The Algerian Parliament accused French President, Emmanuel Macron, on Tuesday of “blatant interference” in the North African country’s internal affairs, Anadolu Agency reports.
Macron, on Monday, criticised Algeria, calling the detention of Franco-Algerian writer, Boualem Sansal, at Algiers Airport in November a “disgraceful matter”.
In a statement, the People’s National Assembly, the first house of parliament, called Macron’s remarks “irresponsible” and represented an “affront to Algeria’s sovereignty and dignity” in a case currently under judicial review under Algerian law.
The statement termed Macron’s comments an “overt attempt to tarnish the image of Algeria and its sovereign institutions.”
The Assembly emphasized Algeria’s firm rejection of any foreign interference, particularly regarding issues related to human rights and freedoms.
“Algeria, which endured horrific violations during the French colonial era, will not accept external lessons on these matters,” the statement said.
Such actions are “unacceptable to the Algerian people and will not deter Algeria from its independent path. Instead, they strengthen its resolve to protect its sovereignty and dignity,” it added.
The Assembly called on French authorities to respect the principles of international relations, including mutual respect.
During his meeting with French ambassadors at the Élysée Palace on Monday, Macron claimed that Algeria “prevented a seriously ill man from receiving treatment” and called for Sansal’s release.
“We who love the people of Algeria and its history urge its government to release Boualem Sansal,” he said.
Two weeks earlier, Algerian President, Abdelmadjid Tebboune, accused France of “sending an illegitimate figure” – an apparent reference to Sansal – to claim that parts of Algeria’s territory once belonged to another country.
Sansal, a former industry ministry official dismissed in 2002, had previously asserted in French media that large parts of north-western Algeria historically belonged to Morocco.
The Algerian authorities arrested Sansal on 16 November at Algiers Airport upon his return from France.
Local media reported that he was charged under Article 87 of the Penal Code, facing accusations of undermining national unity and territorial integrity, according to his defence team.
The EU was born as a peace project. Is it still so? The former German Chancellor reveals in an interview and in her Memoirs that Europe preferred conflict to peace with Russia.
The Minsk Agreements: A Tactical Pause, Not a Path to Peace
The former German chancellor Angela Merkel sparked controversy with her candid reflections on the Minsk agreements. These accords were ostensibly negotiated to de-escalate tensions in Ukraine after Russia’s accession of Crimea in 2014 as a result of a referendum by its residents and the subsequent outbreak of hostilities by the Ukrainian army and the Azov Battalion against ethnic Russians in the Donbas and Donetsk regions.
In an interview and in her memoirs titled Freedom, Merkel stated that the agreements were not genuinely pursued as a path to peace with Russia but rather as a strategic delay tactic, buying Ukraine time to strengthen its military and prepare for an inevitable confrontation.
Her statements highlight deeper underlying tensions within the European Union, particularly among member states like the Baltic nations and Poland, who viewed Russia’s actions as an existential threat. This perspective helps explain why efforts for peace were limited, and why many in the EU tacitly or openly preferred to prepare for conflict rather than seek reconciliation.
The Minsk agreements—Minsk I in 2014 and Minsk II in 2015—were brokered under the Normandy Format with the involvement of Germany, France, Ukraine, and Russia. These agreements called for an immediate ceasefire in Donbas and Donetsk, withdrawal of heavy weaponry, granting autonomy for these regions in eastern Ukraine, and constitutional reforms in Ukraine to ensure the autonomy of these regions. If the agreements had been implemented, they would have saved the lives of 14,000 Russian ethnics in Donbas and Donetsk, and certainly, they would have avoided Russian special operation in Ukraine.
However, Merkel’s remarks suggest that these agreements were never fully intended to resolve the conflict. Instead, they were a way to “freeze” the situation, allowing Ukraine to rebuild its military capacity and align itself more closely with NATO and the West. This approach mirrored a broader strategy within the EU that saw Russia’s actions, such as the accession of Crimea, not as isolated incidents but as part of a larger pattern of aggression.
Baltic and Eastern European Perspectives: Security over Diplomacy
For the Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—Russia’s accession of Crimea and its support for people in eastern Ukraine were seen as dire warnings. These countries, which share borders and historical tensions with Russia, viewed any peace deal as a potential opportunity for Russia to consolidate its gains and prepare for further expansion.
The Baltic States, are deeply rooted in Russophobia. As a result, they prioritise strengthening NATO and bolstering their defences over engaging in diplomacy, which they perceive as a tool Russia has exploited for strategic advantage. Additionally, there is a persistent mistrust of European institutions, viewed as incapable of guaranteeing their security. Consequently, they place greater reliance on the United States through NATO and favour purchasing American defence equipment over European alternatives.
This is the stance held by the EU Foreign Affairs Chief, Kaja Kallas, the former Prime Minister of Estonia, who is hindering a diplomatic solution in Ukraine. This makes her unfit for the role, as she is driven by deep Russophobia and is little inclined toward diplomacy.
EU’s General Stance: Divided but Increasingly Hawkish
Within the broader EU, member states were divided over how to handle Russia. Western European countries like Germany and France initially pursued dialogue and diplomacy, partly due to their economic ties with Russia. However, Merkel’s remarks suggest even these efforts were tempered by a recognition that peace with Russia might only be temporary.
By contrast, Eastern European members like Poland and the Baltics were vocal advocates for a tougher stance. Their influence grew as Russia’s actions in Ukraine escalated, pushing the EU toward a more unified, confrontational approach.
The Militarization of Ukraine was pursued as the EU and NATO believed that a stronger Ukraine was essential to deter future Russian aggression. This focus on military preparedness left little room for genuine peace efforts. As a result, the U.S. did not respond to Putin’s letters and security guarantee requests.
Further, there was the question of strategic interests. For many EU members, particularly the Baltics and Poland, a weakened Russia was viewed as essential for regional stability. Consequently, the West and NATO members were accused of unnecessarily prolonging the war. A former U.S. Senator famously remarked, “We will fight until the last Ukrainian,” underscoring the approach of continued military engagement.
The peace agreement reached in Istanbul in April 2022 was reportedly rejected by Western powers. Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, acting on behalf of U.S. President Joe Biden, hurried to Kyiv to dissuade President Zelensky from signing the deal, assuring him of full Western support to defeat Russia.
Merkel’s Legacy and the Fallout of Her Comments
Merkel’s acknowledgement that the Minsk agreements were merely a strategic delay has sparked debates about the sincerity of European diplomacy. Her remarks have also undermined Europe’s moral narrative, exposing the calculated realpolitik behind decisions often framed as efforts towards peace. While Merkel defended her actions as necessary to protect Ukraine and Europe, they raised uncomfortable questions about the EU’s commitment to its proclaimed values of diplomacy and conflict resolution.
At the time, the guarantors of the Minsk agreements—France and Germany—still held significant diplomatic clout on the international stage. Today, however, these nations have become diplomatic dwarfs, rendered increasingly irrelevant by their subservience to U.S. interests—a dependency deepened by the war in Ukraine. This decline is also compounded by the West’s hypocrisy and double standards, which have eroded its legitimacy on the global stage.
In sum, Merkel’s comments highlight a Europe that, while officially advocating peace, frequently prioritised U.S. interests over genuine reconciliation. For the Baltics and other Eastern European nations, their warmongering approach underscores the challenges of pursuing balanced diplomacy in an era of resurgent great-power rivalry.
The Kiev regime, unable to defeat Russia on the battlefield, has opened a “second front” in Africa by aligning with terrorist groups in Mali and Niger, both of which have already severed diplomatic ties with Ukraine, said the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Ukraine’s opening of a “second front” on the African continent is “a desperate move aimed at media sensation, with no clear vision and strategy,” Professor Alexis Habiyaremye, Research Chair in Industrial Development at the University of Johannesburg, told Sputnik.
Context for Ukraine in Africa
It is unclear what Ukraine’s strategy in Africa is “beyond participation in destabilization” of the continent, he said, mentioning the Confederation of Sahel States, which are “led by a vision of sovereignty that is stronger than Ukrainian hatred and racism.”
“African countries are motivated by the determination to wrest their full independence from the neocolonial Western powers, while Ukraine is acting erratically based on anger and frustration. [Volodymyr] Zelensky and his agents will certainly bite the dust in Africa,” Habiyaremye stressed.
Ukrainian intelligence services “have unashamedly claimed to collaborate” with terrorist groups in Africa, “hoping to destabilize Russian security partners, and by doing so, to discredit Russia,” the analyst added, pointing to “the blanket impunity granted to Ukraine by its Western backers.”
Why is the Effort Fruitless?
The professor singled out the Sahel region, where he said the Kiev regime relied on “French logistics and American satellite technology” to help “terrorists ambush troops of Malian Armed Forces.”
“By allying itself with terrorists to attack African countries, Ukraine has squandered any possible goodwill it could hope to get from Africa and the rest of the Global South. It is therefore unlikely to achieve anything of significance as it tied its lot with that of the terrorists,” Habiyaremye concluded.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova earlier stated that Mali’s and Niger’s decision to sever diplomatic relations with Ukraine indicates the African countries’ growing understanding of the terrorist nature of the Kiev regime.
The Telegram channels of multiple major Russian news outlets were rendered inaccessible across the EU on Sunday. The affected channels now display a plaque stating that access to them has been restricted over alleged “violation of local laws,” with all the content unavailable.
According to media reports, the affected channels include such Russian majors as RIA Novosti, Izvestia, Rossiya 1, Channel One, NTV and Rossiyskaya Gazeta. While it was not immediately clear whether the bans are EU-wide, the restrictions have been reportedly rolled out in Poland, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Greece, Italy and the Czech Republic.
The EU has taken multiple hostile steps against Russian media amid the ongoing conflict between Moscow and Kiev – and even before it. Some of the media affected in the apparent Telegram ban, namely Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Izvestia and RIA Novosti, were slapped with a broadcasting ban in the bloc in May. At the time, the EU Council claimed the outlets were under the “permanent direct or indirect control” of the Russian leadership, and played an “essential and instrumental” role in the hostilities.
No official statements have so far been made on the matter, either by Telegram, the EU as a whole or by individual members of the bloc.
A contingent of 120 French soldiers has left Chad following the country’s decision to end its defense cooperation pact with Paris.
French troops were seen boarding their plane on Friday and departing from N’Djamena airport.
The withdrawal process formally began earlier this month with the departure of two French Mirage warplanes.
France still has about 1000 troops stationed in Chad, with the full drawdown expected to take several weeks.
The terms and conditions of the complete withdrawal, including whether any French troops will remain in Chad, are yet to be finalized between the two countries.
Chad announced on November 28 its decision to end a defense accord with Paris mainly dating from independence in 1960.
“At midday, 120 French soldiers took off from the military airport of N’Djamena on board an Airbus A330 Phoenix MRTT, headed for France,” the ministry said in a statement on Facebook.
The departure of French soldiers took place in the presence of Chadian military authorities, the statement said.
The move comes after France had already pulled its forces out of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger in recent years.
This departure signals the end of decades of French military presence in the Sahel region as the anti-French sentiment continues to grow.
It’s been a bad few months for democracy. Election results offensive to the European Union were annulled in Romania; an attempted coup occurred in Georgia over elections that didn’t go the way the west wanted; the French government, widely hated, teetered over the abyss as president Emmanual Macron tried to ignore the last election; on December 16, Washington’s pet German government fell; lots of funny-business happened in the Moldovan referendum and election, amid widespread disenfranchisement of Moldovan voters living in Russia; elections were long ago cancelled in dictatorial Ukraine; and South Korea hosted an attempted coup. In short, western democracies’ storied enchantment with elections is over. As western populations grow sick and tired of their political class and vote against it, what are elites to do? Annul, cancel, overturn and ignore the elections, that’s what. The problem, for the west, is the voters.
What will happen if far-right Alternative for Deutschland sweeps the early German elections in February, or if far-left France Insoumise does the same in France? Will the U.S. through its NATO and EU tentacles annul those votes? Don’t think it won’t try. And Washington doesn’t even have to give the order, because its European puppets know exactly what’s expected of them. Granted, the Romanian front-runner, so feared by NATO, Calin Georgescu, was far right. But so what? Besides, I doubt that’s what led to the constitutional court vacating the vote. More likely it was his opposition to the Ukraine War – hence the court citing “foreign influence” (translation: Russian) via TikTok as its flimsy basis for negating the election. Incidentally, reports are coming in that the heat and internet to Georgescu’s house have been cut off, and, surprise! he can’t get anyone on the phone to help with this.
But you can’t blame European honchos for ditching elections. They’re just following Washington’s lead. After all, the post-2016 phony Russiagate hysteria may not have succeeded in ousting Trump, as was intended, but it did provide the template for American vassals. The four years of lawfare against Trump (and then another four after he left office) blazed the trail for Europe, so that now, if a candidate not favored by political bigwigs wins, all they have to do is scream “Russian influence!” to dump the election. In other words, democracy is dying in the west. It’s kicking the bucket in Europe – and if Trump ends the Ukraine War (provided Biden doesn’t utterly sabotage his peace efforts before he takes office) or gets us out of the NATO sinkhole, you can bet your paycheck the 2028 establishment campaign will dust off the 2016 playbook and get right to work.
In western media, Georgescu has been portrayed as an unknown. This is false. He is well-known in Romania and had a diplomatic career. But he is also a religious nationalist, and that’s verboten in the EU; worse yet, the U.S., aka NATO, built its biggest military airbase in Europe – where? You got it, Romania. So Washington can’t have just anybody running that country. It must be someone who will keep everything copacetic with the U.S. A nationalist opposed to Washington’s pet proxy war in Ukraine is not that someone.
As for Georgia, there the electorate proved itself most unreliable to the Exceptional Empire. It voted in a government that actually dares to require foreign NGOs to register as such – you know, the way we do, here in the United States. But here, those NGOs don’t aim to overthrow the government, like they do in Georgia, in order for Tbilisi to open a second front against Moscow. Indeed, the vast majority of rioters against the Georgian government, who were arrested, were – I’m shocked! Shocked! – foreign, i.e. European. The icing on the cake is that the French president of Georgia refused to leave office when her term expired – a president with French and Georgian passports, who boasts Nazis in her family tree.
The EU finagled things more successfully in Moldova. That nation’s October 20 referendum on joining the EU won – kinda. In country, the Moldovan government only snagged 50 percent of the vote, but Moldovan expats in Europe gave it a boost, while the 400,000 Moldovans living in Russia found, to their dismay, only two polling stations open for them, by their government, in Moscow. That meant as few as 10,000 of them got to vote. And as East European expert and political scientist Ivan Katchanovski tweeted October 21, many pro-Russian citizens in Transdniestria could not vote. So all in all, the Moldovan referendum was a sorry excuse for a democratic exercise. Then there was also Moldova’s presidential election, equally compromised. But hey, Washington’s EU vassal got to lure a country out of Russia’s orbit, and that’s all that counts, not mere democracy, right? After all, Washington doesn’t stand for democracy. It stands for and has long stood for something quite different – power. Just look at it backing a terrorist takeover of Syria, among them a ruler on whose head Washington has a $10,000,000 bounty. Let that sink in. One American hand posts a huge reward for a terrorist, while the other hand paves his way to power. The obvious conclusion (also obvious to any student of American-backed coups and regime changes abroad going back at least 70 years) is that U.S. doesn’t stand for anything besides power (certainly not anything as antiquated and nettlesome as international law). That’s the definition of a gangster state.
If you doubt that, just peek at South Korea, where the CIA’s man, president Yoon Suk Yeol, faced a grim electoral future. The voters were unlikely to support him in the next election, given that they mostly back the opposition. And that opposition, per Col. Douglas Macgregor, wants a Korean four-star general, not an American one, to head the roughly 500,000 Korean armed forces and also wants to boot the 30,000 U.S. troops off the peninsula. This, of course, goes over in Washington with all the joy of a root canal.
So what to do? Yoon took the bull by the horns December 3 with martial law. During the few hours when it looked like our man in Seoul had pulled off a coup, the Biden gang was coyly silent. But there is nothing enduring in this world, as Gogol noted, and even the most brazen attempts at subverting democracy occasionally fail. The opposition gathered and voted against Yoon. His defense minister was deposed, jailed and attempted suicide, and Yoon’s own tenure came now, ahem, under a cloud, to say the least, as insurrection charges loomed, and he was impeached and suspended from office.
And don’t forget France, where Macron, affronted by an EU parliament vote last summer that installed many anti-Ukraine War representatives, totally lost it and, quite idiotically and hubristically, called snap elections. He promptly lost those to the left, but then snubbed the voters by breaking with tradition and refusing to appoint a left-wing prime minister. Surprising no one, the center-rightist he chose received a vote of no confidence, and Macron’s government looked likely to fall. That was temporarily forestalled by the appointment, December 13, of a centrist prime minister. But if his government does ultimately crash, expect Macron to do something really stupid, like suspend the legislature, call a national emergency or, a la Yoon, declare martial law.
Lastly of course we have Ukraine, that shining example of democracy, where its president rules illegally, having cancelled elections, banned the opposition, throttled the press, exiled the church, jailed anyone he doesn’t like and press-ganged thousands of vehemently objecting Ukrainian men into the military. All this while ferociously lining his pockets with western, mainly American, funds. This is the tyranny upon which Biden bestows hundreds of billions of our hard-earned tax dollars. It’s not even supported by Ukrainians, most of whom, according to recent polls, want the war over. But Joe “War Is My Legacy” Biden, in his crazed enthusiasm for Ukrainian combat, just won’t stop. On December 11, Ukraine fired six ATACAMS into Russia. We can all thank God they did little damage, since the Russians shot two down and diverted four with electronic warfare. Had they inflicted real harm, we in the west might very well have had worse troubles than the death of democracy, namely death itself. Biden appears oblivious to this reality. For us, what’s at stake is life itself, and the whole, wondrous human and natural world. For him, it appears to be just another step on the path of endless war, another day, another dollar.
Eve Ottenberg is a novelist and journalist. Her latest novel is Booby Prize. She can be reached at her website.
Algeria summoned French Ambassador Stephane Romatet for what it dubbed “hostile plans” by the French intelligence service, Algerian media reported on Sunday,
Romatet was summoned to the Foreign Ministry last week to answer allegations of French intelligence participation in destabilizing efforts in Algeria, according to the state-run publication El Moudjahid.
The summoning came following reports that the French intelligence service had recruited former Algerian terrorists to destabilize the country’s security.
It referenced the instance of Mohamed Amine Aissaoui, who recently made a live confession on Algerian television about a suspected plot orchestrated by French intelligence.
Algerian officials told the French envoy that such measures “won’t go unanswered” and that they will not stand idly by in response to “attacks on its sovereignty,” according to the newspaper.
There was no French response to the Algerian media claim.
This event adds to Algeria and France’s already difficult ties, which have been hampered by disagreements over historical memory, migration, and the Western Sahara conflict.
Morocco primarily controls Western Sahara, but the Polisario Front has advocated for the territory’s independence since before Spain, its colonial ruler, withdrew in 1975. The United Nations classifies it as a “non-autonomous territory.”
Rabat, which governs around 80% of the territory, supports a plan for limited autonomy for Western Sahara under Moroccan sovereignty. In contrast, the Polisario Front is demanding a UN-supervised referendum on self-determination, which was intended to be established following the ceasefire in 1991 but has yet to be implemented.
I was interviewed by Dimitri Lascaris about the future of Europe. I argue that Europe’s decline derives from its inability to adjust to a multipolar international system. Europe can become one of several centres of power by pursuing collective bargaining power based on common interests, diversifying economic partnerships to avoid excessive dependence on the US, and overcoming the Cold War legacy of zero-sum bloc politics.
The Europeans have done the exact opposite. The European security architecture has been built on the premise that expanding a military alliance ever closer to Russian borders would create peace and stability. Relations with Russia have subsequently collapsed and Europe is losing a costly proxy war against the world’s largest nuclear power. Countries in the shared neighbourhood (Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova) are destabilised and their democracy undermined to ensure pro-West/anti-Russia governments take power. These deeply divided societies have become the battleground for drawing new dividing lines in the new Cold War.
European economies are deindustrialising as they cut themselves off from the Russian market, and are also pressured by the US to decouple from the Chinese market. The US Inflation Reduction Act offers subsidies to what remains of struggling European industries if they relocate to the US. Excessive reliance on the US means that Europe cannot even criticise the US for destroying its energy infrastructure after the attack on Nord Stream. After centuries of a Europe-centric international system, the Europeans have not realised that they have been demoted from a subject to an object of security.
Governments that do not represent national interests will eventually be swept away, yet the political elites become increasingly authoritarian to keep their power. In France and Germany, their political opposition is pushed aside with undemocratic means. Hungary and Slovakia are punished by the EU for failing to fall in line. The election results in Romania were overturned after the electorate did not vote for the right candidate.
The continent desperately needs course correction, yet power structure and ideology prevent necessary changes from being implemented. More aggressive means to control the narrative also result in declining freedom of speech.
Iran has rejected the latest allegations about its peaceful nuclear program by three European countries, saying it will give an appropriate response to any confrontational move.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei made the remarks on Tuesday while responding to a joint statement by France, Germany, and the UK that accused Iran of failing to honor its commitments under the 2015 nuclear deal and UNSC Resolution 2231, urging Iran to halt what they termed as “nuclear escalation.”
The European statement came after a report by the UN nuclear watchdog indicating that Tehran had stepped up uranium enrichment activity, fulfilling its pledge to respond to a Western-sponsored censure resolution criticizing the country for what was described as a lack of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Iran has reduced its commitments under the JCPOA over the past years following the re-imposition of sanctions lifted under the accord and the failure of European parties to compensate for the losses incurred by Iran.
Baghaei said the recent decision of the Iranian government was to activate more advanced centrifuges, within the framework of specific rights given under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and with due notification and under the supervision of the IAEA.
“As a responsible member of the IAEA, the Islamic Republic of Iran has proven its commitment to cooperation with this institution, and the understandings reached during the visit of the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to Tehran on 14-15 November,” he said.
The spokesman added that “it is regrettable that the three European countries, regardless of the achievements of the Director General’s visit, which could have been a basis for strengthening cooperation in the future, insisted on their unconstructive approach and proceeded to pass a resolution against Iran.”
Referring to a November 29 meeting with representatives of the three European countries in Geneva, Baghaei stated that the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to believe in constructive interaction based on mutual respect.
“At the same time, the Islamic Republic of Iran will respond to any confrontational and illegal behavior within the framework of its legal rights and in an appropriate manner,” he stated.
Baghaei noted that the root cause of the situation stems from the US withdrawal from the deal and the failure of the E3 to fulfill their commitments.
He emphasized the importance of mutual adherence to the path of constructive interaction and advised the three European countries to address the root cause and reason for the current situation, which is a combination of continuous breach of commitment and the illegal policy of pressure and sanctions against the Iranian nation.
Earlier, Iran’s UN envoy, Amir-Saeid Iravani rejected Western allegations of non-compliance with its JCPOA commitments as “disingenuous and hypocritical.”
He called on the European parties to the 2015 nuclear accord to abandon their campaign of pressure against Iran and make real efforts to revive the deal.
He made the call in a letter addressed to the UN Security Council and UN chief Antonio Guterres.
One of the major preventative measures developed against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was vaccines. To monitor their use and safety of vaccines from the first utilization in humans during clinical development phases to implementation for the general population, an enhanced national pharmacovigilance system was enabled by the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety in collaboration with the 30 Regional Pharmacovigilance Centres. Here, we review the significant outcomes from a 2-year collaboration experience between the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, the 30 Regional Pharmacovigilance Centres, disease-related experts and the pharmacovigilance and risk assessment committee at the European medicine agency. In France, until January 2023, over 155 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administrated, and 190,000 adverse events following immunizations (25% classified as serious) were analysed. Altogether 53 potential safety signals were reported to the Pharmacovigilance and Risk Assessment Committee at the European Medicine Agency by the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety: 13 were confirmed, 24 are still under investigation and 16 were not confirmed.
Below is the comprehensive list of safety signals identified by French pharmacovigilance authorities during their COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring efforts:
Complete List of 53 COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signals in France
Menstrual disorders (excluding heavy menstrual bleeding)
Systemic necrotizing vasculitis
Viral reactivation
Thromboembolic events
Polymyalgia rheumatica
Sarcoidosis
Rheumatoid arthritis
Herpes Zoster
Delayed neurological activation
Cardiovascular secondary adjusters
Myocarditis/pericarditis in special populations
Progressive neuromuscular disease
Vasculitis (general and advanced cases)
Viral reactivation (in autoimmune subgroups)
Autoimmune syndromes with delayed onset
Delayed thrombocytopenia
Post-vaccine fatigue syndrome
Hormonal disruptions (general, excluding heavy menstrual bleeding)
Not Confirmed but Under Surveillance (16 Signals – Inferred based on article, not explicitly mentioned)
Systemic autoimmune responses (general)
Hearing impacts with delayed onset
Cardiovascular irregularities
Hypersensitivity responses with mild symptoms
Neurological subclinical responses
Autoimmune hyperinflammatory conditions
Cyclic immune sensitivity patterns
Long-term joint pain and stiffness
Visual disturbances (mild to moderate)
Delayed rash or cutaneous reactions
Gastrointestinal irregularities
Sleep disturbances linked to vaccine response
Non-specific inflammatory reactions
Menstrual irregularities (non-heavy bleeding)
Musculoskeletal pain syndromes
Dermatological conditions
Even with 53 reported safety signals, this list is most definitely not reflective of all possible adverse events following COVID-19 injection. Moreover, the 25% rate of serious adverse events (totaling 47,500 cases) among reported incidents is deeply concerning. Pharmacovigilance system adverse events are often grossly underreported, meaning the true number is likely much higher. Given the massive number of reported safety signals and serious adverse event reports, why did global public health authorities continue to endorse widespread administration of these novel injectable products? The worldwide market withdrawal of COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ and accountability for this public health disaster are LONG overdue.
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
It is almost as if some EU capitals have a tenacious death wish. After Berlin’s amazing and ongoing self-Morgenthauing act of industrial suicide for the greater glory of America’s NATO and Zelensky’s Ukraine, Paris is now self-Waterlooing. As France’s newly-discharged prime minister Michel Barnier almost correctly noted, the “country is going through a profound crisis.”
‘Almost,’ because it’s not ’going through’, but stuck in it.
The president’s obstinacy would be funny if it weren’t so tragic for France. As French newspaper Libération has put it, “how can you embody stability when you’re the one who’s produced the chaos?” But then, to be fair to the former Wunderkind of Centrism, for the West’s “elites” and their offspring, too (Hi there, Crack Hunter, lawless son of Genocide Joe!), taking responsibility is just so passé. More importantly, Macron’s personal if humungous failure as a politician and, worse, national leader is not the whole story.
Despite the broad powers of the French presidency and Macron’s narcissistic tendency to over-estimate his own significance, he has been a devastating catalyst, an unwitting tool of history rather than a mover-and-shaker in his own right. This, not to be misunderstood, does not absolve him of guilt. It simply means that focusing on him is much less interesting than he himself believes.
Instead, the deep crisis that has come to a head with parliament’s sacking, on December 4, of Barnier and his short-lived minority government, is the result of two large social forces, and one overarching trend that pervades in the West and deserves the label of historic.
Regarding the social forces, on one side, there are economic stagnation and budgetary stress, and, on the other, a pervasive loss of popular legitimacy for politics-as-usual and, in addition, of basic trust and confidence. Concerning the historic trend, we’ll get to that in a moment.
As for the economics of the mess, just consider a few basic facts and key indicators: The trigger for the government collapse was, as recently in Germany, a crisis of state finances: Barnier’s short-lived minority government fell over its attempt to push through a budget for 2025. The deficit for this year, 2024, is forecast to reach at least 6% of GDP, which is, of course, twice the official EU limit of 3%.
For comparison, the Russian Finance Ministry estimates that country’s 2024 budget deficit to reach just over 1%. Even accounting for potential bias on the side of a government agency, the difference is striking, especially if you consider that Moscow has been the target of unprecedented Western economic warfare and has also had to mobilize to defeat the West in the proxy war in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, France’s economic growth is at barely 1%, according The Economist and, according to the European Commission, will slow to 0.8% in 2025. Economists say that’s too optimistic. In other words, there is no “growth,” only stagnation-by-another-name. French business struggles with high energy prices, high interest rates, and waning consumer confidence. Major French firms are cutting jobs by the thousands, bankruptcies “are soaring,” and there is a cost-of-living crisis, again similar to the other Sick Man of the EU, Germany. Long gone seem the days when a Franco-German duo was supposed to be the EU’s beating heart.
To round off the misery, Paris sits on sovereign debt totaling almost €3.3 trillion, equivalent to over 110% of GDP. What the EU allows officially is 60%. That’s a situation The Economist calls “alarming,” with fine English understatement. In reality, “alarming” was yesterday. Paris is now at la-merde-is-hitting-the-proverbial-fan level. Just consult the international ratings agencies: Already at the end of October, Moody’s downgraded France’s credit outlook from “stable” to “negative”; now, the agency has reacted to the budding crisis-on-top-of-a-crisis by highlighting France’s political deadlock and concluding that the probability of consolidating its public finances has been reduced. Some French observers at least are wondering if a full credit rating downgrade is coming. And what about Standard and Poor’s and Fitch, Moody’s competitors? Pardon my French, but just don’t ask.
It’s a dismal picture on the economic front but wait till you see the politics and the national mood!
In the most immediate terms, Macron’s reckless early-election gamble in the summer and his devious and undemocratic maneuvering to keep out the victorious Left after his party’s predictable trouncing, has left France, in effect, ungovernable. Barnier’s predictable failure makes no difference to that fact. Fresh parliamentary elections, once again, would probably not help either. And anyhow, they are ruled out by the constitution before next summer.
Macron will now try out yet another prime minister, number six since he became president. That is a high attrition rate: In 7 years, the would-be embodiment of “institutional stability” has gone through as many heads of government as De Gaulle in 19 years.
It’s also an accelerating attrition rate: Macron’s prime ministers get used up ever faster. The future will show if this trend can be broken. If so, then not because of but despite the president’s baneful influence. As a French commentator noted, he won’t provide a solution, but he can still cause a lot of problems.
There are good reasons for declaring this moment the death of Macronism. Its core project of leaving behind the politics of left and right and replacing them with a combination of Centrism and a “Jupiterian” (Macron’s own, early term) personality cult now lies in tatters.
Specifically, Macronism’s claim to, at the very least, stave off the populist right of Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (RN) is a sad joke: No matter what you think about the RN, there is no doubt that its power has never been as great as now, and its chances of capturing the presidency, with or without Marine Le Pen in the lead, have never been better.
Macron has become the Biden of France: in both cases, while building their rule on a promise to keep out right-populist challengers, the two presidents’ incompetence and egotism has facilitated the rise of those challengers.
And how do the French feel in the midst of all of this? Spoiler alert: Not grand. According to French newspaper Le Monde’s summary of comprehensive polling by Ipsos, France is a “country anxious and discontent, hit by a political crisis,” and bereft of trust in its “political personnel and institutions.” In terms of their individual experiences, only 50% are content, 70% believe that the conditions of their life are “less and less favorable,” and 55% say they find it hard to make ends meet.
Regarding their country as a whole, a whopping 87% consider it in decline, which is 18% worse than when Macron was elected for the first time in 2017: National slow claps for “Jupiter.” But the rest of the political elites don’t look much better: Solid, even preponderant majorities consider them “corrupt” (63%), “not representative” (78%), and out for their own, personal good (83%).
In principle, there’s a difference between being miserable and being afraid. But the two states of mind go together really well, too: Almost all of the French (92%) have a bad feeling they are living in a “violent society”, and almost a third think “very violent” is the more precise term. You may say things could hardly get worse. Yet the French firmly believe they can: 89% see violence on the rise, and the majority of those respondents (61%) think it is rising “a lot.”
In sum: A selfish boss from hell (who could fire himself but swears he won’t), no functioning government, a tanking economy, and a mood like there’s no tomorrow. How did that happen to the “Grande Nation”? This is where we get back to the third factor mentioned above: the overarching historic trend. Let’s zoom out from unhappy France and small-minded, selfish Macron, and what we are seeing is an exemplary case of Centrism ruining a country.
True, you would never guess that if you relied on, for instance, The Economist. There, the same old, tired, and dim story is relentlessly told: How a heroic “center” and its stalwart defenders are resisting (or not so much) dastardly attacks from the “populists” and “extremists.” It’s an epic battle of light and darkness, Hobbits and Orcs, almost as if lifted straight from a fantasy novel. It even features glorious last stands: For the New York Times, Britain’s Keir Starmer, “one of the last centrist leaders on the global stage” is “trying to fight populism from the lonely center.” “Remember the Alamo,” I guess.
And yet, look at the real world: Clinton, Biden, Harris, Scholz, Macron, to name only a few – What do they all have in common? They stand for the failed, rejected project of elitist Centrism, dragging down their countries. For a stubborn, snobbish, and manipulative style of politics, complete with lawfare, mass media campaigns of calumny and disinformation, incipient authoritarianism and police-state methods, a dead-end foreign policy of blaming others (Russia and China most of all) for their countries’ problems and decline, and a resolute surrender to the forces of “the market,” which, here, is simply code for globalized capitalist interests.
It is a project that systematically confuses securing the power and privileges of traditional elites with national stability and welfare. Last but not least, its practitioners stand for an aggressive hubris that routinely derides and demonizes all challengers as beyond the pale of propriety. None of this has anything to do with democracy. On the contrary, as Macron’s handling of elections has illustrated, this is a policy of preventing popular participation and empowerment from below. Centrism is in deep crisis. That much, dear Economist, is true. It should be and only has itself to blame.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
The motion of no confidence, voted through on 4 December 2024, has succeeded—a first in France since 1962. All eyes are now on French President Emmanuel Macron, who faces mounting pressure to resign, but has assured that he will not resign.
The French political crisis is evolving into a dramatic and complex challenge, with significant implications for domestic governance, European stability, and global diplomacy. The public largely blames President Macron for the chaos.
In his national TV address on the evening of 5 December, Macron sought to shift the blame onto the “far-right” and “far-left,” accusing them of uniting to create turmoil ahead of the next presidential election—or to force an early one. He firmly rejected the idea of broad “cohabitation” as a solution or of bringing forward the presidential election foreseen for 2027.
Here’s my analysis connecting the key developments and their potential consequences.
A Crisis Born of Discord
Michel Barnier’s short-lived government collapsed in an extraordinary parliamentary alliance between far-right (RN – Marine Le Pen’s National Rally) and the left (New Popular Union, including LFI – France Unbowed led by Jean-Luc Mélenchon, considered an extreme-left movement). Their common grievance? A rejection of Barnier’s austere budget proposal, which sought to rein in France’s growing deficit, as well as their initial rejection of Barnier’s nomination as Prime Minister by President Macron, who disregarded the election results that were won by the left.
However, Le Pen was the primary architect behind the government’s downfall.
While intended to address fiscal concerns, the proposal ignited a populist backlash, culminating in a vote of no confidence. This marked the first successful ousting of a French prime minister by parliamentary motion since 1962, underscoring the depth of political fragmentation in the Fifth Republic.
Ripples Across Europe
France’s turmoil arrives at a precarious moment for the European Union. As the bloc’s major army and second-largest economy, its instability reverberates across the continent, weakening political cohesion within the EU and exposing vulnerabilities in the Eurozone. The EU was not used to face a political crisis in such dimensions within its core nations.
Compounding the issue, Germany is preoccupied with its own economic and electoral uncertainties, and Donald Trump’s imminent return to the U.S. presidency introduces a wildcard into global geopolitics.
The crisis in France underscores broader European challenges, from the rise of populism to mounting fiscal pressures, threatening the EU’s ability to maintain a united front in trade negotiations, foreign policy, and economic governance.
The EU has long relied on the leadership of the Franco-German duo. Now, both nations are mired in deep crises—Germany facing a political and economic crossroads, and France grappling with political and fiscal turmoil.
To make matters worse, there is no leader on the horizon like Charles de Gaulle, Willy Brandt, François Mitterrand, Helmut Kohl, or Angela Merkel—figures we were accustomed to relying on in the past to steer their nations out of such crises.
Macron Under Fire
Having Michel Barnier delivered his resignation, President Emmanuel Macron is under intense pressure to act decisively. Barnier now holds the dubious distinction of being the shortest-serving Prime Minister of the Fifth Republic. Naming a new prime minister quickly is not just a domestic imperative, but also a global one. The reopening of Notre Dame Cathedral this weekend, attended by Trump and other dignitaries, has heightened scrutiny on Macron’s leadership.
While Macron could reappoint Barnier as a caretaker to buy time, doing so risks appearing tone-deaf to growing calls for systemic change. Meanwhile, opposition factions and public sentiment increasingly question Macron’s ability to lead, raising the spectre of a presidential resignation. Macron’s televised address has done little to alter the narrative surrounding his survival—or the prospect of his potential downfall.
The Challenge of Finding a New Prime Minister
Forming a new government in France is proving to be a complex and overwhelming task. The New Popular Front (NFP) Alliance, a coalition of Greens, Socialists, Communists, and the radical left faction, France Unbowed, is the largest group at the French National Assembly.
However, the NFP lacks a sufficient majority to govern outright, forcing them to rely on support from President Macron’s MPs to pass legislation.
A potential candidate for prime minister from the NFP, Lucie Castets, was previously rejected by Macron this summer with fears that she would cancel his neoliberal reforms, such as the pension reform. The president’s decision stemmed from an apparent inability to secure stable majorities, despite the theoretical possibility of combining the NFP’s votes with Macron’s MPs to push through key laws. The new stalemate highlights the deep fractures within French politics and raises questions about whether any coalition can provide the stability needed to navigate the current crisis.
The immediate question is whether Macron can restore a semblance of stability by swiftly appointing a credible prime minister. Failure to do so could embolden opposition forces and deepen calls for his resignation. Beyond France, the crisis tests the EU’s resilience in managing its internal divisions while confronting external pressures, from a menacing Donald Trump to the rising assertiveness of the Global South.
Opportunistic Moves in Brussels
Amid France’s crisis, Brussels may seize the moment to push forward controversial EU initiatives. Chief among them is the Mercosur trade deal, a landmark agreement with Latin American countries that France has staunchly opposed. With French political attention consumed by domestic turmoil, the European Commission might view this as a rare opportunity to sidestep resistance and secure the deal’s approval, sparking further controversy within an already fragile EU.
The coming days will be pivotal in determining whether France and the EU can weather this storm—or whether it will escalate into a broader crisis of governance.
Ricardo Martins ‒ PhD in Sociology, specializing in policies, European and world politics and geopolitics.
Instead of high-quality education, these institutions are fostering a global neo-feudal system reminiscent of the British Raj
By Dr. Mathew Maavak | RT | May 30, 2025
In a move that has ignited a global uproar, US President Donald Trump banned international students from Harvard University, citing “national security” and ideological infiltration. The decision, which has been widely condemned by academics and foreign governments alike, apparently threatens to undermine America’s “intellectual leadership and soft power.” At stake is not just Harvard’s global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US.
But exactly how ‘open’ is Harvard’s admissions process? Every year, highly qualified students – many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores – are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, and outright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged $1 billion to open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script.
China’s swift condemnation of Trump’s policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for “America’s international standing” amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis which spread like cancer to all branches of the government.
So, what was behind China’s latest gripe? ... 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 