Ein Notopfer für die Ukraine

Written on 03 May 2025.

Die jüngste Kehrtwende von US-Präsident Donald Trump erlaubt die Lieferung von amerikanischen Rüstungsgütern an die Ukraine, sofern die Ukraine für den Kauf bezahlt. Trump ist Geschäftsmann: Er wird sich freuen, wenn die US-Rüstungsindustrie mit dem Verkauf an die Ukraine gute Geschäfte macht (und als Dank einen weiteren Wahlkampf finanziert).

Es gibt nur einen Haken dabei: Der Ukraine fehlt das Geld für Einkauf in den USA. Hier kommt Europa, und insbesondere Deutschland, ins Spiel: Die europäische Rüstungsindustrie ist leider viel zu klein, um den aktuellen Bedarf der Ukraine zu decken.

Aber Europa hat etwas anderes, das jetzt genauso gut ist wie Waffen: Geld.

Europa steht am Scheideweg: Entweder gibt es der Ukraine das Geld, das sie braucht, um ihren Rüstungsbedarf zu decken, indem sie in den USA oder wo auch immer einkauft, oder Europa riskiert, dass ein siegreicher Putin seinen Traum verwirklicht: den Traum von russischen Panzern, die westwärts über deutsche Autobahnen rollen, von Güterzügen voller Beute und Häftlingen, die ostwärts in die Gegenrichtung rollen, von einem Quisling-Regime - vielleicht mit Sahra Wagenknecht - in Berlin, das die „Befreiung“ bejubelt.

Deutschland, also Westeuropas Vorhut Richtung Osten, steht vor der Wahl: den Kampf der Ukraine zu finanzieren oder zu riskieren, dass Putin seinen Traum verwirklicht, weil eine von Trump entkernte Nato wie gelähmt zusieht. 

o.k., o.k.: Ganz so dramatisch ist die Situation nicht. Dank Frankreich und Großbritannien ist die Nato noch existent.  Das gefährdungsbewusste Polen schützt noch immer die deutsche Ostgrenze. Die tapfere Ukraine ist noch nicht verloren.

Doch viele Fragen bleiben unbeantwortet:

Kann die Ukraine vier Jahre lang bis zu den nächsten US-Präsidentschaftswahlen durchhalten? Wird Trump nicht doch irgendwie weiterregieren können? Oder wird der crackpot Vance seinen Platz einnehmen? Oder ein anderer republikanischer Hardliner?

So oder so: Solange die Ukraine kämpfen kann, ist Europa relativ sicher. Die Ukraine bindet einen Teil der militärischen Macht Russlands und schützt Europa effektiv. Europa - vor allem Deutschland - sollte daher dafür sorgen, dass Kiew immer über genügend Waffen verfügt.

Praktisch gesprochen: Was muss geschehen? Europa, also Deutschland, sollte die Waffenkäufe der Ukraine finanzieren. Erforderlich ist ein

Ukraine- Notopfer

in Höhe der jetzt fehlenden amerikanischen Waffenhilfe, also rund 175 Milliarden Dollar über zwei bis drei Jahre. Das entspräche rund 160 Milliarden Euro oder knapp 80 Milliarden pro Jahr.

Wenn wir realistischerweise davon ausgehen, dass Italien und Frankreich wegen hoher Staatsverschuldung nicht zahlen wollen, Polen bereits vorbildlich in Verteidigung investiert hat und Großbritannien durch den Vormarsch der Reformpartei gelähmt ist, dann bleibt Deutschland als Hauptzahler des Notopfers übrig.

Die 80 Milliarden entsprechen rund 4 Prozent des gesamten deutschen Staatshaushalts.

Wenn jeder Haushalt - Bund, Länder und Gemeinden - vier Prozent in den Notopferfonds einzahlen würde, könnte die Ukraine erhalten, was sie braucht. Würden andere EU-Länder auch einen Beitrag leisten - die Niederlande, Dänemark, Belgien, Österreich -, - dann würde der Nothilfeanteil Deutschlands schrumpfen.

Wichtig ist jedoch die zeitliche Dimension: Das Geld würde der Ukraine nur helfen, wenn es rechtzeitig käme, zum Beispiel wenn Deutschland für seine Nachbarn in Vorleistung ginge.

Es ist ein Glück, dass Deutschland gerade eine neue Regierung bekommt, die solch ein ungewöhnliches Projekt mit Energie durch Bundestag und Bundesrat bringen könnte.

Print Email

The US-Ukraine minerals deal

Written on 02 May 2025.

The Trump administration and Ukraine have signed an agreement to jointly exploit Ukraine's mineral resources. This endeavour invites American companies to set up shop in Ukraine with a strategy customary for operating in poor developing countries: making a small initial investment and extracting as much future profit as possible, for transfer to the US, not for local reinvestment. But who is going to sink a single investment dollar in a war torn country risking to be totally destroyed and swallowed by a neighbor who couldn't care less about foreign investments (and who himself would like to sell the same minerals to the US)?   

--ed

Michael Bociurkiw reports:

The US and Ukraine have signed a deal that will give Washington access to some of the war-torn country's natural resources. Months in the making, it sets up an investment fund that Ukraine hopes will cement US assistance as the country struggles to repel Russia three years after the invasion. Trump has previously demanded that Ukraine pay back the $350bn (£264bn) of aid that he claims has been provided by the US during the war - a condition that Zelensky rejected. But Washington appears to have made a concession. Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said the agreement did not dictate that his country pay back any supposed "debt". The language used by the US in announcing the deal is notably harsher towards Russia than is usually the case from the Trump administration. The agreement refers to "Russia's full-scale invasion.” One intriguing point highlighted by Ukraine's government is that for the first decade of the reconstruction investment fund, profits will be "fully reinvested in Ukraine's economy", either in new projects or reconstruction. This could be potentially significant if there is no financial benefit for the US for 10 years - BBC

CNN Chief International Security Correspondent Nick Payton-Walsh described the deal as largely symbolic. “Trump needed to feel America was getting something back from Kyiv. Ukraine needed to show its relationship with this White House was functional and improving. Ukraine’s allies needed this done and dusted to remove a distraction from the complex talk of military aid and real peace that must now become their focus. The deal’s text also contains two phrases that will be distinctly pleasing to Kyiv. First, it refers to the “large-scale destruction caused by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine” – an unambiguous statement of blame from a White House that has often preferred to pull its punches. And then it explains how Ukraine might buy arms from the US – vital given the escalating Russian onslaught across the front lines.”

Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller reminded reporters Thursday that the mineral resource deal signed with Ukraine is “payback” for US support of Kyiv

Michael Bociurkiw --My comment: Even before the ink was dry, the Trump camp began walking back key concessions in the U.S.-Ukraine resources deal—chief among them, the claim that it wasn’t a quid pro quo for the $350 billion Washington says it has provided to Kyiv since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. In reality, the figure is closer to $185 billion. At today’s White House press briefing, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller (see video) undermined the spirit of the deal—and offended many Ukrainians—by calling it “payback” for “the hundreds of billions our taxpayers have spent subsidizing the war in Ukraine.” As I told several broadcasters, watching this unfold as a Canadian raises deep skepticism about the Trump administration’s intentions. This is an administration that has spent much of its first 100 days dismantling long-standing U.S.-Canada agreements. And having spent much of the past three years in Ukraine, I can say with confidence: few Ukrainians want foreign powers interfering with their natural resources. There is widespread fear that a poorly negotiated deal could reduce Ukraine to an economic colony of the United States. Critics of the Zelensky administration argue that rare earth minerals should never have been on the table in discussions with Washington. But once the Trump administration caught wind of an economic opportunity, it pounced. A final note on timing: China’s recent ban on rare earth mineral exports likely sent a chill through the Trump administration. These elements are essential to nearly 2,000 components used by the U.S. military (heavy rare earths are used in many military fields such as missiles, radar, and permanent magnets, BBC reported. A CSIS report notes that defence technologies including F-35 jets, Tomahawk missiles and Predator unmanned aerial vehicles all depend on these minerals). Ukraine suddenly appeared as a potential alternative—though production is years away—and as a source the administration might more easily pressure and control.

..

Print Email

Hearing aids - Update

Written on 02 May 2025.

The leading brands of hearing aids in the world are probably

Earsmate and Jinghao. They and other Chinese companies supply the 1.7 billion Chinese, plus many Indians and other neighbors, with hearing aids.

According to incomplete statistics, there are now 466 million people with hearing impairment worldwide. Among them, nearly 34 million children, is expected to reach 900 million people by 2050, according to survey statistics, the largest number of people wearing hearing aids are children. (Earsmate)

Thanks to extraordinarily high production runs, Chinese manufacturers can deliver cheaply, for example through Alibaba.com for Jinghao:

Individualisierbar

Mindestbestellmenge: 1000 Stück

5,50-8,00 $

„Individualisierbar” --  Customizable means that the devices can be supplied with the buyer's logo and lettering, starting from a minimum order quantity. This allows European and American companies to present themselves to customers as the developer and manufacturer of the product. Sometimes a photo comparison with google lens can help to determine the true origin of a device.

If the expected sales figures for a device in Europe and America are high enough, contract manufacturing in China can also be worthwhile, making it possible to equip a device with special gimmicks and features and offer better quality throughout.

Analog vs. Digital

In Germany, there are strange regulations in place that shackle and unnecessarily restrict the audio industry. What's more, these regulations seem to be written by industry representatives who wanted to make their devices as complicated and therefore as expensive as possible:

Hearing aids dispensed to insured persons at a fixed price must be fully digital, have at least three hearing programs and at least four adjustable frequency channels, and be equipped with multi-microphone technology, noise and feedback suppression.

One wonders why the devices can't also brew coffee and warn of a nuclear attack.

In the UK, the NHS specifically supplies certain devices that customers say are quite good for their price.

 The National Health Service (NHS) in the UK provides hearing aids to eligible individuals at no cost. To be eligible for an NHS hearing aid, you must have a hearing loss that is severe enough to affect your daily life and communication.

In Germany, the regulations have led to an inflation of chain-connected hearing aid shops present in almost every small town, run by friendly but not very competent ladies who make appointments with a traveling technician who provides expertise to several such shops in the respective area.

Regulations in Germany ensure that analog devices are not offered by official hearing acousticians. If you want an analog device, you have to search the internet and pay for it yourself. The last (and only?) provider of analog hearing aids in Germany disappeared just recently, leaving no trace behind. There are brands offering analog devices which are for the above reasons not available in Germany, eg. Widex (Analog Widex Daily 50 Hearing Aid, In The Ear) or Signia Analog Hearing Aids, Behind The Ear, or Analog Siemens Behind The Ear Hearing Aid

Why analog devices at all?

The granddaddy of analog devices is probably the Phonak Lyric, an implantable device that needs to be replaced when the battery runs out.

A manufacturer of modern analog devices (The Analog Hearing Aid Company) tells us:
You are correct to say that analog hearing aids do have some disadvantages like auditory feedback, amplification of unwanted sounds, etc.

So how do we deal with that.  

First it is important to realize that as the market shifted - there became a tendency for analog hearing aids to be seen as cheaper/older alternatives to the modern digital hearing aids.    The tendencies were to reduce cost and achieve a lower price.   This is especially prevalent in the unbranded and low branded Chinese manufacturers.   As digital moved down the Moore's law cost curve, most analog manufacturers either exited or shifted to making cheaper and cheaper products.    This was often done by using cheaper - non medical grade - components.    We have even seen "hearing aids," using the speakers that come in musical greeting cards.

At the Analog Hearing Aid company we took a different approach.    We believe there is a market for premium sound, and we have returned with designs that use the highest quality medical grade transducers.    This alone yields huge benefits in terms of sound quality, and a reduction in amplification of undesired sounds - simply by choosing microphones and receivers with response curves which are well matched to the class D amplifiers.

We include exclusive Aer-Tips creating a seal that matches the shape of the ear canal, we are able to eliminate most feedback for most of our customers.   These perform at a level that basic circular domes cannot match.

A very convincing presentation. But let’s face it: digital has won over analog and established itself as the almost exclusive market leader because of the unwanted and unavoidable noises produced by analog hearing aids. Their entire body acts as a microphone picking up a myriad of rustling and crackling noises whenever they are moving or are being touched.

However, there is a way of dealing with this problem by locating analog devices only

• In the ear itself
• Behind the ear with the speaker in the canal
• Attached close to the neck

Among the current crop of available analog hearing aids are those well known small red and blue Chinese in-ears sold by several companies. Also, there are numerous Chinese brands offering behind-the-ear analog hearing aids of about the same size and shape as customary digital devices.

Let us face it: analog hearing aids have for a long time been badmouthed by the digital competition (and by sales people thriving on selling expensive digital gear) as being clunky, primitive, noisy, cheap, trashy.

Instead, the analog devices – if well implemented – are the only ones offering a satisfactory level of fidelity.

The digital industry is busy explaining that only digital processing permits to “achieve” certain supposedly advantageous characteristics of their gadgets: for instance being able to “boost” spoken word recognition over surrounding noise – a feature seeming attractive to poor hard-of-hearing people who experience difficult communication  in noisy surroundings.

However, the digital industry fails to tell customers that for every “boost” there must be a corresponding trough in the response. The more you tailor the response to make it desirable or insert new gimmicks (e.g. noise suppression), the more the response is altered, becomes kinky and unnatural. In the end, only the honest-to-John analog rendering of a sonic event will provide truthful hearing and listener satisfaction

Also, the gimmickry prevailing in modern digital hearing aids implies a drain on the limited capacity of the rechargeable (lithium based?) batteries. Since the brands compete in offering small "invisible" gadgets, batteries and amplifiers are faced with a cruel limit to size. The resulting product is a hearing aid device which performs satisfactorily only under moderate levels of sound pressure. Any loud noise will drive it into clipping and possibly force it to shut off in order to protect its delicate innards from damage. 

In Germany, the hearing industry is threatened by the imminent arrival of over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids coming from America. Chances are that some of the new arrivals will outperform traditional by prescription models.

Hence it is not surprising that the established retail sellers are now busy launching vigorous marketing efforts aimed at luring potential customers to acquire a prescription model as long as the current payment system is still sustained by the health care insurers, and OTC models have not yet upset the market.

Germany is facing rising inflation and decreased disposable income, prompting middle-income consumers to choose mid-tier and refurbished hearing aids as affordable options. Subscription models, like those offered by Neuroth and Iffland hören GmbH & Co. KG (starting at USD 44 per ear), provide companies with stable revenue and improved inventory management, helping them navigate economic uncertainties while catering to budget-conscious consumers.

Print Email

Trump follows Turkye in how to deal with journalists

Written on 28 April 2025.

Trump assigned .....Pam Bondi, to issue an official Justice Department memo aimed at threatening journalists with legal consequences - including arrest and potentially much worse - for merely doing their job.

Journalists have long been shielded from these sort of government threats by the First Amendment of the Constitution, along with Justice Department policy to refrain from imposing pressure on them to disclose their sources or other work product. But now Trump and Bondi are exacerbating their bullying by rescinding a Biden administration policy that prohibited such oppressive conduct.

What follows are a couple of the most harrowing portions of the Bondi memo, wherein she advocates for "the use of subpoenas, court orders, and search warrants to compel production of information and testimony by and relating to members of the news media." As reported by Ken Dilanian, NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent...

"I have concluded that it is necessary to rescind Merrick Garland's policies precluding the Department of Justice from seeking records and compelling testimony from members of the news media in order to identify and punish the source of improper leaks."

Translation: Bondi is permitting Trump's Justice Department to demand that journalists give up their confidential sources, including personal communications (texts, phone records, emails, etc.), under threat of subpoena, incarceration, and criminal prosecution if they refuse to comply. That is flagrantly unconstitutional. What's more, it would hamper the ability of reporters to gather information from government sources who would be too afraid to talk if they knew the reporters could be coerced into revealing their identity. And leaks are not "improper" unless they include classified data. The memo continued...

"This Justice Department will not tolerate unauthorized disclosures that undermine President Trump's policies, victimize government agencies, and cause harm to the American people. 'Where a Government employee improperly discloses sensitive information for the purposes of personal enrichment and undermining our foreign policy, national security, and Government effectiveness— all ultimately designed to sow chaos and distrust in Government- this conduct could properly be characterized as treasonous.'"

Translation: Bondi is improperly assuming the role of policing the media's disclosures of presidential activities. That is not remotely within the jurisdiction of the Justice Department. And it is especially improper if the intent is to avoid what it regards as "undermining" the president's policies. The public has a right to know what the president is up to, whether the president or the Justice Department likes it or not.

Even worse, Bondi is overtly threatening journalists with the capitol crime of treason. She is actually advocating for the execution of a reporter who might tell the truth about some malfeasance by the president. Which the public also has a right to know about.

@News Corpse -- Daily Kos

Print Email