Hello !
Recent Appearances... Rantburg

Europe
He was an obstacle to expansion: why an African minister was arrested in France
2026-06-12
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited
by Leonid Tsukanov

[REGNUM] For several weeks now, a scandal has been raging around the figure of Douair Dulkamal, a respected politician and former head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Union of the Comoros, a small African state.

The former diplomat was detained in Europe and extradited to France (his second country of citizenship), where Dulcamal now faces a serious prison sentence for financial fraud and large-scale fraud. However, there's a deeper truth to the story, suggesting ulterior motives on the part of Paris.

Douair Dulkamal's career was built primarily in the Comoros Islands, where he rose from a rank-and-file political activist to a member of parliament and head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, back in the early 2000s, the politician prudently acquired a second passport.

Over the years, as his wealth grew, he gradually began moving to the Fifth Republic. He and his wife settled on the island of Réunion in the Indian Ocean, where in 2010 he purchased a small country house.

Almost immediately after the purchase, Dulkamal (at the time a social activist) submitted a request to the French authorities for financial assistance, citing his "dire situation" and "exhaustion of his last resources for the move." The request was granted, as Dulkamal was not the first Comorian politician to move to France, and the authorities hoped to expand the ranks of African loyalists.

However, when applying for financial assistance, Dulkamal omitted one fact: he continued to work in Comoros, earning a handsome income for his public service. Payments continued in subsequent years—even when he became a delegate to the Assembly of the Union of Comoros (i.e., a member of the national parliament) and joined the International Cooperation Group.

The scheme operated smoothly until 2020. During this time, Dulkamal and his wife managed to receive illegal benefits from two social funds totaling approximately 350,000 euros.

By the time the scam was uncovered, the swindler had already received the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs, and with it, diplomatic immunity. Subsequently, Dulkamal made numerous working visits to Europe, including meetings with tax officials and security forces of the Fifth Republic. However, the French were hesitant to arrest him, fearing it would worsen their already difficult relations with the Comoros.

However, even after Dulkamal's resignation in 2024, it proved impossible to detain him: the politician never showed up at his residence in France, although he continued to travel extensively throughout Europe. Furthermore, legal obstacles, including the lack of a mutual extradition agreement, prevented the issuance of a request for his arrest directly in the Comoros.

Dulkamal was only captured in May 2026, during his travels through Western Europe. He was arrested by Interpol following a tip from local informants and transferred to France, where he faced a speedy trial.

Considering that the investigation had accumulated several dozen volumes over the course of a decade and a half, the prosecution had no difficulty substantiating its case. At times, the prosecutors clearly played on emotions. In particular, the court documents repeatedly emphasized that vulnerable groups of the French population, including the elderly, had not received sufficient funds. This, in turn, had an impact on France's well-being and its reputation as a socially caring EU country.

This framing of the matter was likely intended to minimize the chance of Dulkamal receiving a suspended sentence. The outcome of the trial was also predictable: the former minister was sentenced to two years in prison, but he filed an appeal almost immediately. The trial entered a new phase.

The Dulkamal case has generated significant public attention. However, in terms of the scale of his embezzlement, the Comorian prisoner lags behind most of his French counterparts. For example, politician Jérôme Rivière, who received a suspended sentence in 2025 for multiple tax fraud and money laundering through foreign foundations, defrauded the French budget of almost a billion euros, three times more than the Dulkamal couple stole.

The taint of corruption that has surrounded other high-ranking officials, including former presidents François Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy, is even greater.

Moreover, the Dulkamal case has every chance of escalating into a geopolitical dispute. The French judiciary has repeatedly hinted at the presence of certain "additional evidence" that could add new, more serious charges to the indictment. Most likely, this concerns the politician's activities in defending the Comoros Islands' right to reclaim the region of Mayotte, which France has unilaterally considered part of its territory as an overseas department since the 1970s.

For a long time, Dulkamal remained a key obstacle to reaching a compromise between the states. As part of President Azzali Assoumani's team, he not only thwarted the French policy of absorbing disputed territories in exchange for infusions into the Comorian budget, but also attempted to create counterweights—for example, through rapprochement with China.

Although Dulkamal's influence on Comoros' foreign policy weakened significantly after his resignation in 2024 and the arrival of the more loyal and flexible Mbaye Mohamed, he still retained leverage over Assoumani's cabinet.

Therefore, as long as Dulkamal remained at large, France and the Comoros could not reach a deal. There was a real risk that any abrupt change in position on Mayotte would spark public outrage in the Comoros, and Dulkamal—as an experienced and recognizable politician with a reputation as a "defender of Comorian lands"—would quickly become the face of the opposition.

The criminal prosecution allowed the matter to be legitimately closed. This partly explains the unexpectedly lenient reaction of the Comorian authorities to the incident: Assoumani's cabinet took into account the information about Dulkamal's arrest, but left the matter to the French security forces.

Meanwhile, Africa is preparing for President Emmanuel Macron's new (extraordinary) tour of the African Continent, scheduled for the second half of summer. And the Comoros Islands, judging by the first leaks, are being considered as one of the stops on this itinerary.

It's possible that Macron and Assoumani will once again discuss the Mayotte issue. However, this time without the risk of anyone trying to interfere from the outside.

Link


Europe
Macron and French ministers lined up for advice from a pedophile
2026-02-05
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited
by Olesya Orlenko

[REGNUM] The US Department of Justice's release of the latest batch of documents in the " Jeffrey Epstein case " has stunned French politicians and journalists. Several publications are attempting to argue that being named in these files, or even having dealings with Epstein, does not necessarily mean being involved in the underage trafficking he is accused of.

On the other hand, the information that has emerged reveals the tip of the iceberg, behind which lies the scale of American influence on French and European politicians, representatives of business, the entertainment industry, and culture.

The French political and cultural expert community is typically very sensitive in its words. It is believed that information about any unwanted contacts could damage one's reputation.

However, as it turned out, for many this was not a problem.

French actress Caroline Lang admitted that she was aware of the suspicions leveled against Epstein. But she remained, in her words, "naive and confused," ultimately agreeing to be his partner in a fund to support young artists, founded in the Virgin Islands.

The actress's father, Jack Lang, the French Minister of Education, discussed with the American businessman, among other things, educational programs for French schoolchildren, in particular issues of sex education for adolescents.

Olivier Colom, a diplomatic adviser to former President Nicolas Sarkozy, "found girls" for Epstein during his stays in Paris and discussed with him his preferences for female escorts on various trips.

Like Jean-Luc Brunel, head of the international modeling agency Karin Models, which has worked with celebrities such as Milla Jovovich and Sharon Stone, he found girls 15 years old or younger for his American sponsor.

Among the names mentioned are also very high-ranking politicians. For example, Bruno Le Maire, who, as Minister of Economy, arranged a meeting with Epstein.

Or the current president, Emmanuel Macron, who has repeatedly turned to the American businessman for advice on France's economic development.

French journalists insist there is no evidence of direct communication between them. In any case, the US has long used a network of emissaries and organizations to act as intermediaries between the French elite and decision-makers from various sectors, as well as representatives of American business and government.

Macron met his close advisor Bertrand Badré early in his public sector career. In 2004, the future French president began working at the Ministry of Economy as Inspector General of Finance. Badré was then head of the French branch of the German Marshall Fund.

This organization, which lobbies for US interests in Europe since the 1970s, has been part of the State Department program and funded through USAID.

Badré included Macron in a program to strengthen ties with the United States. In 2007, the future French leader made a series of trips to American strategic and scientific facilities. Most importantly, this allowed Macron to establish contacts in French political circles.

Macron temporarily left the public sector and became an employee of the Rothschild bank. The Rothschild family, on the one hand, always declared the principle of coordinated actions of all companies under its management, and on the other, maintained the closest ties with the American lobby.

It is no coincidence that Ariane de Rothschild, head of the financial group Edmond de Rothschild, spent many hours consulting with Epstein on issues of political and economic orientation in Europe, including regarding participation in the events of the Maidan in Ukraine.

In 2012, Badré included Macron, who had become Deputy Secretary General under President François Hollande, in the Young Leaders program run by another American foundation focused exclusively on France, the French American Foundation.

This organization was created in 1981 during the election campaign won by François Mitterrand. The US feared that the new president would pursue a policy too independent of NATO. Therefore, they decided to invest in promoting close Franco-American cooperation. Many prominent politicians, such as Alain Juppé and future President Hollande, have received scholarships from this program.

One of the foundation's senior executives told reporters that it's difficult to make a political career in France without being part of the American network. Macron's example is proof of this.

In 2014, he spoke at a meeting of the Bilderberg Group, which is considered the most secretive group in the world. It was founded in 1954 by Joseph Retinger, a British politician collaborating with the CIA, to promote dialogue between Europe and the United States.

Macron surprised everyone present by launching into a furious critique of Hollande. He tried to convince his audience that, given the opportunity, he would have made completely different decisions.

The audience at the time included politicians (the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, the French Minister of Digital Development, the Queen Consort of Spain and others), as well as heads of large banks (Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs), foreign intelligence agencies (the CIA and MI6) and transnational companies (BP, Shell, Fiat).

Curiously, a few months later, Macron not only wasn't fired, but was actually appointed Minister of the Economy. He then assumed the post of head of state.

Epstein's documents alone do not provide sufficient grounds for accusing President Macron in particular of advancing American interests.

However, political opponents of the French president insist on the need to investigate potential foreign interference in the country's affairs.

More broadly, the US's long-standing soft power strategy in Europe is a key factor explaining the current degree of dependence of the European Union and its political leadership on its transatlantic partner. The Epstein affair, among other things, has once again confirmed this.

Link


Europe
Sarkozy's sentence has left the French questioning the very foundations of their republic
2025-09-30
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Olesya Orlenko

[REGNUM] On September 25, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was convicted and sentenced to a prison term. The judges' decision sparked widespread public outcry and raised doubts about the functioning of the justice system. What exactly was the defendant found guilty of, and what are the potential consequences of this case for French society?

This latest case specifically concerned accusations against Nicolas Sarkozy that he received funding for his 2007 election campaign from Libya. This agreement was allegedly reached in 2005 during an official visit to Libya by a French delegation led by Sarkozy, who served in the government under President Jacques Chirac.

The investigation into this case began after the scandalous publication in Mediapart of a document signed by Libyan politician Moussa Mohammed Koussa, who served as head of intelligence in 2005 and was part of Muammar Gaddafi's inner circle. The memo stated the Libyan leader's agreement to allocate €50 million to presidential candidate Sarkozy. The publication presented this as proof of receipt of Libyan funds.

In return, Sarkozy is believed to have promised to help improve the image of Gaddafi and his brother-in-law, Abdullah Senussi, on the international stage.

After 12 years of investigation, the trial began in January 2025. During this time, several defendants who could have provided crucial testimony passed away. One of them died two days before the verdict. This was businessman Ziad Takeddine, who is suspected of transferring part of the money to France in cash.

Along with Sarkozy, his associates and colleagues, Claude Guéant and Brice Hortefeux, were also accused. They were suspected of organizing a deal with the Libyan authorities and of laundering the proceeds in France.

According to the verdict, Sarkozy is found guilty of "creating a criminal organization with the intent to commit a crime punishable by ten years' imprisonment." However, the court noted that it could not "incontrovertibly prove" that the Libyan funds financed his election campaign, nor even that "the amount of cash exceeded €35,000." The former president must now pay a fine of €100,000 and spend five years in prison.

Sarkozy denies all charges.

According to his lawyers, if a financing agreement was signed between his associates and the Libyan side, he was unaware of it. Moreover, the court found that the funds in question were not used to enrich the defendant or his family members.

The former president immediately stated that he intends to defend his good name by filing an appeal, and also refuses in advance a possible pardon that Emmanuel Macron could grant him.

Meanwhile, this is far from the first case in France when government officials and even heads of state have received court sentences.

The first president to be convicted was Chirac, who was found guilty of embezzling public funds in 2011.
.
In 2018, Jérôme Cahuzac, former budget minister under President François Hollande, was convicted of tax evasion and money laundering. And in 2024, François Fillon, former prime minister and Macron's rival in the 2017 presidential election, was convicted of embezzling public funds by creating fictitious positions—the same charges for which Marine Le Pen was prosecuted.

And Nicolas Sarkozy himself is no stranger to being under investigation and sitting in the dock.

During the investigation into Libyan financing, law enforcement agencies secured the right to wiretap the former president's telephone conversations. It was then revealed that in 2014, Sarkozy had corrupted Gilbert Azibert, a lawyer at the Court of Cassation, in an attempt to obtain information from him about another case that raised the possibility of a Libyan financial connection in the 2007 campaign.

For this, Sarkozy received his first prison sentence, which was confirmed after several appeals in December 2024. But then the former president managed to limit himself to being stripped of his state awards and being ordered to wear an electronic bracelet.

In 2016, an investigation was launched into the "Bigmalion affair" regarding Sarkozy's exceeded spending limits for his second presidential campaign in 2012. He was accused of money laundering through checks issued by a company called "Bigmalion," which was linked to his party, the Union for a Popular Movement. The former head of state was then found guilty of illegally financing electoral campaigning activities.

Russia was not left out either.

Since 2021, the French judiciary has been attempting to establish the nature of the services provided by Sarkozy to the insurance company Reso-Garantia. If the court finds that lobbying for Russian interests took place, the world will witness new charges against the former president.

What is so special about the latest sentence handed down to Nicolas Sarkozy?

First, the prospect of actual imprisonment, regardless of whether an appeal is filed. Sarkozy would thus become the first French president to be jailed.

However, the second circumstance appears more serious.

Immediately after the verdict, voices began to be heard declaring that the judges' decision bore a striking resemblance to arbitrary conduct. This can be judged, for example, by the wording of the charges.

Journalists, politicians, and the public are also outraged by the fact that the documents published by Mediapart in the aforementioned article, as well as in a number of other publications on this case, are highly likely, and in some cases proven, to be fakes. Moreover, this publication has repeatedly been caught disseminating false information about the case, for which its employees have periodically been forced to publicly apologize.

All this gave rise to suspicions of bias in the judiciary.

The president of the court presiding over Sarkozy's trial began receiving threats, which many politicians, including President Macron, have spoken out against.

Meanwhile, a debate has erupted in French society over the independence of the judicial system. Some believe the existence of a special "judicial state" acting at its own discretion has become a fait accompli. Others believe that the lack of independence of justice officials allows the authorities to influence their decisions.

In any case, this is not the first time that the French have begun to notice disruptions in the functioning of the foundations of the republic, which previously seemed democratic.

Related:
Nicolas Sarkozy 09/27/2025 A key figure in the Sarkozy Libyan money case has died in Lebanon
Nicolas Sarkozy 09/26/2025 A Paris court sentences former President Sarkozy to five years in prison.
Nicolas Sarkozy 09/25/2025 France's ex-president Nicolas Sarkozy says 'I will sleep in prison with my head held high' as he is given five-year jail term in front of shocked Carla Bruni and rants about unfair justice


Related:
Gaddafi 09/27/2025 A key figure in the Sarkozy Libyan money case has died in Lebanon
Gaddafi 09/26/2025 A Paris court sentences former President Sarkozy to five years in prison.
Gaddafi 09/25/2025 France's ex-president Nicolas Sarkozy says 'I will sleep in prison with my head held high' as he is given five-year jail term in front of shocked Carla Bruni and rants about unfair justice

Link


Europe
Bayrou Vote: Macron Says It's a Crisis, But There Are Signs of Collapse
2025-09-10
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Olesya Orlenko

[REGNUM] Having developed the French budget for 2026, Prime Minister François Bayrou decided to organize a vote of confidence in the National Assembly at the beginning of the discussions on this document. However, instead of the expected support of deputies, the head of government saw how all representatives of the opposition spoke out against his policy. What are the possible developments after this?

As soon as Bayrou voiced the idea of ​​organizing a parliamentary vote of confidence in the government during a press conference on August 25, experts and the press began to ask why he needed it?

The answer to this question should be sought in his political past.

François Bayrou has run in presidential elections many times since the 1990s, and in 2007 he came in third place behind Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal. He did not make it to the second round, but he received 18.57% of the vote, well ahead of Jean-Marie Le Pen, who received 10.44%.

It was during this election campaign that Bayrou made the fight to reduce the country's public debt one of the key points of his program and was deeply concerned that society and political circles were paying so little attention to this problem.

When Bayrou urged Emmanuel Macron to give him the post of prime minister last December, he argued, among other things, that he had long been thinking about the issue of public debt and foresaw the detrimental consequences of its growth for the French economy. He was confident that he would be able to find a balance between the necessary reduction in spending and the preservation of areas of activity vital to the country.

Indeed, the budget drawn up by his predecessor Michel Barnier, rejected by the National Assembly, envisaged a reduction in public spending of 60 billion euros. François Bayrou managed to reduce this amount to 44 billion euros.

However, opposition parties also considered this document to be harmful.

Communist leader Fabien Roussel called it "poison for France" and said he would propose concrete measures to the prime minister to improve it. The National Rally also said it disagreed with the proposed draft, saying it would defend its approach to economic recovery no matter what.

But Bayrou did not use any of these recommendations. Just as he rejected the advice of the Socialists, expressed personally by former President François Hollande.

Seeing that the upcoming budget debate would be difficult and would possibly lead to a vote of no confidence in the government, François Bayrou decided to forestall the events and organize his own vote, which would, on the contrary, symbolize confidence in his policies. This, according to many analysts, was a mistake from the start, since asking for support from an opposition that is obviously hostile is absurd.

As expected, immediately after the news of the upcoming vote on September 8, Bayrou's political opponents announced their intention to cast "no" votes.

Yesterday the prime minister made a final attempt to persuade the dissenters, urging them to accept a "historic decision".

" They tell us that we can wait, that the ship is still afloat. But if we want to save the ship that we and our children are on, we must act without delay... France will be in total chaos. And the risk of that is very high. You can overthrow the government, but you cannot change reality," Bayrou said in his speech.

Persuasion didn't work.

He was supported by only 194 deputies against 364. At the end of the vote, the need for Bayrou's resignation became obvious. The media reports that he has already written a letter of resignation and will hand it over to the president this afternoon.

Now all of France is waiting to see what Macron will do, having “taken note” of the results of yesterday’s vote.

Former Prime Minister Gabriel Attal reports that the president does not want to dissolve parliament again and will look for a candidate who suits both him and the current composition of the National Assembly. However, everyone remembers how long it took the head of state to make his choice last year.

All that remains is to look for a candidate for the new prime minister among the opposition.

The Socialists have returned to last year's calls to choose a candidate from their ranks. Party leader Olivier Faure has expressed his willingness to lead the government, sacrificing a split in the ranks of the already ununited left.

But there are also those who, in view of the collapse of the left-wing coalition, are calling for the National Rally to be considered the largest parliamentary faction and for a member of this party to be appointed head of government. This idea was voiced, for example, by former European Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton.

However, not everyone believes that the new appointment will save France from another political crisis.

Former President Nicolas Sarkozy, in an interview with Figaro, made fun of Macron's desire to " put his left shoe on his right foot," saying that a new dissolution of parliament is the only way out of the situation, giving a chance for one party to finally form an absolute parliamentary majority.

The leader of the National Rally parliamentary faction, Marine Le Pen, wants the same thing. For her, new elections are not an option, but an obligation for the president. According to some reports, deputies from her party are going to put forward a vote of no confidence in any candidate not from their ranks that Macron appoints.

What is happening is complicated by the fact that clouds are gathering over Macron himself.

The extremely low level of trust of the French in the president (15%, according to the latest data) is noted even outside France, predicting his possible premature departure from the post of head of state. And the leader of "France Insoumise" Jean-Luc Mélenchon directly says that Macron's further stay in the post of leader of the Republic will only worsen the situation.

But Macron has repeatedly stated that he intends to stay until the end of his presidential term.

In addition, the resignation of the head of state in France is possible, but a very long and difficult matter. The proposal must be studied by a special commission, then voted on in the lower house of parliament, and then the entire procedure must be carried out in the upper house. And only after that must the Supreme Court make a decision, and by at least two-thirds of the votes. So, most likely, the discussion of this possibility will cause a big media resonance, but will not yield quick political results.

Meanwhile, 82% of French people currently describe yesterday's events as depressing.

Macron tends, as always, to underestimate the problem and call what is happening a parliamentary crisis. While most people understand that there are all the signs of another political collapse, which could be aggravated by new social protests. The nearest ones are already preparing for September 10.

Perhaps the situation could be resolved more easily if Macron devoted as much attention, effort and resources to solving domestic problems as he spends on maintaining the war in Ukraine.

Link


Europe
'Lovers quarrel.' The French are thinking about who will replace Macron
2025-05-28
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Olesya Orlenko

[REGNUM] The start of French President Emmanuel Macron's Asia-Pacific tour was positioned as a continuation of the head of state's wise strategy in the region and pursued ambitious political goals. But it began with a scandalous scene of a family squabble.

The reaction of both Macron himself and his administration has only worsened the situation. It will not remain without political consequences.

Official events within the framework of Emmanuel Macron's visit to Vietnam began on May 26. This is the fifth visit of the head of the French Republic to this country, diplomatic relations with which were established in 1973.

During all previous visits, the parties concluded profitable contracts for investments by French businesses related to the purchase of civil aircraft, urban transport, construction of railways and highways, etc.

This time, a contract was also signed with private airline Vietjet to purchase aircraft from Airbus. And the French delegation includes representatives of such major companies in the energy, trade and defense sectors as EDF, Dassault Aviation, Naval Group and CMA GCM.

However, Vietnam is not the same as it was ten years ago.

Now it is one of the most dynamically developing countries in the Asian region. Vietnam is diversifying its relations, building partnerships with many countries, including Russia.

France is undoubtedly an important partner for him, but its influence has declined in recent years. The main foreign investments in the country come from Singapore and China.

Moreover, the share of French investments among EU countries is far from leading. France is in fourth place, behind even the Netherlands and Denmark.

The former colonizer's cultural influence has also fallen significantly: today, less than 1% of Vietnam's population speaks French. It is no surprise that Vietnamese media, covering Macron's visit, note that this time it is France that needs Vietnam, rather than the other way around.

On May 28, Macron is expected in Indonesia, and on May 30, he will attend the largest Shangri-La Dialogue forum, which is taking place in Singapore and is dedicated to defense issues.

During all his visits, the French President intends to promote two ideas: to convince his partners of France's decisive role in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and to persuade them to actively take Ukraine's side in the war that has now lasted 11 years.

The Middle East issue is likely to be a hot topic in Indonesia, whose predominantly Muslim population sympathizes with the humanitarian tragedy of the people of Gaza. But, apart from Macron’s declarations about the need to create a Palestinian state, France has taken no steps to resolve the conflict. And the main actor in the peace process is the United States.

As for the Ukrainian issue, it is obvious to everyone that Europe, having exhausted its resources, is looking for new sources of financing military actions. Countries whose main task is their own development do not benefit from interfering in a confrontation that requires huge expenditures and brings only damage, not dividends.

Moreover, France’s weight and Macron’s authority in the region leave much to be desired.

The termination of the contract with Naval Group for the construction of submarines for the Australian Navy in 2021 and the internal problems of New Caledonia, where a civil war has been going on for more than a year, which the French authorities are unable to stop, also had an impact.

A logical question arises: is Macron aware of how those around him perceive him?

The scene, caught on camera by journalists, of the French president being beaten by his wife before exiting the plane, has flown around the world. But the main thing was not even the incident itself, but the fact that both the president and his administration initially denied the authenticity of the video. And only then did such explanations as "relaxation", "foolishness", etc. follow.

Macron's recent rise in ratings after record lows has undoubtedly had a dizzying effect on him. It has affected his foreign policy activities, particularly in the Ukrainian direction. But the overall picture remains dismal.

His exclusive interviews, presented as a high-profile media event, are spoken of in the spirit of "the president spent three hours saying that nothing would change." And some publications directly call the president a laughing stock. In this situation, the question inevitably arises of who could replace Macron at the head of France.

The French press has become increasingly frequent in publishing articles about the participants in the next presidential campaign. And although there are still two years left until the election of the country's leader, potential candidates are declaring their intentions and trying to work on their image.

The Ipsos polling institute has published a study according to which the French prefer the classic right and center. Among the most popular candidates for the post of president are the head of the pro-presidential party "Renaissance", former Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, the mayor of Le Havre and the founder of the "Horizons" party Edouard Philippe, the Minister of Justice Gérald Darmanin, as well as the Minister of the Interior Bruno Retaillo.

By the way, Retaillo's intentions are more than serious. After all, he already allows himself to speak publicly on issues that are beyond the competence of his department. An example is his statements about diplomatic relations with Algeria, which caused indignation on the part of President Abdelmadjid Tebboune.

One can also recall his behavior after the report on the penetration of the Muslim Brotherhood (a terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation) into France, which was heard by the Defense Council under the presidential administration on May 21.

Following this report, Retailo spoke to journalists, where he assessed the seriousness of the problem and made public some of the text's points without coordinating this with the president and without waiting for the official publication of the document.

Another Ipsos study shows the possibility of a scenario where a National Rally candidate will enter the second round with one of the above-mentioned candidates. Moreover, both Marine Le Pen and the current party leader Jordan Bardell have equal chances of this.

Parties that identify themselves as left-wing are expected to field Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Raphaël Glucksmann, with some on the left calling for primaries next year to determine candidates that will attract the support of a majority of the left.

However, oddly enough, even Macron himself has political ambitions.

Of course, he can't run for a third term. But he told reporters a few weeks ago that after the end of his second term he would "think about" running in the 2032 campaign.

This assumption may cause laughter now, but French history knows various examples. When François Hollande left the presidency in 2017, everyone considered him a political corpse, so disastrous was his rule. And yet, in the last snap parliamentary elections in 2024, he won in his district. And now he gradually appears in the media, commenting on the current political situation.

It’s not that he has “reformed.” It’s just that the situation in France is so bad that even his leadership over time seems tolerable compared to what is happening now. It’s entirely possible that in seven years, the French will look back with nostalgia on Macron, too.

Link


Israel-Palestine-Jordan
Change of vector. Netanyahu gave Macron a diplomatic slap in the face
2025-04-24
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Leonid Tsukanov

[REGNUM] France and Israel have fallen out. President Emmanuel Macron's intention to recognize Palestinian statehood amid the Gaza crisis has led to the cancellation of a French parliamentary trip to the West Bank.

Tel Aviv, with a stroke of the pen, banned entry to twenty-seven politicians at once, alarming the French establishment.

The Israeli authorities believe that they have thus nipped in the bud Paris's mistaken turn towards Palestine. However, paradoxically, Tel Aviv's actions have only accelerated the drift of the Elysee Palace.

TWO APPROACHES
Relations between France and Israel have developed in fits and starts throughout their history and have depended heavily on the personal positions of French leaders.

For example, under Charles de Gaulle, the Elysee Palace was a key supplier of weapons to the young Jewish state for almost two decades (until 1962).

Under François Mitterrand (in the early 1980s), Paris and Tel Aviv together sent troops into Lebanon to stabilize the situation and prevent the victory of pro-Iranian forces.

Under Nicolas Sarkozy (second half of the 2000s), France became a “bridge” between Israel and the EU, and also played a significant role in containing Iranian ambitions in the Middle East.

There have also been figures among French presidents who were less loyal to the Israelis, who have reduced to nothing some of the achievements of their predecessors.

Thus, de Gaulle and Mitterrand were replaced in 1995 by Jacques Chirac, who sympathized with the leader of the Palestinian rebels, Yasser Arafat, and advocated for the independence of Palestine.

And François Hollande, who came to power immediately after Sarkozy, launched a campaign to force Israel and Palestine to negotiate and normalize relations.

HARDENING OF THE STANCE
Current French leader Emmanuel Macron has long occupied a balancing position between the two camps of the French elite.

Under his rule, Paris has invested considerable effort and resources in the fight against anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as in creating a positive image of the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu.

French state-owned tech firms have contributed significantly to the behind-the-scenes technology exchange between Israel and the Arabian monarchies long before the signing of the Abraham Accords in 2020.

At the same time, Macron reacted very harshly to the start of the Israeli army operation in Gaza in 2023, cutting off arms supplies to Israel and calling for an embargo on other EU countries.

In addition, Paris cancelled a number of major contracts for the purchase of Israeli equipment and technology; it banned the Jewish state's concerns from participating in the international exhibition of naval equipment "Euronaval".

However, relations reached a truly critical stage in April 2025, when the French leader announced plans to officially recognize Palestinian statehood in the coming months.

In doing so, the Elysee Palace demonstrated that it had abandoned the balancing act between the two approaches and had joined the line of Chirac and Hollande.

"INTEREST GUIDE"
Macron's decision to recognize Palestine, at first glance, was nothing out of the ordinary - by April, the Palestinians had secured the support of three-quarters of the world's countries, including European powers.

However, it was France's diplomatic maneuvers that Tel Aviv considered the most alarming signal. And there are several reasons for this.

The first is the changing nature of French foreign policy. Given Paris's increased influence within the EU, a hypothetical arms embargo at the EU level, advocated by the Elysee Palace, would severely affect the country's defense capability: arms imports would fall by at least a third.

Official Tel Aviv was also concerned by the fact that France, during the Gaza crisis, had become excessively close to Egypt and had begun to support its peacekeeping initiatives.

Cairo and Paris are jointly promoting the outlines of a future deal on Gaza, which implies maintaining Palestinian control over the enclave, which is not understood by some Israeli elites.

Populist politicians like Itamar Ben-Gvir call the Elysee Palace the "conduit of interests" of Egypt and demand a "decisive response" from the authorities.

Finally, France managed to straighten out relations with Turkey, which made further "friendship" with Tel Aviv against Ankara inexpedient. But it gave Turkish politicians a unique chance to turn the edge of French policy in the Middle East against the Israelis.

In the context of the intense rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara for control of Syria, France's contribution to the struggle could prove decisive.

COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT
Tel Aviv decided to respond to the change in the vector of French policy in its own way.

Less than a week after Macron's statements, Israeli authorities barred entry to a group of 27 French parliamentarians who were planning to visit the West Bank to meet with Palestinian Authority officials (including activists representing Gaza).

Despite the fact that the delegation consisted mainly of representatives of left-wing parliamentary parties opposed to Macron, Tel Aviv's decision was perceived as a slap in the face to the entire French parliament.

Moreover, Israeli law enforcement officials justified the cancellation of visas by the letter of the “prohibited” law, which allows restricting entry to persons who may act to the detriment of the interests and security of the state.

Israel has previously used it to prevent individuals suspected of collaborating with Iranian authorities from entering the country.

However, in the last six months, at least twice the law has been transformed into an instrument of collective punishment – ​​for the rapid expulsion of inconvenient European politicians from the country.

It should be noted that this is the second time that the French have suffered under the Israeli law. In February 2025, French MEP Rima Hassan was banned from entering the country for “systematically promoting a boycott of Israel.”

The French elites considered the first case of expulsion to be isolated and preferred to let the matter slide, but they no longer tolerated a mass ban on entry.

The parliamentarians have filed a complaint with Macron and demanded that he take retaliatory steps. Calls to respond to Tel Aviv's demarche have also come from representatives of the president's Renaissance party.

COLD REVENGE
So far, the spat between Paris and Tel Aviv has not caused serious damage to relations between the two countries.

After the parliamentary delegation's trip to the West Bank was disrupted, the Elysee Palace took a break to consider its response. The Israelis are confident that this behavior shows that Paris has understood Tel Aviv's concerns and will adjust its position on Gaza.

However, a bureaucratic slap in the face, on the contrary, risks accelerating France's drift towards the anti-Israeli camp. Especially since the political demand for this comes from both the opposition and government forces.

It seems that the Elysee Palace is indeed determined to act, but not hastily. The French authorities are systematically looking for a sore spot in Israel so that their response will be proportionate to the insult inflicted.

Link


Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia
The Heavy Spirit of 'Truce': Why the Experience of the Minsk Agreements Is So Relevant Now
2025-02-12
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Alexander Semchenko

[REGNUM] The negotiations on Ukraine and the conditions for ending the military conflict have very symbolically become one of the main topics on the news agenda for the 10th anniversary of the "Second Minsk Agreements". And they are somewhat similar to the current situation, only now, instead of the heads of European powers, Donald Trump is on the front pages, persistently talking about the desire to stop the war by seating Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky at the negotiating table.

The US president is threatening new sanctions against Russia and the end of US aid to Ukraine if they leave the negotiating table without signing an agreement that Trump could present to the Nobel Committee as a decisive argument for awarding the peace prize. But just like ten years ago, foreign-sponsored military formations under the Ukrainian flag are in continuous retreat. Only in 2014-15 they were beaten by militias from the still unrecognized republics of Donbas, and now the Russian army is advancing.

And in this permanent defeat, which threatens the West with the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars invested in the war, the same reason for peace initiatives can be traced: Ukraine needs a respite, which will certainly be used to strengthen its military potential. In the same way, after the heavy defeats of the Ukrainian Armed Forces near Ilovaisk, Izvarino and Debaltseve, Petro Poroshenko, who had settled in Kiev, suddenly developed a burning desire to negotiate, rather than crush the rebellious people's republics with shells, bombs and missiles.

The successes of the Donetsk and Luhansk militias near Debaltseve led to the signing of the “Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements” on February 12, 2015. But it did not bring peace because neither the ideology of war nor its active supporters had disappeared in Kiev, and the situation itself did not contribute to a change in the course of post-Maidan Ukraine. It only gained time to reorganize the paramilitary formations under its control and reformat the consciousness of the majority of the Ukrainian population towards greater radicalism.

And this is exactly the case when a good knowledge of history allows you not to repeat mistakes when its wheel makes its next turn.

FALSE TRUCE
The "second Minsk" received a serial number because the first peace plan failed - neither Ukraine nor those who stand behind it were going to make peace. On June 27, 2014, an agreement on a ceasefire and political settlement of contradictions between Donbass and the Kyiv regime was signed in Donetsk.

In particular, the discussion was about a ceasefire, as well as amnesty and protection of the rights of the Russian-speaking population. However, literally a few days later, the "patriots of Ukraine" as part of the volunteer battalions resume military operations, and on July 17, the Malaysian Boeing flight MH-17 crashes in the skies over Donetsk Oblast. Accusations are immediately made against Russia and the Donetsk rebels, and the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the "volunteers" increase their pressure.

Amnesty and the Russian language immediately fall off the agenda.

This technique was subsequently used many times, as it worked flawlessly, until 2022, when the Istanbul agreements were followed by a provocation in Bucha. Zelensky's regime used it as an excuse not to fulfill its obligations.

While openly crying over the victims of the air crash, Kyiv's armed forces did not hesitate to choose their targets and means of destruction. For example, in August 2014, a ballistic missile "Tochka-U" with a cluster warhead was launched at the Kirovsky district of Donetsk. Even earlier, similar missiles hit Lugansk, Snezhnoye, Shakhtyorsk.

However, at the end of August, military fortune turns away from Kiev, and as a result of several defeats, the nationalist army actually falls apart. The Izvarinsky and Ilovaisk cauldrons force Poroshenko to seek salvation in negotiations. On September 5, the first Minsk agreements were signed, which received a very remarkable official name : "Protocol on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group regarding joint steps aimed at implementing the Peace Plan of the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko and the initiatives of the President of Russia Vladimir Putin."

The People's Republics were very skeptical about this protocol; the June "peace" was enough for them to understand who they were dealing with. But Moscow, on whose support Donetsk and Lugansk relied, had a different opinion. As a result, the DPR and LPR stopped their offensive operations, and even the process of liquidating the People's Militia began. Some of the volunteers were disarmed, but most joined the newly created People's Militia.

This is fully consistent with the letter of the "Protocol...", which provides for decentralization in the sphere of public order protection - Russia, which controlled the implementation on its part, acted scrupulously. But Kyiv again distinguished itself with a "creative" approach. Instead of withdrawing troops, the Ukrainian Armed Forces occupied the territory of the Donetsk airport, which was actively used to strike directly at the capital of the DPR.

The militias were forced to engage in armed confrontation, regaining control of the airport only in January 2015, while Ukraine was actively promoting the myth of “cyborgs” and “heroic defense,” which in principle should not have happened.

Needless to say, the Ukrainian side did not even try to fulfill the points of the agreement on amnesty for the participants in the conflict and the release of hostages.

The situation with the eighth point of the Protocol, “Take measures to improve the humanitarian situation in Donbass,” looks most mocking: from December 1, 2014, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, headed by Arseniy Yatsenyuk, stopped paying pensions to residents of territories not controlled by Kiev.

And just after getting out of the cauldrons, the remnants of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and national battalions again tried to organize an offensive on the DPR and LPR.

It all started again with a provocation. On January 22, 2015, at a checkpoint in the Volnovakha district, passengers of a scheduled bus rushed into a roadside shelter to take cover from a sudden Grad strike on a nearby field. A directional mine went off in the bushes, literally riddling both the people and the car.

Poroshenko immediately took a piece of bus paneling to Davos, Switzerland, telling about the treachery of the Donetsk militia - the tag Je suis Volnovakha was widely promoted on all social networks. And this became the basis for once again whipping up the militaristic hysteria.

The then head of the DPR, Alexander Zakharchenko, responded quite decisively. In particular, the DPR People's Militia launched a missile strike on the headquarters of the Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO) in Kiev-controlled Kramatorsk. In addition, two offensive operations were launched - Mariupol and Debaltseve, and the success of the latter again forced Poroshenko to ask for negotiations.

In fact, during the course of 24 hours of consultations, in which, in addition to the Ukrainian president, the presidents of Russia and France, as well as the chancellor of Germany, took part, the aforementioned “Complex…” was developed and signed on February 12, 2015.

"WORKING SCHEME" FOR PROVOCATIONS
The agreement stipulated that by the end of 2015 the war would cease, and Ukraine's sovereignty over Donetsk and Lugansk would be restored with some reservations. Donbass would retain preferences in the socio-cultural sphere, as well as in the sphere of public order protection. But the Ukrainian side did not want to agree even to such a trifle as the "right to linguistic self-determination".

From the first days after the signing of the "Complex..." it was clear that the regime that came to power as a result of the coup d'etat on February 22 and legitimized in the elections on May 25, 2014, was not interested in implementing it. The peace treaty was simply an opportunity to continue doing what "Maidan stood for."

After the start of the SVO, this was confirmed by the participants in the 2015 negotiations.

"The Minsk agreement of 2014 was an attempt to give Ukraine time. It also used this time to become stronger, as we can see today. The Ukraine of 2014-15 is not today's Ukraine. As we saw during the fighting in the Debaltseve area in 2015, Putin could have easily won then. And I very much doubt that NATO countries would have been able to do as much as they are doing now to help Ukraine," former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was an active participant in the negotiation process on the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict in February 2015,told Die Zeit in December 2022

Her words were confirmed by former French President François Hollande, who, like Merkel, participated in the Minsk talks in February 2015. “Yes, Merkel is right. The Minsk agreements stopped the Russian offensive for a while,” he said in an interview with the Kyiv Independent. According to him, it was important “to know that the West would take advantage of this respite.” In December 2022, he acknowledged the success of this strategy, emphasizing that “the Ukrainian army is now not at all what it was in 2014, it is better equipped and trained - and this is due to the Minsk agreements.”

Their very essence was fundamentally at odds with Kyiv's new political agenda. Opponents from the nationalist camp blamed Poroshenko for literally every point - from the withdrawal of troops to the special status of rebellious regions, which "contradicts the constitution" - which was subsequently "put on hold" without any embarrassment.

And in order to block the very possibility of changing something, the puppeteers again resorted to murder according to the working scheme.

On August 31, 2015, members of the Verkhovna Rada gathered for an extraordinary session to amend the constitution to implement the Minsk agreements. A protest of "patriots" gathered in the street in front of the parliament, during which a representative of the Nazi party "Svoboda" threw a grenade at the Ministry of Internal Affairs officers. Four National Guardsmen were killed.

No one was held accountable for the murder, but the incident served as a pretext for removing the issue of special status from the Verkhovna Rada's agenda altogether.

The second thing that opponents of Minsk in Ukraine categorically opposed was holding free elections outside the control of Kiev, which was proposed in 2016 by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. A plebiscite under the control of the OSCE was to be held before the transfer of the territory of Donbass to the control of the armed forces of the Kiev regime. And this was the problem - the elections guaranteed that the Nazis would not gain any influence in the local governments of the regions outside their control.

Moscow assumed that the actual return of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions to the political life of Ukraine would fundamentally change it, restoring the balance lost in 2014. Without Crimea, the influence of the “Russian” party, of course, would not have reached the pre-Maidan level, but it would have threatened the political monopoly of the nationalists. Therefore, they talked about the need to limit civil rights in the uncontrolled territories after their inclusion in the orbit of the Kyiv authorities.

It is this narrative that has become one of the main ones in discussing the prospects for Ukraine's post-war development. And the demonization of Donbass residents, their dehumanization, has become mainstream in the media. A huge number of experts in various fields have started talking about the same thing: "Donbass needs gallows, not schools."

Incitement of hostility and hatred became the norm, any appeals to the inadmissibility of propaganda of discrimination were interpreted as "Kremlin narratives". The information war against Donbass became part of a large psychological special operation aimed at preparing Ukrainian society for war against Russia.

The Minsk agreements were initially based on the shaky foundation of unresolved fundamental problems. That is why Kyiv had no intention of implementing them, and Donbass, although it did so with gritting teeth, did not want to end up under the rule of people who had carried out a coup d'état and were guided by greed and hatred.

So, conditional new peace agreements are possible only when we clearly understand that we will not have to repeat them in another ten years.

Link


Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia
Farewell to Makhnovshchina. Debaltseve saw a 'victory in spite of'
2025-01-23
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Ilya Ropshin

[REGNUM] Exactly ten years ago, on January 22, 2015, after a massive artillery barrage, the Donbass militias launched an offensive on the Debaltseve arc. The battles for the capture of the city of Debaltseve, one of the largest railway hubs of the DPR, became the last episode of the "hot phase" of the Donbass conflict and culminated in the signing of the Second Minsk Agreements.

From the point of view of military strategy, the battles for Debaltseve became the largest battle of the transition period. They were very different from the 2014 campaign, some experts call them almost a manifestation of the "new Makhnovshchina" and semi-guerrilla warfare. And at the same time, they cannot be classified in scale as combat operations of the SVO. At the same time, some of the problems that emerged during the storming of Debaltseve will also emerge during the current special operation of the Russian Armed Forces.

THEATER OF OPERATIONS
The Debaltseve salient on the combat contact line was formed at the end of July 2014. At that time, the Armed Forces of Ukraine managed to completely capture the city, which had been controlled by the Novorossiya militia since April 13. However, the success of the Ukrainian Armed Forces was incomplete. The Ukrainian military managed to cut the Donetsk-Luhansk railway, but they failed to reach the rear of Yenakiyevo and organize an offensive on Gorlovka.

In August, the militia attempted to recapture Debaltseve. However, due to the lack of coordination between the Luhansk and Donetsk militias, as well as threats to the Donbass republics from other directions, this was not possible.

By the fall of 2014, Ukraine controlled the Debaltseve salient, which jutted out to the south, encircled Gorlovka from the east, and cut off the roads between Lugansk and Donetsk. The Ukrainian group located on the salient threatened the same Gorlovka, as well as the cities of Yenakiyeve, Shakhtyorsk, Alchevsk, and Stakhanov. At the same time, the salient itself was under fire from the artillery of the Donbass republics.

It was no secret to anyone that sooner or later the militia would try to cut off the ledge.

BALANCE OF POWER
At that time, the Ukrainian group in the Debaltseve area included: units of the 128th Mountain Infantry, 25th Airborne and 17th Tank brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, territorial defense battalions from the Chernihiv, Kyiv and Kirovograd regions, police and National Guard special forces units.

As well as formations that are not formally part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine: the battalion of the “Volunteer Ukrainian Corps” of the “Right Sector”* and the Chechen battalion named after Dzhokhar Dudayev.

On the side of the DPR and LPR, the Kalmius and Prizrak brigades fought in the battles, as well as battalion tactical groups of the 1st Army Corps of the DPR and the 2nd Army Corps of the LPR. Let us explain: after the first Minsk agreements (signed on September 5, 2014), in October, on the basis of disparate volunteer units, People's Militia corps were created - the 1st Corps of the DPR and the 2nd Corps of the LPR, respectively.

For example, the famous Sparta unit (now named after its first commander Arsen Pavlov - Motorola) became part of the 1st Corps of the DPR People's Militia. Sparta participated in the battles for Debaltsevo, among other things.

The corps of the people's republics were formed, among other things, by contract soldiers - for the men of Donbass, which was experiencing mass unemployment, this was also an opportunity to earn money.

The number of units on the opposing sides was approximately equal - according to various sources, it ranged from 7 thousand to 8-9 thousand people.

Ukraine was quickly turning Debaltseve into a powerful fortified area. The militia was replenishing its equipment reserves, especially artillery. At the same time, there were also problems related to the personnel of the opposing sides.

It would seem that Ukraine had a motivated and seasoned sergeant and junior officer corps. And many privates had already had a taste of gunpowder.

The defenders of Donbass were supposed to have already gained enough experience during the battles of the “Russian Spring” – from the defense of Slavyansk to the battles at Saur-Mogila.

However, in reality, things were not so optimistic - and not only in the aggressor's troops, but also, alas, in the ranks of the defenders of the people's republics.

PROBLEMS OF THE UKRAINIAN ARMED FORCES: FREEDOM, CONFUSION AND SLOWNESS
"The Maidan activists are the worst, many of them are unemployed and have no goals in life. They joined the army but do not want to learn discipline. When I tried to teach them something, they said: who are you to teach us, I threw Molotov cocktails on the Maidan," a British citizen of Ukrainian origin, call sign Shafran, who fought near Debaltseve, complained to BBC correspondents in February 2015. He introduced himself as a "military instructor."

According to his estimates, 6 out of 10 losses among Ukrainian volunteers were the result of friendly fire and inability to properly handle weapons.

"It was clear from the start that Debaltseve would be a disaster for Ukraine, but the military command and political leaders watched it unfold with a sluggish air," the British instructor lamented.

According to him, the Ukrainian military leadership was then “so incompetent that it puts the lives of personnel at risk”: “Commanders confuse tactics with strategy, they launch offensives without warning each other, and without any strategic necessity.”

The Ukrainian volunteer units lacked coordination of actions at that time. And they had problems with communication: they used ordinary mobile phones.

At the same time, British instructor Shafran noted the high level of training of Ukrainian special forces.

MILITIA PROBLEMS: WEAKNESSES OF COMMANDERS AND FIGHTERS “BY AD”
On the other hand, the DPR and LPR corps had a problem of a different nature: poorly trained personnel.

"One of the main problems has become the individual training of soldiers, whose level of training, especially in infantry units, does not fully meet the modern requirements of combined arms combat. The main reason for this is the acute shortage of trained junior officers and sergeants at the platoon and company level," military correspondent Vladislav Shurygin stated in his blog in March 2015.

In his opinion, on average, a battalion had at best two or three platoon commanders with a military education. The shortfall had to be covered by appointing university graduates and fighters who gained experience in June–September 2014, with their subsequent accelerated training already in the units.

"But this problem was never fully resolved. As a result, during the battles the infantry had to be constantly reinforced by well-trained special forces and reconnaissance units, which were ultimately used for the most part as assault groups," Shurygin noted.

Similar difficulties were observed in tank units. Many crews had only basic driving and shooting experience, but when it was necessary to urgently fix a breakdown of a combat vehicle, problems already began. As a result, equipment was often abandoned during battles "with minimal breakdowns and damage," Shurygin stated.

The armored vehicle crews lacked experience in “team play,” which led to large and unjustified losses of equipment and personnel.

Shurygin also directly pointed out that some of the people accepted into service in September–October 2014 “actually had no other motivation for service other than material incentives.”

Andrey Morozov, the head of communications for the August Battalion of the LPR People's Militia, spoke even more harshly: "Everyone understood perfectly well how recruitment into the army by advertisements would end. It was impossible to establish any filtering or screening of recruits at the level of large units in such a short time."

Ultimately, this led to the desertion of a certain number of fighters from the DPR and LPR Armed Forces.

So, before the fighting began, the sides had enough problems. But the battle for Debaltseve still took place.

FIRST PHASE OF THE OPERATION. STRIKING AT WEAK LINKS
On January 22, Ukraine officially acknowledged the loss of Donetsk airport. On the same day, the offensive operation of the armed forces of the DPR and LPR began to eliminate the Debaltseve salient.

Initially, the plan was to cut off the salient at its "base" - near Svetlodarsk. On January 22, the militia launched artillery strikes on Debaltsevo, Olkhovatka, Redkodub, Popasnaya and Sanzharovka.

The DPR and LPR Armed Forces attempted to close the cauldron near Debaltseve with counterattacks in the direction of Svetlodarsk, but the attack was unsuccessful. In response, Ukrainian formations launched a counterattack in the direction of Troitske and Krasny Pakhar, which the militia had previously managed to recapture.

The armed forces of the Donbass republics tried to achieve success further south. On January 25, in the area of ​​Sanzharovka, the "August" battalion attacked height 307.9. Morozov's text in "Live Journal" was dedicated to the battles for the height :

"Sanzharovka itself was really taken almost without problems. It was a great tank attack through the fog, with infantry on the armor. However, how much infantry was there? Battalion reconnaissance. A platoon, about 20 people. The motorized rifle company assigned to us according to the organization chart was partly in another place on the front at that time, partly scattered along the entire route of advance to the front, guarding rear bases and transit points."

According to the chief of communications of the August battalion, the militia artillery fire in that battle, if it was adjusted, was unsatisfactory. And then the Ukrainian military realized that the militia did not have enough infantrymen.

"There was no infantry there. Neither our own, nor that attached to one of the brigades. And the command knew that it would not be there during the attack. The tanks went to 307.9 "naked", without infantry," Morozov noted.

The militia tanks were burned. Sanzharovka itself continued to be shelled until the end of the battle for Debaltseve.

However, the armed forces of the DPR and LPR managed to drive the Ukrainian Armed Forces out of the settlement of Nikishino. The Ukrainian garrison went north to Redkodub, which was later also liberated.

The Donbass republics' command also concentrated its efforts on Uglegorsk, a weak link in the Ukrainian defense. As a number of experts pointed out, the Ukrainian military prepared the fortifications there poorly, which the militias took advantage of.

The militia's goal was to organize a "small cauldron" along the line of heights that controlled the M-103 highway running northwest from Debaltseve. The highway itself came under heavy artillery fire from the Kalmius Brigade.

THE FALL OF UGLEGORSK AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE ARC INTO A CAULDRON
On January 26, the head of the DPR, Alexander Zakharchenko, announced the encirclement of Ukrainian units in the Debaltseve area, calling on Ukrainian soldiers to lay down their arms in exchange for their lives.

In Debaltsevo and Uglegorsk, as well as Dzerzhinsk, a catastrophic humanitarian situation has developed: due to military action, the main water pipelines were damaged.

On January 31, the militia entered Uglegorsk. Street fighting began. On February 3, an attack began on the village of Logvinovo on the M-103 highway.

The next day, on February 4, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called on the parties to a ceasefire to evacuate residents of Debaltseve and other settlements. A ceasefire was declared, and more than 5,000 civilians were evacuated from Debaltseve and other settlements.

The next day, the fighting resumed. That same day, February 5, the militia established full control over Uglegorsk. It is noteworthy that at the height of the fighting for this settlement, the head of the DPR Zakharchenko visited it, which demoralized those Ukrainians who believed the official media information that the attacks on Uglegorsk were "repulsed."

Two days later, on February 7, Redkodub was liberated, and on February 9, Logvinovo. Ukrainian paratroopers tried to recapture the latter, but they failed. After that, the DPR and LPR announced that the M-103 highway was blocked.

Thus, the cauldron near Debaltseve was formed. However, the Ukrainian side did not admit this. On February 11, the Minister of Defense of Ukraine Stepan Poltorak stated that "the units located in Debaltseve are receiving weapons and ammunition, there is communication and interaction with the command." But in fact, even in Ukraine itself, they did not believe in this.

FIGHTS AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF MINSK
The next morning, February 12, the Ukrainian Armed Forces attempted to break out of Debaltseve. Logvinovo was attacked. Moreover, the attack was carried out both from within the cauldron and from outside.

By that time, negotiations had taken place in Minsk between Russian President Vladimir Putin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President François Hollande and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. On February 12, the heads of the DPR and LPR, Aleksandr Zakharchenko and Igor Plotnitsky, also arrived in Minsk.

Militiamen of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) on the road to Debaltseve.
As a result of the Minsk agreements signed that day, the troops of both sides were to cease fire from 00:00 Eastern European Time on February 15. Zakharchenko and Plotnitsky announced their readiness to allow the Ukrainian formations to leave the cauldron if they left behind their weapons and equipment.

In reality, the fighting did not stop. OSCE representatives who arrived to record the ceasefire were unable to get to Debaltseve. DPR leader Zakharchenko was wounded during the fighting for Debaltseve on February 17.

FEBRUARY FINALE
On the night of February 18, the Ukrainian command decided to withdraw all the blocked units from Debaltseve. Their backbone was made up of units of the 128th Mountain Assault Brigade. The Ukrainians went for a breakthrough. In total, more than 2,500 people tried to leave the cauldron. The majority of them succeeded. Although three roads leading out of the city were mined and were under close fire control of the militia, the enemy had the opportunity to retreat along paths and rough terrain. But there were also prisoners and dead.

Later that day, the DPR Ministry of Defense announced that Debaltseve was under full control. And the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, in turn, announced the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Debaltseve. At the same time, Poroshenko tried to claim that the withdrawal of Ukrainian units was organized, which caused criticism both in the DPR and in Ukraine itself, since it was a case of flight at random, with personal weapons, but without heavy weapons and equipment.

According to various sources, Ukraine's losses amounted to 250 people killed and 110 captured. Some authors also estimate the militia's losses at almost 240 people killed. The armed forces of the Donbass republics took quite a lot of trophies, primarily equipment and weapons. But militia officers were rather skeptical about the battles for Debaltseve.

"The offensive on Debaltseve began on the 22nd. I would call it "disgustingly planned", but I seriously doubt that anyone planned it at all. Tanks without infantry, infantry without cover, no communication between units... In general, everything ended as it should have. A week later, everyone sent their superiors to a well-known address and began coordinating actions among themselves at the grassroots level. But there were no reserves left," noted Alexey Markov, commander of the Luhansk Prizrak brigade, on February 1, 2015.

According to him, the liberation of Debaltseve, the neutralization of the Ukrainian group threatening Gorlovka, and the straightening of the front line were a victory achieved in spite of the circumstances and at a rather heavy price.

Later, in 2019, the "Coordination Center for Assistance to Novorossiya", of which Markov was a member, prepared a report "How Russia is Losing the War in Donbass". The report covered in detail the problematic aspects of the battles for Debaltseve. In particular, it discussed the personnel, their training, as well as problems with communication and coordination of the units of the Armed Forces of the Donbass republics.

Some of the problems later "surfaced" at the initial stage of the SVO. But that's a completely different story.

Link


Europe
Sarkozy in the dock: former French president faces corruption charges over 'suitcases of cash from Gaddafi', sensational claims set to reignite interest around the world
2025-01-07
[Daily Mail, where America gets its news] When France's president Nicolas Sarkozy and his supermodel wife of two months, Carla Bruni, arrived in Britain for a state visit in March 2008 they were feted as Gallic royalty.

The newlyweds stayed at Windsor Castle and had a private lunch with the Queen and Prince Philip before Sarkozy travelled to Westminster to address both houses of Parliament.

That evening, at a grand banquet in St George's Hall, he raised a toast to 'the brotherhood of the French and British people', while Her Majesty did her own bit for the entente cordiale by bestowing him with an honorary knighthood.

Such a splendid occasion will today seem a very distant memory to the man universally known as 'Sarko'.

This afternoon, the 69-year-old will take his place in the dock at Paris's principal criminal court sporting an electronic tag on his right leg.

Sarkozy, who was convicted in December of trying to bribe a judge, now confronts his most serious charges to date: corruption, illegal campaign financing, benefiting from embezzled public funds and being party to a criminal conspiracy.

In a trial listed to last no less than three months, prosecutors will claim that he accepted money-laundered funds from Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the late dictator of oil-rich Libya, totalling tens of millions of pounds.

The cash reportedly helped finance the 2007 election campaign which swept Sarkozy to power, meaning that his victory will be for ever tainted by the allegation that it was based on dirty money from North Africa.

If found guilty, the man who was nicknamed 'President Bling-Bling', thanks to his penchant for the high life, faces up to a decade in prison.

And his wife could suffer a similar fate. Carla, 57, is accused of being part of a £4 million campaign dubbed 'Operation Save Sarko', a complex and illegal plan to try to keep her husband out of jail.

She has been charged with a range of corruption offences, including 'witness tampering in an organised gang', and her trial is expected to get under way later this year.

This is all a far cry from the days when Sarko was billed as the poster boy of French conservatism and I used to interview him regularly as a journalist and author based in Paris.

He projected himself to me as a Margaret Thatcher-style reformer who would liberalise the French economy, just as the Iron Lady did in Britain in the 1980s.

The pace at which he worked to bring about change earned him the nickname 'Speedy Sarko' – and he didn't hang about when it came to his personal life either.

He became the first French president to divorce his wife while in office. A break-up with Cécilia was always on the cards, given that they were both known for their illicit affairs.

Indeed, Nicolas and Cécilia were both married to other people when they first got together. He was with his first wife, Marie-Dominique, and Cécilia's husband was a French TV chat-show host called Jacques Martin, a kind of French Bruce Forsyth 24 years her senior.

Sarkozy got to know them on their wedding day because, as the mayor of the chichi Paris suburb of Neuilly-sur-Seine, he conducted the ceremony. Though 29 and married, Sarko later admitted that after laying eyes on the beautiful bride for the first time, he asked himself: 'Why am I marrying this woman to someone else? She is for me.'

The two couples often went on skiing holidays together, and Sarko was rumbled when Marie-Dominique spotted footprints in the snow under Cécilia's window.

Cécilia was briefly France's First Lady when Sarkozy entered the Élysée Palace in 2007, but her days were numbered from the outset as she was known to be seeing a French-Moroccan businessman, while her husband's conquests at the time included a political journalist on the centre-Right daily Le Figaro.

As a result, Sarkozy's five-year term took on the status of a wild soap opera, which reached its climax when he wooed Bruni, an Italian heiress and self-styled 'tamer of men', whose past lovers included multimillionaire celebrities such as Mick Jagger and – it was rumoured – Donald Trump.

Sarko himself revelled in the high life and thought nothing of borrowing super-yachts and private jets from billionaire industrialists, while treating them to lavish meals at Michelin- starred restaurants.

After becoming Sarko's third wife, Carla soon turned into his Marie Antoinette, with presidential accounts revealing that she spent £660 a day on fresh flowers for the Élysée Palace.

With so much energy being expended on luxury living, many suggested that sucking up to the super-wealthy had become Sarkozy's priority – an accusation that was given added credence when the hugely controversial Gaddafi rolled into Paris in December 2007.

Sarko had invited the so-called 'Brother Leader' for a red-carpet state visit and the Libyan despot was even given permission to pitch his tribal tent in ornate presidential gardens by the Champs-Élysées.

This sort of bromance was all the more inappropriate given that Gaddafi was linked to a range of atrocities, including the Lockerbie bombing, which saw 270 people die when a PanAm flight en route to New York went down over Scotland in 1988, and the shooting of Metropolitan police officer Yvonne Fletcher by a gunman inside Libya's London Embassy four years earlier.

Even Sarko's own Human Rights State Secretary, Rama Yade, said France 'was not a doormat' for Gaddafi to 'wipe off the blood of his crimes'. But Sarkozy just shrugged his shoulders, knowing that his presidential immunity would protect him from investigation.

This all changed in May 2012, when he lost his first attempt at re-election to François Hollande. Within a day, Sarkozy's Paris townhouse was raided by the fraud squad – and he and his wife's troubles began in earnest.

For Gaddafi was not the former president's only problem. Sarkozy first came under suspicion of engaging in corrupt dealings when he was accused of accepting envelopes full of cash from the late L'Oréal heiress, Liliane Bettencourt.

While these claims did not stick – his lieutenants took the rap – Sarkozy was sentenced to three years for trying to get classified information about the case against him from a judge.

Telephone taps proved the prosecution case against Sarkozy, who was told he could serve a year with an electronic tag, while the other two were suspended.

He is currently appealing another prison sentence – this time of one year – for using false accounting to disguise illegal overspending in his failed re-election campaign of 2012.

Other ongoing cases include claims that he was involved in Qatargate – the successful but allegedly corrupt plan to stage the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

But it is the Libya affair which will now reignite interest in Sarkozy around the world. It is primarily based on allegations by a Franco-Lebanese businessman called Ziad Takieddine, who once told French media that in 2006-07 he had personally handed over suitcases stuffed with banknotes to Sarkozy and his chief of staff, Claude Guéant (something the latter later denied).

Takieddine said the equivalent of at least £42 million was illegally poured into Sarkozy's 2007 presidential campaign.

A document signed by Libya's former chief of intelligence, Moussa Koussa, apparently proves the payment. Unfortunately for Sarkozy, like many witnesses from the time, Koussa is alive and well.

So, too, is Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam, who told me he was one of 'numerous Libyans prepared to offer conclusive proof' of massive amounts of cash being given to middle men working for Sarkozy.

There is no love lost between the two men as it was Sarkozy who ordered the French Air Force, supported by Nato allies, to start bombing targets in Libya in March 2011 as a means of protecting civilian lives during the Arab Spring revolt. But regime change was clearly the desired result.

By the time Sarkozy and Britain's then PM, David Cameron, paid a triumphant joint visit to Tripoli in September of that year, the fleeing Gaddafi was close to being beaten to death by a mob.

A key question to be considered by judges is whether Sarko wanted Gaddafi dead because of his potential to produce incriminating evidence. There are claims, admittedly hotly contested, that Gaddafi was killed by agents working directly for the Sarkozy administration.

Sarkozy and Bruni deny all the charges and are determined to prove their innocence. Yet moves are already underway to strip him of his Legion d'Honneur and Order of Merit – France's highest civilian decorations.

As the first French president to be convicted for crimes carried out while in office, he 'has next to no chance of hanging on to them', a senior judicial source in Paris told me.
Related:
Nicolas Sarkozy 11/15/2024 France: Pro-Palestinian French fans attack Israeli fans, game ends in 0-0 tie
Nicolas Sarkozy 11/14/2024 Pro-Hamas mob once again terrorizing Paris, being violent with the police and chanting genocidal slogans against Jews
Nicolas Sarkozy 04/12/2024 'Simple contract' and its consequences. Ukraine could have joined NATO in 1954

Link


Europe
France's New Prime Minister: A Lover of Shady Schemes Caught on 'Snowdrops'
2024-12-15
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Olesya Orlenko

[REGNUM] On December 13, French President Emmanuel Macron appointed a new prime minister, his fourth this year. After much hesitation, he chose centrist François Bayrou. While the new head of government considers candidates for ministerial posts, the French are discussing how long he will hold on to the job.

François Bayrou began his political career in the early 1980s. During this time, he served as a member of parliament, a member of the European Parliament, and as Minister of Education under Presidents François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac.

He also ran for president in 2002, 2007 and 2012. In 2007, he and his party, the Democratic Movement (MoDem), created specifically for the elections, even took third place in terms of the number of votes received – 18.57%, which, however, did not allow him to advance to the second round.

In 2017, he entered into an alliance with Emmanuel Macron, supporting his candidacy for the French presidency. Since then, Bayrou has been considered a loyal ally of the head of state. His name was mentioned among potential candidates for the post of prime minister after the resignation of Michel Barnier. However, Macron apparently made his choice at the very last minute. And he made it largely after Bayrou’s insistent requests.

This version explains the nervousness that the new prime minister clearly felt when he delivered his speech during the ceremony of handing over power from his predecessor. In his hands he held a sheet of paper with handwritten outlines of his speech, obviously hastily written. He did not thank the president for the trust he had shown. Instead, he spoke a lot about the difficulties associated with the post he was now taking on. And they were all serious.

The first problem is related to the state budget. The fact that this document was not adopted this year will lead to additional expenses starting from January 1, 2025. As a result, whatever the budget proposed by the new government, it will be physically impossible to fit the savings proposed by Michel Barnier into it.

Consequently, the national debt will only increase, which will have a detrimental effect on both the domestic economy and France's position in the European Union. It is not for nothing that the American rating agency Moody's, a few hours before the announcement of the new prime minister, lowered France's credit rating and expressed doubts about the country's ability to quickly improve the state of public finances.

Also important is the question of whether Bayrou will be able to secure a parliamentary majority and avoid another vote of no confidence. This is what France Insoumise
….a leftwing French political party launched in 2016 by Jean-Luc Mélenchon, then a Member of the European Parliament and former co-president of the Left Party...
of the left-wing NUPES coalition is insisting on, assuring that many other members of this group are ready to support such a proposal.

Indeed, the majority of the left shares the view that Macron has once again failed to learn from his mistakes and continues to act as before, blind to the obstacles that arise. However, for now, the leaders of the Communists, Greens and Socialists have
…all idiots by definition…
said that they will refrain from trying to immediately dismiss Bayrou. Although the latter have said that they will refuse ministerial posts in the new government if they are offered them.

The right has also adopted a wait-and-see attitude. The so-called independence that Bayrou has always tried to demonstrate is mistrusted by them. In particular, they voice concerns that the new head of government will be too favorable to the left. After all, in 2012 he called on his supporters to vote for François Hollande in the second round.

The position of the right will largely depend on the first steps of the new prime minister. An important moment will be the choice of the Minister of the Interior: the "Republicans" are very much counting on Bayrou leaving their party member Bruno Retaillo in this position.

Unfortunately for Bayrou, he has neither a wide circle of political supporters nor the goodwill of the press. His performance as a politician is rated average.

Since 2020, he has headed the High Commissioner for Planning, an advisory agency that is supposed to work on optimizing the activities of public services in certain areas. Many officials consider the existence of this agency useless and pointless, because the recommendations coming from it are extremely rare and superficial.

Moreover, the prime minister is under threat of trial. François Bayrou was tried on exactly the same charge as the head of the National Rally parliamentary faction, Marine Le Pen: creating fictitious positions in the European Parliament, the funding of which was used as salaries for members of their parties. Such employees, who appear on the payroll but do not exist in reality, have been called "snowdrops" since Soviet times.

In connection with this process, Bayrou even had to leave the post of Minister of Justice, to which he was appointed after Macron’s election in 2017, where he held it for about two months.

The court found that there was no evidence against Bayrou, but some members of his MoDem party were convicted. For example, Jean-Luc Benamiat received a 30,000 euro fine, a 12-month suspended sentence and a three-year ban on running.

By the way, Le Pen faces five years in prison, three of which are suspended, a ban on being a candidate in elections for five years and a fine of 300 thousand euros. But the justice system continues to remind that it is not sure of Bayrou's innocence, and a new trial may begin in the near future.

The job of Prime Minister of France looks particularly unattractive these days. The consequences of any decision will be negative, and attempts to rely on different political forces will cause discontent among their opponents.

At the same time, budget expenditures on social security will inevitably be reduced, causing popular discontent. This is confirmed by the recent speech of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. He complained that Europe spends too much on pensions and health care, at a time when it is necessary to switch to “wartime thinking” and increase funding for the Alliance from 2% to 4% of GDP.

So only skillful political maneuvering can save François Bayrou from resignation.
Except that it sounds like he is neither skillful nor clever. Eventually it will comedown to the candidates on the right.
Related:
François Bayrou 09/30/2009 Europe's Socialists Tanking
François Bayrou 06/01/2007 Sarkozy heads for parliamentary landslide
François Bayrou 05/09/2007 Au Revoir : Laurent Murawiec's diagnosis on France

Link


Africa North
'African Front': France's Last Stronghold in the Sahel Will Be Eliminated
2024-12-04
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Olesya Orlenko

[REGNUM] The latest news from Africa once again proves that France is rapidly losing its position on the continent. This process is expressed both in the reduction of the deployment points and capabilities of the French army, and in the diplomatic relations of Paris with the former colonies. One of the most important roles in these issues is played by questions of historical memory. How do its participants assess this process and how do they see its further development?

The defense cooperation agreements with France, which the Chadian government recently announced it would end, were signed in 1976. They were amended in 2019 to include a statement about Chad’s right to review its strategic partnership policy.

On November 28, 2024, Chad's government spokesman and foreign minister Abderaman Koulamalla announced that, due to this circumstance, the country was asking for the end of the French military presence on its territory. Now, about 1,000 French troops serving in Chad must go home, and the military bases will be closed.

The French media do not hide the fact that this news took France by surprise. After all, it was made a few hours after the departure of Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot from Chad. The head of the French Foreign Ministry met with Minister Koulamalla, as well as with President Mahamat Idriss Déby.

Neither said a word about their plans, although Chad called the decision "carefully thought out." The French side was apparently so stunned that it could not decide on an official response for a long time. And later it only announced that Chad's decision was "taken into account."

The French military presence in Chad was one of the most solid and extensive. It was there that the forces involved in military actions on the continent were concentrated, in particular in Operation Barkhane. After the loss of Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali, Chad was the last stronghold of France in the Sahel.

But the severity of the blow does not end there.

Almost at the same time, bad news for France came from Senegal. On November 28, Le Monde published an interview with President Bassir Diomai Fay, in which he also stated that the French military presence in his country was inappropriate.

"What country can have foreign troops on its territory and still claim independence? France does not allow this for itself, so it should not impose this on other countries," said the head of Senegal. According to him, the state has the right to choose its partners and build mutually beneficial relations based on the principles of respect.

Respect is a major theme in Faye's interview on the 80th anniversary of the tragic event that took place in Senegal due to France's fault.

During the Battle of France in May–June 1940, conscripts from Senegal—the so-called riflemen—and people from other African colonies served in the French army. They, along with all the other soldiers, were captured by the Germans after the defeat of the French army. The black soldiers were then separated from the whites and placed in frontstalags located in France. They remained there for the entire period of Nazi occupation. Moreover, since 1943, the camps were guarded by the French themselves.

After the release of former prisoners of war from Africa, it was decided to send them back to their homeland. After several years of imprisonment, former prisoners, as a rule, had no means of subsistence. Therefore, the new French government provided the released prisoners with a certain amount as a relocation allowance. However, it was not paid to blacks. And the conditions in the barracks, where they were kept before further transit to Africa, were often no less harsh than in the camps.

Even in continental France, the Senegalese protested by refusing to leave until they were paid the amount owed. The authorities recognized their right to these payments and promised to resolve the issue.

The problem arose again in Senegal, in the Thiarois camp, where soldiers released from Nazi captivity were taken. The former prisoners of war did not want to leave the camp without receiving what they had been promised.

The French officers decided to teach the recalcitrants a lesson. At dawn on December 1, 1944, the military surrounded the camp territory, announced an emergency wake-up call and assembly on the central square, and ordered an immediate evacuation. And upon hearing indignant cries, they opened fire on those gathered with machine guns.

Modern researchers believe that about 400 people died at the hands of the French. France, which was still fighting Nazi Germany at the time, did everything to conceal what happened. Many documents related to the case were falsified. 35 black participants in those events were tried in March 1945 for "rebellion."

Until the late 1990s, the French authorities did not remember this event and also did everything they could to prevent the dissemination of this information in absolutely all spheres, including culture. Rethinking the role of black soldiers in the First and Second World Wars began only after 2000.

However, the fact of the murder of the Senegalese shooters by the French was officially acknowledged only by President François Hollande in a speech given during the events at the Thiarois cemetery in 2012. On November 28, 2024, in a letter from Emmanuel Macron dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the tragedy, France's responsibility for the "murder" was mentioned. An important step, according to the President of Senegal, but insufficient for reconciliation on the basis of conflicts related to historical memory.

Faye expressed hope that France's subsequent actions would be a logical continuation of the statements made.

Meanwhile, at a ceremony on December 1, he announced the construction of a memorial complex on the territory of the Tjarua camp, as well as the inclusion of the study of the tragedy that occurred there in the school curriculum.

Recent events have become another reason for French journalists and experts to note the extremely low level of analysis and knowledge about Africa in the public space and among specialists. The reluctance to evaluate the changes that have occurred in French-speaking African countries, the inability to create an attractive image for young people lead to their ever greater distance from the former metropolis.

Meanwhile, the strategic value of the continent is becoming increasingly clear.

Of course, we are talking about Russia. Propaganda media talk about Africa as a "front of a new war" between the West and the Russians. More reasonable experts note that in the strategic, economic and cultural spheres, different countries compete on the Black Continent, including European ones: the USA, China, Turkey, Hungary and others.

Africa is currently diversifying its partnerships and pursuing a policy of maximum openness. Of course, the domestic agenda in each country also plays an important role. For example, Chad's decision can be explained, among other things, by the presidential elections scheduled for December 29, 2024. The decision to withdraw foreign troops was enthusiastically received by the population.

French experts warn that more and more African countries will demand that France stop interfering in their internal affairs and respect their sovereignty.

Link


Europe
Pro-Hamas mob once again terrorizing Paris, being violent with the police and chanting genocidal slogans against Jews
2024-11-14
[PUBLISH.TWITTER]

They need a firehose to put out the fireworks. With Israeli skunk water would be best, but plain, cold water would suffice to get the message across.
The Times of Israel has reports:
Protests erupted in Paris on Wednesday against a gala organized by French far-right figures in support of Israel. The event, intended to raise funds for the Israeli military, had included Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich among its invited guests, though he didn’t end up attending.

The demonstrations came on the eve of a high-stakes soccer match at France’s national stadium against the Israeli national team, overshadowed by tensions around Israel’s wars against the Hamas and Hezbollah terror groups. Authorities in Paris announced that more than 4,000 police officers and 1,600 stadium staff would be deployed for the game.

Smotrich, a vocal advocate of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, had been expected to attend Wednesday’s gala, dubbed “Israel is Forever,” which was planned by an association of the same name. The group’s stated goal is to “mobilize French-speaking Zionist forces.”

After days of growing criticism of the event, Smotrich’s office confirmed Wednesday that the minister would not travel to Paris to participate.

But the invitation to Smotrich drew sharp criticism from local associations, unions and left-wing political parties, prompting two protests in the French capital. The minister, a hardline leader, has been promoting far-reaching settlement plans in the West Bank and drew international condemnation this week by saying he hopes the election of Donald Trump in the US would clear the way for Israeli annexation of the West Bank — a step that would likely extinguish Palestinian statehood dreams.

The French Foreign Ministry called Smotrich’s remarks “contrary to international law” and counterproductive to efforts to reduce regional tensions.

Critics also pointed at Nili Kupfer-Naouri, president of the “Israel is Forever” association, who sparked outrage in 2023, after the Israel-Hamas war started, when she tweeted that “no civilian in Gaza was innocent.” Gazan civilians have been found to be holding hostages abducted from Israel in their homes.

On Wednesday night, several hundred protesters marched through central Paris, denouncing the event as a “gala of hatred and shame.”

“Imagine if an association were hosting a gala for Hezbollah or Hamas — there’s no way the police would allow that,” said Melkir Saib, a 30-year-old protester. “The situation is just unfair.” (The EU designates Hamas and the military wing of Hezbollah as terrorist entities.)

Some demonstrators broke windows at a McDonald’s along the route, though the march was largely peaceful.

A separate group, including Jewish leftist organizations opposed to racism and antisemitism, gathered near the Arc de Triomphe chanting slogans against the gala and Smotrich.

French authorities defended the event, with Paris police chief Laurent Nunez stating that the gala posed “no major threat to public order.”

The protests came days after tensions flared in Paris — a massive “Free Palestine” banner was displayed during a Paris Saint-Germain Champions League match against Atletico Madrid last week — and after riots and violence targeting Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam.

ONLY ISRAELI, FRENCH FLAGS AT PARIS SOCCER GAME
French authorities stepped up security ahead of the Israel-France Nations League soccer match in Paris on Thursday, hoping to avoid a repeat of the violent clashes in Amsterdam.

“It’s an exceptional measure, three to four times greater than what we usually mobilize,” Paris police chief Laurent Nunez told RTL radio on Wednesday.

Only French and Israel flags will be allowed inside the stadium, he added.

In a rare move, police will also be deployed inside the stadium. Civilian staff are normally assigned to those roles.

An elite police unit will guard the Israeli team on its journey to and from the stadium and another 1,600 civilian security personnel will also be on duty at the match.

Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau said after the Amsterdam clashes there was never any question the game would go ahead as planned.

French President Emmanuel Macron, Prime Minister Michel Barnier, Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau, Sports Minister Gil Averous, former President Nicolas Sarkozy, and former French president François Hollande were all set to attend the game in a show of solidarity. Israel’s ambassador Joshua Zarka will also be there.

Still, turnout will likely be low, with just 20,000 fans expected in the 80,000-capacity stadium north of Paris.

Israel coach Ran Ben Shimon said he wanted to separate soccer from the “difficult” context as his side prepared to take on France.

When asked about the context in which Thursday’s game was taking place, Ben Shimon said he remained focused on the match.

Passions over Israel’s war with Palestinian terror group Hamas in Gaza run high in France, home to Europe’s largest Jewish and Muslim communities. Reports of antisemitic acts increased by an “unprecedented” 284 percent in 2023, France’s Human Rights Commission said in June, while anti-Muslim acts rose around a third.

Aurélien Bernheïm, co-founder of the Movement for French Jews, a right-wing Zionist youth group, said around 30 of his organization’s members would attend the Paris match.

“But I won’t hide it, many of these young people were scared to go as they had in their heads these appalling images from Amsterdam,” he said.

Walid Attalah, president of the Associations of Palestinians in Ile de France, said the match should have been canceled.

“Russia has been banned because there was the occupation of Ukraine, it was illegal, there were war crimes, but Israel is never sanctioned for what it does,” he said.

Some supporters, however, shrugged off concerns.

“I’m not worried,” said Yannick Vanhee, who leads a French supporters association in Dunkirk. “Authorities have been putting more and more security into these events.”

Link


-12 More