Thousands of protesters marched through Paris on Saturday to oppose what they see as French President Emmanuel Macron’s militaristic approach to foreign policy and his lack of interest in achieving peace in the Ukraine conflict.
The demonstration was organized by Florian Philippot and his party, The Patriots. Chanting slogans and carrying signs such as “We don’t want to die for Ukraine,” and “Macron, we don’t want your war,” the crowd moved from the Place du Palais Royal to the Place Pierre Laroque.
Macron on Wednesday proposed expanding France’s nuclear deterrent to protect EU nations and urged European members of NATO to take more responsibility for their own defense. He cited uncertainty over Washington’s commitment to Ukraine, especially as relations between Kiev and US President Donald Trump’s administration experienced a setback after Vladimir Zelensky rejected calls to negotiate peace with Russia.
Macron has argued that continued aid to Ukraine was crucial, warning that if Russian President Vladimir Putin succeeded in Ukraine, he wouldn’t stop there – a claim that Moscow has repeatedly dismissed as nonsense. Russia has identified NATO’s expansion toward its borders and the US-led bloc’s promise of eventual membership for Ukraine as being among the key reasons for the conflict.
Many demonstrators at the Paris rally criticized Macron for prioritizing military matters over domestic issues. “When you declare war, it’s to erase all the other failures,” one protester said. Another accused Macron of pursuing conflict while leaders such as Trump and Putin are talking about peace.
Addressing the crowd, Philippot condemned Macron’s approach, declaring that the president “absolutely does not want peace.” Philippot, formerly a member of the National Front, has been a vocal critic of Macron’s administration and EU’s policies. His party opposes what it perceives as unnecessary military interventions and advocates for a more independent French foreign policy.
Macron’s push for increased defense spending faces hurdles as France grapples with a budget deficit and pressure to rein in spending. Approval of the 2025 budget has been delayed due to a divided parliament. In January, Budget Minister Amelie de Montchalin announced plans to cut €32 billion ($34.6 billion) in public spending while raising taxes by €21 billion.
Critics argue that these measures would burden middle-class families, small business owners, and retirees already struggling with rising costs. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Francois Bayrou has rejected calls for public consultation on major defense policies, insisting such decisions are the government’s responsibility. When asked on Friday whether the French people should have a say in increased military spending and a shift toward a “war economy,” Bayrou was firm: “The government’s responsibility is to say, no, we can’t let the country be disarmed. It’s vital.”
BP has lost a quarter of its share value in the last two weeks. The fall started when company profits turned out to be just $9 billion, down from $14b a year ago and $28b in 2022. As The Telegraph reports, “BP’s shareholders had realized that the green spending they supported in 2020 had halved their dividends.” But Shell, Chevron, and Exxon — the other oil giants — they were all doing much better.
Twenty years ago BP changed its branding to “Beyond Petroleum”. By 2020 the company was hellbent on getting there. Suicidally, the oil company pledged to reduce their own oil production by 40% by 2030, (which did nothing except help all their competitors) and promised to pivot into renewable power. BP set itself a target to increase renewables generation by a factor of twenty this decade. The media gushed — “BP Shuns Fossil Fuels“, said Politico. BP supposedly shone a light on “stranded oil and gas”!
Thus and verily, in mid 2020, with exquisite timing, BP management leapt headlong in the magical energy pit. They were sure that after the pandemic the world would ‘build back better’ with renewables “so their economies would be more resilient”... CEO Bernard Looney actually said that (probably while reading from the WEF handbook of “What to Wear for Billionaires”).
So BP flagged a write-down of $18 billion dollars in fossil fuel assets and talked of “accelerating” it’s green investments. Then everything went wrong. Just after BP bet the house on renewables, the Ukraine war broke out and everyone needed oil and gas and no one needed another wind farm. There was a bonanza selling fossil fuels as prices lifted off (seen in the BP income in 2022) but suddenly no one could afford to buy real energy to make solar panels and turbines, and no one had much cash left to buy randomly-failing generators either. It’s been all downhill in renewables ever since.
Prior to this, BP operated Australia’s largest oil refinery for 66 years in Kwinana, Western Australia until it closed in 2021. Until a few weeks ago, BP was planning to launch a $600 million biofuel project on the same site, and the Australian government was thinking of tossing $1 billion dollars at a hydrogen project there too. They were supposed to turn cooking oil into av-gas and renewable diesel, and be a hub for hydrogen. It’s sadly pathetic and unravelling at warp speed.
The Telegraphhas all the sordid details as British Petroleum fights for life.
The energy giant has vowed a ‘fundamental reset’ after its costly foray into net zero
Johnathon Leake and Ben Marlow, The Telegraph
Five years on from that speech in February 2020, the company is beleaguered by a ruthless activist investor, under pressure to boost its flatlining share price and considering a return to the oil and gas exploration that made it so successful to begin with.
The abrupt turn follows decades of crisis at one of Britain’s most venerable institutions. Today, its future is more uncertain than ever.
To win round doubters, he is expected to announce a major break with the last five years – shifting away from net zero and back towards its oil and gas heritage.
Pushed by analysts, Auchincloss, Looney’s replacement, confirmed a halt to all investment in wind and solar. “We have completely decapitalised renewables,” he said.
We can blame management, who had been on the fruity green path since 1997, and screwed up majorly, but oddly, 88% of BP shareholders also voted in favor of cutting oil and growing renewables which doesn’t make much sense. Not unless the rank and file votes were unknowingly cast-by-proxy through their hedge funds and pension accounts. Were 88% of British Petroleum investors really fooled into thinking oil was “bad” — or was BP quietly undermined by the big banker blob cartel who may have bossed all the pension funds into voting for Hari Kari? Larry Fink, head of BlackRock, pumped up the whole renewables bubble in 2020, and the bankers were known to boss around whole countries with threats of high interest rates if they didn’t behave.
Hypothetically if the Big Bankers were heavily invested in renewable stocks (which they were), then during a bubble, it would work out well for them if one of the largest oil and gas companies performed a large public flip to renewables. And as a bonus, if BP shareholders were stiffed in the process, the wreckage of a great company could be picked up cheaply a few years later…
So management were crazy, but they probably had help from The Blob Bankers and the Blob Media to really screw things up.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House is shaping up to be nothing short of a political revolution. The new administration is rapidly dismantling the old order, purging the ruling elite, reshaping both domestic and foreign policy, and cementing changes that will be difficult to reverse – even if his opponents regain power in future elections.
For Trump, as for all revolutionaries, the priority is to break the existing system and consolidate radical transformations. Many of the principles that guided US policy for decades – sometimes for over a century – are being deliberately discarded. Washington’s global strategy, long built on expansive military, diplomatic, and financial influence, is being rewritten to serve Trump’s domestic political needs.
The end of the American liberal empire
For the past 100 years, the US has functioned as a global empire. Unlike traditional empires built on territorial expansion, the American empire extended its reach through financial dominance, military alliances, and ideological influence. This model, however, has become increasingly unsustainable. Since the late 1990s, the costs of maintaining global hegemony have exceeded the benefits, fueling discontent both at home and abroad.
Trump and his allies seek to end this ‘liberal empire’ and return America to a more self-reliant, mercantilist model – one reminiscent of the late 19th and early 20th centuries under President William McKinley. Trump has openly praised this era, viewing it as the golden age of US prosperity, before the country took on the burdens of global leadership.
Under this vision, America will reduce unproductive foreign expenditures and refocus on its natural advantages: Vast resources, an advanced industrial base, and the world’s most valuable consumer market. Rather than policing the world, Washington will wield its economic power more aggressively to secure trade advantages. However, the transition to this model carries significant risks, particularly in a highly globalized economy.
A shift in global strategy
Trump’s policies are driven by domestic concerns but will have major implications abroad. His administration is systematically dismantling key institutions of the old order, including those that irritated Moscow. For instance, USAID – a major vehicle for American influence in the post-Soviet space – has been gutted. Ironically, Trump had more motivation to destroy USAID than even Russian President Vladimir Putin, given that its resources had been repurposed for domestic political use by Trump’s rivals.
If the US abandons its liberal empire model, many sources of tension with Russia will disappear. Historically, Moscow and Washington had relatively stable relations throughout the 19th century. If Trump’s America reverts to a more isolationist approach, Russia will no longer be a primary target of US interference. The main friction point will likely be the Arctic, where both nations have strategic interests.
China, however, remains Trump’s top adversary. Beijing’s state-led economic expansion is fundamentally at odds with Trump’s mercantilist vision. Unlike Biden, who sought to counter China through alliances, Trump is willing to go it alone – potentially weakening Western unity in the process. His administration is expected to escalate economic and technological warfare against Beijing, even if it means alienating European allies.
Europe’s strategic uncertainty
One of Trump’s most disruptive moves has been his open hostility toward the EU. His vice president, J.D. Vance, recently delivered a speech in Munich that amounted to direct interference in European politics, signaling support for right-wing nationalist movements that challenge the EU’s authority.
This shift is forcing Europe into an uncomfortable position. For years, China has viewed Western Europe as an ‘alternative West’ with which it could engage economically without the same level of confrontation it faces with the US. Trump’s approach could accelerate EU-Chinese ties, especially if Western European leaders feel abandoned by Washington.
There are already signs that European policymakers may loosen restrictions on Chinese investments, particularly in critical industries such as semiconductors. At the same time, the ambitions of some Europeans for NATO expansion into the Indo-Pacific may falter, as the bloc struggles to define its new role in a post-globalist US strategy.
Russia and China: A changing relationship
For years, Washington fantasized about splitting Russia and China apart. But Trump’s new approach is unlikely to achieve this goal. The Russia-China partnership is built on strong fundamentals: A massive shared border, complementary economies, and a shared interest in countering Western dominance.
If anything, the shifting geopolitical landscape could push Russia into a position similar to that of China in the early 2000s – focusing on economic development while maintaining strategic flexibility. Moscow may reduce its efforts to actively undermine the US and instead concentrate on strengthening its economic and security ties with Beijing.
China, meanwhile, will bear the brunt of Trump’s new American empire. The US will no longer rely on alliances to contain Beijing but will use direct economic and military pressure. While this may make life more difficult for China, it does not necessarily mean the US will succeed. China has been preparing for economic decoupling for years, and Beijing may find opportunities in a more divided Western world.
The road ahead
Trump’s return marks a fundamental shift in global power dynamics. The US is moving away from being a liberal empire and toward a more transactional, power-based foreign policy. For Russia, this means fewer ideological conflicts with Washington but continued competition in key areas like the Arctic.
For China, Trump’s policies present a direct challenge. The question is whether Beijing can adapt to a world where the US is no longer just containing it but actively trying to roll back its economic influence.
For Western Europe, the picture is bleak. The EU is losing its privileged status as America’s primary partner and is being forced to fend for itself. Whether it can navigate this new reality remains to be seen.
One thing is certain: The world is entering a period of profound transformation, and the old rules no longer apply. Trump’s America is rewriting the playbook, and the rest of the world will have to adjust accordingly.
Vasily Kashin, Political Science PhD, Director of the Centre for Comprehensive European and International Studies, HSE
This article was translated and edited by the RT team.
The American Chamber of Commerce in Russia (AmCham) has called on the US government to ease the sanctions on Russia, according to its chief, Robert Agee. He argued that restrictions in aviation, investment, and banking are harming both American and Russian businesses.
In an interview with the Russian business daily RBK on Friday, Agee welcomed the dialogue between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, after a three-year hiatus in ties due to tensions over the Ukraine conflict.
In light of US signals that it is willing to normalize relations with Moscow, the AmCham is preparing a report for the US government outlining challenges for American businesses in Russia, as well as exploring possibilities for lifting some of the sanctions, Agee said.
One of the AmCham’s main requests is to remove sanctions in the aviation sector, including the supply of spare parts and technical support, with Agee stressing that the restrictions in this field mostly affect ordinary citizens. He also called for the lifting of investment restrictions, which he said have prevented American companies from expanding their operations in Russia.
Banking sanctions remain another key concern, as they have made cross-border transactions increasingly difficult and costly, the AmCham head said. He also criticized the sanctions on imports of luxury goods, including American cosmetics, to Russia, calling them counterproductive and harmful to US companies that have lost market share.
While these represent the chamber’s top priorities, Agee noted that other issues also require attention. He did not rule out the return of US businesses to Russia, adding that companies which maintained a skeleton presence in the country or retained buy-out options would have an easier time re-entering the market compared to those that completed an asset sell-out when emotions were running high.
Kirill Dmitriev, the CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, earlier estimated that US companies lost more than $300 billion by leaving the Russian market. Agee suggested that this figure could be correct, depending on the metrics that were taken into account.
Agee’s comments come after Reuters reported earlier this week that the White House had directed the State and Treasury departments to draft proposals for easing certain restrictions on Russia. The potential relief could reportedly apply to specific Russian entities and individuals, including some business leaders.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said Moscow has yet to receive official statements from Washington regarding sanctions relief, while stressing that Russia has always viewed Western sanctions as “illegal.”
Moscow will not engage in an arms race with the EU, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has said. He was speaking after Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk urged the bloc to ramp up its military spending.
Tusk on Wednesday accused Moscow of starting a new arms race and insisted that Western Europe must respond. “The war, the geopolitical uncertainty and the new arms race started by [Russian President Vladimir] Putin have left Europe with no choice,” he stated on social media.
Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Peskov said it was regrettable to hear such statements. “They will not win against us because we will not play with them; we will be busy ensuring our own interests,” he said.
“We regret the confrontational, even militaristic, statements coming from Warsaw and Paris, which show that Europe has yet to adjust to the new dynamic between Moscow and Washington,” Peskov said. He didn’t rule out, however, that European leaders would eventually “feel which way the wind is blowing.”
The Polish prime minister further claimed that “Europe must be ready for this race, and Russia will lose it like the Soviet Union 40 years ago,” arguing that the EU would arm itself faster than Russia.
Tusk’s comments follow statements by French President Emmanuel Macron during an address to the nation on Wednesday claiming that Russia poses a threat to the EU. Macron urged the bloc to boost defense spending and suggested extending France’s nuclear umbrella to other EU countries.
On Tuesday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed a massive defense spending hike. As part of the ‘ReArm Europe Plan’, the bloc would spend about $840 billion on defense – double total EU defense expenditures in 2024.
The European leaders’ calls come as US President Donald Trump’s administration has recently signaled a major policy shift, urging European nations to take the lead in their own defense, as well as in supporting Kiev.
Last month, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said that Washington intended to refocus its military priorities on countering China, warning the EU not to assume that American forces would remain in the region indefinitely.
Moscow has rejected accusations that it poses a military threat to Europe, condemning Macron’s remarks as “highly confrontational.” Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed Western claims of an imminent Russian attack as “nonsense” and accused European leaders of inflating the threat to justify higher military spending.
Putin earlier reiterated that Russia has no interest in being drawn into an arms race but stressed that Moscow would take all necessary steps to safeguard its own security and that of its allies.
Berlin plans to change its fiscal rules and “invest” €500 billion ($543 billion) in infrastructure and defense, as explained by the chancellor-in-waiting, Friedrich Merz.
It’s alarming that Merz is prioritizing military spending because of the mythical Russian threat, especially amid efforts for peace in Ukraine, Gunnar Beck, a legal academic and former AfD MEP, tells Sputnik.
Merz has long pushed for higher defense spending. Last December, he stated the Bundeswehr would need at least $87 billion annually, up from the current $57 billion. German media also reported a proposed $433 billion defense fund.
“Germany hasn’t got the money,” Beck stresses. “It’s got to borrow the money. It’s at the expense of social spending and badly needed investments in infrastructure and research and development.”
“It’s not only Germany that’s proposing to increase military spending. The EU, under [Ursula] von der Leyen, has announced it will borrow another €800 billion ($866 billion) to support Ukraine. When you add up these figures, it’s already more than a trillion. And they are clearly coordinating their policies,” Beck concludes.
The EU’s new rearmament strategy, outlined by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, lacks funding and shifts the financial burden to member states, Euractiv writes, citing senior EU officials.
Von der Leyen has proposed that EU nations spend about $840 billion on defense, calling it a response to “the most dangerous of times” and “grave” security threats. Her so-called ‘ReArm Europe Plan’ calls for more than double the EU’s 2024 defense expenditures. However, the ambitious proposal depends largely on borrowed funds and loosened fiscal rules rather than existing reserves, sparking concerns regarding its economic feasibility and long-term impact.
The plan “includes close to no fresh money,” leaving member states to secure “the real cash” themselves, Euractiv reported on Wednesday.
The $840 billion figure is based more on “hopes and guesses” than concrete reforms addressing the EU’s defense under-investment and production shortages, the report argued.
The goal is to “support achieving a rapid and significant increase in investment in Europe’s defense capabilities now and over this decade,” an unnamed senior EU official said, noting that the money would help “reduce costs.”
Von der Leyen has proposed less controversial financial tools, including joint borrowing of up to $158 billion. The European Commission plans to raise funds through capital markets and lend them to member states, provided that they purchase weapons together which were manufactured within the bloc or its regional allies. The requirement could involve at least three EU countries or two EU countries plus Ukraine. However, loan approval criteria and the prioritization of EU-made equipment remain undecided, the report pointed out.
Another measure includes easing EU budget rules via a national “escape clause” for defense spending, allowing governments to shift funds within EU accounts “rather than coming up with fresh money,” according to Euractiv.
While increased deficits could generate nearly $700 billion, it’s uncertain if the measure applies to all countries or only those meeting NATO’s 2% GDP target. Another senior EU official told Euractiv that over time, governments must offset spending by raising taxes or cutting costs.
Von der Leyen’s push for increased defense spending comes amid growing pressure from Washington. US President Donald Trump has distanced himself from supporting Ukraine while urging the EU to take greater responsibility for its defense.
The shift intensified this week, with news agencies’ reports on Monday suggesting that Trump had ordered a pause in military aid to Kiev. The US president has repeatedly accused Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky of refusing to negotiate peace with Russia and exploiting US support for his own gain.
EU leaders will discuss von der Leyen’s proposals at a special summit on Thursday. According to a senior EU official, the measures should work “very fast and very efficiently” and require only a majority vote for adoption.
Some experts, however, warn that increasing military spending could strain national budgets already under pressure.
I had the great pleasure of speaking with Karin Kneissl and Alexander Mercouris about Europe’s decline and tendency to double down on failed policies. Kneissl is the former Foreign Minister of Austria. We discussed why NATO’s defeat in the Ukraine proxy war will fragment the alliance, why the Europeans are no longer capable of engaging in diplomacy with Russia, how strategic thinking was replaced with ideological slogans, why unity and democracy within the EU is weakening, and why the economic decline will be difficult to reverse. Removing the dividing lines in Europe and restoring peace with Russia, as the largest state in Europe, would be an important part of reversing Europe’s growing irrelevance. However, the Europeans appear to be preparing for a showdown against Russia instead.
I had the great pleasure to discuss with Judge Napolitano the efforts by Trump to pressure Zelensky into starting negotiations to end the war. Trump is challenging the legitimacy of Zelensky and even cutting military support to push him to the negotiation table. It is very possible that Trump will also start to mount pressure on the Europeans as they are seen to also oppose his peace plan. By cutting military spending, Trump hopes to also deprive Zelensky and the Europeans of the alternative to keep the war going. The war summit in Paris organised by the Europeans demonstrates that they are not able to mobilise the political will and unity required to replace the US. The Europeans also do not have the money or military power to continue the war, yet they do not have the political imagination beyond doubling down on a failed war. If the Europeans continue to resist Trump’s peace efforts, then NATO itself could end up being dissolved.
Russia is ready to broker talks between the US and Iran, including on Tehran’s nuclear program and its regional proxy network, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Bloomberg on Tuesday.
Trump expressed interest in talking to Iran about those issues, both in his phone call to Putin in February and via representatives at the high-level US-Russian meeting in Riyadh just days later, the news agency wrote, citing anonymous officials.
“Russia believes that the United States and Iran should resolve all problems through negotiations,” Peskov told Bloomberg when asked about such contact.
Moscow “is ready to do everything in its power to achieve this,” he added.
US President Donald Trump returned to his “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran last month, just weeks after Moscow and Tehran signed a landmark strategic partnership agreement. Trump’s executive order said that Washington would ramp up sanctions on Iran, aiming to disrupt its nuclear program, conventional missile deployment, and network of regional proxy groups.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry has said the country is building up its defenses, citing regular threats from US ally Israel.
“The Israeli regime’s FM and other officials keep threatening Iran with military action while the West continues to blame Iran for its defense capability. This is outrageous & irrational,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said last week. Given that Israel is “addicted to aggression and lawless behavior,” it is “responsible and essential to maximize our defense capabilities,” he stressed.
The day before, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar warned that a “military option” should be on the table to stop the potential weaponization of Tehran’s nuclear program.
Israel and the West have long seen Iran’s uranium enrichment activities as a secret attempt to develop nuclear weapons – allegations that Tehran has repeatedly denied.
While Trump has touted harsher sanctions, he has also signaled that he is interested in signing a “verified nuclear peace agreement” with Tehran.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has stressed that talks with the US are unlikely to bear fruit, citing the prior nuclear deal Trump unilaterally left during his first presidency.
They (the Euro-élites) don’t have a chance: “If Trump imposes this tariff [25%], the U.S. will be in a serious trade conflict with the EU”, the Norwegian Prime Minister threatens. And what if Brussels does retaliate?
“They can try, but they can’t”, Trump responded. Von der Leyen has, however, already promised that she will retaliate. Nonetheless, the combined suite of the Anglo administrative forces is still unlikely to compel Trump to put U.S. military troops on the ground in Ukraine to protect European interests (and investments!).
The reality is that every European NATO member – to varying degrees of self-embarrassment – admits publicly now that none of them want to participate in securing Ukraine without having U.S. military troops provide ‘backstop’ to those European forces. This is a palpably obvious scheme to inveigle Trump into continuing the Ukraine war – as is Macron and Starmer’s dangling of the mineral deal to try to trick Trump to recommit to the Ukraine war. Trump plainly sees through these ploys.
The fly in the ointment, however, is that Zelensky seemingly fears a ceasefire, more than he fears losing further ground on the battlefield. He too, seems to need the war to continue (to preserve continuing in power, possibly).
Trump calling time on the Ukraine war that has been lost has seemingly caused European elites to enter some form of cognitive dissonance. Of course, it has been clear for some time that Ukraine would not retake its 1991 borders, nor force Russia into a negotiating position weak enough for the West to be able to dictate its own cessation terms.
“Trump has torn a huge rip in the interface layer of the fantasy bubble … the governing élite [in the wake of Trump’s pivot] can see not just an electoral setback, but rather a literal catastrophe. A defeat in war, with [Europe] left largely defenceless; a de-industrialising economy; crumbling public services and infrastructure; large fiscal deficits; stagnating living standards; social and ethnic disharmony – and a powerful populist insurgency led by enemies just as grave as Trump and Putin in the Manichean struggle against vestiges of liberal times – and strategically sandwiched between two leaders that both despise and disdain them …”.
“In other words, through the tear in the fantasy bubble, Europe’s elites see their own demise …”.
“Anybody who could see reality knew that things would only get worse on the war front from autumn 2023, but from their fantasy bubble, our élites couldn’t see it. Vladimir Putin, like the ‘Deplorables’ and ‘Gammons’ at home, was an atavistic daemon who would inevitably be slain on the inexorable march to liberal progressive utopia”.
Many in the Euro ruling-strata clearly are furious. Yet what can Britain or Germany actually do? It has quickly become clear that European states do not have the military capacity to intervene in Ukraine in any concerted manner. But more than anything, as Conor Gallagher points out, it is the European economy, circling the drain – largely as a result of the war against Russia – that is dragging reality to the forefront.
The new German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has shown himself to be the most implacable European leader advocating both military expansion and youth conscription – in what amounts to an European resistance model mounted to confront Trump’s pivot to Russia.
Yet Merz’s winning CDU/CSU achieved only 28% of votes cast, whilst losing significant voter share. Hardly an outstanding mandate for confronting both Russia – and America – together!
“I am communicating closely with a lot of prime ministers, and heads of EU states and for me it is an absolute priority to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible, so that we achieve independence from the U.S., step by step”, Friedrich Merz said.
Second place in the German election was taken by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) with 20% of the national vote. The party was the top vote getter in the 25-45 year-old demographic. It supports good relations with Russia, an end to the Ukraine war, and it wants to work with Team Trump, too.
Yet AfD absurdly is outcast under the ‘firewall rules’. As a ‘populist’ party with a strong youth vote, it becomes automatically relegated to the ‘wrong side’ of the EU firewall. Merz has already refused to share power with them, leaving the CDU as pig-in-the-middle, squeezed between the failing SPD, which lost the most voter share, and the AfD and Der Linke, another firewall outcast, which, like AfD, gained voter share, especially among the under-45s.
The rub here – and it is a big one – is that the AfD and the Left Party, Die Linke (8.8%), which was the top vote getter in the 18-24 demographic, are both anti-war. Together these two have more than one third of the votes in parliament – a blocking minority for many important votes, especially for constitutional changes.
This will be a big headache for Merz, as Wolfgang Münchau explains:
“For one thing, the new Chancellor had wanted to travel to the NATO summit this June, with a strong commitment to higher defence spending. And even though the Left Party and the AfD hate each other in every other respect, they agree that they won’t give Merz the money to strengthen the Bundeswehr. More important, though, is the fact that they won’t support a reform to the constitutional fiscal rules (the debt brake) that Merz and the SPD are desperate for”.
The Rules are complicated, but in gist dictate that if Germany wants to spend more money on defence and aid to Ukraine, it had to be saved from elsewhere in the budget (most likely from social spending). But politically, saving on social spending to pay for Ukraine hasn’t played well with the German electorate. The last coalition failed on precisely this issue.
Even with the Greens, Merz still will be short of the two-thirds majority necessary to make constitutional changes, and the ‘Centre’ just doesn’t have the fiscal space for challenging Russia without U.S. funding. Von der Leyen will try to ‘magic’ money for defence from somewhere, “but German youth are voting against the Establishment parties who are hated. They can build a few Leopards if they want. They won’t get recruits”.
Whilst the EU and Britain are proposing to raise billions to arm themselves against some imaginary Russian invasion, it will be done against the backdrop of Trump saying explicitly – on the threat of a Russian invasion of NATO – “I don’t believe that; I don’t believe it, not one little bit”.
Another Euro-shibboleth ripped by Trump.
Thus, how will the European public, which has largely soured on the Ukraine war, react to higher energy costs and more tax and social service cuts, in order to pursue an unwinnable war in Ukraine? Starmer already has been warned that the (government debt) ‘bond vigilantes’ will react badly to yet more UK government debt as the fiscal situation wobbles precariously.
There are no obvious solutions to Europe’s current predicament: It is, on one hand, an existential conundrum for Merz. And on the other, it is the same one that dogs the EU as a whole: To get anything done, a parliamentary majority is a basic necessity.
The ‘firewall’, though primordially intended to protect the ‘Centrists’ in Brussels from Rightist ‘populists’, was subsequently turbo-charged in Brussels by Biden’s issuing of a foreign policy determination to all U.S. foreign policy ‘actors’ to the effect that populism was a ‘threat to democracy’ and must be contested.
The practical outcome however, has been that across the EU, blocking coalitions were formed of odd (minority party) bed-fellows agreeing to keep the Centrists in power, but which rather has led to endless stasis and an ever increasing detachment from ‘we, the people’.
Angela Merkel governed in this way, kicking the can of reform down the road for years – until the situation ultimately became (and still is) insoluble.
“Can another coalition of short-sighted centrists arrest the decline of the economy, fix the failure of leadership, and free the nation from its pernicious political trap? I think we know the answer”,writes Wolfgang Münchau.
There lies a bigger problem however: As Vance very explicitly warned at the recent Munich Security Forum, Europe’s enemy lies not with Russia; It lies within. It derives, Vance implied, from the fact of having a permanent bureaucracy, assuming to itself the exclusive prerogative of autonomous governing power, yet incrementally becoming ever-more remote from its own base.
Tear down the firewalls, Vance advocated, in order to return to the (abandoned) principles of that earlier democracy originally shared between the U.S. and Europe. Implicitly, Vance is targeting the Brussels Administrative (Deep) State.
The Eurocrats see in this new front an alternate American-supported attack on their Administrative State – and perceive therein their own demise.
In the U.S., there is acknowledgement that there is an “institutional resistance to Trump” in the DOD, DOJ and the FBI. It proves, Margot Cleveland argues, that those touting the need for “institutional resistance” and the supposed independence from the executive branch, are the opponents to democracy – and to Trump.
Given the close nexus between the U.S., the British and European Deep States, the question arises as to why there is such strong parallel resistance to Trump amongst European leaders also.
Ostensibly, it is not in Europe’s interest to mount a concerted resistance against the U.S. President over a failed war. Is the European frenzy then fuelled by a wider (U.S.) Deep State desire to neuter the ‘Trump Revolution’ by demonstrating, in addition to the U.S. domestic opposition at home, that Trump is causing havoc amongst the U.S.’ European allies? Is Europe being pushed further down this path than they would otherwise have chosen to venture?
For Germany to change course – albeit unthinkable for Merz – it would require only a minimal amount of imagination to envision Germany again linked to Eurasia. The AfD gained 20% of the vote on just such a platform. Really, there probably is little other option.
Following the Oval Office showdown, US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has suggested that Volodymyr Zelensky might have to step down to enable a US-Ukraine deal. But as Zelensky refuses, what leverage does President Donald Trump hold over him?
Direct Pressure Tactics
Cutting all aid. Without US support, Zelensky may have no choice but to resign and be replaced by someone willing to negotiate peace, says ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi.
Sweeping audit of US aid. A deep probe into Ukraine’s use of US funds could expose corruption and “neutralize” Zelensky, according to ex-Ukrainian MP Oleg Tsarev.
Freezing Zelensky’s cash. Blocking foreign accounts of Zelensky and his team could undermine the Kiev regime, Tsarev suggests.
Shutting down Starlink. Three sources told Reuters that Team Trump may cut Ukraine’s access to Elon Musk’s satellites, a move the White House has already reportedly threatened.
Zelensky’s expired legitimacy. His presidential term ended in May 2024, making all actions since then legally questionable. Trump could challenge his right to govern.
Trump’s Indirect Leverage via Europe
Pressuring European allies. Europe remains dependent on the US, writes economist Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. With no weapons left to send and money-printing its only option, Trump could force its hand.
NATO withdrawal threat. Trump may pull US security guarantees from warmongering European states throwing sand in his gears or even threaten a NATO exit, warned ex-Pentagon officer David Pyne. That could motivate Europe to rein Zelensky in.
Tariffs on Europe. A 25% tariff on EU imports could cost 1.5% of EU GDP, per Bloomberg. Trump already threatened this, claiming the EU was created to “screw the US”.
🗣 Trump: Zelensky saying the end of the conflict is far away is the worst statement and the US will not put up with it for much longer.
The Trump Effect goes global! Insider Mag: “Anti-green sentiment worldwide… After returning to the Oval Office, Donald Trump’s first order of business was to pull the U.S. out of various environmental and energy efficiency initiatives. Right-wing populists gaining ground across Europe hold similar views. …
If populists successfully halt the world’s progress towards a “green” transition, the planet could face utterly tragic consequences …
Argentina, currently governed by prominent climate skeptic Javier Milei, may also withdraw from the Paris Agreement. …
In Germany, France, Italy, and other European countries, far-right parties, known for their climate skepticism, are gaining support. …
In France, following the triumph of Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally party in the European Parliament elections last summer, President Emmanuel Macron announced early parliamentary elections. … National Rally and its allies increased their number of seats in parliament from 89 to 142. National Rally calls the EU Green Deal, which aims to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, a tool of punitive environmentalism. …
In Italy, elections in 2022 brought the far-right to power for the first time since Mussolini’s day.
Related:
POLITICO : ‘Global action falters’ as ‘climate action is quickly becoming the catchall boogeyman for many Western countries’ – Germany ‘is making a U-turn’ – New Zealand ‘scrapping its climate goals’ & ‘Canada & Australia may soon follow suit’
Germany’s green backlash: ‘The end of Germany’s climate crusade’ – Used ‘climate policy as a punching bag’ – Joins ‘Austria, Belgium, Ireland & US.’ in booting out ‘progressive climate policies’ – Olaf Scholz, the defeated Germany chancellor, had led a coalition government with one of the most ambitious climate policies in the world. He had set out to achieve “climate neutrality” by 2045 – five years ahead of Britain’s net zero target, with exacting targets for rolling out electric cars and heat pumps. But with the German economy struggling, his opponents used Scholz’s climate policy as a punching bag. Friedrich Merz, the leader of the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) and the winner of the election, posted on social media before the vote that the economic ministry would be led by “someone who understands that economic policy is more than being a representative for heat pumps”. While on the campaign trail, Merz said that the German economic policy of recent years had been geared “almost exclusively toward climate protection,” adding: “I want to say it clearly as I mean it: We will and we must change that.”
Even the mainstream media is baling on the climate agenda!
Reuters now admits total climate fiasco! ‘The pursuit of net zero carbon emissions has been a resounding failure. Despite trillions of dollars spent on renewable energy, hydrocarbons still account for over 80% of the world’s primary energy’
NY Post: The West must soon admit it: The Paris Accord was a disastrous mistake
By Khalid Amayreh, in occupied East Jerusalem | The People’s Voice | October 18, 2010
A major Jewish religious figure in Israel has likened non-Jews to donkeys and beasts of burden, saying the main reason for their very existence is to serve Jews.
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual mentor of the religious fundamentalist party, Shas, which represents Middle Eastern Jews, reportedly said during a Sabbath homily earlier this week that “the sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews.”
Yosef is considered a major religious leader in Israel who enjoys the allegiance of hundreds of thousands of followers. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 