunt, and kill [our] enemies. [We] kill people and break things for a living. Lethality is our calling card.” In the real world, and given Hegseth’s main directive, the Genesis Mission really could create a “doomsday machine” – at least potentially – by combining powerful AI with military data and objectives. At the very least, is seems the US wants to use AI to convert its military from a “woke loser” into a formidable and unbeatable power.

 

Concern about the potential risks of concentrating vast data, computing power, and AI expertise is very valid. While the Genesis Mission is officially presented as a scientific initiative, an assessment of the broader landscape suggests that the line between civilian and military AI advancement is increasingly – and deliberately – blurred, and the potential for destabilising military applications is a topic of serious expert discussion. The Genesis Mission concentrates the essential ingredients—data, computing, and talent—that can fuel a leap in military AI capabilities. Importantly, the Mission is explicitly framed as a “Manhattan Project” for AI, a comparison that inherently carries offensive military implications. Analysis from Shanghai’s Fudan University notes that the US is actively building an “AI military-industrial complex”, with companies like PalantirandAndurildeveloping and deploying AI-driven systems for target recognition, autonomous drones, and command-and-control networks.[46]

 

Much of the official public narrative focuses on AI, and leads readers and viewers to assume this Mission is a government-led race to ensure US supremacy in the field of AI. But that is wrong. The government has clearly stated the Mission was a response to the “race for global technology dominance,” aiming to “unleash a new age of AI-accelerated innovation and discovery that can solve the most challenging problems of this century.” This clearly says that AI is not the issue, but is a tool. Further, they said the purpose is to solve “the century’s most challenging problems”. But this is nonsense. The century’s most challenging problems are peace, poverty, education, health care, climate. They won’t be addressing these issues, and they certainly won’t be looking for a cure for diabetes or how to alleviate homelessness. They are not looking to solve humanitarian problems, but to solve America’s loss of domination. To add more smoke to the room, the White House stated that the number of new drug approvals was declining and that more researchers were needed to increase pharmaceutical output. We can be quite certain that the thrust of the Genesis Mission is not pharmaceutical, at least not in the usual meaning of this word.

 

The Genesis Mission is clearly a dual-use initiative, meaning its core components are foundational to both civilian and military advancement.Its “official narrative” of accelerating science for public benefit may be partially genuine, but its foundation is unequivocally strategic and military. It is a direct response to a perceived technological competition, particularly with China,which is why the line between civilian and military advancement is deliberately blurred.

 

The executive order itself leaves no doubt about the security dimensions of the program. It is explicitly framed as an effort “comparable in urgency and ambition to the Manhattan Project” and is designed to “strengthen national security” and “further America’s technological dominance and global strategic leadership” In fact, the platform it will build is even named the “American Science and Security Platform”, directly linking science to military security and dominance.

 

Further, the mission will focus on specific technology domains that are critical for modern warfare: The stated key focus areas are Nuclear Fission & Fusion Energy (Power for naval vessels, advanced propulsion systems), Biotechnology (Bio-surveillance, biological weapons, enhanced human performance), Semiconductors and Microelectronics (AI chips for drones, missile guidance systems), Critical Materials (Lightweight armor, advanced missile components), Quantum Information Science (Secure military communications, advanced sensors), Advanced Manufacturing (Rapid prototyping of weapons, resilient supply chains), AI Models & Data (Analyzing military intelligence, designing weapons systems), High-Performance Computing (Running battlefield simulations, cryptanalysis), Private Sector Partnership (Integrating commercial AI (from firms like Palantir, Anduril) directly into weapons and command systems). [47] Speculation that the US is actively pursuing AI for military dominance is not just theoretical; it is already happening. There is already an existing AI “Arms Race”.

 

From “What?” to “Why?”

 

This is NOT about beating China at AI. It is about using AI as a tool to solve a threat perceived as existential. The official narrative is that China may soon catch up and even surpass the US in AI, in robotics, in military weapons, in battlefield technology, in materials science, in computer chips, quantum computing, nuclear fusion, building a moon base, even in the militarisation of space … Sure, but these items are hardly a surprise. They have been known for a long time and have been openly discussed in the media, debated in multiple public fora, been the topic of many position papers from various think tanks, and the subject of “war games” for many years. There is indeed concern about China in all these areas, but this does not in itself account for the sudden massive mobilisation. China may be related to this endeavor, but only obliquely. There is something else happening here, of much wider scope.

 

From “Why?” to “Why Now?”

 

This is related to the urgency of the Genesis Mission. What spooked the US into such a sudden and massive nation-wide mobilisation with such a vast collection of resources and with such extreme urgency?This could be explained if the US somehow discovered that the Martians planned to launch an attack on Earth within 24 months. That would justify a “Manhattan Project” response with the massive national mobilisation of all possible resources, and the impossibly urgent time-frame. But our trigger was terrestrial, not Martian, so we must look elsewhere. What was the trigger causing this“Critical Urgency”?

 

The only thought that comes to my mind is that the puppet-masters in The City of London have communicated in dire terms the necessity of having – and winning – a Third World War. And from this, have exerted extreme pressure on the US to get itself into a position to not only incite such a conflagration but to have a clear chance of winning it. I have no evidence of such communication. I mention it onlybecause it would fit all the known facts and answer all the questions about the Genesis Mission.

 

It is alarming in itself to realise that something very similar was done for the creation of the atomic bomb in Nevada, and that the process is being replicated today in Silicon Valley. According to Department of Energy Chief of Staff Carl Coethe current administration has directly benchmarked the strategic height of [this project] against the “Manhattan Project”or“the US-Soviet space race.”[48] This not only emphasises the exaggerated urgency of this program, but it creates genuine worrying links to the Manhattan Project and its overtones of nation-wide mobilisation without concern for expense, solely to create a horrible new weapon of mass destruction.

 

To appreciate the extreme urgency attached to the Mission, here are some of the major activities to be accomplished, and their extremely-compressed dictated timelines:

 

(1) Prepare a definitive list of key science and technology challenges for the Mission to address (e.g., fusion energy, semiconductors, space domination). The permitted time is only 60 days.

(2) Prepare a complete inventory of federal computing, storage, and networking resources available. The time permitted is only 90 days.

(3) Identify all the initial scientific and military data assets in the hands of the US government and military, but also formulate a plan to incorporate similar useful datasets from academia (all universities and research institutions) as well as from the private sector. The time permitted to achieve this immense cataloguing of all data is only 120 days.

(4) Perform a complete review of the capabilities for AI-directed robotic laboratories and AI-automated manufacturing. The time scheduled for this is only 240 daysbut no indication is given of precisely WHAT will be designed in these AI-controlled labsnor WHAT will be manufactured in the AI-controlled factories.

(5) Perform live (and successful) demonstrations of the platform’s initial operating capability on at least one national challenge. In other words, be prepared to demonstrate a meaningful success of this Mission in one of the designated critical areas. The scheduled time permitted to produce this success is only 270 days.

 

The executive order made no secret of the scale and urgency of the program. Michael Krazios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said this is “the largest mobilisation of federal scientific research resources since the Apollo program.”

 

There is another factor of considerable concern. In January 2025 Trump signed Executive Order 14179, repealing most of the Biden administration’s policies on AI safety regulation and announcing that he would “remove all obstacles to US AI leadership.” In July 2025, the White House released a 25-page “U.S. AI Action Plan” with nearly 100 recommendations for federal action, with the core idea of “deregulation”. This will have the effect of removing all rails, firewalls and legal protection from the path to be treaded by this new AI venture. There is another, and much more serious event, one totally ignored by the mediaIn November of 2025, the White House issued a new executive order calling for the creation of a dedicated “AI litigation task force” to launch legal challenges to state AI regulatory laws and even threaten to withhold federal funds.Try to understand what this means.

 

I would like to know what “spooked” the US into launching this Genesis project. When the US government decides to combine such a vast array of resources with a label of national security, and to do it with such astonishing urgency, that did not happen in a vacuum. They must have either learned something, or discovered something, or perhaps concluded something of such grave importance that it nearly gave all of them heart attacks.The abruptness of the appearance of this project, and its intense time pressure, had to be caused by something external. There is no public evidence of this, and yet while no single “heart attack”-inducing event has been disclosed, the abruptness and urgency cannot be explained otherwise.

 

Consider again the sudden creation of this Genesis Mission. If it were only China’s taking the lead in AI, or the possibility of China succeeding with nuclear fission or quantum computing, the US might well have created such a “mission” to deal with it. But this would have been planned and reasoned, and done slowly. There would have been public discussion, policy papers, but never such a massive nation-wide mobilization with such extreme urgency. “China’s rise” is hardly a sudden surprise justifying panic. The urgency of the Genesis Mission isn’t about winning a race; it’s about preventing a checkmate.

 

The US creation of the Genesis Mission was not merely a response, but a panic response. Consider that they did this so suddenly, with such intense time pressure, with such unreasonable time lines, with a critical seriousness comparison to the Manhattan Project, and with such an extreme urgency and making it an “all population” effort to marshal the entire country’s resources. They allowed only 90 days for a complete inventory of all federal computing, storage, and networking resources available,and an extensive collaboration with over 50 companies to support the Mission. Something specific happened to scare the hell out of the US, for them to jump into this project. The conventional “China AI competition” narrative is insufficient to explain any part of this. The character of the response—the panic, the wartime urgency references, the unreasonable deadlines—does not match the character of a chronic, known problem. It matches the character of a sudden, catastrophic realisation, suggesting a specific, shocking catalyst. The Genesis Mission is the sound of a superpower pressing the panic button.

 

An Hypothesis

 

Consider this as a hypothetical case, but one that might easily be rooted in reality. The position proposed is this: Let’s assume that there exist elite parties who want to provoke a third world war. Their motivation would be financial gain and immense political power in the aftermath.

 

The common expectation is that such a war would be fought by the US, NATO and Israel on one side, and primarily Russia, China and Iran on the other. But the US has now realised that it could not beat China in such a war, with all simulations and war games concluding that the US would suffer a massive defeat. Given this realisation, the US has issued its new National Security Strategy which dictates that the US retrench and focus only on controlling the Americas, a reincarnation of the Monroe Doctrine. This new strategy essentially abandons the Europeans, while insisting they increase their military expenditures to 5% of GDP. But the provocations against Russia are not decelerating, but accelerating, though they are now coming primarily from Europe rather than from the US. If this continues, there could very easily be a war between Russia and Western Europe.

 

If we examine history, all the wars the US has instigated, have always been on the soil of other nations. Many countries have been devastated, but the US homeland has never suffered a military attack. If the US continued its prior policies, this situation might have changed in the future, because a war between the US and Russia would undoubtedly mean that the US homeland would suffer extensive damage. And since China might be involved in such a war, and has hypersonic nuclear missiles that the US cannot defend against, the risk is extreme.

 

Now consider that the new US National Security Strategy is primarily a means to deal with this real threat. By temporarily retreating to the Western hemisphere, and by forcing the European nations to massively increase their defense spending while still provoking Russia, the US would be left in a preferred military position. If such a war were to break out between Europe and Russia, and perhaps involving China, those parties might inflict severe damage on each other, leaving them in poor condition.

 

But in the meantime, the US is aggressively expanding its military, partly funded by the Europeans purchasing enormous quantities of weapons and war materiel from the US. Given this, if there were a war with Russia, and perhaps China, with these parties weakened by a protracted war, the US could then come in at the end with a revitalised military, and perhaps win over these weakened adversaries.

 

The point is that the US entrenchment into the Americas and the simultaneous abandonment of a new and massively-armed Europe might in reality be a strategic preparation for the US to provoke a European and Asian war, and then come in at the end to “clean up”. Since the US could not win a war in the current circumstances, this new approach could be a massive strategic victory, giving the US time to become far more powerful militarily while promoting the “let’s you and him fight” scenario in Europe and Asia. If true, this would logically explain everything the US is doing in military and foreign affairs today.

 

The scenario presents an internally logical strategic calculus. It posits that US policymakers, confronted with the unpalatable reality of defeat in a direct peer war, have chosen a path of strategic disengagement and indirect confrontation using minor allies as the cannon fodder. The core pillars of this logic—retreat to a defensible fortress, offloading primary combat burdens to allies, and seeking to benefit from the mutual exhaustion of rivals—are established concepts in realist geopolitical theory, pushed to their most cynical conclusion. Keep in mind that Trump has promised to raise US “defense” spending from its current level of more than $1 trillion – already more than the rest of the world combined – to more than $1.5 trillion in 2027.

 

The hypothesis effectively connects disparate policy dots: (1) The NSS/NDS shift to “Homeland & Hemisphere First”; (2) The Global Posture Review’s implied troop drawdowns from Europe and Korea; (3) The hardline 5% GDP demand on NATO, coupled with continued (delegated) provocation of Russia; (4) The massive domestic military expansion funded partly by allied arms purchases. (5) The Genesis Mission. This narrative provides a singular, if Machiavellian, explanation for these concurrent actions.

 

The strategic consistency of this thesis is actually quite high. The described actions align perfectly with a “Fortress America”doctrine. The renaming to the “War Department,” the purge of “woke” policies in favor of “lethality,” and the focus on industrial mobilisation are all consistent with preparing for total war from a defensive posture. The US has a long history of entering conflicts late (WWI, WWII) after others have borne the initial brunt.

 

Epilogue

 

Let’s recap. The Khazar Jews definitely want a third World War. You can attribute this insane desire to anyone else you prefer, but the end result is the same. There are parties who want another world war; the provocations are everywhere, the media floods are constant, and tensions are increasing almost daily. Most analysts say we are only minutes or even seconds from a world-wide nuclear war. The information in this article, from the historical record to current events, is sufficient to justify and support this conclusion and to understand the agenda being executed.

 

I would add only two observations to the content of this essay. The first is to emphasise that virtually every past war has been proven to have been a “bankers’ war”, initiated by the banker’s private army of the day. Wars have almost never resulted from territorial or other disputes, but almost entirely from persons skilled in the art of “Let’s you and him fight”.

 

My second observation is to restate that, for nearly 80 years now, the US (as the banker’s private army) has waged countless wars and killed tens of millions of people, all of those wars on someone else’s soil. To this point, the US homeland has never suffered a military attack, nor have the bankers suffered any reprisals for their instigation of all those wars. In the past world (or other) wars, no one (other than the Japanese, briefly) had the ability to attack or retaliate against either the US homeland or the headquarters of the Khazar Jews.To date, the guilty have entirely gone free. That situation may be at an end.

 

When (not “if”) World War III arrives, it would be delusional to believe that either Russia or China would permit the US (or NATO) to destroy their countries from a distance and act only defensively to reduce or mitigate the damage to their country and the loss of life to their people. World War III will be different. The attackers, the US and NATO countries in Europe – and quite possibly Japan and Israel, will suffer at least equal devastation to that of Russia or China. As one geopolitical analyst said so clearly: “China will not fire the first shot. But China will not permit you to fire the second shot”.

 

 

The Americans put on a brave face about “acceptable losses”, as if a world war were a chess game. But losses are acceptable only in theory, or when they happen to someone else.This time, it will be US President Donald Trump and the Rothschilds who will be stumbling through the rubble in the streets of Washington DC and London, picking up the body parts of their dead children and grandchildren.

 

 

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

2186604556@qq.com

*

NOTES


[1] The Bankers’ Private Army
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/the-bankers-private-army/

[2] What part will your country play in World War III?
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/19242/

[3] The Power Behind the Throne
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/16422/

[4] Humanity at the Crossroads
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/2331/

[5] The Tragedy of Libya
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/10648/

[6] Jewish Responsibility for Both World Wars: A Speech by Benjamin Freedman
https://www.moonofshanghai.com/2020/10/jewish-responsibility-for-both-world.html

[7] ZIONISM — THE HIDDEN TIRANNY by Benjamin H. Freedman
https://www.moonofshanghai.com/2020/10/zionism-hidden-tiranny-by-benjamin-h.html

[8] The Jewish Declaration Of War On Germany
https://www.moonofshanghai.com/2020/10/the-jewish-declaration-of-war-on.html

[9] The Jewish Betrayal of Germany and the Cause of World War II – Benjamin Freedman
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/5840/

[10] Hitler’s War (2001) by David Irving
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Hitlers-War-2001.pdf

[11] Churchill’s War – David Irving
https://archive.org/download/nsliterature/David%20Irving%20Archive/ChurchillsWar-VolumeOne-ByDavidIrving-728.pdf

[12] Germany’s War by John Wear
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Germanys-War-by-John-Wear-2014.pdf

[13] The War Criminal Churchill – Alfred Rosenberg
https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/schul05.htm

[14] “Germany is getting too strong. We’ve got to smash her.” – Winston Churchill speaking during a private lunch in 1936. Reminiscenses in 1961 of General Robert E. Wood. World War II. By Carl J. Schneider, Dorothy Schneider. Page 15.
Free Download of this book: https://pt1lib.org/book/728795/c85219?id=728795&secret=c85219

[15] “We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not.” – Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast). “This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany.” – Winston Churchill (Autumn 1939 broadcast)
https://www.coursehero.com/file/p1da79e/Following-the-Treaty-of-Versailles-Germany-was-ordered-to-pay-the-war-costs-of/

[16] “You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler of a Jesuit priest.” – Winston Churchill [1940]; Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace p. 45); This book was published in Great Britain in 1950 under the title “Winston Churchill in war and peace.” The American version titled “Winston Churchill: British bulldog”
https://www.amazon.com/Winston-Churchill-British-bulldog-career/dp/B0006ATSO8

[17] THE BAD WAR – The Truth NEVER Taught About World War II
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/The-Bad-War-The-Truth-NEVER-Taught-About-World-War-II.pdf

[18] Bernays and Propaganda — Part 2 of 5 — The Marketing of War
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/1582/

[19] The Anger Campaign Against China
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/3238/

[20] US has been getting ‘its ass handed to it’ in war games simulating fights against Russia and China
https://www.sott.net/article/408943-US-has-been-getting-its-ass-handed-to-it-in-war-games-simulating-fights-against-Russia-and-China

[21] The US military ‘gets its ass handed to it’ in World War 3 simulation – researchers
https://www.rt.com/usa/453550-us-loses-world-war-three/

[22] US gets its ass handed to it
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/us-gets-its-ass-handed-to-it-in-wargames-heres-a-24-billion-fix/

[23] The US admiral admitted that he had suffered a fiasco in the simulated war, but had ulterior motives behind it
https://static.nfapp.southcn.com/content/202107/30/c5582275.html

[24] The US military ‘gets its ass handed to it’ in World War 3 simulation – researchers
https://www.rt.com/usa/453550-us-loses-world-war-three/

[25] Hegseth’s Speech to Generals and Admirals
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/read-hegseth-speech-generals-admirals/

[26] The U.S. Secretary of Defense severely criticized the generals for being “obese and ugly” and lacking professionalism: resign if they are unhappy
https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20250930004869-260408?ctrack=pc_main_headl_p07&chdtv

[27] Trump says he’ll fire generals “on the spot” if he dislikes them
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/trump-threatens-to-fire-top-military-leaders-on-the-spot-if-he-doesn-t-like-them/ar-AA1Oav24

[28] Hegseth rebuked the “fat troops” and announced the end of the “awakening” militaryOctober 1, 2025
https://amazonweb1.ejfq.com/%e4%bf%a1%e5%a0%b1-%e5%8d%b3%e6%99%82%e8%b2%a1%e8%a8%8a.htm?method=detail&cat_id=999&title_id=4210538

[29] Trump firing generals
https://www.axios.com/2025/09/30/trump-firing-generals-hegseth-quantico

[30] Donald Trump Addresses Military Leadership in Quantico, Virginia – September 30, 2025
https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/transcript/donald-trump-speech-department-of-defense-leaders-quantico-september-30-2025/

[31] National Security Strategy of the United States of America, November 2025
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf

[32] 2025 National Security Strategy – Executive Summary
https://behorizon.org/2025-national-security-strategy/

[33] 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy – US Naval Institute
https://news.usni.org/2025/12/05/2025-u-s-national-security-strategy

[34] U.S. National Security Strategy 2025 Sparks Global Reaction as Policy Shifts Emerge
https://securitybriefing.com/news/u.s.-national-security-strategy-2025-sparks-global-reaction-as-policy-shifts-emerge

[35] The 2025 US National Security Strategy – At a Glance
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2025/779261/EPRS_ATA(2025)779261_EN.pdf

[36] China debate delayed Trump security strategy
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/03/china-debate-delayed-trump-security-strategy-00676095

[37] LAUNCHING THE GENESIS MISSION
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/11/launching-the-genesis-mission/

[38] “Project Genesis”: A national gamble to reshape science with AI
https://cloud.kepuchina.cn/newSearch/imgText?id=7393388448464592896

[39] Trump pressed the “Genesis” button: a national gamble to reshape science with AI
https://www.thepaper.cn/newsdetail_forward_32053818

[40] Trump is in a hurry and launches a new “Manhattan Project”: the whole country is working on AGI!
https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_32016006

[41] 24 tech giants join the U.S. “Genesis Project” to promote AI to accelerate scientific discovery
https://wap.seccw.com/Document/detail/id/39660.html

[42] The “Genesis Plan” of American AI has been finalized! 24 giants such as Google and Nvidia were shortlisted
https://news.qq.com/rain/a/20251219A049WN00?

[43] OpenAI, Nvidia, Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft and 19 other companies join Trump’s Genesis Mission
https://www.cryptopolitan.com/tech-giants-join-trumps-ai-genesis-mission/

[44] The “Genesis Plan” of American AI has been finalized! 24 giants such as Google and Nvidia were shortlisted
https://news.qq.com/rain/a/20251219A049WN00?suid=&media_id=

[45] White House: 24 giants including Microsoft and Nvidia join the AI “Genesis Project”
https://www.seccw.com/Document/detail/id/39720.html

[46] U.S. Watch|Artificial intelligence military security risk challenges and their management under the U.S. AI Action Plan
https://fddi.fudan.edu.cn/5a/ba/c21253a744122/page.htm

[47] Artificial intelligence military security risk challenges and their management under the U.S. AI Action Plan
https://fddi.fudan.edu.cn/5a/ba/c21253a744122/page.htm

[48] Trump is in a hurry and launches a new “Manhattan Project”: the whole country is working on AGI!
https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_32016006

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

 

Other Works by this Author

 

ESSAYS ON CHINA  Volume One

ESSAYS ON CHINA Volume 2

ESSAYS ON CHINA Volume Three 

Who Starts All The Wars? — New!

What we Are Not Told :  German POWs in America – What Happened to Them?

The Richest Man in the World

The Power Behind the Throne

The Jewish Hasbara in All its Glory

PROPAGANDA and THE MEDIA 

BERNAYS AND PROPAGANDA 

Democracy – The Most Dangerous Religion

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 1 — How the US Became Rich 

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 2 — Life in a Failed State

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 3 — The Branding of America

Police State America Volume One

Police State America Volume Two

Essays on America

FILLING THE VOID

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE IN ACTION

THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

False Flags and Conspiracy Theories

Kamila Valieva

 

 

LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS & PDF ARTICLES

 

 Copyright © Larry RomanoffBlue Moon of ShanghaiMoon of Shanghai, 2026 

 

What Does A Rothschild, A Goldman Sachs Top Lawyer And A CIA Agent Have In Common?

$
0
0

 

 


EN — LARRY ROMANOFF: Debunking Elon Musk – Part 21 — The Trouble With Tesla (1 of 3)

$
0
0

 

Debunking Elon Musk – Part 21

The Trouble With Tesla (1 of 3)

   

Elon Musk led Tesla's $7.5 million Series A funding round and became chairman of the board in 2004. Eberhard said that while he was the CEO and Musk was the chairman of the board, Musk came to board meetings monthly but didn't regularly work at the company. "So, you know, the idea of him, like, sitting around working on the car or something is simply not true," Eberhard said. "He was not there."Source


    
  Contents

Introduction

Elon Musk did not "invent" the Electric Car

Elon Musk Did Not "Found" Tesla

How Elon Musk Stole Tesla

The Dispute and Fallout

 

Introduction

 

At least 90%, and perhaps even 95%, of everything that you know, or think that you know, or that you believe to be true, about Elon Musk/Tesla, is false.Almost everything that you have been told by Tesla, or by Elon Musk about Tesla, or by the media about Tesla, is untrue either in whole or in part. Moreover, 90% or even 95% of the actuality of Tesla is almost unknown, the truth being a victim of the carefully-crafted "Musk, the Manufactured Messiah" campaign, and a colossal amount of media suppression.

 

The official story of Tesla (and Elon Musk) revolves around "Golden-haired Wonder Boy Genius went from sleeping in his car and eating leaves from trees, to changing the world with courage and determination, inventing the electric car and founding Tesla, and becoming the richest man in the world." But the real story of Tesla is not such a fairytale. It is a story of criminal fraud, corruption, graft, slander, extortion, vicious bullying, enormous unending lies, predatory finance, legal exploitation, sociopathology, sexual depravity (yes, really), all supported by the largest media promotion campaign in modern history.[1] The purpose of this essay is to document these assertions.

 

While it may not be obvious to casual onlookers, Tesla is dying. Tesla auto sales have collapsed in all markets, and are continuing to shrink. Of the other products or features, Tesla's Cybertruck is dead; its semi-trailer truck was stillborn; Musk's Robotaxi is floundering badly; his autonomous "full self-driving" is wretchedly substandard and meeting powerful opposition; the Optimus V2 robot is dead, [2][3] and V3 is unlikely to be much better. 

 

Elon Musk did not "invent" the Electric Car

 

 

Contrary to what so many media pundits have suggested or claimed, Elon Musk did not in any sense “invent” electric cars. In the early 1900s, when the US was busy industrialising, automobiles were rapidly evolving at the same time, but gasoline-powered transportation, whether by private auto or mass transit, was on its way out. Almost all of the nation’s local and inter-city train transport was electric, and electric automobiles were rapidly gaining ground over their gas-powered rivals. By 1900, nearly 40% of all US cars were electric, and so popular that New York City had a fleet of electric taxis.

 

Modern electric vehicles (EVs) are the product of a gradual, global effort spanning decades, with significant development long before Tesla's founding, and in fact long before Elon Musk was born. In recent terms, there was a regulatory push in the early 1990s, primarily instigated by California's "Zero Emission Vehicle" mandate, which pushed automakers to develop EVs. By the mid-1990s to early 2000s, we already had the first wave of modern EVs and hybrids. GM's EV1, launched in 1996, became the first modern mass-produced EV from a major automaker, followed by the Toyota Prius in 1997, the Honda Insight in 1999, and the Ford Escape Hybrid a few years later. Tesla Motors was founded in 2003, with its first car, the high-performance Roadster, appearing in 2008.

 

In the meantime, we had the Nissan Leaf, and GM's Chevrolet Volt. Legacy automakers (VW, GM, Ford) and Chinese brands (BYD, NIO, XPeng, Chery) launched competitive models. And, in only a few years, the entire EV industry shifted from "electrification" to "intelligence", focusing on software and autonomous driving.

 

Tesla was not even a catalyst in promoting the "Smartphone on Wheels" concept for EVs, a movement led by many others, mostly Chinese. This movement, including autonomous auto control, was built upon decades of prior research, regulatory pressure, and technological advancements initiated by governments and other automakers worldwide. Tesla was only a small part of this evolutionary development, and by no means the leader. And Tesla did not in any sense originate autonomous driving. It is generally fair to say that Google initiated the modern, dedicated pursuit of autonomous driving as we know it. [4][5] However, it was not the absolute first entity to work on the concept. The research for autonomous driving originated in academia with Carnegie Mellon and Stanford universities working on a DARPA defense project.[6]

 

Martin Forest Eberhard is an American engineer and entrepreneur who co-founded Tesla, Inc. (then Tesla Motors) with Marc Tarpenning in July 2003. Source

 

Perhaps the two most critical factors that moved the EV from niche to mainstream were the move to lithium-ion batteries (led by Tesla's founderMartin Aberhard) and supportive government policies (primarily China).

 

But already before 2000, China and the European nations were promoting EVs and subsidizing their independent development. China's EV progress was outstanding, and less than 10 years later China was the world's largest EV market. There were several factors driving this development in China. There was a question of fuel supply, since the US was repeatedly threatening to blockade the sea routes for China's petroleum imports. Further, China’s leaders were concerned that as the nation developed and hundreds of millions of Chinese would be driving automobiles, the only sensible hope for a privately-mobile China would rest in what we call “new energy” vehicles. We couldn’t have 1.5 billion Chinese driving gasoline-powered cars since the resultant pollution would eventually kill everyone. I covered China's EV development in an earlier article you may care to read for background. [7] Another useful article is The Politics of Electric Cars (EVs), [8] helpful for a fundamental understanding of the industry.

 

Still, the myth appears to have passed into legend, with the UK Independent telling us that "Tesla under Elon Musk made the first best electric car."[9] Except that it didn't, and it wasn't. 

 

Elon Musk Did Not "Found" Tesla

 

The Tesla website loudly claims, "Elon Musk founded Tesla" and "Elon Musk co-founded and leads Tesla...."[10] Those claims are not true. This isn't really news, but the truth has been heavily suppressed by the media or their controllers, and replaced with a myth to create an image of "Elon the Messiah". Many media sources have stated clearly that "Contrary to popular belief, Elon Musk did not found Tesla", [11] or "Unbeknownst to much of the public, Elon Musk did not start Tesla". [12] But these are second or third-tier information sources; the mass media unanimously propagate the false myth of Elon Musk founding Tesla.

 

Tesla Founders. Source:

 

Tesla was founded in 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning.[13][14] It was they who chose to name the company after inventor Nikola Tesla, and were definitely the exclusive owners of the brand. They conceived the company, registered the name and domain, and developed the initial business plan and Roadster prototype. They pioneered the use of Lithium-ion batteries. There were actually four men who can be credited as "founders" of Tesla; Martin Eberhard, Marc Tarpenning, J.B. Straubel, and Ian Wright, an engineer who had been part of Tesla since the early days. [15] Elon Musk's name is not in this list.

 

Corporate founding stories can become simplified or mythologised over time, often focusing on the most prominent figure. The "legend" of Apple centered on Steve Jobs; we have all but forgotten Steve Wozniak. In Tesla's case, the narrative has heavily centered on Musk, clearly at the expense of the work done by its original founders and early team. And this is not by accident. There is a video circulating on YouTube and Douyin of Elon Musk on the Joe Rogan show. In that video, Musk states that when he joined Tesla, the company had no employees, no factory, no nothing, and had never made even a prototype electric car. According to Musk, all they had was "an idea". However, Musk's statements fit his consistent pattern of downplaying the work of any predecessors to emphasise his own (mostly imaginary) transformative genius, and to greatly exaggerate the personal risks he undertook to save and scale the company. As one observer noted, "Elon Musk is all about Elon Musk".

 

In any case, Musk's disparaging claims about Tesla are flatly contradicted by the company's well-documented early history. The first Tesla Roadster prototype, based on a Lotus Elise chassis, was built and tested before Musk's investment. The reference sources all appear quite consistent, showing Tesla was indeed a functioning startup with significant engineering progress and a growing team when Musk joined. [16]

 

It was Eberhard who first proposed the use of lithium-ion batteries for EVs, and it was from this mastery of lithium batteries that they were able to create a pure EV automobile. They needed to find an auto platform (chassis) that could accommodate the batteries and motors. Prior to starting Tesla, Eberhard had invested in an EV startup named AC Propulsion, and the initial thought was that the company's prototype, named the T-Zero, might be suitable for mass production, but the founders later shifted to Lotus. Lotus could offer a complete vehicle package so Tesla ordered 2,500 vehicle kits from Lotus. [17][18][19] The next step was to find funding.

 

Tesla was initially a functioning, albeit very small, startup, not an established company with its own factory but far from "just an idea". [20] When Elon Musk joined Tesla, the company had about 20 employees. It had no factory of its own, but Tesla's engineers were working in a facility in the UK, modifying Lotus Elise chassis. It is true that at this first stage (early 2004) they had no fully-functional prototype. By early 2005, the first drivable Roadster prototype was completed, developed by a core team of 18 engineers. By early 2006, Tesla had approximately 150 employees, multiple working prototypes, and were preparing public demonstrations. [21]

 

Compared to the massive, integrated auto companies of today, Tesla's early operation in 2004 was incredibly bare-bones—no owned factory, a tiny team, and a prototype built on another company's chassis. But Tesla in 2004 was a typical high-risk Silicon Valley startup: it had a small, talented team, a clear engineering plan, and a working prototype within months - all crucial assets that attracted Musk's investment in the first place. The documented evidence clearly proves that Musk's claims are narcissistic false exaggerations.

 

How Elon Musk Stole Tesla

 

The story of Tesla's five founders, and why only two became billionaires.Source

 

Elon Musk joined Tesla in early 2004. The fledgling Tesla at this stage needed financing since the required development for the Roadster was projected to cost around $7 million. The first financing round was attempted at $7.5 million, but only $1 million could be obtained from outside investors, so Musk eventually invested $6.5 million of his own money (not the $50 million that he boasted about), for which he insisted on the position of Chairman. It was also stipulated that he would have ultimate decision-making authority over all matters, while Martin Eberhard, as Tesla's founding father, remained CEO.[22][23] It may seem strange that the Tesla owners would have made Elon Musk the Chairman of the company. He was still quite young, in his early 30s, and was only an investor with no engineering background and no knowledge relevant to car development. But the story was a bit more complicated.

 

The US economy in early 2004 was in a solid expansion phase following the 2001 recession.Interest rates were low, stock markets were rising rapidly, and fundraising was not universally difficult. Tesla, however, had serious financing challenges not from a bad overall economy but due to its perceived "revolutionary" and "extremely high-risk" profile. For one thing, the auto industry is famously capital-intensive with high entry barriers, and electric vehicles were just a niche market with unproven consumer demand. Tesla had no proven product, no factory, and an unproven team trying to build a complex machine from scratch. The plan to modify the Lotus Elise chassis was novel but unproven. Investors widely considered the idea of a high-performance electric car to be"a foolish idea". Venture capitalists were generally not investing in "hard tech" or manufacturing at the time, preferring software and internet startups with lower capital needs and faster returns. Musk himself noted that "every single person" he approached turned him down. Musk's willingness to commit $6.5 million was seen as saving the company at its most vulnerable moment, giving him extraordinary leverage in negotiations.

 

Given these obstacles, Musk's terms made strategic sense for both parties. For Tesla, securing $6.5 million from a single, deeply committed investor who believed in the mission, was a lifeline. It provided enough capital to develop a mass-production prototype. For Musk, investing the majority of the round and taking the Chairman role gave him operational control and a massive equity stake, justifying the personal financial risk. In essence, Tesla had to "give away the farm" because, in the eyes of nearly every traditional investor in 2004, there was no farm to begin with. It was just a wildly ambitious plan in an industry where startups almost never succeeded.

 

Initially, Musk's role as Chairman was described as strategic and financial, while Eberhard remained CEO. The founders reportedly viewed Musk as an "angel". Importantly, since Elon Musk was seen as a savior and as someone who shared their vision of EVs, the founders saw no danger in giving him that much political power in both ownership and executive position. That was a big mistake, as you will soon see. It is obvious from Musk's record with Confinity (PayPal) [24] and OpenAI [25] that he would always scheme for full control and oust all challengers, but the founders weren't aware of that at the time. However, Musk used his authority as Chairman to pressure Eberhard on design and staffing, gradually positioned himself as the public face of Tesla, and eventually orchestrated Eberhard's removal in 2007.

 

"Musk was brought on as a crucial early investor but he soon used his clout, money, and ... strong-arm tactics to oust Eberhard and Tarpenning and eventually install himself as CEO of Tesla."[26] The reference link contains an audio by "Musk experts" with useful information. It seems that the relation between founders and investors was amicable enough for the first perhaps two years, until Musk's bullying sociopathic nature began to emerge. Around that time, "Musk began to exert his authority as Board Chairman, pressuring Eberhard to fire people, make wildly difficult design fixes to the company’s early lineup of EVs, and then [force Eberhard to] step aside as Musk positioned himself at the forefront of Tesla’s public introduction to the world. Musk began the path that would lead him to take control of Tesla and increase his ownership stake through nine rounds of funding that gradually reduced the relevance of the Eberhard and Tarpenning packages and culminated in the 2010 Initial Public Offering".[27] If you recall Musk's character vividly demonstrated at x.com/Confinity (PayPal) [28] and OpenAI, [29] with his determination to have full control and no opposition, the tendency was repeated with Tesla.

 

Musk planned a gradual takeover, not immediate control, and waited to position himself as the public face of Tesla. There are many documented references of Musk leading 9 rounds of financing, but in each case maintaining his share of Tesla while ensuring that the shareholdings of Eberhard and Tarpenning were reduced. This eventually left Musk with either voting control or a large share of the vote, and this is what was used to remove Eberhard. Also, it appears that many of those initial investors in Tesla were friends of Elon Musk, and would have voted with him to remove the original founders. It seems clear this was a plan from the beginning, and the disputes over the Roadster cost were just a convenient cover to do what Musk had always intended to do.

 

The Forbes and Forbes Italy media sources strongly support the assertion that total control was systematically planned from the beginning through financial maneuvers. The official narrative states that disputes over the Roadster's development and economics were the primary cause for Eberhard's ousting, but this was merely a pretext for a long-planned power grab. The Forbes Italy articles clearly describe Musk's funding rounds diluting the founders' shares while maintaining his own, and connecting this to his eventual control of the board. It seems the Roadster cost issues were just a smokescreen obscuring premeditation, in spite of Musk's attempts to frame them as reactive crisis management.

 

This perfectly connects the financial mechanics to the eventual leadership change. The evidence strongly supports the interpretation that Musk's path to control was a deliberate, financially-engineered strategy, and the reported management disputes over the Roadster's costs and delays served as the execution mechanism. Musk’s PayPal history is particularly relevant here as it shows a pattern. The core mechanism was that Elon Musk "personally" led multiple funding rounds that diluted the founders' stakes while preserving his own. This is a classic control play in startup ventures. Each new funding round issues new shares. If the original founders (Eberhard & Tarpenning) couldn't afford to invest more to maintain their percentage, their ownership and voting power shrank. Musk, by leading these rounds, could keep his share high. Reports state he invested around $50 million in total by 2008, far beyond his initial contribution.

 

As the largest and most critical investor, Musk gained significant influence over the Board of Directors, and also over the composition of the Board. More on this later. By 2007, with the company burning cash and the Roadster delayed, Musk, as Chairman and the financial lifeline, was positioned to lead that shift in sentiment that led to the firing of the founders. The evidence suggests a blend of Musk's inherent desire for control and the clever exploitation of a crisis. Musk's experience being ousted from PayPal in 2000 [30] was formative. He stated it taught him to retain operational control. It's logical he would enter Tesla determined not to let that happen again. Thus, as the dominant investor, Musk displaced the original technical founders and CEO through board influence and relentless pressure, leading to acrimonious exits and legal battles.

 

The development of the Roadster began in October of 2004, and by January of 2005, a final, fully drivable prototype built by 18 engineers was born. Mass production of the Roadster was planned to begin in early 2006. [31] They eventually produced 2,450 of these cars based on the Lotus Elise chassis.

 

To this point, Elon Musk was nowhere to be seen. On June 19, 2006, the final production prototype of the Tesla Roadster was presented to the public at the Santa Monica airport in California. Martin Eberhard was the speaker, with Elon Musk lurking detached in the background and keeping a low profile. [32] But in reality, he had already begun the motions to take complete control of the company. It seems apparent that from the time of his initial contribution, Musk was already scheming to take control of Tesla and oust the founders. Two investigative researchers, Milena Gabanelli and Andrea Priante, covered this period quite well in articles for Forbes Italy. [33]

 

The Tesla Roadster

 

Martin Eberhard posing with the first Telsa Roadster. Source:

 

First, the Official Narrative: “The story of the first Tesla car - the Roadster - is one of a company overcoming seemingly insurmountable technical hurdles under the extreme pressure of potential failure. The founders' original vision met the hard realities of automotive manufacturing, leading to a pivotal leadership change - from the original founders to Elon Musk, the Reluctant Messiah - that set Tesla on its future course.”

 

But the facts lend little support to this sycophantic stream of consciousness. It is true that the development of the company's first entry into the EV market, the Roadster, had "some issues". In fact, according to Elon Musk himself, it had multiple crises erupting simultaneously in 2007, with the transmission being the most serious. At a Tesla annual shareholder meeting, Musk was remarkably candid, stating flatly that, "Despite meeting all regulatory requirements, this vehicle is completely unsafe". [34] Musk freely admitted that in the early days they (he) had "no idea what we were doing," and characterised their (his) original efforts as "completely clueless". [35] He stated further that the car "frequently malfunctioned", "often got stuck in second gear", “was completely unsafe,” it “broke down all the time,” and it “didn’t really work”. [36]

 

Musk recounted a story where he test-drove an early Roadster for Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, only for the car to fail to reach 10 mph. "I told them, I swear to you, this car can go much faster than it does now." He noted that the two Google founders "were so kind that after the worst product demo in history, they still paid the company." To say that early Tesla Roadsters had many serious problems, would be an understatement. This, in a car designed by the inventive genius of Elon Musk. The car was repeatedly re-designed (flaw removal and damage control) until taken out of production in 2012. And there were recalls. [37]

 

A Little Bit of Knowledge ....

 

Elon Musk and the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

There is a saying in English that “a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing”, a thesis heavily supported in psychology by a condition known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. This psychological phenomenon is a mental deformity, a cognitive bias of self-deception whereby “people with limited knowledge or competence in a given domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence in that domain”. [38] This is a circumstance Elon Musk perfectly exemplifies. He has exhibited it in every known endeavor he has so far attempted. Tesla was no exception.

 

I wrote earlier that Musk began to exert his authority as board chairman, pressuring Eberhard to fire people, make wildly difficult design fixes to the company’s early lineup of EVs. The place where Musk perhaps interfered the most was in engineering with the transmission of the Roadster, and definitely with the most financially-destructive consequences. I won't provide unnecessary technical detail here, but Musk disapproved of the proposed transmission design and demanded something more complex. But the engineering R&D proved time-consuming and expensive, with solutions not coming quickly. Yet Musk persisted with his demands and the staff, including Eberhard, attempted to comply. This alone drove the company to the very edge of bankruptcy. The original R&D budget for the transmission project was $25 million but ballooned to over $140 million, pushing the manufacturing cost per car from $65,000 to more than $120,000, and delaying the car's release by more than one year.

 

Eberhard's later lawsuit directly accused Musk of micromanagement, stating that his interventions in the engineering and design were destructively meddlesome and caused the enormous cost overruns, while Musk of course denied that his "suggestions" were responsible for the cost increases. The Roadster was finally complete (more or less) in 2008, and went on the market at the base price of $108,000. [39]

 

The Dispute And Fallout

 

Tesla was suffering multiple existential crises. The money was nearly gone, staff were leaving, the Roadster was mostly a bag of insoluble problems, nobody was getting along, and Musk needed (1) cash and (2) a scapegoat. According to Musk, the early estimates of development and production costs were provided by Eberhard, but he (Musk) suddenly "discovered" that the costs had increased enormously. These numbers formed the basis of the accusations between Eberhard and Musk. Eberhard argued that Musk’s micromanagement and interference caused the massive cost overruns and delays that almost bankrupted Tesla. This, in 2007, led to Eberhard's ouster, [40][41][42] Tarpenning following suit shortly after.

 

However, consider that Elon Musk was the company's most senior executive, and Tesla would certainly have had a finance executive (or at least a book-keeper). Given this, and the fact that the R&D stretched over two years, it seems unlikely that Musk "suddenly discovered" that a $25 million cost had increased to $140 million. Even an incompetent senior executive would have been watching the expenses during those two years, would have seen quarterly financial and other reports, and would almost certainly have been up to date on the financial picture. Musk's claim that Eberhard lied to the Board about the real costs and tried to hide them, doesn't seem to hold much water.

 

In August 2007, the Board removed Eberhard as CEO. He was offered the title of "President of Technology" but actually pushed out by the end of the year. By October 2008, with the company still in crisis, Musk assumed the CEO role himself. Musk's financial strategy systematically built the leverage (board control and share ownership), while the operational crisis with the Roadster (almost entirely self-inflicted) provided the timely justification to execute a change in leadership that he undoubtedly directed.

 

Musk's version (Tesla's official version) was that "because of management mistakes and cost control issues, founder Martin Eberhard was dismissed as CEO in 2007". Further that Eberhard was fired unanimously by the board for providing "false information" on "costs/schedule and for operational failures". [43] Musk resorted heavily Twitter to make his points and garner public support: "In mid-2007, Eberhard was removed from his position as CEO of Tesla for providing false information to me and the board". Musk also made posts to refute claims that he "stole" the company from Martin Eberhard. [44]

 

Musk wrote a voluminous Twitter post in an effort "to correct several misconceptions propagated by Martin that are now being reported as truth". In it, he wrote, "it soon became apparent that Eberhard had in fact known that the cost was far in excess of his estimate and that there was no chance of meeting the promised production schedule". Musk stated this failure was the reason there was "no way that Eberhard could be allowed to remain as part of Tesla at that point".

 

I should note that while we get clear numbers from Musk's defensive - and very public - Twitter posts about Eberhard, we don't have Eberhard's original lawsuit with his specific cost allocation claims also posted on Twitter. We know only of his argument that Musk's micromanagement and interference were to blame. The court settlement being confidential means we only have one side's detailed financial and other claims. However, Elon Musk definitely won the media war.

 

One of Elon Musk’s posts denigrating Eberhard. Source:

 

It would seem that Musk developed a hated for Eberhard, so much so that he refused to admit that he (Eberhard) was the original founder of Tesla, along with Tarpenning. Musk went so far as to actively deny Eberhard's claim to be a founder of Tesla, stating that Eberhard owned no IP related to electric cars, had no technology of his own, and that Eberhard "brought nothing to the Tesla party". Interestingly, Elon Musk himself precisely fits this description, yet he considers himself THE founder of Tesla.

 

After forcing Eberhard out of the company, Musk stated that he "was the worst person I have ever worked with in all my life". But, from everything I can derive from the historical record, the conflict was created by Musk's "hands-on" involvement and his constant interference in areas where he had no knowledge and even less ability. Further, Musk not only made perpetual demands that everything be done his way, but he created relentless pressure that "his way" be done under violently unrealistic timelines. It was this, more than anything else, that led to the acrimonious exits and legal battles. In each case, and there have been many of these, as the dominant investor, Musk reacted to criticism or disagreement by displacing the executives or original founders and taking full control. This pattern is abundantly evident throughout Elon Musk's entire corporate history.

 

The Lawsuit

 

"His behavior changed dramatically as soon as we started having press about Tesla," Eberhard said. "He got mad if anything was ever written about Tesla and it didn't feature his name prominently. And that's when I realized that there was an ego involved here that I hadn't recognized before. Eberhard, who at the time had the nickname "Mr. Tesla," said that anytime Musk wasn't mentioned in an article about the company, Musk would call him and "scream" at him. Source

 

Eberhard filed suit against Tesla and Elon Musk for defamation, libel, and slander.[45] You can access the entire court document here. [46] Eberhard claimed Musk tried to "rewrite history" and blame him for delays/costs caused by Musk's own interference. It stated that Musk had almost wrecked Tesla Motors during the period when Eberhard was CEO - and that after Eberhard's ousting Musk had slanderously tried to shift the blame. In the 146-page lawsuit, Eberhard also accused Musk and Tesla of breach of contract.

 

Oddly, one of the benefits Eberhard was to receive as CEO, was the second Roadster off the production line, part of the so-called "Founder's Series" that were claimed to be potentially worth several million dollars each from their historical value and because they were "one of a kind". Musk delivered on the promise, but only after "someone"smashed Eberhard's car into the back of a truck in the Tesla parking lot, the car suffering perhaps"an excess of damage". You can draw whatever conclusions you believe appropriate.

 

The Settlement

But then it all went silent. Eberhard dropped his lawsuit because the dispute was settled out of court and a gag order had been issued. [47][48]

 

The specific judgment from the 2009 lawsuit was not publicly released, as the case was settled out of court and subject to a gag order. However, multiple sources agree that one outcome was the recognition that Tesla has five official co-founders, including Elon Musk. As part of this agreement, Musk, Straubel, and Wright were formally "allowed" to be listed as co-founders, a status they did not legally hold prior to the lawsuit. Most other specific terms of the settlement, including any potential admissions, apologies, or payments, remain confidential. However, the settlement included a mutual non-disparagement clause, where Musk and Eberhard agreed to silence their negative opinions of each other.

 

Despite this court order, Musk's public disparagements immediately continued, calling Eberhard "the worst person I've ever had to work with". Musk's Twitter posts included accusations that Eberhard's terrible management decisions, disregard for talent, poor engineering, and major mistakes in the supply chain can be said to have "almost killed Tesla". [49][50]

 

Eberhard did not reciprocate, but accused Musk of violating the court-ordered agreement. To no avail, unfortunately, since laws do not apply to Elon Musk. [51] In any case, after the court-sanctioned agreement, Eberhard dropped his lawsuit and related claims against Musk. But we shouldn't lose one of the main points which is that the court-ordered settlement included Eberhard being acknowledged as a co-founder (of his own company), meaning Musk could no longer claim that he, and not Eberhard, was the "founder" of Tesla. Musk defied this order as well, as can be seen in the claims on the Tesla website that Elon Musk founded Tesla, with Eberhard's name nowhere to be seen.

 

It was interesting to note that the public announcements of the judgment from the lawsuit were exclusively that Musk was permitted to claim founder rights to Tesla, and that Eberhard was required to confirm this. None of the media reports mentioned that in return, Musk was ordered to publicly admit that Eberhard was an original founder of the company. Elon Musk was so determined to make the original Tesla founders “disappear” and take full credit for founding the company, that it required a court decision to determine the actual founders. This accurate history is not just a detail. Musk's presenting himself as starting from zero as the single visionary leader of Tesla, is a false narrative. The documented contributions of Eberhard, Tarpenning, and Straubel were fundamental to creating the foundation upon which Tesla was built. [52][53]

 

As to the non-disparagement portion of the court order, Musk and Eberhard issued the following statements. [54] You are welcome to laugh. I certainly did.

Eberhard:

"As a co-founder of the company, Elon's contributions to Tesla have been extraordinary."

 

Musk:

"Without Martin's indispensable efforts, Tesla Motors would not be here today."

 

And then the "Messiah Propaganda" kicked in:

The bitter fight over the "founder" title and the blame for the Roadster's problems fits a long-standing pattern of shaping historical narrative to support a specific pre-determined legend. In this case, that of “Elon Musk, the Reluctant Messiah”, heavily promoted by Elon Musk’s handlers.

 

“The story of the first Roadster is one of a company overcoming seemingly insurmountable technical hurdles under the extreme pressure of potential failure. The founders' original vision met the hard realities of automotive manufacturing, leading to a pivotal leadership change that set Tesla on its future course. Elon Musk played a pivotal role in this difficult time. As chairman and lead investor, Elon Musk forced the engineering shift to the one-speed transmission and took over as CEO to steer the company through the crisis, securing vital investments and a $465 million U.S. government loan to keep Tesla afloat.”

 

Almost nothing in the above paragraph is true, certainly not the statements about Musk.

This essay has merely set the stage. The juicy parts of the Tesla story are to come.

 

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com

*

NOTES - Part 21 (1 of 3)

 

[1] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 16 — The Manufactured Messiah https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/21910/

[2] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 20 — Optimus, the Failed Fraudhttps://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/23169/[3] The Beauty and the Beast — IRON and Optimus: A Tale of Two Robotshttps://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/22955/[4] Guiding Light: Why Google’s Hand-Built, Fully Autonomous "Firefly" Matteredhttps://www.motortrend.com/features/google-car-firefly-why-it-mattered[5] Google Introduces Self-Driving Electric Carhttps://www.automotive-fleet.com/125088/google-introduces-self-driving-electric-car[6] How Waymo went from secret Google project to dominant robotaxi companyhttps://abc7news.com/post/driverless-cars-waymo-history-secret-google-self-driving-car-project-robotaxi-company-darpa/16775642/[7] China’s Electric Vehicles (EVs)https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/20227/[8] The Politics of Electric Cars (EVs)https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/20312/[9] Tesla under Elon Musk made the first best electric car. But will it make the next?https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/tesla-elon-musk-electric-vehicle-b2496076.html[10] Elon Muskhttps://www.tesla.com/elon-musk[11] Tesla founders Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning talk about the early days and bringing on Elon Muskhttps://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/06/tesla-founders-martin-eberhard-marc-tarpenning-on-elon-musk.html[12] Original Tesla Founder Is Sad That Musk Made a ‘Truck That Looks Like a Dumpster’https://gizmodo.com/original-tesla-founder-is-sad-that-musk-made-a-truck-that-looks-like-a-dumpster-2000636144#comments[13] The story of Tesla's five founders. And why only two became billionaireshttps://forbes.it/2021/11/18/tesla-fondatori-elon-musk-solo-due-miliardari/This article also appeared on Forbes.com[14] Eleven years of counterattack history (2003-2014): Is Tesla overvalued?https://news.bjx.com.cn/html/20140928/550887-1.shtml[15] Tesla: An innovative journey of electric legendshttps://news.yiche.com/hao/wenzhang/103693346/[16] Excerpt from the original text of "Silicon Valley Iron Man"https://book.douban.com/subject/36185249/blockquotes?sort=score&start=340[17] Welcoming the Future Tesla's Past and Present Life (Part 1)https://chejiahao.autohome.com.cn/info/5552365[18] Tesla existed before Elon Musk: Founders on how they pitched the ideahttps://beta.greencarreports.com/news/1131215_tesla-existed-before-elon-musk-founders-on-how-they-pitched-the-idea[19] From the 1st to the 1 million, Tesla's "Fury Road"https://www.geekpark.net/news/257123?hmsr=joyk.com&utm_source=joyk.com&utm_medium=referral[20] Tesla Fremont Factoryhttps://webarchiveweb.wayback.bac-lac.canada.ca/web/20210801071700/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Factory[21] Excerpt from the original text of "Silicon Valley Iron Man"https://book.douban.com/subject/36185249/blockquotes?sort=score&start=340[22] Learn about Tesla's past and present life, how it became an electric vehicle giant in less than 20 yearshttps://chejiahao.autohome.com.cn/info/16302868[23] Tesla's Past and NIO's Presenthttps://www.laohu8.com/post/293373[24] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 9 — Zip2, x.com, PayPalhttps://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/21712/[25] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 11 — OpenAIhttps://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/21751/[26] How Elon Musk took over Tesla using money, strong-arm tactics, and his own popularityhttps://www.theverge.com/23815634/tesla-elon-musk-origin-founder-twitter-land-of-the-giants[27] The story of Tesla's five founders. And why only two became billionaireshttps://forbes.it/2021/11/18/tesla-fondatori-elon-musk-solo-due-miliardari/(This article appeared on Forbes.com)[28] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 9 — Zip2, x.com, PayPalhttps://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/21712/[29] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 11 — OpenAIhttps://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/21751/[30] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 9 — Zip2, x.com, PayPalhttps://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/21712/[31] Excerpt from the original text of "Silicon Valley Iron Man"https://book.douban.com/subject/36185249/blockquotes?sort=score&start=340[32] Tesla, why Musk sells fewer cars but is worth more than everyone else on the stock markethttps://www.corriere.it/dataroom-milena-gabanelli/auto-tesla-perche-musk-vende-meno-ma-in-borsa-vale-piu-di-tutti/d7c7a6a0-4414-4302-a998-8d824d028xlk.shtml?refresh_ce[33] The story of Tesla's five founders. And why only two became billionaireshttps://forbes.it/2021/11/18/tesla-fondatori-elon-musk-solo-due-miliardari/This article also appeared on Forbes.com[34] Musk: The first generation of Tesla is "completely unsafe", but in 2019 its upgraded version is cominghttps://startup.aliyun.com/info/1043128.html[35] The year 2016: Elon Musk admits to shareholders that the Tesla Roadster was a disaster.http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a29378/elon-musk-admits-to-shareholders-that-the-tesla-roadster-was-a-disaster/[36] Elon Musk Confessions: All the Stupid Things Tesla Has Donehttps://fortune.com/2016/05/31/elon-musk-confessions-tesla/[37] Eleven years of counterattack history (2003-2014): Is Tesla overvalued?https://news.bjx.com.cn/html/20140928/550887-4.shtml[38] What is the Dunning-Kruger effect?https://www.britannica.com/science/Dunning-Kruger-effect[39] Tesla, why Musk sells fewer cars but is worth more than everyone else on the stock markethttps://www.corriere.it/dataroom-milena-gabanelli/auto-tesla-perche-musk-vende-meno-ma-in-borsa-vale-piu-di-tutti/d7c7a6a0-4414-4302-a998-8d824d028xlk.shtml?refresh_ce[40] Eberhard was eventually “voted off the island” , resulting in a contentious lawsuit and eventual settlement.https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/06/tesla-founders-martin-eberhard-marc-tarpenning-on-elon-musk.html[41 Co-founder Martin Eberhard leaves Teslahttps://www.mercurynews.com/2007/12/05/co-founder-martin-eberhard-leaves-tesla/?shared=email&msg=failThe Mercury News; 2007/12/05[42] 2007: Tesla ousts co-founder Martin Eberhardhttps://www.mercurynews.com/2007/12/05/2007-tesla-ousts-co-founder-martin-eberhard/?msg=fail&shared=emailThe Mercury News; 2007/12/05[43] Stealing Tesla from others? Musk refuted: Co-founder ousted CEO for false informationhttps://news.qq.com/rain/a/20201012A091RS00?suid=&media_id=[44] In-depth丨Tesla research reporthttps://news.bjx.com.cn/html/20200207/1040820.shtml[45] Tesla Motors Co-Founder Sues CEO For Libelhttps://www.informationweek.com/it-leadership/tesla-motors-co-founder-sues-ceo-for-libel[46] San Mateo Courthttp://openaccess1.sanmateocourt.org/getpdf/pdftemp/200906101523474407/A-0000081554-1.pdf[47] Musk/Tesla Motors lawsuit by former exec dropped. Nobody wants to say whyhttps://www.theregister.com/2009/08/21/musk_eberhard_lawsuit_dropped/[48] Elon Musk, Eberhard 'resolve' Tesla Motors wranglehttps://www.theregister.com/2009/09/22/tesla_eberhard_lawsuit_resolved[49] Tesla's 5 founders, but only 2 became billionaires!https://techorange.com/2021/12/02/tesla-only-two-get-really-rich/[50] Tesla Foundershttps://forbes.it/2021/11/18/tesla-fondatori-elon-musk-solo-due-miliardari/This article also appeared on Forbes.com[51] Martin Eberhard on Teslahttps://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/ousted-tesla-cofounder-martin-eberhard-sounds-off-on-elon-musk-how-the-company-has-changed-and-the-ev-wars/articleshow/98045714.cms[52] Tesla founders Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning talk about the early days and bringing on Elon Muskhttps://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/06/tesla-founders-martin-eberhard-marc-tarpenning-on-elon-musk.html[53 Stealing Tesla from others? Musk refuted: Co-founder ousted CEO for false informationhttps://news.qq.com/rain/a/20201012A091RS00?suid=&media_id=[54] Elon Musk, Eberhard 'resolve' Tesla Motors wranglehttps://www.theregister.com/2009/09/22/tesla_eberhard_lawsuit_resolved*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

 

Other Works by this Author

 

ESSAYS ON CHINA  Volume One

ESSAYS ON CHINA Volume 2

ESSAYS ON CHINA Volume Three 

Who Starts All The Wars?New!

What we Are Not Told :  German POWs in America – What Happened to Them?

The Richest Man in the World

The Power Behind the Throne

The Jewish Hasbara in All its Glory

PROPAGANDA and THE MEDIA 

BERNAYS AND PROPAGANDA 

Democracy – The Most Dangerous Religion

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 1 — How the US Became Rich 

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 2 — Life in a Failed State

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 3 — The Branding of America

Police State America Volume One

Police State America Volume Two

Essays on America

FILLING THE VOID

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE IN ACTION

THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

False Flags and Conspiracy Theories

Kamila Valieva

 

 

LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS & PDF ARTICLES

 

 Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2026

EN — LARRY ROMANOFF: Debunking Elon Musk – Part 22 — Tesla is Dying(Part 2 of 3)

$
0
0

  

Debunking Elon Musk – Part 22

Tesla is Dying(Part 2 of 3)

By Larry Romanoff

 

A Tesla Supercharger station in Petaluma, California. Source

 

Contents

Tesla is Dying

Appendix on Data Collection

Why is Tesla Dying?

– The Unexplained Surrender

– The “Greenfield” Founder Who Lost Heart

– Elon Musk, the “Visionary”

– Competition With a Flawed Product

– Management and Culture: Core Problems

– The Inevitable Conclusion: The House of Cards

– Selling Tesla cars

– The End Times

 

Tesla is Dying

 

 

Sales numbers have fallen off a cliff in key markets around the world[1][2][3]Tesla’s performance is down in almost every single European market. Even sales in China, one of the company’s most lucrative markets, are dropping sharply. Yet overall worldwide sales seem to show a yearly decline of only about 10% because the true picture of Tesla’s decline as an auto manufacturer is obfuscated by a number of factors. Tesla’s sales exhibit a steady, competitive decline from a weakening brand position, as in Europe, combined with volatile negative bursts from policy changes, as with the sudden 90% drop in Quebec, Canada.

 

Comparison: EV Auto Sales (millions)

2023                  2024                   2025

Tesla   only                        1.8               1.7               1.6

BYD only                           3.0               4.3               4.6

All EV brands Worldwide   13.7             17.5             20.0

 

Automakers typically consider “sales” as total autos pushed to the dealers, while we want to know actual retail purchases by consumers. This is not the same thing, and sometimes very much not the same thing. I will give you one example of this from China, for August of 2021. I cherry-picked this one because it was the most dramatic example. Tesla claimed 44,000 China sales, but 31,000 of those sales were actually exports, leaving about 13,000 for domestic sales. But the Government office showed only 2,800 actual registrations for August. Tesla immediately screamed “That’s not true” (the government is lying). It is true that registrations will lag sales by a few days, but these variations are usually minor. The most likely answer is that Tesla counted the 13,000 cars as “sold” when shipped to the showrooms, while only 2,800 were actually purchased.

 

Tesla’s worldwide auto sales for 2023, 2024 and 2025, were roughly 1.8 million, 1,7 million, and 1.6 million. However, these figures mask the true picture. For one thing, Tesla had been showing annual growth of as much as 40% in the years immediately prior, which suddenly turned to a 10% overall decline, in reality a massive change. To emphasise this point, less than a year ago (in 2024), Elon Musk was proudly proclaiming that Tesla would be selling 20 million EVs annually. Yet only one year later, Tesla may be lucky to sell even one million cars. It is also important to note that Tesla’s rapid sales growth occurred during a period when there was little or no competition; the emergence of competitors and the comparison to other choices has hurt Tesla badly. In general terms, Tesla is now seen as highly over-priced, and not at all “premium” or “luxury” as advertised. Even worse, with the appearance of the multitude of choices in the market (primarily Chinese) Tesla is not seen as competitive on design or style, on features, on range, on autonomous driving, on IT and AI integration, and other factors.

 

There is a great deal of scattered information about the collapse in Tesla auto sales, but confusing because often referring to specific months. For example, in news articles in March of 2025, we have the following: Tesla sales in Germany plunged by 60% in January, 2025 and 76% in February, followed by a massive 76% in March; Australia posted a 72% decline, and Tesla’s February sales in China fell 50%. Tesla sales in Norway collapsed by 44% through January and February, despite the country’s overall EV market growing by 53%. [4][5][6][7][8] Then we have Reuters: Tesla’s new car sales in Spain fell 36% in April; Tesla sales in Spain plunged by 37%, even as sales of fully electric vehicles rose 28% on the continent. Sweden’s Tesla sales dropped 81%. A new report published by Schmidt Automotive shows that Tesla’s market share in western Europe fell by half over 12 months. [9]

 

Another report: Tesla’s sales have dropped sharply across the European Union and the UK. In Germany — the only European country with a Tesla plant — sales of the new EVs plummeted by nearly 60%, while France saw a 63% decrease compared to January 2024. In Norway, new Tesla registrations fell by 38%. Sweden, meanwhile, registered a 44% plunge. Sales in the United States are also falling, though less drastically. That’s not to mention the spectacular collapse of Cybertruck sales — currently only available in the US and Canada — which fell by 22% from Q3 2024 to Q4 as the controversial truck’s resale value crashed. [10]

 

In Europe, where BYD is making inroads and building two manufacturing plants, Tesla is struggling with slumping sales. In February, 2025, Tesla’s sales there plunged around 40% from the same month in 2024, according to the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association. [11] In April 2025, BYD surpassed Tesla in EV registrations in the European market. BYD’s registrations rose by 169% year-on-year, while Tesla’s fell by 49%[12] In May, 2025, BYD new car registrations soared 359% in Europe while Tesla reported a 49% decline, and this despite the EU tariffs on Chinese vehicles. [13]

 

China was similar. Data from the Passenger Association showed that Tesla’s sales in China in February, 2025 were a year-on-year decrease of 49% and a month-on-month decrease of 51%. [14] I didn’t look for registrations by week, but this one caught my eye. China EV registrations in week 16, 2025: Tesla 6,800, Xiaomi 7,200, BYD 56,300. [15] In the first two months of 2025 in China, BYD’s sales surged by 25%, with a market share of 27%, while Tesla’s sales tumbled 14% and market share plunged to only 2%. Two other reports provide detail about Tesla’s catastrophic performance in China, including the shocking 64% month-over-month collapse in October 2025. [16][17]

 

The key finding is clear from all the search results: Tesla is facing simultaneous, severe declines in all major markets, with the collapse being most dramatic in European countries like Sweden and Germany, followed by sharp declines in China and the US. The worst-performing year-over-year markets were Sweden (-86%, July 2025); UK (-60%, July 2025); Germany (-55%, July 2025); EU overall (-34.2%, Nov, 2025), China (-63.6%, Oct, 2025); overall US (-23%, Nov, 2025).

 

The primary shock for the US was the elimination of the $7,500 federal EV tax credit in September 2025. There was a brief surge when some consumers made purchases prior to the expiration, but then a sharp drop in demand that Tesla’s subsequent price cuts could not fully offset.

 

In the quoted sales figures below, I have rounded off the numbers for ease of reading, and thus the percentages are not precise. However, the rounding errors are not significant, and it is the magnitude of the numbers that is worthy of attention.

 

Tesla’s Q1 2025 deliveries in each European country compared to Q1 2024: Source.

 

Country        Q1 2024        Q1 2025           Change

Germany              13,000              5,000             -65%

UK                        12,000             12,000                6%

France                 11,000               6,500            -40%

Belgium                7,000               3,000           -60%

Holland                 7,000               3,500           -50%

Norway                  5,000              3,500           -25%

Other                     4,000              3,000           -25%

Sweden                 4,000               2,000           -60%

Italy                       4,000              3,500           -10%

Spain                      3,500             3,000           -12%

Denmark               3,500              1,500           -60%

Switz.                     3,000             1,000           -60%

Portugal                3,000             2,000           -25%

Austria                   2,500             1,500           -50%

Poland                   1,500              1,000           -30%

Finland                 1,000                 500           -50%

France also saw a significant 40% decline in sales.

 

If this isn’t enough evidence for you, here are some headlines:

 

Tesla sales plunge: Biggest decline in history: CNN

Tesla Sales Are Tanking Across The WorldInside EVs

Tesla Sales Fall Off A Cliff Globally, – Germany, Australia, and China: Carscoops

Dark Clouds Gather Over Tesla as Sales Plummet Worldwide: Futurism

Tesla registrations — and public opinion — are in a free fall: The Verge

Tesla sales are down in every single European country except the UK: Electrek

Tesla continues to “hemorrhage” losses in Europe: The Driven

Tesla Sales Decline in California With Model 3 Plunging 36%: Bloomberg

 

Appendix

Data Collection Methodology, and Why the Collapse is Worse Than It Looks

 

There almost seems to be a conspiracy against auto research in that nobody gathers and collates data in precisely the same way because none have precisely the same interests. There are also differences in methodology by country or region. Poland does not do what Japan does, and Brazil differs from both. Moreover, there are many variables, and each source (manufacturers, media, government agencies, research firms) chooses those it considers important or preferable (or politically beneficial). Some sources combine hybrid-electric autos with pure EVs, while others don’t.

 

When examining Tesla in any market, we need to know the percentage change in the market itself, Tesla’s percentage declines, and the experience of other brands in the same time period. We also need to know other factors that influenced the market. As one example, Tesla sales increased in the US in the fall of 2025, in advance of the cancellation of government rebates. Other factors are the initiation of price cuts, generous financing provisions and so on. This information materially affects the conclusions we should draw from the raw numbers. Using China in 2025 as an example, Tesla sales plunged sharply in spite of price cuts of as much as $20,000 per car and 5-year (or 7-year) no-interest financing, in a booming EV market with all other brands showing marked increases.

 

The time period and ending dates are important. The results for a 12-month period can look very different for the period Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, and June 30 to the next July 1. Equally, the first 6 months of a year can look dismal compared to the second half of the same year. The many sources listed above, are well aware of this, and use it to advantage.

 

There is yet another factor that serves exceptionally well to mask the true overall picture, this being fluctuations in individual markets. For example, Tesla’s sales in Canada plunged to ~zero, but sales rose in the US ahead of the government rebates being canceled. The net result was that Tesla sales appeared stable when in fact they totally died in one country and showed only a temporary blip of life in the other. As well, the size of the base market matters when examining percentages; a 50% drop in Liechtenstein sales is insignificant, but not so in large markets.

 

Note that the available data covers specific months/quarters reported as low points, not a complete monthly series for all years. To source the complete regional sales datasets necessary for a complete analysis, would be a huge and daunting research task due to all the variables, and quite unnecessary for our purposes.

 

Why is Tesla Dying?

 

The official narrative lists three main reasons for the collapse in Tesla’s auto sales: (1) A stale model lineup with no new models or improvements for five years; (2) Fierce competition, primarily from BYD and other Chinese auto brands; and (3) Elon Musk’s political activities alienating much of the customer base in the US, Europe, and China. These three are all valid and did indeed have a major effect on Tesla’s fortunes. There are also many equally practical reasons for customers to turn away from Tesla, including overpriced models, poor resale value, poor overall quality, low driving range, FSD malfunctions, and much else. But in a real sense, these “standard” (albeit logical and real) reasons are symptoms, not the cause.

 

The Unexplained Surrender

The robot – teased on 2021 event by a person in a spandex costume – was the star for the tech giant, as Musk claimed it would ‘be a fundamental transformation for civilization as we know it’. Source

 

Observant readers (or observant observers) should have observed a paradox, something about Tesla that doesn’t make logical sense: Tesla’s sales are falling in all markets. Tesla is collapsing in plain sight, yet its leader is not fighting the car war but abandoning it. Elon Musk has taken responsibility for worldwide sales, but has done nothing except cut prices. Tesla has not launched a new passenger vehicle since the Model Y in 2020, and no new models are proposed. Musk killed the production of the new less expensive Model 2, and has terminated the Model S and Model X. There is no word of any positive development in the auto sector. In the absence of product refreshes, Tesla’s primary tool (and only sales lever) to move metal has been aggressive price cutting, which erodes profit margins and brand value, and will serve only to complete Tesla’s “surrender”. Price cuts also lower resale values, costing millions of former customers billions of dollars. Everywhere we look we see the signs of a neglected car business, a stagnant lineup and a canceled future.

 

There is no evidence that Musk is making any attempt to “win the EV race”, none. He seems to be simply maintaining what he has now, watching its decline, and simply pushing the staff harder to make sales that will be increasingly difficult to make. This is abandonment, an acceptance that Tesla no longer has desirable products, and no motivation to create any. Tesla’s recent financial data show not only plunging sales but declining gross margins and profits, and a significant workforce reduction. These concrete facts support the observation that Tesla is in a maintenance mode. When your sales are plunging and profits plummeting, killing new models and cutting the workforce by 20%, are not the acts of a company preparing for growth. The decision to stop production of the Model S and Model X—the vehicles that defined Tesla’s premium brand—is the clearest signal that Tesla is abandoning the car wars.

 

The high-pressure, “burn-and-churn” sales approach and the discontinuation of flagship models are not just symptoms of trouble; they are the deliberate actions of a company that has given up on the car market. Weaving all these threads together, turns a story of decline into a story of a deliberate, high-risk strategic abandonment. There is of course intense external competition (BYD, Xiaomi) offering more attractive cars and better value, but it is the “internal” factors that stand out.

 

This abandonment thesis is not theoretical. If we look at all the facts, it is clear that Tesla’s car business is undergoing an active de-prioritisation, with the core car business now framed as the funding source for the new AI future. Musk is diverting resources from the “sinking ship” (cars) to the “life rafts” (AI/robotics). Tesla is already converting factories from cars to Optimus robots – despite having no robot to manufacture. Moreover, Tesla’s manufacturing process is being re-worked for the Robotaxi, not for a new passenger car. Capital, engineering talent, and executive attention are being systematically redirected from the automotive division to the AI/robotics projects. Tesla’s cash is not building next-generation EV platforms but is being diverted to Optimus and Robotaxi. All auto investment has been canceled and a massive $20 billion of Tesla’s cash reserves are being diverted to AI/robotics projects.

 

There have been major staff movements internally in Tesla from auto to AI, but in addition Musk’s (privately-owned) xAI has drained nearly 100 of Tesla’s top AI staff. Musk’s public communications and Tesla’s investor messaging are now overwhelmingly dominated by Full Self-Driving (FSD), the “Cybercab”, Robotaxi, and the Optimus robot. These actions make sense only if Musk has fundamentally given up on the automotive battle. The fact that Tesla has been rhetorically repositioned from a car company and officially redefined itself as a “physical world AI company” is a profound narrative shift, but it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of automotive decline.

 

The evidence strongly supports the assertion that Musk is abandoning the competitive EV battlefield and is making a massive, all-or-nothing bet on AI and robotics. This thesis perfectly fits all the observable facts of Tesla’s current trajectory and explains the cause of Tesla’s “transformation” from a car company to an AI company.

 

But we don’t want to put the cart before the horse, and that means explicitly framing Tesla’s current sales tactics and the deliberate neglect of the auto business as a direct consequence of this redefinition. In fact, it was the pivot to AI/robotics that was the root cause of Tesla abandoning its core auto business. Now the central question: “Why would Elon Musk surrender his most famous company?” The answer is that there is another factor beyond this, one more fundamental than all the others, that is buried under the smoke of the obvious.

 

The “Greenfield” Founder Who Lost Heart

 

In 2019, Elon Musk had a 2027 deadline to surround Earth with 12,000 high-speed Starlink internet satellites. Source

 

There was a media article recently claiming that Musk had lost interest in Tesla, and that would seem true. Musk should certainly be updating the cars, producing the new model, and making other efforts, but Tesla is instead being abandoned to its fate. But Musk has not so much “lost interest” in Tesla as he has “lost heart”. By that, I mean he no longer sees a huge upside but only the possibility of preventing a downside. And that is a very different emotional state. If we are starting Tesla, and can imagine sales of millions of cars in the near future, that is a huge motivation because at the end you have something enormous. But if Tesla is already established and going downhill, it would require the same amount of effort just to stop the slide. And even if you are successful, at the end you have nothing except what you began with. No gain, just no loss. I don’t believe Elon Musk has the emotional makeup to “save” Tesla. This is why he has suddenly re-defined Tesla and shifted all his attention to Optimus and the Robotaxi.

 

Musk’s history shows he is driven by the challenge of creating something new and transformative (Mars, SpaceX, the initial Tesla vision). The grueling work of refreshing models, improving fit-and-finish, and battling for market share in a commoditised EV market offers none of the visionary thrill of launching a humanoid robot or a spaceship to Mars. Thus, the “abandonment” of Tesla’s car business is a kind of calculated sacrifice. Tesla’s automotive decline may not be a failure of management in Musk’s eyes, but a managed trade-off. The “heart” has moved to where Musk perceives the next revolutionary upside to be. The car company is seen as the established, if declining, engine that must fund that new dream, even if it means being “abandoned to its fate” in the competitive auto market. This is the compelling point: The future of Tesla is no longer about winning the EV race, but about successfully executing a high-risk pivot before the cash cow runs dry.

 

This assessment may seem excessively negative but it perfectly coincides with reality. And the reality seems to be that Elon Musk hasn’t the heart to battle head-on with equals or superiors, that he was ambitious only when there was “the visionary thrill” of unlimited success without competition. Fighting when you are down requires a very different kind of person. The Canadian poet Robert Service wrote a poem titled “Carry on”.[18] In that poem, he wrote, “And so in the strife of the battle of life, it’s easy to fight when you’re winning. It’s easy to slave, and starve, and be brave, when the dawn of success is beginning. But it’s a different song when everything’s wrong . . . . “

 

The poetic reference about fighting when you’re down versus when you’re winning provides a perfect framework to contrast Musk’s early visionary thrill with the current grind of automotive competition. Musk may have been successful at pioneering a new market but is ill-suited for—and psychologically recoiling from—the brutal, low-margin grind of mass-market competition. His abandonment of Tesla auto isn’t accidental; it’s an emotional retreat into a new narrative where he can be the visionary again. The most logical conclusion is that Musk is not trying to “save” the car company because he has already written off that battle as unwinnable on his terms. This is about perseverance in adversity, not merely a business analysis. The main dimensions to Tesla’s very real decline are human, not strategic.

 

We’re not just looking at surface-level business metrics but trying to understand why Musk is actively reshaping Tesla’s narrative. These are not rational actions; there is a primary emotional component that has been entirely overlooked. The term “lost heart” captures a critical shift in motivation. This is the most coherent – and the only plausible – explanation for Tesla’s current state. Musk’s abandonment of the auto sector and re-definition of Tesla serves a dual purpose: it tries to attract investors interested in fairytale growth stories, and it psychologically distances Musk from the struggles of the car business, which can now be framed as a legacy division.

 

Elon Musk, the “Visionary”

 

 

Elon Musk, in his own eyes, is a creator, not a caretaker. Musk thrives on the “visionary thrill” of defining a new category. His public demeanor shifts to excitement only when discussing AI, robots, and space. Musk’s unique talent was in the “dawn of success” phase – defying skeptics, creating markets, and rallying believers. Looking at all the history, it appears that Musk can function emotionally only where he is in the forefront of something new, where he has the only product. That is why Tesla succeeded. There is a clear pattern where Musk thrives in uncontested environments but struggles when competition emerges, this pattern existing across Tesla, SpaceX, xAI, and the Robotaxi/Optimus projects.

 

The psychological pattern where Musk thrives as a pioneering visionary in uncontested spaces but recoils from direct, incremental competition, is the key to understanding Tesla’s monumental, high-risk AI pivot. Faced with an increasingly competitive EV market where growth has stalled, Musk is not “fighting” in the traditional sense. Instead, he is abandoning a mature, contested battlefield to stake a claim in what he perceives to be the next, uncontested frontier:full AI autonomy and general-purpose robotics. He is betting the company on becoming the definer and sole leader of these new categories, a position he finds more motivating and which, in his view, would render competition over cars obsolete. This is not a mere adjustment but a wholesale strategic retreat from the competitive car business to fund an assault on the future. Musk’s psychological makeup – his ability to function only when being a pioneer without contest or competition, will become his Achilles’ heel as all his ventures mature into competitive markets.

 

This context makes more intelligible Musk’s fantastic claims about Robotaxi and Optimus, which products are in reality highly questionable. His statements are not predictions based on a mature competitive analysis but instead are “visionary proclamations” designed to define the terms of a new market. In this visionary (and fairytale) world, Optimus is positioned as the foundational product in a new category of “universal humanoid robots”. The promise of the Robotaxi is similar. Yet the foundational scaffolding for both these products is deeply flawed, with neither product showing signs even of viability, much less of explosive success.

 

Elon Musk clearly lacks the temperament for the thankless, incremental work of defending a contested market. He is psychologically ill-suited for a grinding, peer-to-peer fight. His solution is to withdraw entirely from the fight and create a new game where he can once again be the visionary pioneer. There is so far no evidence that Musk can succeed – as Ford Motors and GM have done – when in sustained competition with peers. Musk isn’t a fighter in that sense. He knows only about building a spaceship to go to Mars, with an idea that excites everyone and where he is the only player.

 

A company in direct competition with well-funded equals requires a different kind of leader: one obsessed with quality control, supply chain efficiency, and dealership relations. Musk’s apparent “loss of heart” is from a recognition, conscious or not, that this is not his fight, and that his personal brand is better served by leaping to the next frontier. The immense risk is that he must now execute perfectly on a technological moonshot before the cash from his declining “cash cow” automotive business runs out. This alone may collapse his whole empire.

 

Elon Musk’s advantages and successes so far have been in uncontested areas. That is why Tesla was able to grow so quickly. When Elon Musk first floated the idea of FSD, he imagined he would have no competition, that his product would be one of a kind. That was why he claimed Teslas would be appreciating assets. If in fact Musk’s Teslas were the only car with FSD, they might appreciate. But BYD is giving FSD away free, and public acceptance of FSD under paid subscriptions has been very poor. It was the same with Optimus; Musk assumed he would have the world’s only humanoid robot that would produce trillions in revenue. If it really were the only robot, his prediction might have become true, but there is now so much competition that even if Optimus is a mass-produced success, it will be only a bit player. There is no chance of an Optimus so superior that it would lead the world. In fact, there is a good chance that a useful functioning Optimus may never see the light of day. Strangely, Musk still seems to be under the delusion that his Robotaxi and Optimus will be the only players and will have no competition. This is already clearly a fallacy, but there is no other explanation for Musk’s current claims that Optimus will produce trillions of dollars in profit when Optimus V2 is dead and there still is no functional prototype for V3, much less one ready for mass production. I have dealt with Optimus at length in an earlier article in this series, [19] and will deal with the Robotaxi and FSD in a following article.

 

Competition With a Flawed Product: “Move Fast and Break Things” Meets Reality

Tesla emerged when there was no competition.

There is a factor causing Tesla’s sales collapse, a factor that I have never seen mentioned anywhere, but which might be the most important factor causing Tesla’s sales decline. This factor is competition, but I believe it has been badly misunderstood. When we think of “competition”, we think of essentially equal companies or products vying for customers. Like GM competing with Ford, or McDonald’s competing with KFC. These are essentially peers, and the competition is of a standard, and particular kind. But with Tesla, the competitive picture has actually been very different. Tesla emerged when there was no competition. The choice for an EV was virtually Tesla or nothing, so it’s not a surprise that Tesla could realise 30% or 40% growth. The demand was there, and no one else was filling it at that moment. But then the landscape changed in a way that may be unusual.

 

We know that the first Tesla Roadster was badly flawed, as were the Model 3 and the Cybertruck, and the other models had many flaws and problems as well. The stories about Elon Musk sleeping in the Tesla factory are real, but the reason he did that was because the (Elon Musk-designed) Model 3 had so many flaws when it was already in mass production that the car had to be repeatedly re-designed while already on the assembly line, just to eliminate the faults.  Musk claimed he knew more about manufacturing than anyone who has ever lived on earth. Except that he didn’t. This is a classic case study of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. The fact is that Musk put the Model 3 into production long before it was ready, just like every other product he has made. But sales continued because this was “the only game in town”.

 

When competitors emerged and consumers could compare the Tesla to other choices, Tesla was immediately hurt, and badly hurt. In a short time, Tesla was seen as much over-priced, and not at all “premium” or “luxury” as advertised. Even worse, with the appearance of the multitude of choices in the market (primarily Chinese) Tesla was obviously not competitive on design and style, on features, on range, on autonomous driving, on IT and AI integration, and other factors.

 

This was not peer competition. It was a different kind of competition, where a first-mover in a market was too impatient and brought a badly-flawed product to market. When other competitors realised the demand was there, they created good products, and Tesla’s sales crashed. This kind of thing has happened before. Readers may be interested in the story of the Boeing 247 – the first “real airliner”. The airlines needed larger planes and Boeing produced this model, receiving an immediate order for 100 aircraft from United Airlines – which Boeing owned at the time. Douglas Aircraft watched closely, realised the enormous demand for such aircraft, and closely examined the Boeing version. They identified all the flaws and shortcomings of the Boeing 247 and designed a much-improved aircraft built with better materials. That aircraft was the DC-1, soon to morph into the famed DC-3, and the rest is history. The Boeing 247 died a quick and quiet death after selling its first 100 planes. This story is now repeating with Tesla and BYD (and others).

 

Musk had neither the knowledge nor the character to create a really good product, just as with his FSD, Robotaxi and Optimus V3, his rockets, and everything else. Even his Boring Company is facing lawsuits for moving too quickly with a flawed product. Elon Musk once more followed his “move fast and break things” philosophy. He had a clear entry into a vacant market with lots of demand, and his product sold well only because no one knew what a really good EV would look like. When many other companies entered the market and consumers could compare for the first time, they realised that the Tesla was overpriced, substandard, and lacking features that other manufacturers offered.

 

What this means is that initially Tesla (and Elon Musk) never faced “peer competition” (as between GM and Ford). Tesla enjoyed explosive growth in a vacuum with flawed products only while it had the only product. When competent competitors arrived offering better alternatives, consumers naturally migrated away.  The Financial Times reported that Tesla’s share of global EV sales dropped to 15% as BYD surged past them with a 24% share. The Bloomberg analysis showing BYD’s Seagull outselling the Model Y in China by 4:1 is devastating evidence.

 

CNBC and Automotive News published pieces on Tesla’s quality issues, of recalls affecting about 4,000 Cybertrucks just months after launch; the Autopilot investigation; the 1,000 FSD crashes and 100 deaths. These perfectly illustrate Musk’s “rushed product with flaws” approach, and these aren’t minor issues but fundamental safety problems in flagship products. This is the same reason his SpaceX rockets repeatedly exploded, and the reason Tesla produced only 2% of US cars but had 20% of all recalls.An article in the Atlantic magazine provided crucial psychological context about Musk’s pattern of rushing imperfect products to market and his strategic aversion to true competition.

 

It is interesting how this thesis reframes the competition narrative – it’s not that Tesla is losing to peers, but that consumers are choosing vastly superior alternatives after finally having options. This has strategic implications for Tesla’s future, particularly the Robotaxi and Optimus projects that follow the same rushed-to-market pattern. Tesla is not losing a fair fight between peers; it is being exposed by competent alternatives after years of dominating a market with a substandard, overpriced first-mover product. It is this that created the fatal openings for competitors, the reason Tesla’s brand is steadily eroding, and the reason Tesla will fail. The honeymoon is over. Consumers no longer value Tesla as a unique tech marvel, but compare it to other brands on price, features, and quality—a comparison Tesla increasingly loses.

 

Elon Musk has always had a strategy of “Winning by Default”, not by excellence. Musk’s successes came in greenfield markets with no entrenched competitors. His playbook was to declare a revolutionary vision, attract capital and talent with it, and rush a first-generation product to market to establish dominance before others arrived. The quality of that product was secondary to the speed of its arrival. This strategy worked only as long as the market remained non-competitive. The moment competent, patient, and product-focused competitors entered—like BYD in EVs, Blue Origin in rockets, or a multitude in AI—the flaws in the rushed first-mover product become fatal liabilities. The competitors didn’t need to be “visionary”; they simply needed to execute well on the now-proven market demand.

 

Faced with this unwinnable grind of incremental improvement, Musk’s predictable response is not to fix the core product but to shift focus to a new, uncontested narrative. This is the exact function of the Robotaxi and Optimus announcements. They are not the culmination of Tesla’s automotive success but a strategic and psychological retreat from the automotive battlefield he has already lost. Musk’s response to failure is to execute a “Pre-Emptive Abandonment”. Hence the sudden re-definition of Tesla. Musk isn’t trying to win the EV race because, in his strategic framework, it’s already lost to better competitors. The goal now is to monetise and harvest the existing brand to fund the next leap. This is the most coherent explanation for Tesla’s current, otherwise irrational, strategy. The automotive business is essentially a “concluded experiment”. The high-stakes pivot to AI is in reality a flight from competition. The Robotaxi and Optimus are attractive precisely because they are new greenfield narratives. They allow Musk to reset the clock, be the visionary first-mover again, and attract capital based on future potential, sidestepping the present-day reality of competitive failure.

 

But there is a critical vulnerability here. This time, the competition is aware and moving faster. Waymo has a multi-year safety and operational lead in Robotaxis, as do many Chinese firms. Numerous well-funded robotics firms are working on humanoids that are in many cases vastly superior to Musk’s Optimus. The “vacant market” Musk needs for his pattern to succeed no longer exists, and this will turn his AI pivot from an “escape clause” into a “collision course” with established, capable players. This takes us beyond a simple list of Tesla’s problems to identify a business playbook that is spectacularly effective in a vacuum but catastrophically fragile in the face of genuine competition. Tesla’s sales collapse is the inevitable result. Based on this, the greatest threat to Tesla is not any single competitor, but the end of the era of non-competition across all its target sectors.

 

The new “greenfields” are already crowded. Unlike the early EV market, Tesla is entering the AI/robotics arenas as a laggard, not a pioneer. In both robotics and autonomous driving, well-funded competitors have substantial leads in technology, commercial deployment, and regulatory progress. The uncontested space Musk prefers no longer exists. The underlying problem is that Tesla’s future valuation is based on AI success, but its present cash comes from an auto business in decline. The company must now execute flawlessly on staggeringly complex robotics and autonomy projects while its financial backbone weakens. Analysts call 2026 a “make-or-break” year for this reason. In summary, Tesla’s initial product flaws were masked by no competition. When competent alternatives (BYD’s quality, Xiaomi’s features) arrived, consumers saw Tesla’s true value proposition: overpriced and under-delivered. This pattern is now repeating: The rushed, overhyped, and technically lagging development of Robotaxi and Optimus is running into established competition (Waymo, Chinese robotics firms).

 

The assessment of Musk abandoning Tesla as a race he has already lost, is definitely correct. This means the prognosis for Tesla is to fade out of auto manufacturing and move to “greenfield” areas. In fact, there is a video circulating that says “In a few years no one will even remember that Tesla sold cars. They will know it as an AI and robotics company.” I believe the first statement is true, but as to the second, Tesla may be remembered as one of Elon Musk’s multiple failures.

 

Management and Culture: Core Problems

 

Elon Musk has built a reputation on three main narratives. One as a bold visionary. The perception of a self-made billionaire and as a rebel fighting against corporate greed and government interference. But beneath this carefully constructed image lies a calculated opportunist. He plays both sides and manipulates systems for personal gain. He profits from the very institutions he claims to despise.  Source

 

It is not a secret that Tesla suffers badly from a high-pressure, destabilising environment, with multiple sources revealing the company’s “brutal working conditions” for its staff. Musk’s unforgiving and obsessive management style – a high-pressure dictatorship that permits no dissent or challenges, has led to a mass exodus of key managers and engineers, particularly in the AI/Robotics areas that are critical to the new shift. There have been many published critiques of Tesla’s management and culture, all concluding that the problems with Tesla’s planned AI/Robotics development are systemic. Musk’s “move fast and break things” ethos is combined with a top-down culture of foolish media hype, high-pressure mandates, and wildly unrealistic timelines. This toxic internal culture makes the already formidable technical and commercial challenges even harder to overcome.

 

There is another point I have not seen addressed elsewhere, which is that Elon Musk’s “Hype Engine” has a real cost in all metrics. His public narratives (e.g., Optimus as the “largest product in history”) create immense internal pressure to deliver. When the technical reality—such as Optimus V2 being a canceled failure, or the limited, safety-driver-dependent Robotaxi pilot—diverges sharply from the much-hyped story, it damages morale and both internal and externa trust, a classic symptom of the “reality distortion field” breaking down.

 

The Inevitable Conclusion: The House of Cards

Tesla has lost its place as the top global seller of electric vehicles to Chinese company BYD, capping a year defined by outrage over CEO Elon Musk’s political manoeuvring and the end of United States tax breaks for customers. Source

 

Musk’s empire depends on the automotive cash flow lasting long enough to fund the AI moonshots. However, the strategy killing the car business is accelerating. The new AI ventures are entering crowded markets, not greenfields. Musk’s “loss of heart” has set in motion what may easily be a terminal cycle: abandoning a core business to fund doomed escapes into contested new ones. And Tesla’s trajectory now appears irreversible.

 

I think there is one factor on which the future of Musk’s entire empire depends, and that is the speed at which Tesla auto sales decline. Consumers are massively turning to other EV brands because they now have a choice and can see Tesla as overpriced, inferior, and lacking in features, so that decline could be rapid. I mentioned earlier that the BYD Seagull outsold Tesla’s Model Y in China by 4:1; this experience could be repeated in all countries and with all Tesla models. It is important that Musk is killing two of Tesla’s flagship models and the proposed new model 2, and no new models or total remakes are in planning. Tesla has simply gone into a holding pattern while putting extreme pressure on sales staff to sell more cars – without success.

 

It is very possible that this combination of circumstances could bring Tesla’s car sales to nearly a halt in only one year. The Chinese don’t need Tesla. They already have a vast product choice, so Tesla is quickly losing ground, and the same is true in all of Europe. Canada is now permitting Chinese EVs into the country and Tesla’s sales will almost certainly go to zero. That leaves only the declining US market. In this picture, it is very possible that Tesla’s total auto sales in 2026 could drop by 50% or more from 2025. If that happens, Tesla auto will be little more than a bit player in the auto industry by the end of 2027, and it might even exit the auto business altogether.

 

It seems to me that the only thing that provides hope for Musk’s robotics and AI world is a lot of cash, and that would have to come from Tesla auto sales because SpaceX is spending its extra cash supporting Musk’s x AI. If Tesla can continue to sell nearly 2 million autos a year for 5 to 8 years, Musk’s other ventures might survive. But if Tesla sales totally collapse in one or two years, the entire house of cards will fall. The main question is whether Tesla can prevent a rapid total collapse in auto sales.

The evidence is that Tesla is in a precarious position. The risk of a rapid decline is real, but the situation is a bit more complex and there are some buffers that could prevent an immediate collapse. The negative forces are (1) the intense global EV competition, (2) elimination of customer rebates, (3) the loss of carbon-credit revenue, and (4) “strategic neglect” of the auto business. Factors which might mitigate the decline would include (1) Tesla brand loyalty, (2) perceived leadership in EVs, (3) price cuts and financing give-aways.

 

A 50% drop in Tesla auto sales may not be the most likely scenario. However, customers are abandoning Tesla for perceived low quality and poor value, so the sales decline will not stop, and there is little that Tesla can do. The sales collapse is now almost entirely out of Tesla’s hands; the die is already cast, and future events are already decided.

 

It is true that Tesla still has some brand loyalty in the US and in China, but that can prove to be very fickle. When Musk was involved with DOGE in the US, consumer sentiment shifted so quickly and so violently that not only did Tesla sales (and share price) immediately plunge, but people in many states were vandalising Tesla dealerships and setting Tesla cars on fire. China is a very important market for Tesla, but this bears close watching. Chinese consumers have recently been abandoning many foreign so-called “luxury” brands from the realisation that domestic brands are equivalent or better at 10% of the cost. With platforms like “The Little Red Book”, consumer sentiment can change in days, and these changes are contagious. Just as Chinese consumers were initially infected with Tesla’s “premium” image, they can just as easily be infected with a realisation of the opposite.

 

I would make a note here that my personal experience with Tesla autos is minimal, but I will relate one event. I was a passenger in a Tesla employed as a taxi (with a driver). I have to say I was shocked by the totally featureless interior. The experience was like sitting in a dark grey cardboard box. The car was absolutely featureless. There was nothing, and yet this was Tesla’s most expensive model, a “premium” or “luxury” model. I have been in many luxury cars and I would honestly say that the Tesla was more reminiscent of the interior of a rubbish bin than a luxury auto. I related my experience to several friends who unanimously agreed and said, “I can’t understand why anyone would want to buy a Tesla”. I would add that I was further surprised at the poor quality of the interior materials and the surprisingly poor fit of so many parts. Musk hyped the “minimalist” design of the Tesla as “blue is the new red”, and it seems to have had some success for a while. But when I see the lavish interiors of the multiple brands of Chinese EVs today – and consider the prices – I honestly cannot imagine anyone freely choosing to purchase a Tesla. I cannot.

 

Selling Tesla cars

 

Tesla is being squeezed out of the Chinese market, workers are being pushed to their limits. Source

 

Any auto dealer will tell you they have senior sales staff who have been with them for ten or even 20 years. But in China, Tesla puts such extreme pressure on the sales staff, that in some locations they have 100% turnover every 6 weeks. What is happening?

 

This is the story: Anyone who takes a sales position for consumer products like cars or life insurance, will first look for customers among their family and close friends. They always begin at home because they haven’t the experience to find customers among strangers. But after that, the easy sales are gone and selling is just hard work. Tesla in China hires new people and exposes them to intense pressure to sell at least 30 cars per month, or be fired, and further demands 13-hour workdays, 7 days per week.

 

These new young hires are anxious and afraid, and expose their family members and close friends to intense pressure to “buy a car from me or I will be fired.” And they will usually get a few quick sales. But now the “low-hanging fruit” is gone, and sales to strangers will be much more difficult. But that doesn’t matter to Tesla. The plan is to hire young persons who can sell a few cars to their family and friends. After that, they are disposable, so Musk and Tesla dispose of them. And that’s why the sales staff turnover is 100% every 6 weeks.I believe the picture is similar in Europe and in the US as in China.

 

This is a systematic, cynical approach to sales, sociopathic and rather dirty, that prioritises short-term gains by exploiting new hires’ personal networks before burning them out. This high-pressure environment extends beyond sales to factory workers, with morale problems so severe they required special training sessions. This toxic culture exists even within Tesla’s HR department itself. There are many reports of Tesla HR managers being punished or fired for resistance or complaints, with a strong pattern of suppressing internal criticism. This top-down culture of pressure and denial is not isolated to China; similar crises and high turnover have been reported in Tesla’s US operations.

 

This is a strategy of maximising immediate cash flow, not building a sustainable sales culture. Tesla’s current sales practices are symptomatic of a company in strategic retreat from its original business. And, in anything Elon Musk touches, the human cost is secondary to short-term targets. From the perspective of a cynical analyst, Tesla’s “burn-and-churn” model in China is a logical, if brutal, component of a company in transition. The six-week turnover cycle is efficient for a company in Tesla’s position. It rapidly harvests the “low-hanging fruit” from a salesperson’s network before discarding them, avoiding the cost of long-term development.

 

The End Times

 

Tesla’s car business is now a “Zombie”. It will continue to sell vehicles, but becoming a smaller, niche player in the global auto industry, similar to other storied brands that failed to scale. The cynical forecast is not for an immediate collapse of Tesla, but for a managed decline of the automotive division, paralleled by an aggressive promotion of the AI narrative. If the Robotaxi/Cybercab projects fail to convincingly demonstrate a near-term technological leap (as they are almost certain to do), the financial logic of the entire strategy collapses. The cash cow will run dry before the new bet pays off.

 

The danger is that the markets for AI/robotics is far from “uncontested”, and Tesla’s (and Elon Musk’s) entry to them may trigger the same collapse we are seeing in the auto sector. Tesla’s “pivot” appears destined to repeat the same cycle unless Musk fundamentally changes his approach, which seems unlikely given his stated psychological pattern and his legendary blind stubbornness. In fact, this pivot is already showing signs of the same “rush and expose” pattern that has defined Musk’s history. Musk is executing a perilous strategy, motivated not by a desire to save his first love, but by the need to salvage his legacy and find a new “winning” battle where the visionary thrill still exists.

 

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com

*

NOTES – Part 22
Tesla is Dying (2 of 3)

 

[1] Dark Clouds Gather Over Tesla as Sales Plummet Worldwide
https://futurism.com/the-byte/tesla-sales-down-worldwide

[2] Even Tesla’s Board Are Dumping Their Stock
https://futurism.com/even-tesla-board-dumping-stock

[3] Tesla registrations — and public opinion — are in a free fall
https://www.theverge.com/news/629667/tesla-elon-musk-donald-trump-doge-polling-data

[4] Tesla Sales Fall Off A Cliff Globally, Including Germany, Australia, And China
https://www.carscoops.com/2025/03/tesla-sales-falling-off-a-cliff-globally-including-germany-australia-and-china/

[5] Tesla sales continue to slump across Europe despite April EV sales swell
https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/05/tesla-sales-continue-to-slump-across-europe-despite-april-ev-sales-swell/

[6] Tesla Sales Are Tanking Across The World
https://insideevs.com/news/750076/tesla-sales-tanking-globally/

[7] Tesla Sales Decline in California With Model 3 Plunging 36%
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-03/tesla-sales-decline-in-california-with-model-3-plunging-36

[8] Tesla sales plunge: Biggest decline in history
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/02/business/tesla-sales/index.html

[9] Tesla continues to “haemorrhage” losses in Europe, as fleet operators look elsewhere
https://thedriven.io/2025/05/20/tesla-continues-to-haemorrhage-losses-in-europe-as-fleet-operators-look-elsewhere/

[10] Dark Clouds Gather Over Tesla as Sales Plummet Worldwide
https://futurism.com/the-byte/tesla-sales-down-worldwide

[11] BYD posts robust growth in car sales as it takes on Tesla globally
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/02/cars/china-byd-strong-car-sales-tesla-hnk-intl/index.html

[12] China’s NEVs break through in Europe, accelerate overseas expansion
https://www.shine.cn/biz/auto/2506094504/

[13] BYD outperforms Tesla in Europe
https://www.shine.cn/china-biz-buzz/2505245473/

[14] Competition intensifies! Tesla (TSLA) sales in China in February 2025 were “cut in half”
https://www.tradesmax.com/component/k2/item/22152-tesla

[15] China auto registrations, 2025-04
https://carnewschina.com/2025/04/22/china-ev-registrations-in-week-16-nio-5400-tesla-6800-xiaomi-7200-byd-56300/

[16] Cliff fall 63.6%! Tesla’s monthly sales in China hit its worst in three years
https://chejiahao.autohome.com.cn/info/24030173?reply=reply#pvareaid=2808151

[17] Plummeted 63.6%! Tesla’s sales in China collapsed, and domestic car companies soared 169%
https://www-lf.dongchedi.com/article/7571385709160841771

[18] Carry On
https://www.poetry.com/poem/32040/carry-on

[19] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 20 — Optimus, the Failed Fraud
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/23169/

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

Other Works by this Author

ESSAYS ON CHINAVolume One

ESSAYS ON CHINA Volume 2

ESSAYS ON CHINA Volume Three

Who Starts All The Wars? — New!

What we Are Not Told :German POWs in America – What Happened to Them?

The Richest Man in the World

The Power Behind the Throne

The Jewish Hasbara in All its Glory

PROPAGANDA and THE MEDIA

BERNAYS AND PROPAGANDA

Democracy – The Most Dangerous Religion

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 1 — How the US Became Rich

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 2 — Life in a Failed State

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 3 — The Branding of America

Police State America Volume One

Police State America Volume Two

Essays on America

FILLING THE VOID

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE IN ACTION

THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

False Flags and Conspiracy Theories

Kamila Valieva

 

LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS & PDF ARTICLES

 

Copyright © Larry RomanoffBlue Moon of ShanghaiMoon of Shanghai, 2026


Global Economic Indicator: The Engine of Modern Conflict — Part 4: The Reckoning

$
0
0


The Engine of Modern Conflict — Part 4: The Reckoning

From fictitious capital to fascism: how financial capital must turn to violent extraction abroad and digital repression within. The crisis of capitalism unmasked.


Introduction: The Mask Falls in Munich

 

On February 14th 2026, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stood before the Munich Security Conference and delivered a message that was, in his own words, “a little direct.” To the casual observer, it might have sounded like a routine call for transatlantic unity—a plea for Europe to spend more on defence, to control its borders, and to rediscover pride in “Western civilization.” Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, called it “reassuring.”

 

But for those paying attention, the speech was something else entirely. It was a candid articulation of the doctrine this article will dissect: the final, desperate logic of a financialized empire shedding its last pretences.

 

Rubio’s address was laced with nostalgia for explorers and empires, for a time when the West “expanded—its missionaries, its pilgrims, its soldiers, its explorers pouring out from its shores to cross oceans, settle new continents, build vast empires.” This was not merely historical reflection. It was a prescription for the present. The “rules-based international order,” he argued, was an “overused term” born of a “foolish idea” that the national interest could be subordinate to global norms. The United Nations, he declared, “has no answers,” pointing to Gaza, Ukraine, Iran, and Venezuela as proof.

 

And then came the confession that matters most for this analysis. When Rubio justified recent American actions, he did not speak of spreading democracy or defending international law. He spoke of raw power applied for specific, material ends. On Iran, he boasted that diplomacy and the UN were “powerless” to constrain Tehran’s nuclear program. Instead, he said that “required 14 bombs dropped with precision from American B-2 bombers.” On Venezuela, he was equally blunt: international institutions were “unable to address the threat,” so “it took American Special Forces to bring this fugitive to justice.”

 

This is the core of the matter. The “fugitive” in question was a head of state, and the “justice” was a unilateral extraction justified by the imperatives of national power. Rubio was not outlining a new policy; he was giving voice to the systemic logic that has been driving U.S. foreign policy for decades, now stripped of its diplomatic nicetiesThe “international order” Washington claims to defend is being explicitly discarded, replaced by a doctrine of direct action to secure what the empire requires.

 

This article is an analysis of why this is happening. It will trace the path from financialized crises to the imperial logic of geopolitical conflict, arguing that the wars and confrontations of our era are not separate disputes but a single, desperate war. A war waged by a system that has exhausted internal growth and now seeks to seize the last remaining reservoirs of real, tangible collateralby any means necessary. Rubio’s speech in Munich was not a departure from this reality. It was its most honest articulation yet.

 

Financialized Crises and the Imperial Logic of Geopolitical Conflict

 

There is mainstream narrative of the current cycle of escalating global violence, and then there is the real one.

The mainstream media sees separate conflicts. Russia invaded Ukraine, compelled by some primordial imperial ambition. The United States confronts China over competing visions of the Indo-Pacific order. Iran is pursued for its nuclear programVenezuela is sanctioned for its authoritarianism—or narco-terrorism, or support for Hamas. Through the lens of the conventional narrative these are distinct problems requiring distinct solutions.

 

The truth is that these are one conflict. In reality, Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela are not separate targets but successive fronts in a single war. Not a war of nations against nations, though it takes that form. It is a single war orchestrated by a system against everything that obstructs its survival.

 

This is not metaphor. It is the logic of financialized capitalism in its terminal stage.

 

The Pyramid and Its Hunger

 

To understand where we are, we must first understand upon what we stand.

 

For decades now, the economies of the Western world have not really grown. Not in the sense that matters. Real productive capacityfactories, infrastructure, the tangible apparatus that actually makes thingshas stagnated or been offshored. What has grown instead is the paper.

 

Stocks. Bonds. Derivatives. Sovereign debt. Securitized mortgages. Futures contracts on everything from oil to rainfall. This is not wealth in any real senseIt is fictitious capital: claims on value that has not yet been produced, bets on future revenue that may never materialize, titles to wealth that exists only because enough people agree to pretend it exists.

 

And yet this fictitious capital must be treated as wealth. Bonuses are paid from it. Pensions depend on it. Private jets are bought with it. Entire economies are organized around its continuous inflation. So, the system does what it must: it creates more paper to validate the existing paper. It layers debt upon debt, leverage upon leverage, derivative upon derivative. It builds a pyramid so vast that its peak is invisible, and so heavy that its base is cracking.

 

This was not anyone’s intentional design. It is the emergent logic of a system in which every individual actor is rationally compelled to behave in ways that collectively guarantee collapse. Refuse to accept the risks everyone else accepts, and you are excluded from the game. Accept them, and you help inflate the pyramid another inch closer to breaking point.

 

For a long time, the pyramid could be stabilized through internal extraction. Privatization cannibalized the public sector. Structural adjustment stripped the Global South. Financialization hollowed out the domestic working class. Each crisis—2000, 2008, 2020—was met with more liquidity, more debt, more paper. Each solution made the pyramid heavier and its foundation weaker.

 

But there comes a point when internal extraction is no longer enough. When the system has consumed everything digestible within its existing boundaries. When the only remaining source of real value lies outside the pyramid’s walls, controlled by powers that refuse to subordinate their resources to its valuation.

 

At that point, the hunt for collateral becomes geopolitical.


What Is Actually Being Fought For

 

Consider the wars and confrontations of the past two decades. Not their stated justifications—those are for public consumption—but their material function within the logic of the pyramid.

Iraq and Libya: Not about weapons of mass destruction or humanitarian intervention. About unlocking state-controlled hydrocarbon reserves and subordinating them to Western capital markets. Every seized asset, every enforced arbitration award, every new debt contract tied to future oil barrels becomes a brick of real collateral added to the base of the pyramid. The physical oil is secondary. The paper created from it is the immediate prize.

 

Venezuela: Not about democracy—or narco-terrorism, or Hamas. About the last major oil reserve in the Western hemisphere not fully integrated into the dollar-debt system. Its subordination would open trillions in assets for securitization. Its resistance is therefore intolerable.

 

Iran: Not about nuclear weapons. About one of the final state-controlled hydrocarbon complexes still operating outside Western financial circuits. Its integration would inject fresh collateral into a starving system. Its continued autonomy is a standing reproach. It is also a geopolitical leverage against China, which we will come to in a moment.

 

Russia: It’s not about Ukraine, civilizational values or even NATO expansion directly despite being the proximate cause. The expansion of NATO up to Russia’s borders was intended precisely to either provoke the current war or render Russia militarily neutered for the same purpose. Neutralizing a resource superpower that has demonstrated an alternative model: one in which national wealth backs national sovereignty, not Wall Street derivatives. Russia’s defeat would not only open its own vast reserves to financialization; it would eliminate a proof-of-concept that threatens the pyramid’s ideological monopoly.

 

China: This is the confrontation that clarifies all others. China is not merely another resource-rich state awaiting integration. It is an entire economic civilization organized on a different logic. State-directed. Productive. Building real infrastructure across three continents and accepting payment in resources or local currency rather than dollar-denominated debt. The Belt and Road Initiative is not aid; it is the construction of an alternative collateral network, a parallel system of economic organisation that does not require the perpetual inflation of fictitious claims.

 

This is why China is the existential threat. Not because it competes for hegemony within the existing order, but because it is building an order outside it. Its defeat or subjugation would deliver the ultimate prize: a continent-sized repository of real industrial capacity and productive assets to serve as collateral for the overextended pyramid.

 

The Parasite and Its Host

 

Here we encounter a paradox that the common analysis cannot resolve. If finance capital is globalized, if its elites operate across borders and owe allegiance to no single state, why do they require American military power? Why the fixation on Iran, Russia, and China as national targets?

 

The answer requires us to discard the Lenin-era model of inter-imperial rivalry. We are not witnessing German capital against British capital, American capital against Japanese capital. Contemporary finance capital is genuinely international. It has no home. It holds assets in every currency, operates in every jurisdiction, and extracts value from every continent.

 

But it has no army. It has no capacity to enforce its own conditions of accumulation. It cannot seize oil fields, compel arbitration, or overthrow sovereign governments. It is therefore parasiticnot upon any single host, but upon the residual military capacity of the United States.

This is the true function of the “American” part of the empire in its twilight: not to advance the interests of American national capital, but to serve as the global enforcer for a stateless oligarchy. The dollar is both the currency this oligarchy seeks to transcend and the weapon it wields against rivals. The US military is both the institution this oligarchy starves of funding for its owm ends and the instrument it deploys without limit for geopolitical extraction.

 

The relationship is dysfunctional, unsustainable, and increasingly desperate. But it is the only relationship available. Without American coercion, the pyramid cannot access the collateral it requires. Without the pyramid’s financing, American coercion cannot continue. Each enables the other; each consumes the other; neither can survive without the other.

This is not strength. It is mutual addiction in its final, convulsive phase.

 

The Exception That Cannot Be Tolerated

 

China’s crime is not its size or its military modernization or its “territorial claims.” Its crime is its success.

According to research by Isikara & Mokre, analysing multi-regional input-output tables covering 159 industries over twenty-five years, the cumulative international value transfers from the Global South to the North over this period exceed seventy trillion eurosThe largest net losers: Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Russia. The largest net gainersJapan, Europe, the United States.

 

And China? In the 1990s, China was a significant net loser—exploited, like the rest of the periphery, its labour and resources extracted to subsidize Northern consumption. But since the Great Recession of 2008, China has become a net gainer. It has shifted its position in the global hierarchy.

 

How? Not through financialization. Not through the inflation of fictitious claims. Through high investment and technological advance. Through a rising organic composition of capital. Through an economic logic in which investment decisions are less determined by short-term profitability than in any other major economy.

 

China has done what the post-war developmental states did, but at continental scale and in compressed time. It has escaped the condition of perpetual value extraction that defines peripheral status under financialized imperialism. It has built productive capacity and retained the surplus it generates. It has demonstrated that another path exists.

 

This is intolerable. Not because it threatens American jobs or the Indo-Pacific security order or any of the other euphemisms deployed in policy discourse. Because it exposes the pyramid for what it is: not the natural order of economic life, but a specific, contingent, and increasingly dysfunctional mode of accumulation that survives only by foreclosing alternatives.

 

A system that must prevent success elsewhere to sustain itself at home is not a system with a future. It is a system in hospice, kept alive by increasingly desperate interventions that accelerate rather than arrest its decline.

 

The Illusion and Its Exposure

 

Imagine, to return to a metaphor from a previous article in this series, what would happen if the players in a high-stakes poker game realized the bank was empty and they were really just playing for coloured chips.


This is the moment the system fears above all others. Not defeat in any particular conflict. Not the loss of this oil field or that pipeline. The loss of belief. The recognition that the wealth everyone has been chasing exists only as long as everyone agrees to pretend it exists.

 

The hunt for geopolitical collateral is therefore not primarily about the assets themselves. It is about maintaining the illusion that there is something real behind the paperEach seized oil field, each subordinated central bank, each integrated resource reserve is a signal to the markets: the pyramid still has real foundations. The game still means something. The chips can still be cashed in.

 

This is why the conversion of fictitious capital into real capital is so destructive, even when it succeeds. The collateral consumed in the conversion is not added to the pyramid’s base; it is burned to fuel the illusion that the base exists. The oil fields of Iraq produce less oil under occupation than they did under sanctions. Libya remains a failed-state-hellscape. The Chinese industrial capacity that represents the ultimate prize is also the prize that, if actually pursued through war, would be largely destroyed in the acquisition.


The system is consuming its own future to prolong its present. This is not sustainable. It is not even rational, in any collective sense. It is the behaviour of an organism that cannot recognize its own mortality, thrashing against the inevitable with increasing violence and diminishing returns.


The Choice That Is Not a Choice

 

We are told that the choice before us is between the existing order and chaos, between American leadership and Chinese domination, between the rules-based international system and the law of the jungle. This is the framing of those who benefit from the existing order and cannot imagine—or cannot permit—its replacement.

 

The actual choice is different. It is between the slow asphyxiation of debt-peonage and rentier control, and the catastrophic convulsions of a system that refuses to expire quietly. It is between managed decline and uncontrolled collapse. It is between accepting that the pyramid cannot be saved, and accelerating the wars that will be fought in its name.

 

This is not a hopeful analysis. It does not conclude with policy recommendations or calls for reform. The pyramid cannot be reformed. Its logic is not a set of policies that can be reversed but a structural imperative that has driven every actor within the system, for decades, toward the same destination. The individual players have marginal agency; they are prisoners of a game they did not design and cannot unilaterally exit. Their rational choices, aggregated, produce systemic irrationality. Their short-term survival strategies guarantee long-term extinction. They cannot be rationally appealed to.

 

The only question is how long the propping can continue, and at what cost to the societies being cannibalized. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza, the confrontations in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, the sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, the slow grinding extraction of value from the Global South through debt and structural adjustmentall of these are the cost. They are not unfortunate side effects of an otherwise functional system. They are the system’s essential operating expenses, the price of delaying its reckoning one more quarter, one more fiscal year, one more election cycle.

 

The Violence Turns Inward: The Rise of the Post-Liberal State

 

The current structural crisis of capitalism is not merely an economic downturn; it is a systemic legitimacy crisis that is accelerating the mutation of Western liberal democracies into something far more authoritarian. As traditional avenues for capital accumulation falter and social contracts fray under the weight of inequality, the ruling class is abandoning the pretence of consent in favour of direct coercion.

 

The decades-long drift toward a surveillance state has now crystallized into a fully-fledged digital panopticon, where Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) promise not just monetary control but the capacity for real-time financial censorship and social credit scoring. This technological infrastructure of control is being normalized on the streets by the visible presence of armed federal agents and the tacit acceptance of anonymous, masked militias who enforce the new normal through intimidation and violence.

 

The once utopian rhetoric of Silicon Valley and the World Economic Forum has soured into a dystopian managerialism, openly dismissing democratic processes as obstacles to efficiency. We must recognize that fascism in the 21st century does not require

 

The Reckoning

 

There will be a reckoning. Not because justice demands it, though it does, and not because the victims of this system deserve relief, though they do. Because the contradictions are now too concentrated and the collateral too depleted. Because a pyramid with a shrinking base cannot grow indefinitely. Because a system that must constantly escalate to survive has nowhere left to escalate.

 

The form this reckoning takes is not predetermined. It could be the catastrophic war that the geopolitical confrontation is preparing. It could be the sudden, quiet collapse of an overextended financial institution that reveals, too late, that the emperor has no clothes. It could be the slow disintegration of American coercive capacity, leaving the global enforcer unable to enforce and the parasitic oligarchy without its host. It could be the continued construction, by China and its partners, of an alternative economic order that simply renders the Western pyramid irrelevant.

 

What it will not be is a return to stability within the existing framework. That framework is exhausted. It has extracted everything extractable from its traditional domains. It has financialized every asset susceptible to financialization. It has subordinated every state vulnerable to subordination. What remains are the powers that cannot be subordinated without war, and the assets that cannot be financialized without destroying them in the process.

 

The terrible irony is that victory in any or all of the current confrontations would not resolve the underlying diagnosis. It would only delay the inevitable, while consuming the collateral that might have supported a genuine transition. The system’s bid for survival through escalation is what makes total collapse—or catastrophic war—most likely. It is the final, fatal logic of a mode of accumulation that has outlived its historical function and now survives only by cannibalizing its own future.

 

There is no moral to this story, no concluding prescription for how to avert the catastrophe. The catastrophe is already underway. It has been underway for decades, wearing the disguises of structural adjustment and financial innovation and humanitarian intervention and great power competition. The task is not to prevent what cannot be prevented, but to recognize it for what it is: not a series of disconnected crises, but one crisis with many fronts. Not a failure of policy, but the successful execution of a system whose success is indistinguishable from its collapse.

 

The pyramid stands, for now. Its peak is invisible, its base is cracking, and its architects are frantically stuffing the last available bricks of real collateral into its foundations. They believe they are saving the edifice. They are only delaying its fall, while ensuring that when it falls, it takes everything down with it.

 

This is not pessimism. It is realism of the only kind that remains useful: the realism that refuses to mistake the system’s survival for health, its escalation for strength, its violence for purpose. The pyramid will fall. The only remaining questions are when, and how, and what we are willing to build from its ruins.