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 |
-Obits- | |
Leftists and Muslims are currently celebrating the death of French politician Jean-Marie Le Pen | |
2025-01-08 | |
[PUBLISH.TWITTER]
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. [Regnum] The founder and former leader of the French party "National Front" ("National Union") Jean-Marie Le Pen has died at the age of 96. This was reported on January 7 by the France Presse agency, citing the politician's family. "Jean-Marie Le Pen... [died] at 12:00 (14:00 Moscow time) on Tuesday, surrounded by his family," the publication says. It is noted that on the day of his death, the politician was in a medical facility in the commune of Garches (department of Hauts-de-Seine), to which he had been taken several weeks earlier. His daughter Marine Le Pen, who is the head of the parliamentary faction of the "National Rally", was on a visit to Mayotte (overseas department of France) that day. At that time, there was a collision between two barges, on one of which Le Pen was. As reported by the Regnum news agency, in April 2024, Jean-Marie Le Pen was placed under guardianship due to his deteriorating health. The corresponding decision was made by the court at the request of the politician's family after a medical examination. Le Pen was born on June 20, 1928, and became the youngest member of the French parliament in 1956. He also became the leader of the National Front party in 1972. The politician was a supporter of extreme right-wing views and during his political career he took part in the French presidential elections five times as a candidate for this post. In 2002, Le Pen managed to get to the second round of the presidential elections, but he received only 17.8% of the votes and lost to Jacques Chirac. In 2011, the politician handed over the leadership of the National Front to his daughter, and he was expelled from it in 2015. The National Front was renamed the National Rally in 2018. Related: Jean-Marie Le Pen 10/01/2024 France’s Le Pen and her party go on trial on charges of embezzling EU funds Jean-Marie Le Pen 06/27/2024 'Half-French': France's far-right pushes to ban dual nationals from 'sensitive' jobs Jean-Marie Le Pen 03/31/2024 French politicians in uproar after school principal resigns over hijab altercation | |
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
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
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.
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 |
Europe |
Against gays and migrants. What France expects from the new 73-year-old prime minister |
2024-09-09 |
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Olesya Orlenko [REGNUM] On September 5, the two-month crisis period ended in France, and President Emmanuel Macron finally appointed Michel Barnier as Prime Minister. However, the choice of the head of state has stirred up society. ![]() And the question is not only about the personality or abilities of the new head of government: his actions will affect the social equilibrium, the balance of political forces and, possibly, the position of the leader of France himself. The epic of choosing the prime minister began with the fact that the left-wing coalition “New Popular Front”, which had won the largest number of seats in parliament, could not decide on a candidate for a long time. During the discussions, the names of Huguette Belot, a member of the regional council of the island of Reunion, and Laurence Tubiana, a professor of economics with experience in diplomacy and climate change, came up. Finally, the figure of Lucie Castets, the Paris city council's adviser on finance and budget, was proposed, and all the leftists agreed on her candidacy unanimously. CLASSIC RIGHT Emmanuel Macron thought about it and decided to choose... a member of the right-wing party "The Republicans" Michel Barnier. The new head of government does have political experience. In 1978, he became the youngest member of parliament in the Fifth Republic, led the council in the Savoie region, and also held ministerial posts under François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac. Barnier is well known among EU officials, having served in the European Parliament, as the EU's commissioner for the internal market, and as a key player in the Brexit process. In an interview with TF1 the day after his appointment, Barnier said he had experience both defending the EU's interests with bankers and France's interests with European leaders. In the current situation, the position of Prime Minister of France implies making important decisions. This includes the adoption of the budget for 2025, which should take place in early October, while serious preparations in this direction have not yet been made due to the absence of a government in the country. And the problem of general social tension due to rising prices and impoverishment of the population. And Michel Barnier seems to be aware of the responsibility that lies with him. He has said that the priorities of his administration will be the issues of France's public debt, improving pension reform and the migrant crisis. However, the main issue worrying French society and the media in connection with the appointment of the new prime minister is the crisis of democracy. Traditionally, the head of government is a candidate from the same political camp as the largest faction in the National Assembly. But in the lower house of parliament of the current convocation, the majority of seats are concentrated in the hands of a coalition of several left-wing parties. And unity in their ranks is not always achieved immediately. Everyone has already seen this from the example of the hesitation regarding the candidacy for the post of Prime Minister, and which, by the way, is blamed on the "New People's Front" by a number of experts who see this as a destabilizing factor. From the first days after the second round of parliamentary elections, Macron's entourage talked about the inadmissibility of ministers from "France Unbowed" on the one hand, and from "National Rally" on the other, getting into the country's government. In this regard, the candidacy of the classic right-wing party "Republicans" was obvious. The catch is that the party only won 47 seats in the National Assembly. And they are seen as allies of the pro-presidential "Together" alliance. In fact, one of the claims against Barnier is that he will continue the policy of the head of state, while the results of the recent vote should be understood precisely as a vote of no confidence in this line. From this point of view, the results of a sociological survey by the ELABE Institute are indicative, according to which 74% of respondents believe that Macron did not draw conclusions from the expression of the will of the French people, and 52% have a positive attitude towards the announcement of a vote of no confidence in the president. Despite the fact that 40% of respondents positively assess the appointment of Michel Barnier, 50% think that the new head of government will not be able to withstand the confrontation with parliamentarians. THE LEFT WAS DECEIVED Protests against the new appointment have already begun in the left-wing political camp and in society. At the demonstration held on September 7, organized by the left-wing coalition, disagreement with the choice of the president was heard. Barnier is called a conservative who voted against the abolition of the article on homosexuality in the country's Criminal Code. They also recall his position on migrants, saying that he adopted some of the rhetoric from the most radical and racist part of the far right. It is no surprise that Marion Maréchal-le Pen expressed hope on her social networks that he will be able to fulfill his promises in this regard. Particularly painful for the left is the fact that the presidential coalition gained several dozen seats thanks to the support of the New Popular Front in the regions. The disappointed left considered Barnier's candidacy a violation of the unspoken agreement. But the National Rally party, which was opposed by a real front during the early elections, is now playing a key role in stabilizing the political situation in the country. And this is another topic that is being actively discussed by the French media. The support of these 142 deputies, who, unlike the other major factions in parliament, are a single party, will be decisive in the event of a vote of no confidence. While Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella say they will be watching the first steps of the head of government, the party is generally supportive of the new prime minister and intends to give him a chance to prove himself. But their fellow MPs are already voicing their wishes regarding ministerial portfolios. For example, members of the National Rally do not want the reappointment of former Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire and Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti. The long-awaited appointment of a prime minister is certainly better than the state of uncertainty that France has endured for two months. But Macron's decision is fraught with further problems in both the short and long term. Many consider Michel Barnier's position to be temporary and are anxiously awaiting next year, when, by law, the head of state will be able to dissolve parliament again. All these upheavals have a negative impact on the mood of the French. On the one hand, people are becoming disillusioned with the political system, where, despite the votes of the electorate, the president rules alone. On the other hand, they are unhappy that politicians are busy fighting for power, while the economic and social situation continues to deteriorate. Researchers from the Sciense Po political science institute show that more and more people, including young people, consider it possible to sacrifice democratic manifestations in politics in exchange for the effective work of the government and the state. And some experts predict a radicalization of society against the backdrop of frustration caused by the political situation. Related: Michel Barnier 05/20/2021 71% of French Say ‘We're Full': No More Immigration Michel Barnier 12/25/2020 British, EU negotiators finalize post-Brexit trade deal Michel Barnier 12/09/2020 Talk of a 'no deal' Brexit grows as deadline looms |
Link |
Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia | ||
'Simple contract' and its consequences. Ukraine could have joined NATO in 1954 | ||
2024-04-12 | ||
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Andrey Zvorykin [REGNUM] In April, officials at the Brussels headquarters of the North Atlantic Alliance have many reasons for corporate events and mutual congratulations. One after another follows the anniversary of the founding of NATO's European Command and the return of France to the military structure of the bloc, the fifteenth anniversary of the fourth expansion to the east (with the admission of Croatia and Albania to the alliance). But the main, “semicircular” date in Brussels and NATO capitals from Washington to Skopje was celebrated at the beginning of the month. 75 years ago, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington, marking the beginning of what current NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called “the strongest, most resilient and most successful” military bloc in history. The treaty for which the organization is named was signed on April 4, 1949, in the giant neoclassical hall of Washington's Departmental Auditorium on Constitution Avenue (now the building bears the name of billionaire Andrew Mellon ) in front of a large crowd of elite guests and in the presence of President Harry Truman. Conspiracy theorists like to point out the symbolic significance of the site of the Atlantic Pact. When the building was laid in 1932, the cornerstone was presented to then-President Herbert Hoover by the Masters of the Masonic Lodge. But in fact, if the 1949 treaty symbolized anything, it was another milestone in the unfolding Cold War. The pact of 12 Atlantic powers became a logical continuation of Winston Churchill’s Fulton speech about the Iron Curtain from the Baltic to the Adriatic, the refusal to include the USSR and Eastern Europe in the “Marshall Plan”, the thermonuclear and hydrogen race, plans for war with the USSR (the American “Totality” and the British “Unthinkable” plan "), the first Berlin crisis and the first proxy clash between the Western and Soviet blocs - the Greek Civil War. The document was signed by Secretary of State Dean Acheson (soon to be one of the “fathers” of the Korean War) and eleven of his colleagues - the foreign ministers of Canada and a dozen Western European states, from pacifist Iceland without an army to semi-fascist Portugal. The main allies of the United States in the recent anti-Hitler coalition were represented by politicians with a positive “background”: an opponent of the Munich agreement, a man from Churchill’s team, Ernest Bevin, and the chief of French diplomacy, Robert Schumann - who, however, managed to vote for the dictatorial powers of Marshal Philippe Petain, but miraculously avoided being sent to Dachau for connections with the Resistance. Truman, presenting the text of the treaty, poured out peace-loving rhetoric: “This treaty is a simple document. The nations that signed it undertake to comply with the peace-loving principles of the UN and maintain friendly relations.” But, as Joseph Stalin noted a little later (responding to the head of the British Foreign Office on the pages of Pravda ), if “the North Atlantic Pact is a defensive pact” and is directed against aggression, then “why didn’t the initiators of this pact invite the Soviet Union to take part in this pact?”
The “containment” of the Germans, we note, was expressed in the admission of West Germany to the alliance in 1955. This was already the second expansion to the East after the inclusion of Greece and Turkey bordering the USSR (in 1952). Moreover, a year after Stalin’s death, in March 1954, the Soviet government sent an unexpected note to the United States, Great Britain and France with a request... for the admission of the Soviet Union to NATO.
At the beginning of 1949, the head of the Soviet Foreign Ministry, Andrei Vyshinsky, through the leadership of the British Communist Party, sent a proposal to the cabinet of Labor member Clement Attlee to discuss Moscow’s participation in NATO’s predecessor, the Western European Union. London's expected refusal gave Stalin a reason to call the Atlantic blocs a “undermining of the UN.” It seems that the same Vyshinsky (or rather Nikita Khrushchev and Vyacheslav Molotov ) pursued the same goal in 1954. The USSR's gesture demonstrated to the whole world that behind the talk and construction of a security architecture, a military machine is actually being built, in which there is only room for supporters of redividing the world according to their vision. The point of no return was the inclusion of Germany in the alliance - which crossed out the provision of the Potsdam Treaty on a non-aligned post-war Germany. Already in response to this, the Warsaw Pact Organization was created, and the bipolar split of the world finally took shape. Formally, the first military action of the alliance was Operation Maritime Monitor in 1992 - the deployment of a NATO naval group led by the American aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt to the Adriatic to enforce the blockade of Yugoslavia. But in fact, the participation of the European allies and Canada in the Korean War (formally a military action of the UN), and the support that Britain, France, Germany and Italy provided to the United States during the Vietnam War - all this was due, among other things, to obligations under the alliance. What an attempt to bring the country out of strict subordination to the alliance (theoretically, this is possible thanks to Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty) may turn out to be can be clearly seen in France. Charles de Gaulle, who had long sought the same powers that the United States and Great Britain had, became disillusioned and in 1966 announced the withdrawal of the Fifth Republic from the military organization of the alliance, retaining membership only in the political structures of NATO. De Gaulle lost his post two years later - after ultra-left protests (ironically, many of the leaders of “Red May 1968” would later become systemic Atlanticist politicians and ideologists), and France began to drift back to the alliance. In 1995, Socialist President François Mitterrand returned the country to participation in the development of NATO military plans. In 1997, Gaullist Jacques Chirac made an attempt to bring France back into the military organization of the alliance - but could not agree with Bill Clinton on the division of powers on the southern flank of NATO. And in 1999, France already fully participated in the aggression against Yugoslavia unleashed by the same Clinton : NATO planes that attacked the defenseless European country took off from both the American aircraft carrier Enterprise and the French Foch. “Without any resolution of the UN Security Council, they directly began military operations, a war, in fact, in the center of Europe,” noted Russian President Vladimir Putin on the 25th anniversary of the NATO strike on Yugoslavia. Only in 2009, another Gaullist, Nicolas Sarkozy, de jure approved the return of France to NATO military structures. But to join the “action”, which claimed the lives of 2.5 thousand peaceful Serbs and Montenegrins, no formal decision was required. Just like Romania - which, without waiting for formal inclusion in the alliance, provided its territory for NATO attacks on Yugoslavia. Such a development would hardly have been possible if it had not been for the end of the Cold War on Western terms. Let us recall that in 1990, an agreement was concluded between representatives of the USSR, the USA and the Federal Republic of Germany (without the participation of representatives of the GDR) on the unification of Germany under the leadership of the Federal Republic of Germany - that is, in fact, on the annexation of the GDR by West Germany. Led by Mikhail Gorbachev, the USSR pledged to withdraw troops from East Germany in exchange for a verbal promise from NATO representatives not to expand the alliance’s borders further to the east. For a long time, the leadership of the alliance completely denied the fact of oral agreements with the head of the USSR. Only in 2018 were documents declassified that contained information that there was an agreement. “We deceived him,” as the theorist of Western geopolitics Zbigniew Brzezinski said about Gorbachev. As a result, first in 1990, the NATO border moved east to the Oder-Neisse line, the former border of the GDR. And then the alliance began to pick up the legacy of the Warsaw Pact dissolved in July 1991. To all Russia’s attempts (its applications to join NATO were rejected in 1993 and 2000) to come to an agreement on security issues, the alliance responds with hysterical cries about Russian aggression (exactly repeating NATO’s rhetoric towards the USSR). In 1999, after the required transition procedures, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic joined NATO, and in 2004 seven more countries, including three former Soviet republics - Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The Kaliningrad region became an enclave surrounded by NATO countries; the border of the alliance with Russia ran along the Narva River, 130 km from St. Petersburg. Throughout the 90s, zeros and tens, the alliance “digested” the Balkans. In 1995, NATO countries carried out the “Considerate Force” action - aerial bombing of the Bosnian Serbs (152 civilians were killed, 273 were injured). Four years later, the above-mentioned aggression against Yugoslavia followed - Operation Allied Force. Let us add that during this “action to protect Kosovo Albanians,” which had no military-strategic significance, NATO used prohibited weapons, including shells with depleted uranium. At the same time, the alliance absorbed the loyal republics of the former Yugoslavia - in 2004, the process of admitting Slovenia ended, in 2009, Croatia was included in NATO (along with Albania, a former neighbor and mortal enemy of Yugoslavia), in 2017, the “master” of Montenegro, Milo Djukanovic, for his accommodation were rewarded with the inclusion of the republic in the alliance. And finally, in 2020, North Macedonia was admitted to NATO. Now almost all fragments of dismembered Yugoslavia have the opportunity, as junior partners, to participate in actions to introduce democracy in third world countries. Three such actions can be distinguished since the beginning of the century. Firstly, this is the Afghan campaign. If we do not count the assistance of NATO countries to the “freedom fighters” - the Mujahideen during the war of 1979–1989 (thanks to which the military-political career of Osama bin Laden was successfully launched ), then October 2001 should be considered the starting point. During the American Operation Enduring Freedom (2001–2021) and the “work” of NATO members of the International Security Assistance Force, 46,300 civilians were killed. The production of methamphetamine in democratized Afghanistan increased 10-fold in 2017–2021 alone, and by 2018 the share of the Afghan “product” in the global heroin market was 92%. The ending of the American and NATO operation in Afghanistan is well known. The world will long remember people falling from great heights, trying to cling to taking off planes and service dogs, who were several positions higher on the American evacuation lists than even the British allies. If NATO entered Afghanistan under the guise of a UN Security Council resolution (adopted, however, only two months after the invasion), then the Americans and their alliance colleagues began the war in Iraq of 2003–2011 without any regard for international law. Iraq’s “punishment” for the mythical development of weapons of mass destruction (remember Secretary of State Colin Powell ’s test tube that became a meme ) turned into a humanitarian disaster. According to a report from the Iraqi Ministry of Health to WHO alone, up to 203 thousand civilians died during the first stage of “democratization” (2003–2006). According to the non-governmental project Iraq Body Count, by 2011, 1 million 620 thousand people were killed, died from wounds and diseases caused by the war, of which 72% were civilians. After the bombing, more than 750 hospitals, 3,970 clinics and 5,700 educational institutions were destroyed. If not all NATO partners took part in the aggression against Iraq (Britain, Turkey, Italy distinguished themselves, including the “newcomer” Poland), then the intervention in Libya of March - October 2011 was already a joint action of the majority of the alliance members. Except perhaps for Germany, which allowed itself to abstain. One of the main initiators of the aggression was Nicolas Sarkozy, who returned France to the NATO military structure. The Ministry of Health of the then-not-yet-destroyed Libyan Jamahiriya managed to report 700 civilians who died in March–May 2011 after attacks on Tripoli, Benghazi and other cities. If we believe the latest estimates from Iranian sources, up to 40 thousand Libyans became victims of the NATO intervention. The main thing is that NATO’s assistance to the Libyan “democratic opposition” in “liberation from the tyranny of Muammar Gaddafi ” led to the complete destruction of Libyan statehood and two civil wars (2011–2014 and 2014–2020), which also claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people, in particular 14, 2 thousand people during the last conflict. One of the most stable and socially prosperous countries of the former third world has turned into another “failed state” and a supplier of migrants to Europe. From February 2022 to the present day, the Kiev regime has been the next object of NATO’s special care. The alliance is close to the geopolitical goal identified at the end of the Cold War. With the admission of former “neutrals” - Finland and Sweden - to NATO, an anti-Russian sanitary cordon has practically been built from the Barents Sea to the Black Sea, the links of which are intended to be post-Soviet countries from Estonia to Moldova and Ukraine. The plans were disrupted first by the failure of the pro-Western “color revolution” in Belarus in 2020, and then by the beginning of the Northern Military District. Today, NATO continues its aggressive policy, sponsoring the Ukrainian regime with weapons that are used to attack peaceful Russian cities. Residents of Belgorod, as well as residents of Belgrade, are unlikely to agree with the compliment that Jens Stoltenberg gave on the 75th anniversary: “We are doing something right! We helped spread peace, democracy and prosperity throughout Europe." | ||
Link |
Europe | |||
Paris between two fires: Macron chooses who to protect - Jews or Arabs | |||
2023-11-14 | |||
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Elena Karaeva
![]() And there is something to protect and protect, leaving sarcasm aside. Anti-Semitic protests in France are growing exponentially, and the houses of Parisian, Marseille, Lyon, and Lille Jews are decorated with Stars of David with sad regularity. It has not yet come to the point of pogroms of Jewish small businesses, kosher restaurants, shops and shops, but armed patrols are already on duty around Jewish schools around the clock, and synagogues on the eve of Shabbat have long been under heavy police and gendarmerie protection. Sunday's demonstration for everything good (in support of the Jewish community of France, which is half a million people) and against everything bad (insults and threats against the French of Jewish origin) took place almost on the day of the 85th anniversary of one of the monstrous events in European history. Kristallnacht, a two-day pogrom in November 1938, when Nazi stormtroopers destroyed and burned hundreds of synagogues, not only in Germany itself , but also in Austria , looted businesses and factories owned by Jews, as well as clinics, shops, killing those who tried to protect their families. Kristallnacht became the signal for the destruction of all European Jewry. We all know how it ended. It is worth adding here that while in Nazi Germany the “cultured German nation” was robbing and killing fellow citizens, in the Soviet Union a lullaby in Yiddish was flowing from the screens, which was sung to a black baby, and this famous scene was captured in the film “Circus”.
Both the Medical Order (Conseil National d'Ordre des médecins) and the Society of Railways (SNCF) were not dissolved for their actions, they were not subjected to any persecution, even administrative, not to mention denazification. They continue to function to this day, but no one remembers the past. And if Hitler’s bosses indicated in their directives that Jewish children starting from the age of 12 were subject to deportation, then the French authorities lowered the age, and, according to their orders, both pregnant women and infants of any age were subject to deportation to death camps. The French denounced their Jewish neighbors, Jewish children, and Jewish orphanages so willingly that the first thing de Gaulle did upon entering Paris in August 1944 was to close the archives with denunciations for a hundred years (that is, until 2044 inclusive), transferring them to the army for storage. In the name, as he himself stated, “preserving national unity.” The decision of the creator of modern France can be understood if you know that the informers lived and continued to live later, after the war, next to either the descendants of those whom they denounced, or the miraculously surviving victims of their denunciations. Remorse? No, the French don't know. Moreover, until the end of the twentieth century, until 1995, the participation of French society and the French state in the extermination of tens of thousands of fellow citizens was kept under wraps, they hardly talked about it, and the topic was absolutely taboo in the press. Only President Jacques Chirac , being a noble man who understands that sooner or later hiding this terrible criminal past can lead to terrible consequences, admitted France's responsibility for the murder of 75 thousand deportees (among them 11 thousand children under 12 years old) in death camps. Then, of course, they created museums and memorials, but it was too late. Reflection, repentance and admission of guilt work when in hot pursuit, and so, more than half a century later, who remembers and knows what? The demonstration against anti-Semitism, with its pomp and pathos declared by the organizers (these are both chambers of the National Assembly), could not help but fail due to the fact that society first needs to understand what it has done, realize the severity of guilt and responsibility for the past, and only then put forward the right slogans. Otherwise, the dirt of French history, the shame of the French nation, the guilt of society, no matter how much you sweep it under the rug, it will not disappear anywhere. No matter how many right words are said and no matter how many calls are made, the blood and suffering of those whom the French themselves sent to their deaths will be an eternal stain on the French tricolor. Because history punishes those who are unrepentant and pretend that nothing happened with eternal shame. The demonstration that took place in Paris on Sunday is clear proof of this. | |||
Link |
Iraq |
Former official reveals Saddam's covert support to foreign leaders |
2023-05-14 |
Shafaq News / In an interview with Middle Eastern newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Salem al-Jumaili, the former head of the America division in the intelligence apparatus of Iraq's Ba'ath Party, disclosed that Saddam Hussein had provided financial backing to the electoral campaigns of both French politician Jacques Chirac and late Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, aiding their victories. al-Jumaili further divulged how Hussein's regime lent both monetary and military assistance to Lebanese General Michel Aoun during the "War of Liberation" aimed at expelling the Syrian army from Lebanon. He stated, "Saddam decided to punish the late President Hafez Al-Assad for halting the Iraqi oil pipeline that traversed Syria to Baniyas during the Iraq-Iran war, so he ordered support for Aoun, providing him with armored vehicles, ammunition, and $11 million." The former intelligence officer also spoke of the Iraqi support extended to opponents of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's rule, after it was revealed that Gaddafi had supplied Iran with Scud missiles used to bombard Baghdad amid the Iraq-Iran war. Additionally, al-Jumaili recounted a failed assassination attempt on Danielle Mitterrand, the wife of late French President François Mitterrand. She had been instrumental in publicizing the Halabja incident and Iraq's use of chemical weapons, prompting a decision to terminate her influence. In July 1992, during a visit to Sulaymaniyah province and while en route to the Halabja Martyrs' Monument, an explosive device was planted in her path, but she miraculously survived. |
Link |
Europe |
France Detains Ex-members of Red Brigades Sought by Italy |
2021-04-29 |
![]() La Belle France has been a haven for Red Brigades figures from the 1970s and 80s that are feted in left-wing intellectual circles in Gay Paree, since the presidency of Socialist leader Francois Mitterrand. The so-called Mitterrand Doctrine, adopted in 1985, offered protection to the A statement from the French presidency said Macron had authorised the detention of seven former Red Brigades figures, while another three were being actively sought. Without naming them, the statement said they were wanted for the "most serious crimes" but it made clear that Macron had not renounced the Mitterrand Doctrine. "La Belle France, also affected by terrorism, understands the absolute necessity of providing justice for victims," the statement said. "With this transfer, it is also part of the urgent need to build a Europa ![]() of justice in which mutual confidence must be at the centre." Ultra-leftist groups like the Red Brigades sowed chaos during the period in Italia known as the "Years of Lead" -- named after the number of bullets fired -- from the late 1960s to mid-1980s. The Red Brigades were the most notorious and were blamed for hundreds of murders, including the kidnapping and killing of Christian Democrat leader and former prime minister Aldo Moro in 1978. - DIPLOMATIC TENSIONS - The presence of hundreds of figures in La Belle France who are wanted by Italia for murder, kidnappings and property damage has caused tensions between the two neighbours for decades. In 2019, far-right interior minister Matteo Salvini said he would write to Macron "to ask him to stop allowing Lions of Islam who have massacred Italians to be free to drink champagne." Relations between La Belle France and Italia were at a historic low at the time over a range of issues, but Macron sees new Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi as a close pro-EU ally. Among those arrested is Marina Petrella, 66, a former Red Brigades member whose extradition was blocked in 2008 by then president Nicolas Sarkozy ...23rd President of the French Republic. Sarkozy is married to singer-songwriter Carla Bruni, who has a really nice birthday suit... after an intervention by his Italian-born wife Carla Bruni. Petrella, who was said in 2008 to be in poor health, has been sentenced to life in prison for murder in Italia. Lawyer Irene Terrel, who represents Petrella and four other ex-Red Brigades figures, told AFP she was "outraged" by the arrests. "Since the 1980s, these people have been under the protection of La Belle France. They've remade their lives here for 30 years in the full view and knowledge of everyone, with their children and their grandchildren .. and then in the early morning, they come looking for them, 40 years after the facts," she said. She said that her clients would appeal against their detention and extradition. La Belle France has extradited individual left-wing President Jacques Chirac broke with the Mitterrand Doctrine by authorising the extradition of university lecturer Paolo Persichetti, who was linked to the Brigades, in 2002. Convicted murderer Maurizio Locusta was tracked down and extradited in 1987. |
Link |
Europe |
Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed jail sentence |
2021-03-01 |
PARIS (Reuters) - Judges found former president Nicolas Sarkozy guilty of trying to bribe a judge and of influence-peddling on Monday and sentenced him to three years in jail, with two years suspended. Sarkozy, who led France from 2007 to 2012, had denied any wrongdoing, saying he was the victim of a witch-hunt by financial prosecutors who used excessive means to snoop on his affairs. Retired from politics but still influential among conservatives, Sarkozy has 10 days to appeal the ruling. He is the second former president in modern France, after the late Jacques Chirac, to be convicted of corruption. Prosecutors persuaded the judges that Sarkozy had offered to secure a plum job in Monaco for judge Gilbert Azibert in return for confidential information about an inquiry into allegations that he had accepted illegal payments from L’Oreal heiress Liliane Bettencourt for his 2007 presidential campaign. This came to light, they said, while they were wiretapping conversations between Sarkozy and his lawyer Thierry Herzog after Sarkozy left office, in relation to another investigation into alleged Libyan financing of the same campaign. |
Link |
Israel-Palestine-Jordan | ||
Emmanuel Macron loses temper with Israeli security | ||
2020-01-24 | ||
![]()
France views it as a provocation when Israeli police enter the church's sandstone complex, in a part of Jerusalem captured and annexed by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war.
In 1996, France's then-president Jacques Chirac lost patience with Israeli security agents at the same church, telling one of them that his treatment was a "provocation" and threatening to get back on his plane. Chirac refused to enter St Anne until Israeli security left the site. Video showed Macron, jostled in the centre of a crowded circle between his own protective detail and Israeli security personnel, including several paramilitary policemen in uniform, under an archway leading into the church. Macron then stopped the shoving and shouted at the Israeli security guards in English: "I don't like what you did in front of me." Lowering his voice, he then said: "Go outside. I'm sorry, you know the rules. Nobody has to provoke nobody." Speaking later to reporters, Macron said the incident ended pleasantly and that he shook hands with the Israeli security officials. Israeli police said that when Macron arrived at the church "there was a discussion" between Israeli and French security officers about entering with the president. "When the president and the delegation finished the visit, he apologised about the incident and shook hands with the security personnel," a police statement said. An Israeli government spokesman did not immediately comment on behalf of the Shin Bet internal security agency, which also helps guard foreign dignitaries. French diplomats had cautioned that they want to leave little room for mishaps on Macron's trip. Earlier on Wednesday, a separate squabble ensued when Israeli police tried to enter St Anne before Macron's visit. Macron is one of dozens of world leaders due to attend Thursday's World Holocaust Forum at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial centre in Jerusalem, which will commemorate the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp. The 42-year-old head of state had seen his visit to St Anne as a symbolic stop underscoring Paris' historical influence in the region. Before heading to the church, Macron walked through the Old City, speaking to shopkeepers and stopping by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. He later visited the Muslim Noble Sanctuary in Jerusalem that houses Al-Aqsa Mosque, a site revered by Jews as the Temple Mount, and prayed at Judaism's Western Wall, touching the ancient stones. Related: Emmanuel Macron: 2020-01-19 French President Emmanuel Macron and wife rushed from Paris theater after protesters tried to disrupt performance Emmanuel Macron: 2020-01-18 French ‘far-right’ leader lays out plan to run for president Emmanuel Macron: 2020-01-15 France to send extra 220 troops to fight Islamist militants in Sahel | ||
Link |
-Obits- |
Jacques Chirac Departs To The Big Eiffel Tower |
2019-09-26 |
I just remember one distinct thing about him - in conversations with other people, he'd correct other people's French. Overall rememberance of him - arrogant, condescending and snobbish. In other words, a typical Parisian Frenchman. "Chirac est un ver" [Yahoo News] - Former French President Jacques Chirac, a major force in French politics who opposed the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, died in Paris on Thursday at the age of 86. A seasoned politician, Chirac’s career included two presidential terms, two stints as prime minister and nearly two decades as mayor of Paris. Charming, statuesque and a consummate political animal, Chirac was a presence on the French political arena for more than four decades. But he is best known internationally for his final term at the Élysée presidential palace, a five-year period that proved extraordinary from start to finish. Not for the faint of heart - serious ball washing ensues from there... |
Link |
Europe |
Sarkozy to go on trial as final appeal fails |
2019-06-21 |
Les Brigandes - La loge des Jacobins from Les Brigandes on Vimeo. [DAWN] La Belle France’s former president Nicolas Sarkozy...23rd President of the French Republic. Sarkozy is married to singer-songwriter Carla Bruni, who has a really nice birthday suit... is to go on trial facing charges of corruption and influence peddling after losing his final bid to avert appearing in the dock, sources close to the case said on Wednesday. The Court of Cassation, which rules on questions of law, said that a trial was justified for Sarkozy as well as his lawyer Thierry Herzog and former judge Gilbert Azibert. The ruling was Sarkozy’s last hope of preventing the trial coming to court and the French judicial authorities have now approved sending the case to a criminal tribunal, according to a source close to the case. The trial will begin in the next months in Gay Paree although a date has yet to be set, added the source who asked not to be named. Sarkozy, 64, is not the first ex-president to be prosecuted ‐ his predecessor Jacques Chirac was given a two-year suspended sentence in 2011 for embezzlement and misuse of public funds during his time as mayor of Gay Paree. But it is the first time in the history of modern La Belle France that a former leader will face explicit corruption charges in court. The influence-peddling case centres on conversations between Herzog and Azibert that were tapped by Sherlocks looking into claims that Sarkozy accepted illicit payments from the L’Oreal heiress Liliane Bettencourt for his 2007 presidential campaign. They suspect Sarkozy and his lawyer were seeking information on developments in the case, with Sarkozy offering Azibert a plum job in Monaco in exchange. The inquiry also revealed that Sarkozy and Herzog often communicated via mobile phones obtained under false identities ‐ with Sarkozy using the name Paul Bismuth. |
Link |