Diplomacy
Palantir CEO Alex Karp says he would not vote for ‘pro-Russian’ AfD in Germany
The co-founder and chief executive of Palantir, Alex Karp, has stated that while he understands the rise of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, he would not vote for the group if he lived in Germany, describing it as “pro-Russian”.
Speaking as a guest on a programme hosted by Mathias Döpfner, the chairman of the German media conglomerate Axel Springer, Karp addressed a wide range of subjects, including the war in Ukraine, artificial intelligence (AI), Palantir’s surveillance technologies, and the state of German politics.
Döpfner noted that when they first met at a party in 2003, Karp was viewed as an “interesting left-wing intellectual”. Asked how he had since transitioned into what some describe as a “dark figure of the radical right”, Karp rejected the characterisation, asserting that the image is inaccurate and that he receives widespread support when meeting ordinary people.
“Every investor in Silicon Valley would cut off their right arm to have a fanbase like ours,” Karp said. “Probably their left arm too.”
Asserting that Palantir’s products—specifically its data analytics and investigative software, Gotham—have made history by preventing terrorist attacks and playing a central role in the defence of Ukraine, Karp argued that a cultural divide exists between Europe and the United States.
“In the US, when it comes to a new technology, the first question asked is not whether we find the person behind it likeable,” Karp said. “Instead, the key question is: does the technology work? Is it better? Does it make companies more successful? In Europe, however, these questions are often not asked at all. Or at least, not in the right way. Because if these questions were taken seriously, one might reach the uncomfortable conclusion that a significant portion of technological infrastructure will, for the foreseeable future, have to come from the United States.”
While acknowledging that Palantir face rejection from certain sections of the political and media elite, Karp maintained that the vast majority of Germans simply want to know whether the company’s products are effective.
Karp claimed that his firm possesses the world’s only industrial-scale “application layer” of its size, which he said prevents data from being harvested or misused by large language model providers.
According to Karp, the supreme irony is that “in Europe, in the name of data protection, technically uninformed bureaucrats are fighting the very company that makes this data protection possible in the first place.”
Arguing that Europe suffers from a fundamental deficit in technological competence, the Palantir founder added: “Economically, Palantir does not need the European market. But Europe is very important to me. That is why this debate interests me.”
Comparing concepts of freedom, Karp observed that in the US, rights are primarily understood as protections against the state, whereas Europe places greater emphasis on economic rights.
Identifying himself as a progressive, Karp defined his philosophy as defending the rights of individuals “even if I do not personally like them”.
He described the frequent depiction of Palantir’s other co-founder, Peter Thiel, as “anti-democratic” or a “religious fanatic” as a scandal.
“I have known him since our time together at Stanford,” Karp said of Thiel. “He was a political outlier on the right back then, but he was certainly no enemy of democracy. The narratives about Peter rarely withstand objective scrutiny. The same applies to Palantir. Therefore, I find the question of why people still want to believe these stories far more interesting. My impression is that a very American form of political polarisation is blending with German traditions. What emerges is no longer a German debate, but an imported American culture war logic. Yet historically, Germany would ask a completely different question: not ‘do we like this person?’ but ‘can we afford the luxury of learning nothing from him?'”
Germany, Karp argued, should currently possess the world’s second-most powerful technology sector.
“Yet Germany is now barely represented in this league,” Karp said. “Germany’s largest listed company is Siemens. Palantir’s value today is significantly higher than Siemens’. In fact, I believe Palantir is still undervalued at present.”
Turning to German domestic politics, Karp described the rise of radical parties in the country as entirely predictable.
The Palantir executive argued that those who accepted large-scale migration into Germany “without involving the public and openly discussing the consequences” should not be surprised by the political outcome. He pointed to an “incredibly difficult and painful inability to speak openly about obvious facts” in Europe, and particularly in Germany.
At this point, Döpfner intervened, suggesting that Karp was avoiding the question and pressed further: “What do you think of the AfD? Palantir is assisting Ukraine in its war against Russia. In contrast, the AfD has repeatedly demanded that Ukraine be forced to negotiate with Russia. Leading representatives of the party reverse the roles of perpetrator and victim. How do you assess this? I ask this question so directly because some imply that Peter Thiel or you share a certain affinity with the AfD.”
Karp responded by emphasizing that whilst he understands why the AfD has achieved success, this does not mean he supports them.
“If I were a German citizen, I would not vote for them,” Karp said. “I have no interest in supporting a party that shows understanding for Putin or harbours sympathy for the Chinese Communist Party.”
He suggested that many people vote for the AfD as a protest, believing that established parties no longer wish to take issues like migration seriously or resolve them, which drives voters toward the AfD.
Karp noted that people who genuinely care about Germany have pointed to this development for years and have often been publicly discredited. Addressing Döpfner directly, Karp said: “You are a good example of this. My impression is that on many social issues, you are slightly to the left of the centre-left. Fundamentally, you would probably be classified by many Americans as a classical liberal or even mildly left-wing. Yet you are regularly attacked in Germany. All this while you resolutely oppose the AfD. You have no sympathy for Putin; on the contrary, we both know that Russia poses a direct threat to the West.”
Karp added that both he and Döpfner defend democracy, the West, and support for Ukraine. When Döpfner stated that he also views the success of the AfD as the result of a weak political centre, whilst rejecting the party as an alternative due to its pro-Russian, anti-American, and anti-capitalist stances, Karp responded: “I largely agree with that.”
Nonetheless, Karp maintained that many voters support the party not because of its broader platform, but because they feel ignored by the political establishment.
Karp acknowledged that AI represents both an opportunity and a threat. However, he argued that European discussions on AI often focus on issues that have already been settled in the US, describing it as though Europe is discussing a “light” version of the technology.
“Germany must reshape its industry with the help of AI,” Karp said. “The automotive industry, the chemical sector—practically all key industries are on the verge of a profound transformation. At the same time, the workforce is shrinking, energy costs remain high, and international competition is intensifying. There is only one serious answer to this: AI.”
Karp asserted that nothing will change unless the German Chancellor publicly declares that the country is in a crisis. He argued that Germany requires individuals who have successfully built global enterprises in the past, naming figures such as Tobias Lütke, Philipp Schindler, and Peter Thiel.
“This task cannot be solved by people who have never established a global technology company,” Karp claimed.
“Germany must do everything it can to win back such entrepreneurs and provide them with the necessary freedom,” he continued. “Technology companies do not emerge from a four-day working week. They are built by people who work for years with an almost fanatical dedication. Around the clock. And of course, this includes the ability to replace teams when things do not work out. This does not mean I fundamentally question workers’ rights. On the contrary. But a top engineer working in AI requires a different employment law framework than many traditional industrial professions. I would also establish a special economic zone—a region where the same competitive conditions apply as those in the United States, Israel, or China. Because this is where the global technology competition is taking place today.”
While admitting that AI carries risks, Karp argued that the primary danger does not lie in the existence of AI itself, but in the prospect of democratic societies failing to utilise its potential out of fear.
The chief executive stated he is certain that AI will raise the standard of living for most people, though he noted that those who develop and control these technologies could become 10, 20, or 100 times wealthier than they are today.
Recalling that past industrial revolutions enriched entrepreneurs, Karp added: “But inequalities remained within a framework that society could accept. Today, however, the wealth gap is reaching dimensions that many people cannot even imagine.”
Karp observed that societies have been divided for much longer than people care to admit. “When you add an unprecedented concentration of wealth to this social distance, a politically explosive environment is created,” he warned. “Many people fear becoming redundant.”
When asked by Döpfner about the geopolitical tech race between the West and an alliance of authoritarian states including China, Russia, and Iran, Karp expressed confidence that the moral standards of the Western world would serve as a competitive advantage.
He attributed part of Ukraine’s military success to Palantir’s ability to protect data and strengthen digital sovereignty.
“Technology does not develop in a vacuum,” Karp said. “Those who gain experience under real operational conditions gain an advantage. This is why I view China’s supposed advantages partly as disadvantages. It is often claimed that China has much larger volumes of data. What matters is not the quantity of data, but what can be done with it.”
Karp said it remains impossible to predict whether the US or China will lead technologically in a decade. However, he warned that if the West restricts technologies critical to its competitiveness, Russia, China, and Iran will immediately exploit the gap.
While Karp said he did not believe every campaign against Palantir was orchestrated by adversaries, he added: “But of course, authoritarian states attempt to influence these very debates.”
Acknowledging China’s significant capabilities, Karp argued that the primary challenge lies not in Beijing, but in whether Europe and America can maintain their political capacity to act.
“We must fight with all our strength to avoid waking up in societies where freedom and the rule of law are nothing more than memories,” Karp said, calling for a society where the best can succeed.
He described his vision of a society where as many people as possible have equal opportunities, but where outcomes depend on “talent, discipline, effort—and yes, to some extent, luck.”
Concluding his remarks, Karp said: “A society where the rule of law applies to everyone. A society where freedom of expression does not depend on whether an opinion pleases us. A society where data protection applies even to those we personally dislike. A society where state power remains limited, where people can be creative and are rewarded for their achievements. At the same time, a sufficient number of people must share in this prosperity so that social cohesion can be preserved. But what worries me is this: today, many people who consider themselves progressive are fighting against this very order. They define people by their origins or identities. They no longer treat freedom as a universal principle, but as a privilege. Palantir and I are working precisely against this—by giving people greater sovereignty over their data, and by supporting democracies like Ukraine, Israel, or the United States to defend themselves against authoritarian adversaries.”
Diplomacy
The West is preparing for war not with Russia, but with its own people, French analyst Georges Kuzmanovic insists
Editor’s note: French geopolitical analyst Georges Kuzmanovic, in his speech at the East-West Forum held in Istanbul on September 26, emphasized that the West, particularly the European Union, is in a profound political and moral collapse. Stating that Western leaders are completely detached from reality and constantly fuel war out of resentment born from failed globalization, Kuzmanovic pointed out that Europe has lost its sovereignty to neoliberal oligarchies and US tutelage. Expressing that the sabotaging of the 2022 Istanbul Accord by NATO and the relentless sanctions ended in failure, he conveyed that the West cannot come to terms with the independent rise of the Global South.
Well, thank you first for organizing this gathering. This is a great idea, this East West Forum. And I am here also to say to everybody hello from Emmanuel Todd, who was not able to come. He was invited, but he had family issues. And yeah, I would like to see the comeback of the European Enlightenment. But I think that we are first to hit the wall and this is what we are doing. As Thomas expressed, we are in a rapid decline. And in order to have a new Europe, we need to have a change of our leaders. And as Mikael von der Schulenburg said, our leaders, most of them are completely disconnected from reality in a point that is really Orwellian.
And that’s why EU right now is really a pole of instability. It’s always about war talks, war talks, war talks. Firstly against Russia, of course, but not only, of course, Iran. And somewhere somehow with China and in the future with India, it’s already started to build up the mindset again against India because it is rising. And the reason, the profound reason, is because all these leaders, especially the politics and mediatic leaders, a little bit less the industrial businessmen, but they are pissed off. They are pissed off because the globalization went completely wrong. They organized it in order to get all the benefits and all the rest of the planet to work and to be thankful to be working for the Western elite. Well, that doesn’t go well.
And also they’re speaking about European values, democratic values, respect of human beings. But the problem is that you cannot have these values if 10% of the population is consuming 50% of world resources. So that’s the basic problem. And the rest of the world is saying it’s enough and they are not accepting it. So that’s why they’re in complete panic, I think. And that’s why they are more and more vassalized to the United States in the hope that somehow the next strike, the next bomb, the next attack will change something. Because of course all these people who are running Russia, Iran, China, India, Modi is a bad guy, everything. Well, if there is a one strike, the people will rise and change the government because we are the good. And these people of course understand the good. And all their leaders are bad. So there is no space for negotiation. And when you don’t have space for negotiation, well, you cannot find any solution.
And there is a saying from a French humorist, it’s very funny, translate in French is the enemy is stupid because it doesn’t understand that he is the enemy. That’s exactly the mindset. And that’s why all the enemies are somehow Hitler. So Milosevic was Hitler and Saddam Hussein was Hitler and Gaddafi was Hitler and of course Putin, he’s Hitler. And it’s absurd. First Hitler loses hands. If everybody is a Nazi, then nobody’s a Nazi, which is a problem. And of course you cannot discuss with a great evil, so you cannot find solutions.
And I feel the same. I come from the left. I’ve been a long time political leader in the left parties and I have the same feeling with left parties. Until five, six years ago, they were very much about anti globalization protest and gatherings. But if you have noticed, there is no more anti globalization gatherings because it was all about left people from left, European left parties or American explaining to the south, global, global south people how to, how to become something, how to make the revolution, how to grow. But now that these global south countries are organizing by themselves, it’s less interesting.
Yeah, of course we, we need to, if we, if we want Europe to come back on international stage, we need to get back our sovereignty. This has been already told. So of course we lose it. We lost it for united Europe, for sorry, for the European Union, for NATO, but also and eventually for our own oligarchs. And that’s maybe the main problem is that this neoliberalism dogma created an oligarchy in western countries that has taken power. If I take, if I take the example of France, it’s nine billionaire controls like 95% of the medias and six among them are producing weapons. So here we are.
And they are also pissed off because as it was said in 2022 with the memorandum of Istanbul, which was a good solution. A few weeks after the start of this terrible war in Ukraine, which is kind of a third European suicide. Well, as you know, the story will not repeat. NATO countries, especially Boris Johnson went to Kyiv and said, guys, you have to continue the war. And they were convinced the deal was hold the line six months against Russian soldiers. We will defeat them economically and this doesn’t happen. And since they are in complete disarray, so we are on the 21st, 22nd, I don’t know, bunch of sanctions. It didn’t work.
And at the same time, Americans have lost a war in five weeks in Iran. So it’s terrible for people who consider themselves as the leader of the world. And as NATO even said, they have unconscious belief that they are the tops of the world and the rest are the barbarian. Well, if you don’t quit that mindset, then you cannot advance. You can do nothing. It’s so crazy that they are not even interested in what’s going on in Global South. I know because with my friend we created this media fragrance, popular Pedro, who is here. We are traveling around the world to cover the BRICS summits. Well, we are about the only European journalist to be there. It’s crazy. This is not covered even recently in New Delhi.
Well, to summarize with leaders that are, as Colonel Davis said and the others are blocked in 92 and in the Fukuyama concept of the end of history, with people that cannot see the world, that only see the world as war and they have to win the wars, even if it’s absurd, they have not the means to defeat the opponent. I think we have a bigger role. That’s why it’s here. What you’re doing is fantastic. It’s that we have to push for peace. As Professor Zhang Weiwei said, as the first of the six pillars is peace. And what we are all doing as we can is to push for peace. And because it went very wrong.
I think I wouldn’t agree with your interpretation of socialism, because it’s of course based on the Marx work. And if you read Marx, it’s not against violence. It’s not about peacefully achieved upgrade of the human society. On the contrary, it’s a violence blood, even more blood would uprise the majority. It’s like injustice of the humanity that found itself embodied like Haitian way into a working class. And that is why all these injustice allegedly embedded in a working class. Given that working class right to forcefully by war, by killing, overtaken the society and impose violently that imaginary society of communism. So it’s not socialism is like. It’s not democrat socialism of the post second World War Europe. No, it’s something else.
I wanted to add something else, but now I forgot. Yes. In the Second World War, in Croatia, nowadays, Croatia, there was Ustaše state with of course, fascist ideology. Puppet state, they say. But not puppet state, but ally state of Nazi Germany, where Catholic Church was hand in hand with this Ustaše movement. And not a single priest would say no to killing of around 1 million Serbs, Jews, Roma in a system of concentration camps. So even there were priests involved in killing and baptizing these Serbs, like rebaptizing into Catholicism. So we. Well, it’s a very complex phenomenon.
Yeah. It’s about the rapid decline and schizophrenia of our countries. As Colonel Davis is often saying on Deep Dive. It’s bizarre because our leaders are preparing us for war against Russia since already four and a half years. Last year, in the gathering of the mayors of France, which is not the place, the chief of staff took the microphone and it was a speaker and he said that we have to prepare for war in 2030 against Russia. Okay, why not? But there is no conscription, no off conscription, no more tanks built, no more ammunitions. And it’s strange, but there is one thing that is that the boat, a lot of tanks for civil arrest, for the gendarmerie and for the police, and both units are armed to the teeth.
And I think that, okay, they cannot make peace with Russia right now. And all these talks, war are, if I take the example of France, in which we have a presidential election, it is to avoid the main discussions which are why our debt is so crazy, why and is rising very fast, why interest rate is rising very fast, almost eating 5% for the 10 years or 80. Why, why the young people cannot have employment, why the wages are so, so, so, so small, why the diesel price will hit €3 per liter, which is completely insane, and nobody will be able to work on that price. So in order to avoid that and to prepare for the civil unrest will come. They’re speaking about war in Russia, but I’m saying that they’re preparing more to fight their own people.
Diplomacy
Europe has been under US occupation since World War II, Italian journalist and author Thomas Fazi says
Editor’s note: Italian journalist and author Thomas Fazi, in his speech at the East-West Forum held in Istanbul on September 26, stated that European countries disregard their own fundamental economic and security interests, particularly in the context of the Ukraine war. Pointing out that this irrational policy cannot be explained by mere lack of foresight, Fazi expressed that the European continent has been turned into a “vassal” subordinate to transatlantic interests as a result of an ongoing process since the Second World War. Emphasizing that NATO operates as an apparatus to keep the continent under control rather than functioning as a defense organization, the author noted that the EU serves as the political wing of this imperialist order.
Thank you, Isabelle. And obviously a big thanks to the European Transcontinental Initiative and to Ulrike for setting up this amazing conference, which is a much needed breath of sanity. Amid the insanity that we’re experiencing in Europe at the moment.
Yeah, I’d like to start with something that Professor Panda said this morning when he spoke of the return of the national interest. And I think that got me thinking because I think that’s true for most countries. But there is one big exception, I think, to that rule. That big exception is Europe.
I think if we look at the actions of European countries in recent years in economic policy, security policy, geopolitics, most notably when it comes to the war in Ukraine, I think it’s really impossible to make the case that European countries have been pursuing their national interests, no matter how loosely you want to define it. European countries have systematically undermined their core economic interests, security interests and geopolitical interests. And so the question, the obvious question is why? And I think there are two explanations.
So one is that European leaders were simply misguided, foolish, that they were and still are pursuing what they believe to be their country’s national interest, even if even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I think this may be conceivable if the consequences of these actions had been impossible to predict. But this clearly was not the case. It was self evident, for example, that decoupling from cheap Russian gas would have disastrous consequences for Europe, as has been.
And I, and many of us wrote about this in February and March of 2022, not because we were profits, but because it was obvious, just as it was obvious to everyone Ukraine had no chance of militarily defeating Russia, even with NATO support, support, and that therefore to push for a maximalist, military only solution to the conflict would have devastating consequences, first and foremost for Ukraine, obviously, but also for Europe, as has been not only in economic terms, but in security terms as well.
Of course, and again, many of us have said this right from day one. So unless we assume that European leaders didn’t understand this, that they would, that they’re just dumb, and as much as some of them clearly are, unless we assume that the entire EU establishment was simply too dumb to see what was clear to many observers, that is that these policies clearly ran counter to Europe’s interests and then doubled down on these policies when it became evident how contrary they were to those interests, I think then we have to consider an alternative explanation, and that is that Europe’s elites have not for a long time had the national interest in mind or even the collective interest of Europe as a whole, no matter how you want to define it.
In other words, I think the classic rule realist framework that contends that all states tend to defend and maximize their interests economically, militarily, et cetera. Really doesn’t apply to Europe because based on that framework, Euro’s policies are totally irrational. So I think in order to understand European policy, we need a different framework. And I think the framework that is most useful in Europe’s case is vassalization. Simply put, Europe, and by that I mean virtually every EU country, plus the entire Brussels establishment, has been hijacked by a transnational transatlantic elite that couldn’t care less about the objective interests of their countries, but is beholden to a completely different set of interests.
These are private oligarchic interests. Nowadays mostly transnational financial interests and military industrial interests, and of course foreign interests, namely the interests of Washington’s imperial establishment and by definition of Israel as well. So how did we get here? And this was clearly a very long process in the making, and one that started in the immediate aftermath of World War II, when the US identified Europe as a key pillar in their strategy of global dominance. Projecting US power globally required control in Europe economically, militarily, but also culturally. And Europe has effectively been under US military occupation since World War II, 80 years since the end of that war. We still have almost 100,000 US soldiers stationed in Europe. Europe still has about 30 key military bases across the continent. Officially, these are here to protect us. Protect us from whom? From Russia, which doesn’t represent a real threat to Europe.
In fact, I would argue never really represented a threat, not even during the Cold War. That threat was largely created and inflated by NATO itself. So NATO was never about defending Europe, of course. So it was always about controlling Europe and ensuring Europe’s strategic subordination to US strategic interests and about projecting US power globally. And this is still true, I would say even truer today. Not only is NATO obviously still used to ensure Europe’s alignment to US interests, and the Russia Ukraine war is the most obvious example of that, but also to project US power globally. Just the other day, NATO’s Secretary General, Mark Rutte, who tends to say the quiet part out loud, very often said that 5,000 sorties were launched from U.S. bases in Europe in support of the U.S. israeli aggression of Iran.
So Europe, despite the condemnation of some leaders, is actually fully complicit in the attack against Iran. In fact, Europe represents a key part of American military logistical infrastructure for military projection eastward towards Russia, but also southward towards the Middle east and, you know, NATO. And again, all the talk about NATO 3.0 and the supposed decoupling of Europe and America, this is just theater. In fact, NATO 3.0 will simply entrench Europe’s subordination to NATO further.
But of course, NATO was just one tool. America obviously had very, you know, America’s national security state developed very strong ties with the national security states of European countries. And America’s always exercised massive economic, technological and financial control over Europe. And of course it’s exercised massive cultural and ideological influence over the continent, not only through pop culture, clearly, but in the political domain through the English language media and the sprawling ecosystem of transatlantic think tanks and fake NGOs. And then you have a final pillar and I move you towards the conclusion which is often overlooked, but is crucial, I would say, and that’s the EU itself.
The EU has always been presented as a counterweight, potential counterweight to American power, but it’s never really been that. It’s always been a key tool for keeping Europe anchored to the transatlantic US led NATO system. It’s always been the political arm of NATO. And I think that is particularly obvious today under the rule of Ursula von der Leyen, who has gone out of her way to ensure the alignment of European countries to US interests, often against the will of individual governments themselves.
So now we’re in a very dangerous situation because through the eu, which is a structurally anti democratic institution, the transatlantic NATO establishment has achieved effectively full control, economic and political control over European countries. European countries are not sovereign and by definition they’re not democratic. And this makes the challenge of achieving systemic change through the electoral process all the more difficult.
And so to conclude, I would say that Europe is in many respects a continent under occupation. And so the question of how the people of Europe can achieve decolonization from the transatlantic system is maybe the key question facing Europe today. And hopefully a question that we will be analyzing throughout this panel.
So obviously political activism and political change necessarily occurred through violent struggles. That’s just the history of pre democratic Europe. So he wasn’t advocating, I mean, he was just like acknowledging the reality of the working class. And, and so I think this really points to, you know, a deeper problem, which of course, you know, I focused on my talk on the US’s role. But Europe’s problems predate America.
You know, America’s, America’s rise, the global empire by, By. By a very long time. And the problem has to do with, I mean, the visceral opposition of European economic political elites to democracy and to the working class for centuries. Today we speak of liberal democracy and we imply that somehow democracy is an outgrowth of liberalism. This is a total lie. All the great Liberal thinkers were viscerally opposed to democracy, mass democracy, democracy for everyone, a vote for everyone.
They the idea of democracy was democracy for the property owning classes, for the capital owning classes. Mass democracy was achieved through often violent struggles by the working, by the working classes and often the socialist movement. So that’s a problem. And we’ve had to, you know, the people of Europe have had to fight tooth and nail against their elites forever. It’s been a constant struggle.
We have the worst elites in the world and that’s, you know, who not only have no interest in the well being of other people in the global south, but have no interest in the well being of their own people, of the European people. Which is why Europe has always been mired in violence, political violence, class conflict. Even during the, you know, so called heyday of post war, you know, democracy, mass democracy was incredibly violent. And we had political, I come from Italy, my country had insane levels of political violence through the, you know, 60s, 70s and 80s. And it was the same in Germany and France and all major European countries. And this was the heyday of mass democracy. But that those were the years, the decades in which we achieved the greatest social and economic progress for the masses in Europe.
But it was also achieved through often violent struggle, not simply through voting. So this I think points to a deeper problem. I mean the gains that we achieved in the sort of the post war period were not just given to the people. They were the result of, of for a brief period the exist sort of the collective organized strength of the working classes, of the masses. And they were able to wrestle away some power from the organized power of the elites.
That’s basically, and it was always very relative victories. But they were able to wrestle away some power and control from the organized power of capital throughout the sort of, you know, first 30, 40 years after World War II and of course even preceding World War II. But the conditions that allowed that and that allowed mass to mass democracy no longer exist in many respects.
You know, the mass sites of production, big factories where workers could meet and unionize, none of that exists. And so the, the conditions that allowed for mass democracy no longer exist. Structural, material conditions. And so the real question is, you know, how do you rebuild democracy and wrestle away some power at least from, from, from, you know, from these political economic elites when the conditions that allowed us to do, to do that in the past no longer, no longer exist. Which is why you have our elites who are completely unleashed because they have, there is no real counter power anymore. I think that’s a big part of the problem.
Diplomacy
Türkiye delivers Korkut air defence systems to Ukraine, report says
Türkiye has reportedly delivered a small number of Korkut air defence systems to Ukraine at the beginning of the year to bolster its air defence capabilities and test them in the field.
A report by the Middle East Eye (MEE) portal, citing sources familiar with the matter, stated that the delivered systems were placed under operational evaluation by the Ukrainian military.
Manufactured by Aselsan, a standard set of the Korkut system consists of three weapon system vehicles and one command-and-control vehicle.
The sources did not share information regarding how many sets or vehicles were deployed to the field in Ukraine.
Developed to destroy a range of aerial targets, including cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, the system also possesses the capability to counter FPV drones and wire-guided drones using 25 mm ammunition.
Ukraine interested in additional purchases
Evaluating the system’s performance in the field to MEE, a Ukrainian official stated that Korkut passed the combat test.
Regarding the operational process, the Ukrainian official said: “There were some problems, but they are not the kind that cannot be overcome with minor adjustments.” The same official expressed that the Kyiv administration is interested in purchasing additional Korkut systems if the terms and price are favourable.
Ukrainian sources speaking to MEE reported that many Turkish defence industry companies are collaborating with the Ukrainian military to test and refine their systems.
The report recalled that since the start of the war, Türkiye has supplied Ukraine with various defence equipment, such as Bayraktar TB2s, laser-guided missiles, artillery ammunition, and machine guns.
Meanwhile, the US State Department notified Congress in August of its intention to approve the transfer of 70 M39 ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles from Türkiye’s inventory to Ukraine.
Following this potential shipment valued at approximately $280 million, the Russian Foreign Ministry demanded an explanation from Washington and Ankara regarding the matter.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova maintained that new arms shipments to Kyiv could not seriously alter the course of the military operation on the ground, but would adversely affect Russia’s relations with the US and Türkiye.
Zakharova said that providing weapons to Kyiv while using peace rhetoric undermined mutual trust. Ivan Timofeev, Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), noted that the possible transfer of US weapons to Ukraine via Türkiye could complicate prospects for a settlement.
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul highlights irreversible shift to multipolarity
-
Europe2 weeks agoEuropean unions urge governments to scrap all Palantir deals
-
Europe2 weeks agoEmmanuel Todd says West faces collapse amid Ukraine and Iran crises
-
Europe2 weeks agoRome protests AfD poster depicting South Tyrol as independent state
-
Europe1 week agoGerman interior ministers drop unanimity rule to counter AfD veto
-
Europe2 weeks agoGerman industry stockpiles critical minerals before EU-China talks
-
Europe1 week agoKey European allies excluded from US-led NATO meeting in Poland
-
Europe2 weeks agoHamburg drill tests Baltic deployment prior to formal defense alert
