In Onda Cero, Julia en la Onda, con Julia Otero. In the Time of the World, today with Blas Moreno and David Gomez, I remind you the question that they have asked the listeners, which can answer both on Instagram and on Twitter. In which year did the last nuclear nuclear test of the United States? Three options, in the year 85, in the 92, or in this year, in the 2010? We don't talk if anything on the BULSE TIME 50% We don't talk more likely than we Some of the bowels It was a matter of晉下次 The President of the Spanish in Berkeley But we will be able to Y if we reach the conference chin up in Munich That in the previous hours we have been following With space where we talked about and how we could Joel that the United States is not being able to keep up in the form pretty soft but the comet But we'll be determined Let's now go to the new chapter of Jeffrey Epstein's chapter. The general general of Trump, that woman who is called Pam Bondi, appeared in the Congress in the United States and defend the management that is doing the Epstein's archives in his Justice Department. What do they say? Well, they're covering the president of Trump. Fíjense en la respuesta que da Pam Bondi cuando le preguntaban si había o no chicas menores en las fiestas de Epstein en las que estaba Donald Trump. Esto es tan ridículo. Están intentando desviar el foco de todas las grandes cosas que Donald Trump ha hecho. No hay ninguna evidencia de que Donald Trump haya cometido un delito. Todo el mundo lo sabe. Esta es la presidencia más transparente. Él es la persona que pidió que esos archivos fueran publicados. I make fame. President, in fact, there are images that are completely impresentable, like Pam Bondi negándose a look at the victims' face while they are levantated. Well, in definitiva, it is true that the predecessors of Pam Bondi were afines to Trump, but had their limits, like for example that theory of fraud electoral, which some of them didn't buy. No is the first time that Bondi uses this tone combatant in an audience, we also saw in the Senado, but it is true that here is especially and erratic because it was not only insulted the congressmen, but it was said that in place of focusing on the gestion that he was doing of Epstein's case, they would focus on the increase in the increase in the increase in the indexes bursátiles with Donald Trump, which was the most perpétit of the entire comparecencia. The situation for Bondi is very complex because some information sostiene that Trump is not content with the general fiscal for being, I'm going to say, evil and ineffectual to process with more rapidly his opponents, like the former former FBI, James Comey. but also for the situation with the case Epstein that is so much that's why Epstein is so much and it's that Bondi has been able to affirm and this has to say it that he had the list of clients of Epstein in his office to say that that that doesn't exist and to be accused of and to admit it under juramento So that no complace any of those two or not to lose at the end a Pam Bondi will pass what he says the classic that by not losing the job as fiscal has lost the dignity and the job and the job and the job. Because he doesn't like Trump, he looks blanda to Trump. By the way, we have known another news about the American president, and it's that in the first time in 88 years, the Gallup, which I think is the great pope of the democracy, a reference, will stop to measure the approval of the United States. as now is in so bad news Donald Trump is in 36% of acceptance as he is mal parado, he has been amenazated to Gallup and they stop public It is the point below of his second mandato and only the second with respect to his career presidencial because he has been at 34% in the first mandato but we are very low the decision is quite complicated to understand Gallup says textualmente that reflects a change in the way the company focuses on its research and leadership I am a part of, I am a part of, I am a part of a more complex and continuous to align the job public for the company. We, that no they say anything, really, of why they do what they are doing. It's true that Gallup has been going on several years running out of the political encuestas. He had, for example, a follow-up electoral campaign in 2015, because they didn't want, and they said it, to follow the elections like if they were in caballos, they didn't care about that part of the job, they're in studies more of a long time. But it's true that you're going on, that Trump is at his point, more low popularity of his career, It was practically political and that has been pushed much to Gallup and other encuestars to silence the more critical encuestas For example remember before taking a position in su segundo mandato Trump demand al peri Des Moines Register de Iowa y su encuestadora de cabecera por publicar un sondeo, que luego se probó equivocado, pero que en aquel momento daba la victoria en Iowa a Kamala Harris la semana antes de las elecciones, que es un estado pequeño pero muy importante a nivel electoral, y por lo tanto Trump se enfadó mucho de que esa encuestadora diera como resultado la victoria de su oponente. He also prepared another demand against the New York Times for the same, for the same for the same, for the same and the results that give negative results It's true that the news of Gallup was published since the 1938 it was very fiable it was the reference to the comic to understand the president but well, here it is lost something more than a reference to be lost someone who watches all the time how will the people of the president and that is a problem for Trump now, my God would have been very useful to maintain it Yes, it is going to end with everything. Yes, yes. At the same time, what happens within the United States, there are also many faces put in Cuba, because, as soon as the audience is following, they will know that the authorities have said that we have been left without combustion for the aircraft. They can't get there from there. Why? Because of the enormous amount of Trump is subject to the Cuban island. It is the most difficult, surely. The question is, how can we survive the Cuban people? cubano when it impides that nothing comes to the island, nothing that is, nothing food, nothing, nothing, nothing. There is a international flotilla to send aid humanitarian. No I know in which moment we are, in which point we are, David? Well, the situation in Cuba is extremely precarious, possibly the worst since the special period that lived in the 90's, after the leave of the Union Soviet Union, which is said soon, that was a very complex moment. The island has been several years suffering a crisis of energy and combustion, which is It's true that it's been aggravated now with that oil pressure from Venezuela and Mexico. There is a lot of people who want to send oil to the cuban, and that's also added to the historical value of the peso, which is the consumption of food and combustibles. In definitiva, it's the perfect storm. And precisely, the lack of combustion for aviation has hit one of the most important areas for the regime, which is the tourism. In fact, the airlines of Russia and Canada have announced that they will stop going to go to Cuba by the scarce supply supply, and the result is being the cancellation of flights and the closing of hotels, which is, by the fact, the Spanish sector, a chain like Melia, Iberostar or Valentin, which have a presence in the island. However, the big problem for the cubans now are the cuts of electricity. In fact, this martes, the 64% of the island has left without electricity during the hours of of demand, which is a disaster. The situation is so grave that even even the United States has been instilled in the United States to raise these measures that impede the supply of oil to Cuba. So we are talking about a human crisis of first order. What he wants Trump, obviously, is the collapse of the regime castrista, or that simply no could survive the Cuba. How much can the Cuban government, you think, with this strategy that is best of stranglement? It's a great question, Julia. Julia, I, for one part, I'm going to think that it's not possible to go to much time so, but it's true that Cuba has been shown to be a country that's resistant to the offensive of the great power that it has so close. Now I think Trump looks at the internal collapse, but it will let it grow a little bit. Why? For first, because he wants to make the fruit much more mature, for himself, he will make every more complicated situation in Cuba, and also because he's again centred in Iran. It's that Iran's left behind as a second plan, but also he's got a problem quite serious. and, in fact, Trump announced now that he will send a second portaviews to the Gulf of Persia, which, in fact, is Gerald Ford, which is the one that was before, in front of the coast of Venezuela. Even from the point of view, it is symbolic and military. The focus seems to be moving temporarily, at least, to the Oriental Próximo and the strategy, while so, is that Cuba, in a little bit, will be degrading in its situation. I think this will work. Miguel Díaz-Canel, who is the president of the island, aseguró in the end of January that Cuba was a sovereign nation and that was, he said, disposed to defend the country until the last time of the blood of the blood. 15 years later, he said that he was able to negotiate with the United States. Well, of course. It's like a taboo in the cuban. So, the problem that has the regime is that he is devolving himself. A good part of the problem that has Cuba is, effectively, that is a criminal and legal that has already been done in the United States, and that impide that there is a normal trade with the island. That is true, there is a lot of time to remember it. But it is true that the regime is a cerrado, controlled by an elite non-agenarian of military people that come from the time of the revolution, and that impide any type of apertura política or economic. And this is not something that only says the United States. It's that the allies of Cuba, for example, like Russia or China, they already help because they say, look, it's not helping if you do any change. The Chinese, for example, were able to invest in Cuba and they stopped doing it because if you don't leave any little bit of apertura to the foreign exchange, then it's not worth it to invest here. So it's a island that's very hard in the time, but I think it's already the moment of change. But it's also for the violence, for the violence, the human suffering. That, by the way, the other alternative of the United States can be something like what he did in Venezuela. Or, no force the release of the casteism of power, but if they reach a certain agreement because they are deseating to invest The Trump immobiliated is deseating to invest Yes I think the Venezuelan has difficulties because there is no longer a internal fracture in the Cuban regime that the United States can exploit. There are no brothers Rodríguez that control the more economic and political regime. Here all the concentrates the Fuerzas Armadas Revolutionary of Cuba. There are no longer alternative profiles as far as strong as to adopt that role of Delcy. It is to say, the strategy of decapitation to Maduro No would work with Díaz-Canel As if it did in Venezuela But it is true that the circumstances Obligan the Cuban government to negotiate It is true that now The authorities have not been able to make concessions But it is that the situation is different So it is true that Cuba Could be able to invest in different sectors Tourism, minerals, strategic Limiting that military cooperation with Russia and China Or the liberation of political press But without changing that structure of power of the regime. Although we know that Donald Trump the issue of democracy is not what most important. Let's say, no matter what most minimum. In fact, the word democracy doesn't figure in the discourses that he has on the exterior in any case. Well, the other international international of these days, of ayer mismo, is the celebration of the conference of security Munich. It's been taking place this week, I think it's going to end today, in the capital bávara, and remember that it was there where last year appeared G.D. Vance, the president norteamerican, and said these barbarities to the europeans in his face. The threat that I worry most about is Russia, China, or any other external actor. What I worry about is the threat interna, the retroceso of Europe, compared to some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States. O sea, Giddy Vance dando elecciones de democracia. Eso tuvimos que soportar los europeos, ¿verdad? En esta ocasión no ha enviado a Vance, Trump, ya vio que se había pasado de frenada, y ha enviado al secretario de Estado, a Marco Rubio. ¿Esto significa un cambio de tono por parte de Washington? Es decir, que lo de Rubio cambiar la persona que envía a esa conferencia de seguridad, ¿ya significa algo? Yo creo que es un cambio de forma, pero no de fondo, Julia. because in reality what Rubio is the same thing that he said Bansk that is that the United States doesn't want to die with Europe doesn't want to die what he wants is that he works under the conditions and with the values that Trump has it is to say that he has his own but as I say basically more than he has his own than he has his own there is to remember that Rubio is a more conciliator more diplomatic than G.D. Vance is a more like Neocon of the era of George Bush and G.D. Vance is more like a type of the movement maga more radical there is a fight interna even within the Casablanca in that sense, but as I said, the fund is the same. No we can't be afraid of the United States because its values have changed. It's a country agressive with our political model, with our democracy, and in fact, I would say that it would be better to keep us with the Vans, because we can't let us let us to be wrong with that cortesia diplomatica, let us know, that way, of Rubio's ways. A me has surprised a lot that the Europeans have no vacinado a Marco Rubio in his speech in Munich, and I would say, hey, no have to be afraid of this type, it's that this is only a way to hide a little bit the message real that is still the same. I, more than surprised, would say that I'm a bochornada, because everyone applauded that speech of Marco Rubio, that he said in the bottom, well, of course, he came from the poli-bueno, they have been reparting the pate, it's a poli-malo, and he came from the poli-bueno, but what he said were barbarities, those we have to remain together, but always and when you accept the laws of the United States. It's horrible. It's a horrible thing. It's a country that's a country. Yes, yes, and we all know what happens in the United States with health, with education. It's tremendous. And it's curious because the only discordant voice yesterday was the president of Spain. And that's what I say. It was Pedro Sánchez, who also spoke against the nuclear war. Listen. And experts estimate that the US alone will invest 946 billion dollars in nooks over the next decade, enough to eradicate extreme global poverty. In my view, this is a mistake, a historical error that we cannot commit again. That is why the president of the government of the thousands of millions of dollars that wants to invest in the United States in nuclear weapons. He says that it's a mistake to invest in that, in nuclear weapons. And in some time, even Reagan spoke, or he mented to Reagan to say that the nuclear nuclear war has no sense. Because we know that from a nuclear nuclear no one has no victory. No one has no one who wins. We all have a victory. No sé qué os ha parecido la intervención del presidente del gobierno. Bueno, creo que un poco en la línea de lo que ha ido haciendo en los últimos meses, de ir a la contra de lo que iba diciendo sobre todo Estados Unidos en este sentido. Además, la referencia a Reagan golpea directamente al corazón de ese votante republicano que ahora respalda a Donald Trump. También el contexto es importante. Recordemos que se venció ese acuerdo nuevo start entre Estados Unidos y Rusia. De ahí esa idea de la proliferación nuclear. but also have to take into account that now in Europe Friedrich Merz the chancellor aleman is starting to dialogue with France to find a point of encounter in the amplification of that nuclear nuclear French to the European continent. So, Pedro Sánchez is in that delicate equilibrium between, yes, we have to condemn the nuclear nuclear, of course, because the nuclear proliferation has never been good, but also it is true that Europe needs, in that framework of strategic autonomy, to guarantee the nuclear own to avoid being able to be able to Estados Unidos y poder responder a amenazas externas. Sí, lo que dijo el presidente del gobierno también es que ese 5% al que querían empujarnos Estados Unidos de gasto en defensa, favorece a la industria norteamericana, pero nos hace más dependientes aún de Estados Unidos y por eso él apostaba por un ejército europeo, pero ya, no esperar 10 años, hacer ya un ejército europeo. Que es cierto, Julio, porque es cierto que ahora mismo no tenemos capacidad industrial como para soportar ese aumento del gasto comprando armas solamente europeas, hay que comprarselas a Estados Unidos, entonces es un poco el chantaje de Trump, subir el aumento del gasto, pero también cómprame a mí. Lo que también es verdad es que España en ese sentido tiene un problema de imagen pública internacional porque gasta muy poco, y se lo han dicho también en Múnich, oiga, es que usted es la economía de Europa que más crece y es la que menos gasta en defensa, entonces hay un tema un poco delicado para Sánchez que creo que argumenta bien el hecho de que no solamente hay que mirar en el gasto, sino también en qué se gasta, en competencias, en capacidades, en despliegue militar en el extranjero, I think that's an interesting argument, but even as I think the discourse is that it's more European, it's more European. And especially the argument that no matter how much you spend, but what contributes to the capacity and the collective collective of the OTAN, that Spain, it's true that although it's less in terms of percentage of the PIB in defense, it's true that it's more than other countries. Claro, eso es lo que hay que tener en cuenta, ¿no? Es lo que siempre defiende el gobierno español, que la capacidad que tenemos de aportación a la OTAN es suficiente, aunque económicamente gastemos menos en material bélico estadounidense, que es lo que quiere Trump, claro. Lo que quiere es favorecer solamente a su industria, ¿no? Además, la conferencia ha publicado un informe, la conferencia de Munich, y el epígrafe, el título, no puede ser más revelador, bajo destrucción, ¿no? What is called? What is here? I think the title says almost everything. That the international order based on rules and multilateralism is in the process of demolicion, when no in abierta destruction, as the same Marco Rubio said, that already no exists that old order. In that old order, or in that new world, the reforms are being replaced by the ideas more radicals that seek to replace those existing institutions in place of adapt to them. And there what is the attitude of the United States. when the hegemony renuncia to guarantee that international order and to fing that he respected the norm then the risk of decomposing is disparate Well, we will continue with this issue because this is the story of not to end this is the new world world and this we have episodes and new episodes every week but in all cases we have to remind everyone that the capacity of a country has some limits and that if we spend it in defense we quit it from health or we quit it from education We quit the roads or the roads. That's the reality. That's to say, there is no capacity for everything. And that there is to choose. And that's what I think defends, I believe, the Spanish government. Question that you have asked the audience. In what year did you produce the last nuclear nuclear nuclear war? In the 85, in the 92 or in the 2010? Eulalia, what have you said? Look, both on Instagram and on Twitter, they believe it was in 2010. Tanto en Instagram como en Twitter. La mayoría de los oyentes ha optado por la fecha, la única fecha de este siglo XXI, 2010. El 49% y el 41%. Bueno, ¿y la respuesta correcta cuál es? La respuesta correcta es el 92, Julia. Yo creo que los oyentes han pensado mal de Estados Unidos. No me extraña también, pero bueno, es verdad que se cortaron un poco después del 11S. La última prueba fue concretamente el 23 de septiembre del año 92 en un pozo subterráneo del sitio de pruebas de Nevada. se detonó un dispositivo nuclear de 5 kilotones que no es que sea poco, pero es 3 veces menos que el de Hiroshima, por ejemplo, ¿no? Se hicieron una prueba pequeñita. Desde entonces no había ninguna más pero Trump parece que quiere recuperarlas en algún momento de su mandato. O sea que nos quiere regresar al año 92. Sí, a la carrera nuclear. A la carrera nuclear, porque además, claro, ha caducado el acuerdo que había entre Rusia y Estados Unidos, ¿no? Para la contención del armamento nuclear. Eso pasó hace 10 días y ahora It's a very good time. It's a very good time. It's a very good time, Julia, because it's true that Russia and the United States have agreed, but China was out. And so what they say in the two big countries is, I don't want to constrain anything if there's a third country out there, that's what they want to do without anyone else. There begins the danger of nuclear war. What stupid are we humans? Knowing how we know that in a nuclear war, no is that nobody is victorious, as Reagan said and said, Pedro Sánchez, is that we're all. We're all. It's absurd. Well, until here the Time of the World, with Blas Moreno and David Gomez. That you have a happy week, dear. Igualmente. Good morning. Thanks. Until the next week. Adios. Adios. Llegando las noticias de las 9, 8 en Canarias. Y a la vuelta abrimos la hora random.
