#Merkel-Regime

[mariacallous]

In October 2022, when Giorgia Meloni became Italy’s prime minister, concerns arose about her democratic credentials. Since her youth, Meloni had been associated with far-right movements, initially with the Italian Social Movement (Movimento Sociale Italiano1) and eventually with the Brothers of Italy (Fratelli d’Italia), which were ambiguous about the fascist regime that had suppressed democracy between the two world wars. Only three months before winning the elections, she had advocated for a political stance that seemed not aligned with the other liberal democratic parties in Europe. In a public speech in Barcelona, she summarized her agenda vividly: “Yes to the natural family, no to the LGBT lobby, yes to sexual identity, no to gender ideology … no to Islamist violence, yes to secure borders, no to mass migration … no to big international finance … no to the bureaucrats of Brussels!”

Those words, and especially her branding of the European institutions as a barely legitimate bureaucratic clique, might have been pronounced by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who is known as the standard bearer of “illiberal democracies,” new nationalists, and friends of autocrats such as Russian President Vladimir Putin. This affinity has fueled concerns that Meloni’s leadership of the third most populous country in the European Union would undermine efforts to achieve greater political integration within it, bring back nationalism in the heart of Europe, and increase the influence of autocratic regimes in the West. In such a case, Meloni might have become the crucial link in a chain reaction spreading autocracy worldwide.

This raised the question: would Meloni become a new autocratic leader in the heart of Europe or rather a mainstream conservative politician? To answer it, her actions have been scrutinized on three counts. Firstly, would Meloni uphold the rule of law while managing consensus within the country? Secondly, since consensus was also dependent on the state of the economy, would she tackle the Italian economy’s traditional weaknesses by adopting politically costly reforms? Finally, considering the close ties between the Italian and European economies, would Meloni pursue her nationalist goals while also forging strong alliances in Europe in order to play a leading role in a challenging global context?

Almost two years into Meloni’s term, this sequence of questions (consensus-economy-Europe) is starting to get some answers. In short, Meloni’s primary political objective has been to establish her party’s influence in Italy’s public administration and cultural sector, aiming to promote a right-wing narrative of the nation and paving the way for the continuation of her leadership in future legislatures. Meloni portrayed this endeavor as a way to stabilize Italy’s political system and, as a direct result, let the economy benefit from a stable legislative framework. Ultimately, she hoped the resulting stronger economy would restore Italy’s credibility in Europe and in the international community.

Critics from the opposition describe this sequence differently. They argue that Meloni is pushing the Italian political system toward an “autocracy-light” model and that her government has made no significant contributions to stabilizing the economy, which is being sustained primarily by European subsidies. Finally, her international strategy’s shortcomings and ambiguities are isolating Italy from the other liberal democracies and drawing it closer to autocratic regimes.

In the following sections, this paper presents an assessment of Meloni’s government following the chain described so far: building consensus within Italy, managing Italy’s economic weaknesses, and forming European alliances. In this regard, three key factors stand out. First, Meloni’s agenda of institutional reforms aims to boost the prime minister’s authority, concentrating more power (and potentially consensus) in her hands while diminishing the role of parliament. Second, the Italian economy is expected to experience reduced fiscal support from Europe, thereby returning to lower growth rates after 2025. Lastly, recent events in European politics have shown that Meloni has become isolated from Europe’s decisionmakers. This isolation may weaken her hopes of becoming a central figure in the conservative shift that has characterized global politics, particularly in the case of a conservative victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential elections.

In the coming months, Italy’s complex political framework may force Meloni to decide whether to become a European centrist stateswoman or return to her nationalist convictions. This paper suggests that Meloni should turn her sequence of priorities (consensus-economy-Europe) upside down. Starting from a new constructive European strategy, followed by economic liberalization, and finally coming to obtain domestic consensus through her concrete achievements.

1. Consensus: Concentrating power in the hands of the prime minister

Meloni became part of the Youth Front (Fronte della Gioventù) the youth organization of the far-right party Italian Social Movement (MSI), in 1992. MSI was established in 1946 by former members of the National Fascist Party and exponents of Benito Mussolini’s regime. The party later evolved into MSI-Destra Nazionale and in 1994 changed its name to the National Alliance (Alleanza Nazionale, AN). AN represented a break with the nostalgic past, positioned itself as a post-fascist party that disavowed fascism, and aimed to align with the European People’s Party, the main centrist group in Europe. However, resistance to the party’s shift toward centrism led to the collapse of AN and the foundation of Brothers of Italy (FDI) in 2012. Since 2014, Meloni has served as FDI’s president, and she has claimed continuity with the ideologies of MSI and AN, whose names and symbols, including the flame allegedly burning on Mussolini’s thumb, are still part of FDI’s emblem.

Due to the close connection between MSI’s and FDI’s personnel, the latter’s culture still clings to a distorted and nostalgic narrative of Italy’s fascist regime under dictator Mussolini (1922-1943). Hence, when Meloni was appointed, she was labeled as the first post-fascist prime minister of the Italian Republic. There were also concerns that she might become a “pre-fascist” leader by exploiting domestic problems and the threatening international context to centralize power, lock in consensus, and modify the democratic constitution approved in 1947 (when only the heirs of Mussolini’s fascist party voted against it) to gain autocratic power.

Italy’s far-right leaders had often maintained ambiguity about their agenda. Throughout its history, MSI had alternated between moderate political stances and revolutionary temptations. In a speech at the Central Committee in 1969, Giorgio Almirante, one of MSI’s cofounders and its leader until 1987, described the movement as a “non-totalitarian party, though it considers the State as diverse and superior to the party, non-nostalgic but modernist, non-nationalist but pro-European, not conservative-reactionary but socially-advanced.” At the same time, however, Almirante used to say that Italy’s right could not aim at being a normal conservative party because there was nothing to conserve in Italy. Fringes within the MSI, which saw Almirante as their reference point,2 were involved in terrorism and subversive activities. The far right’s revolutionary character was one of the reasons why the generations that grew under the MSI’s influence have been regarded as not reliably democratic.

Even after becoming prime minister, Meloni still avoided directly and unconditionally condemning fascism, unlike her predecessor, AN leader Gianfranco Fini, who labeled fascism as “the absolute evil.” However, recognizing herself in the values of the Italian Constitution, Meloni has de facto disavowed the revolutionary temptations of many of her fellows in the MSI youth organization.3 Meloni is different from some of FDI’s older members, who are still inclined to fascist nostalgia; she represents a generation of far-right leaders whose political roots can be primarily traced to the violent antagonism between far-right and far-left youth organizations after the 1970s.

For generational reasons, her political background could thus preeminently be defined as anti-left. She is now expected to complete the transformation of the revolutionary movement of her youth into a “national-conservative party.” This would require a root-and-branch elaboration of a new party program. Meloni is struggling to do this, probably because her nearly uninterrupted role in the opposition has entrenched a culture of counter-positioning rather than pro-positioning. For the time being, the foundation of a new conservative political proposal—that would likely take Meloni’s party closer to the European People’s Party—is not progressing.

Meloni’s ambiguity, however, should not be seen as a sign of a possible return to the neo-fascist revolutionary path. Fascism is a historical phenomenon characterized by the use of violence to conquer and maintain power at the expense of democratic institutions. But most modern far-right parties claim to reject the use of violence and likening them to their fascist predecessors can be misleading. More importantly, nearly 102 years after Mussolini’s “March on Rome,” the conditions of Italian society are very different from those that existed before fascism. Political violence is at historical lows. Most citizens are unwilling to relinquish the individual freedoms that have contributed to their well-being since World War II. They want to be free to wander and work around the world, without being constrained by oppressive nationalism. Poorly educated or discredited politicians chanting the greatness of an Italian atavist heritage generally sound risible. And although poverty has increased in the last two decades, most households’ accumulated wealth (Figure 1)—even in the last two decades when growth was stagnant—empowers citizens to shape their destinies and those of their children, irrespective of the governing authority. That said, Italy’s private wealth is partly a matter of “monetary illusion” (in other words, mistaking nominal value for previous purchasing power) because its real value is no longer increasing. Moreover, over the last 15 years, the wealth of Italian households has significantly declined in comparison to other larger European economies. In 2011, the average wealth of Italian families was 75% higher than that of German families, but 12 years later, it was lower. Factors such as low income growth, a steady increase in public debt, and the relative decline of wealth keep undermining citizens’ trust in public life.

In a society defined by wobbly trust levels, consensus is manufactured through emotional appeals that are fueled by victimhood, revanchism, hostility toward strangers, and ideological solidarity with “indigenous” people. Meloni’s emotional and direct personality has become central to this narrative. Her rhetorical and facial expressivity, at the same time ironic and consoling, make her an archetypal theatrical figure—the shrewd commoner in an Armani suit—that her country fellows seem to appreciate in the context of Italy’s 24/7 political comedy. According to the data collected by Ipsos and published by Corriere della Sera, an Italian newspaper (Fig 2), Meloni’s level of support among the citizens has been declining from 58% to about 44% but remains comparatively solid.

Controlling the all-important public television networks, the government parties (a populist-conservative coalition of three parties: Meloni’s Brothers of Italy, Matteo Salvini’s Lega, and Forza Italia, founded by former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi) are shaping Italy’s public discourse around the leader’s figure. Opinion makers use a daily bulletin issued early in the morning by the prime minister’s office to discredit the government’s opponents, foreign leaders, or independent intellectuals. The government has a limited need to strongly coerce Italian media, as large swathes of the chattering class have often been inclined to align behind strong powers. Private media outlets are mainly owned by industrialists who are keen to please the government or face intimidation if they do not.4 The government has also changed the top managers of Italy’s museums and cultural institutions, and is trying to do the same in universities, in order “to free culture from decades of left wing hegemony,” as described by a Brothers of Italy minister of parliament. Much of this has been lost on foreign media, which has been generally attracted by the colorful and approachable side of Meloni’s personality, as is depicted in Italy’s public communications.

Although the rule of law in Italy is in a better state than in Hungary, the direction of travel may be the same. The low level of independence of Italy’s judiciary system (a feature that actually goes back to the Kingdom of Italy) was highlighted in the European Commission’s 2023 Rule of Law Report. The commission then observed in its 2024 update that: “The Government has submitted to Parliament a draft constitutional reform concerning the separation of careers of judges and prosecutors and the establishment of a High Disciplinary Court in charge of disciplinary proceedings against ordinary magistrates.” Reforming the judiciary has been a pet project of Italy’s right-wing parties ever since Berlusconi was relentlessly pursued by a succession of public attorneys, and many political forces have tried to interfere with Italy’s judicial system since 1947. Meloni’s new reform project is now under scrutiny by the European Commission because it would allow even more government interference in the judiciary—but it is also true that she is exploiting existing flaws in Italy’s democracy and the shallow roots of its liberal principles.

In the context of public mistrust, the suppression of checks and balances, and the prevalence of one narrative, are often misinterpreted as a way to make governing more efficient. Over time, particularly if people feel that the economy is not improving, this combination of “political power, democratic mistrust, and economic decline” can give impulse to an autocratic drift.

In the name of defending the Italian people’s cultural homogeneity and traditional roots, Meloni aggressively opposes what she depicts as “non-Italian” values—especially where the leader of the opposition, Elly Schlein, is concerned. Schlein has three passports, a foreign surname, and is bisexual. Both Meloni and Schlein appear uninterested in how economies work and have little experience in global politics. Their clash is one between tradition and modernity, polarizing Italian politics around their two figures. The ensuing tension is instrumental for Meloni’s most important constitutional reform project: the “premierato,” or the direct election of the premier by the Italian people. Or, in her words: “the mother of all reforms.”

Italy’s 1947 constitution created a parliamentary democracy with a strong legislature, a comparatively weak executive, and most importantly, an indirectly elected president who can invite whomever he or she perceives is the leader of the strongest party to form the government (the president can also veto ministerial appointments and return draft laws to parliament for reconsideration). In times of crisis or deadlock, Italian presidents have regularly intervened to hand the leadership to “technocratic” governments.  The Constitutional Commission opted for a stronger parliament and a relatively weaker executive specifically to prevent a concentration of powers in the hands of the prime minister, similar to the one that characterized the fascist regime. As a result, the Italian Republic has had 68 governments since its proclamation, most lasting just over a year.

Meloni’s reform, which was approved on June 18, 2024, by the Senate, the parliament’s upper chamber, would concentrate powers in the hands of a prime minister strengthened by a direct popular mandate, reduce parliament’s balancing powers, and sideline the pivotal role of the republic’s president. This sharply increased authority would make it easier for the prime minister to shape policy, consolidate power, and increase his or her chance of reelection for a second five-year term. Because the prime minister would still need a parliamentary majority to govern, Meloni is also proposing that whichever party alliance wins national elections should automatically receive 55% of the seats in the legislature.

Meloni argues that this centralizing constitutional redesign is a necessary remedy to Italy’s long-standing political instability. In its cited country report on the “Rule of Law,” the European Commission observes that in case of an anticipated end of a government, “With this reform, it would no longer be possible for the President of the Republic to find an alternative majority and/or to appoint a person outside Parliament as Prime Minister. Some stakeholders expressed concerns at the proposed changes to the current system of institutional checks-and-balances, as well as doubts as to whether it would bring more stability.” Critics such as constitutional law scholar Gustavo Zagrebelsky charge that Meloni’s real goals are in line with the far right’s preference for illiberal democracy, in which democracy is limited to the expression of popular will in elections. In terms of political theory, one could add that political formations like Meloni’s Brothers of Italy believe in “majoritarian radicalism,” in which checks and balances—such as constitutional courts, the judiciary, independent agencies—should be limited once the people have expressed themselves in favor of the executive leader.

Meloni’s project to centralize power in the prime minister’s office can also be seen as a reaction to how globalization and European countries’ increased interdependence reduced Italy’s political options.

In a carefully crafted statement about the role of the nation-state, Meloni associated the idea of the fatherland with the uniqueness of Italy’s values and historical heritage: “I have always thought that both the Nation and the Fatherland were natural societies, that is, something that is naturally in the hearts of men and peoples and is independent of any convention. Just as the family is a natural society.” The coincidence of a people and a nation-state, and their uniqueness, presuppose that they are different from others and that they should “come first” in the government’s agenda. In the end, this nationalism means opposing the European Union, which was founded to overcome ancient enmities rooted in toxic nationalism, and today serves above all to help Europeans collectively regain control over globalization. Not incidentally, Meloni supports forming alliances with other far-right governments or political movements that oppose the EU, often leading to her becoming isolated in Europe’s decisionmaking.

Meloni’s government is the first in decades to enjoy a comfortable majority. But changing Italy’s constitution requires either a two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament or a majority in a popular referendum. The opposition parties have rallied against the premierato. Schlein, leader of the center-left Democratic Party, called the premierato a “dangerous” decision that reflects the Italian right’s penchant for strongmen (or in this case, strongwomen). Without the majority required to approve the reform in the parliament, it is likely that there will be a referendum. In that case, Meloni will turn the popular consultation into a vote of confidence from the Italian people. In the event that Meloni wins the referendum, she would become the prime minister with the most powers in the republic’s history and could exercise those powers without hesitation also thanks to the political mandate received from the popular consultation. The referendum’s outcome, however, is likely to also depend on the economic situation. Voters’ evaluation of the government’s impact on the economy will thus be crucial.

2. Italy’s non-Italian economic miracle

Meloni has been arguing that Italy is outperforming many other European countries, such as Germany and France, and that this success is due to her government’s ability to provide medium- and long-term economic stability. Since before the COVID-19 pandemic, Italy’s economy has indeed shown signs of vibrancy. By the end of the first quarter of 2024, Italy’s gross domestic product (GDP) had increased by 4.2% compared to before the pandemic recession began in March 2020. In comparison, the euro area average was 3.5%, with France at a much lower level and Germany’s GDP even declining. Italy’s positive performance is largely attributed to the significant fiscal policy measures implemented at both the EU/eurozone and national levels to counteract the economic shocks of recent years. Italy has benefited more than most other eurozone countries from those temporary fiscal supports.

During the pandemic, Italy received an astounding amount of financial resources from the EU in grants and transfers. Moreover, during the same period, Italy introduced an overgenerous subsidy scheme to promote the energy-efficient renovation of residential buildings. Coupled with other bonuses, the total fiscal support to Italy exceeded 10% of its GDP in March 2024. Nonetheless, Italy’s cumulated growth over the past four years has been only 0.7% higher than the euro-area average (0.17% per year), falling short of justifying the notion of a new Italian economic miracle.

Figure 3 illustrates that without the impact of EU funds on its GDP, Italy’s economic growth would have been significantly lower compared to France and Germany.5 Once corrected for the EU funds’ estimated impact, Italy’s GDP would have remained stagnant between 2023 and 2024, and its debt-to-GDP ratio would have continued to rise.

Italy’s manufacturing sector is still vibrant. Its performance has been strong over the last two decades even compared with Germany’s. However, the service sector is dragging down Italy’s economic growth. While, in aggregate, there has been a slight increase in productivity, it has not been sufficient to offset Italy’s deteriorating fiscal conditions. Italian Finance Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti reasonably called on his fellow politicians to cease living under the effects of “LSD” (Laxity-Subsidies-Debt) and to get their act together in preparation for difficult times ahead.

The moment of truth is approaching as a new set of European fiscal regulations, which had been suspended following the COVID-19 pandemic and recession in 2020), will affect the upcoming EU budget legislation in September 2024. Each EU member state must commit to putting its public finances on a sound footing or face sanctions and exclusion from the European Central Bank’s umbrella protecting the euro area.

The benefits of the European funds will be especially felt between 2023-2025. Italy’s economic growth could thus be higher than 1% in 2024 and 2025, exceeding the eurozone average, with strong benefits for the country’s public accounts. Buoyant tax revenues are already reducing the risk of a fiscal correction and granting breathing space to the government.

In fact, the end of 2024 and 2025 may provide more positive economic surprises. This period thus represents the most favorable window of opportunity to reform the Italian economy. However, the government is not working on modernizing the economy. Unlike other right-wing governments, Italy has no significant program in store for market liberalization, tax cuts, or red-tape reduction beyond what is required by the European Commission. Meloni does not seem to consider this a priority, focused as she is on keeping public support for her government as strong as possible.

However, things might change after 2025 when maintaining fiscal discipline will require either lower expenditures or higher taxes, which could force Meloni to break some key electoral promises.

Faced with economic constraints, populist politicians have a penchant for blaming Europe. But that may not work this time: the new EU fiscal rules are designed to prevent national governments from accusing Europe of imposing unwanted measures. Under the new reform, the fiscal strategies to decrease the national debts over four or seven years are developed together by the European Commission and the relevant national government, leaving no room to scapegoat Brussels. The preliminary agreement with the European Commission increases the national government’s responsibility for the prescribed reforms and fiscal measures.

3. Meloni’s unraveling European plans

The June 6-9 European elections were central to Meloni’s plan to obtain more fiscal leeway from the European Commission because polls were showing that the Italian prime minister could obtain significant success, especially compared to her French and German colleagues. Meloni was calculating that her improved stature would give her leverage to negotiate for leniency with the new European Commission. She even postponed updating Italy’s budget plan (required by EU and national regulations) from April to September to gain a better understanding of how the elections would change Europe’s political dynamics. On June 10, Meloni emerged as a clear winner in the European vote, while French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz suffered defeats. Nonetheless, subsequent events did not unfold as she hoped.

While Meloni was heralded at home and by the international press as a new leader of Europe, she was sidelined by her peers both during the G7 summit she hosted in Apulia and in Brussels during negotiations to decide the future heads of the European institutions. Despite media acclaim for the G7’s apparent success in Apulia, the meeting turned out to be a personal setback for Meloni: Macron criticized her for deleting or downplaying references to abortion and LGBTQ+ rights in the final communiqué and singled out Meloni as a leader not aligned with the other liberal democrats. According to an article by The New York Times, “When told of Ms. Meloni’s position, American officials say, President Biden pushed back, wanting an explicit reference to reproductive rights and at least a reaffirmation of support for abortion rights from last year’s communiqué. Several other G7 members agreed with Mr. Biden.”

First in Apulia and later in Brussels, Macron and Scholz, along with the heads of the main pro-European party groups in the European Parliament (the European People’s Party, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, and Renew Europe), exploited the incident to sideline Meloni during discussions about renovating EU institutions. A surprised and outraged Meloni threatened to retaliate after the French elections on July 7. In the French National Assembly vote, Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally was expected to win the most seats, possibly resulting in a considerable loss of credibility for Macron.

However, the possibility of Le Pen’s party winning in France unsettled financial investors, driving up the cost of refinancing Italian debt—a metric (“lo spread”) long treated as a bellwether of Italy’s financial and political stability. Long-term interest rates increased in France, but also significantly in Italy. Even the euro exchange rate weakened, reflecting growing uncertainty about the future of European integration with the rise of nationalist forces.

What happened between the two rounds of the French elections showed that for the sake of Italy’s economic health, Meloni should have hoped that her fellow EU leaders would reinforce the process of European integration. She should have pursued a constructive dialogue with the pro-European leaders, including Macron and Scholz. A more stable European framework could strengthen Italy’s economic and political stability. On the contrary, in a financially challenged environment, even self-governance and individual liberties can suffer. Looking forward to an anti-European French prime minister or U.S. president is a clear indication that Meloni did not appear to have grasped how Italy’s economic and political stability depend on its active cooperation within the EU and international alliances. In this regard, she still acted more as an ideologue than a stateswoman.

This contradiction needs to be analyzed. Meloni frequently asserts that other European leaders should defer to her because she is the leader of “a great nation,” or because she heads “the most stable government in Europe.” The argument that Italy, as one of the largest countries in the EU, should receive special consideration in appointments or common decisions is based on a view that EU membership positions should be assigned according to the size of each country’s financial or operational contributions, regardless of its political inclination or regime.6 However, the European Union is not just an international organization; it is a supranational institution whose member states and citizens share a common set of legally binding norms and a decisionmaking process that does not require unanimity. States and their citizens will sometimes be in a minority, and others’ positions—the majority—will prevail. For this supranational democratic principle to work, it has to be shared and respected everywhere across the European space, on the understanding that the sacrifices and benefits will over time be reciprocal.

By emphasizing the primacy of national interests over European majorities, Meloni (and her advisers, who are rooted in nationalist ideology) undermine or even actively work against a foundational principle of the European Union. With nearly one-third of the members of the European Parliament now representing euro-skeptic positions, the risk to Europe’s political coherence and ability to act is very real. Consequently, pro-European leaders tend to sideline Meloni, like other euro-skeptic leaders, in their collaborative decisionmaking process.

Meloni’s sovereignism is not about leaving the EU (especially after Brexit’s failure), but about rebuilding the Europe of nations—transforming the supranational institution into an organization between states and resisting any further integration or broader application of majority voting. This is the reason why conservative euro-skeptics or outright nationalists cannot easily be included in decisionmaking processes about putting together the next European Commission or setting EU policy.

Meloni’s strategy backfires

Since becoming prime minister, Meloni was expected to complete a transition from the leader of a far-right party to that of a traditional conservative one. Her idea was to remain in an intermediate position as a pivot between the European establishment and the surging nationalist parties. Meloni played a critical role as president of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) parliamentary group, a political formation that maintains that “The European Union has overreached … [and] become too centralized, too ambitious, and too out of touch with ordinary citizens.” It envisions “a reformed European Union as a community of nations cooperating in shared confederal institutions in areas where they have some common interests that can best be advanced by working together.”

There was no ambiguity about the fact that Meloni had been chosen to lead an anti-European alliance. Meloni’s main ally in the ECR group is Poland’s Law and Justice Party, which governed Poland from 2015 until December 2023 before being ousted by a pro-European coalition. (Britain’s Conservatives were part of the group for the decade before Brexit.) During its time in power, Law and Justice changed the Polish Supreme Court’s role and composition, eliminated constitutional checks, reduced the independence of public administration, restricted independent media, and curtailed freedom of speech and assembly. As a result, in 2017, the European Union initiated legal proceedings against Poland (as well as Hungary) for violating its fundamental principles. The procedure was then closed in 2024 when a new government was elected.

The new Polish coalition government is held together by its pro-European stance and opposition to Law and Justice. Prime Minister Donald Tusk served in Brussels as president of the European Council from 2014 to 2019 and also served as president of the European People’s Party (EPP) from 2019 to 2022. Tusk is now the leader of the largest European country whose government is led by a member of the center-right EPP, the largest political force in the European Parliament, making him an important voice both in the council and the parliament. Through the ECR, Meloni found herself opposing the EPP, indispensable to her strategy of becoming the bridge between the center and the right in Europe. The ECR aimed to become the third-largest political group in the European Parliament and to offer an alternative to the EPP, replacing the traditional left-leaning allies.

After the French elections, many far-right parties joined under a new formation, “Patriots for Europe,” which is larger than the ECR.7 Meloni’s strategy to become an indispensable interlocutor for a political shift to the right was frustrated as ECR came out of the elections as only the fourth-largest group in the European Parliament, just a whisker ahead of centrist-liberal Renew Europe.

Meloni also failed because she misunderstood two facts: first, for reasons that were explained earlier, pro-European formations, however politically heterogeneous they may be, tend to coalesce in “constitutional alliances” because they view their antagonists as anti-European and a threat to democracy; second, due to their very nature, nationalists intrinsically struggle to form alliances across nations.

Meloni’s waning influence became apparent when the pro-European leaders convened, informally in Apulia and then formally in Brussels, to select candidates for top positions within the EU. Von der Leyen was chosen for a new mandate as president of the European Commission, former Portuguese Prime Minister António Costa as president of the European Council, and Estonian leader Kaja Kallas as head of the EU’s foreign policy service. Meloni was not consulted, and she responded angrily. During the European Council vote, Meloni voted against Costa and Kallas and abstained from voting for von der Leyen, while everyone else, except for Hungary’s Orbán, endorsed her nomination. This marked the first instance of an Italian prime minister not voting for the proposed European Commission presidential candidate. When the European Parliament confirmed the appointments, Meloni’s party, alongside Hungary’s Fidesz and France’s National Rally, voted against von der Leyen. Once more, Meloni’s anger stemmed from her ideological opposition to pro-European politicians, but her actions ultimately isolated Italy from Europe’s other decisionmakers.

Conclusion

Meloni capitalized on the resurgence of nationalist sentiments in Italy and Europe by turning a small party into Italy’s primary political force and a leading conservative anti-European party in the EU. She later surprised international observers by adopting a more moderate posture, though without clearly breaking with her past or becoming a mainstream conservative leader. Yet her lack of international legitimacy and the pressing constraints on Italian public finance pushed her in that direction; she was compelled to adapt to similar rules and behaviors as other European governments and further align with American or trans-Atlantic policies. It is possible that she embraced an enthusiastic pro-American stance also as a way to distance herself from European politics and priorities.

Domestically, during her first 20 months in office, Meloni has not once presented new ideas for social change or economic renewal. After a brilliant presentation of her government’s program in October 2022, her rhetorical toolbox has often returned to the same topics as when she was an opposition leader. As mentioned, Meloni’s political experience in Italy has always been rooted more in her opposition to the left, rather than in specific cultural contents or social and economic models. In this sense, Meloni’s personal political history is also central to her problems in Europe, where her options are limited because she cannot even consider allying with the social democrats in a large European coalition. To gain power in Europe, she would need to persuade the centrist EPP to no longer be centrists—that is, to form a right-wing alliance in a bipolar political structure, which, by definition, excludes the existence of a center. But moving the EPP from its traditional centrist positioning is a long shot. It could become even more difficult after September 2025 if the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), currently leading in the polls, wins Germany’s federal elections and forms an alignment of CDU centrist leaders in Brussels (von der Leyen) and Berlin (CDU leader Friedrich Merz or an alternative chancellor candidate).

As a talented politician, in recent years, Meloni has felt the wind of consensus for sovereignism blowing behind her, and she has translated it dialectically into the wind of history, or a call from the people.

After Meloni was excluded from the negotiations to select European institutions’ next leaders, her party colleagues hope that the spirit of the times can again become irresistible if the United States also chooses a sovereignist and anti-European president. Asked to describe his preferred outcome for the U.S. presidential election, Nicola Procaccini, who co-leads Meloni’s faction in the European Parliament, said: “We hope that Trump will win.”

Even if a Republican president wins the U.S. election in November, however, Meloni is currently isolated in the EU and unable to leverage her political affinity with former President Donald Trump. On the contrary, she might be confronted with a slew of ambiguities, including her whole-heartedly rhetorical endorsement of militarily defending Ukraine, which was primarily grounded in her need for trans-Atlantic legitimacy. If Trump wins the U.S. presidency, Meloni might be tempted to “coherently” change course in order to align with a United States that is less supportive of Kyiv.

However, siding with Trump may cause other problems. Italy’s economy is Europe’s second industrial exporting power after Germany, and U.S. protectionism might hurt it more than other countries. Even at the domestic level, Europe’s confrontation with a new U.S. administration may wrong-foot Meloni’s government coalition, which must keep together the Lega, whose leader, Matteo Salvini, is a staunch Trump supporter, and Forza Italia, which is part of the same European party as European Commission President von der Leyen.

Meloni’s plans to become the centerpiece of Atlantic conservatism have not worked out so far. She has made several mistakes and risks making more if Italy’s economic situation worsens.

Up to this point, Meloni has prioritized managing consensus over governing the economy and building alliances in Europe. She may need to reconsider her priorities and exactly reverse them: starting with a more constructive European stance, following up with a pro-market approach to economic reforms, and eventually reaping political support. Much depends on the tough choice she is faced with: whether to become Giorgia Mercher—an Italian combination of pro-European Angela Merkel and liberal-conservative Margaret Thatcher—or to slide back to her nationalist convictions.

[anchesetuttinoino]

🇷🇺 SERGEY LAVROV: un discorso perfetto, logico, a prova di scimmia. Chi non l'ha ancora capito (era facile, dai) sta al livello mentale dei platelminti delle paludi.

"Abbiamo firmato contratti a lungo termine con l'Europa. Rispettiamo sempre i nostri obblighi, a differenza dell'Europa o degli Stati Uniti.

Abbiamo lavorato per decenni durante l'era sovietica, a partire dagli anni '70, per sviluppare una cooperazione reciprocamente vantaggiosa nella sfera della fornitura di gas.

È stato grazie al gas russo a prezzi accessibili che i settori energetici dell'Europa, e in primo luogo della Germania, e le loro economie nel complesso hanno avuto un andamento così positivo.

Il Cancelliere Olaf Scholz ha dichiarato in un'intervista che è stata la Russia a tagliare le esportazioni di gas verso l'Europa.

Perché una persona adulta dovrebbe mentire? Tutti sanno cosa è successo.

Quando Angela Merkel era cancelliere, gli Stati Uniti impedirono alla Germania di lanciare i gasdotti Nord Stream 1 e 2 e di utilizzare il più costoso - molto più costoso - GNL americano.

Oggi l'Europa copre il suo fabbisogno energetico di base con il gas naturale liquefatto, compreso il GNL americano.

Ma se qualcuno volesse acquistare il nostro gas, ci rimettiamo ai nostri accordi.

Siamo vicini. Ci sono i gasdotti.

Sebbene siano state fatte esplodere tre tratte del Nord Stream, ci sono altri percorsi per i gasdotti, tra cui quello che passa per l'Ucraina e la Turchia, attraverso il Mare di Mezzo.

Se la cooperazione è reciprocamente vantaggiosa, perché darsi la zappa sui piedi? Che la bella Europa si dia la zappa sui piedi da sola.

Un anno fa, ho letto una dichiarazione del ministro dell'Economia francese Bruno Le Maire, il quale ha affermato che le industrie in Europa, compresa la Francia, pagano l'elettricità quattro volte di più che negli Stati Uniti.

Questo è esattamente ciò che volevano gli Stati Uniti.

Cercano sempre di sbarazzarsi dei rivali.

Quando hanno visto la Russia come rivale, hanno creato un regime antirusso, russofobo e nazista in Ucraina e lo hanno messo contro il nostro Paese.

Anche l'UE era un rivale per gli USA. Non è più un rivale e non lo sarà mai, se interpreto correttamente le tendenze di sviluppo in Europa.

L'Europa si sta deindustrializzando.

Quando uno dei migliori asset della Germania - l'industria automobilistica - inizia a trasferire la produzione in altri Paesi e la Volkswagen chiude gli stabilimenti e licenzia migliaia di dipendenti, è suggestivo.

La burocrazia europea segue obbedientemente la strada tracciata dagli Stati Uniti.

Ma sempre più Paesi dell'UE si rendono conto che questo non è nel loro interesse, ma in quello del loro partner d'oltreoceano".

------

Excerpt from remarks by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during an interview with Sky News Arabia, September 20, 2024.

Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

Segui ➡️ 🌐  t.me/ArsenaleKappa 🅰️ 💥💥

ㅤ

[bopinion]

2023 / 02

Aperçu of the Week:

“What you do makes a difference. And you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make.”

(Dr. Jane Goodall, Scientist & Animal rights activist)

Bad News of the Week:

In Kriebethal, Saxony, young refugees who came to Germany without parents - so-called "unaccompanied minor refugees" - are to be housed. It's ideal that a foster home is currently empty, because it's only a transitional period of six months and just 10 to 12 children and adolescents plus caregivers. No big deal. Actually. And yet there is tremendous resistance.

Spurred on by the right-wing populist AfD ("Alternative for Germany") and the far-right (officially categorized as such by the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution!) movement "Free Saxons", citizens from the region took to the streets to protest. Basically against refugee housing in their perfect world. Basta. That these old familiar ringleaders pounce with enthusiasm on every new topic with which they can march against "the regime" from Berlin and the state capital Dresden is standard. That so many of the population after "Against the Euro", "Against Corona measures", "Against the European Union", "Against Russia sanctions" etc. but now also against the weakest of the weak can be instrumentalized - or worse: actually think like that - makes me but a little stunned.

It is important to know that refugees are also distributed throughout Germany according to the "Königstein Key," which takes into account both population and economic strength at the district level. So that it remains fair. And not overburden anyone. In this respect, this dwarf revolt is also undemocratic. But unfortunately this is not really surprising, especially in Saxony, where some parts of the population have a tradition of xenophobia (I am allowed to say this, since with a father from the East I can hardly be accused of bias). After all, at the time, tens of thousands of "Pegida" ("Patriots against the Islamization of the Occident") took to the streets of Dresden to demonstrate against Islamic foreign infiltration - with just 0.2% Muslims in the entire state.

The whole thing reminds me of a statement made by then-Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015, when the right-wing peddled the argument that a million refugees (out of a population of 83 million) would "overcrowd" Germany: If there are already 83 people in a hall, it is not suddenly overcrowded if just one more enters. This calculation would result in an increase of 1.2%. In Kriebstein, to whose municipality Kriebethal belongs, there are a good 2,000 inhabitants. And we are talking about a maximum of 12 minors, i.e. 0.6% - that's just about half of it.

I am particularly annoyed by the whole thing, since it was precisely the new federal states that benefited disproportionately from the solidarity of others after the reunification of Germany. From economic development, which favored the East for decades, to the social safety net, which, for example, secured pensions for which no one had paid even a cent (or penny at the time) into the system. No one expects thanks for this. Because it was and is a matter of course of openness and kindness of heart. Which should also apply in this case. "Unaccompanied", "minor" and "refugee" - this triad is a horror for those affected. To this must not be added the feeling of being excluded, of being unwelcome, of having to fear.

Good News of the Week:

According to various experts, the ozone layer is well on its way to complete recovery. The atmospheric layer that protects humans and nature from ultraviolet solar radiation was extremely endangered in the 1980s. Initial effects were measurable in the southern hemisphere in particular, e.g. increased skin cancer rates in Australia.

Now, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) and various researchers in the USA and Europe agree that a complete regeneration can be expected by about 2066, starting with the Arctic and ending with the Antarctic. And fortunately without geoengineering such as the introduction of aerosols into the atmosphere with feared incalculable effects on the world climate.

Crucial to this success is the implementation of the 1987 Montréal Protocol, which banned chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This substance, formerly commonly used in sprays or refrigerators, was clearly identified as the primary source of damage to the ozone layer. And it worked. It can be that simple. Downright exemplary.

Exactly: an example. For CO2 abatement that is. If it was possible almost half a century ago to reach agreement on acting together to ban a substance that is clearly damaging to the basis of life, I don't see why it shouldn't work again. Come on!

Personal happy moment of the week:

What does "happy" actually mean exactly? Does it have to be the opposite of "sad" or can it also be seen as a kind of emotional fulfillment? Yesterday I went to the funeral of the mother of an old school friend. Along with a dozen others who sat together in the classroom nearly forty years ago. A sad occasion, actually, of course. But to experience how old comrades, who don't see each other too often (especially in the last years), embrace each other without big words, to feel a familiarity that has nothing to do with gloating buddiness, but simply with friendship, just gave me a good feeling.

I couldn't care less...

Fear of the possibly evil mother-in-law. Stupid jokes from dad. Fights with the older brother. Bad taste in costumes. First drug experience at 17. Family reservations about the partner. Self-distancing from war traumas. A groom drinking at his wedding. Did I forget one of the sensational revelations from the House of Windsor? Yes, I meant that ironically. For me, the most remarkable thing about this hard-to-follow hype about Harry & Meghan is the lucrative self-promotion, with which the two certainly take in no less than working royals. And all the media are playing along. And not just the ones on display at the hairdresser's.

As I write this...

...I once again resolve never to fall for Netflix hype again. While "Kaleidoscope" didn't turn out to be as big a waste of time as "Squid Game", it didn't live up to any great expectations. Let's see what new series we'll start tonight. Maybe "Wednesday" - nobody really seems to have that on their mind ;-)

Post Scriptum

Crises everywhere are not enough for the US Republicans. No, they want to use their majority in the House of Representatives, which started off with a rumble, primarily to attack Joe Biden. "The Biden family's business dealings involve a wide range of crimes, from human trafficking to possible violation of the Constitution," claims, for example, James Comer, freshly minted chairman of the Oversight Committee. Or Jim Jordan, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, who announced in all seriousness that Biden had ordered the FBI to bribe Twitter to censor conservatives. Of course, one of the duties of Parliament is to control the government. However, you should have learned in your school days that you don't go out to play until your homework is done.

[korrektheiten]

Remigration der freudigen Syrer – was sonst!

PI schreibt: »Von WOLFGANG HÜBNER | Wer sagt denn, dass Remigration unmenschlich und unzumutbar ist? Ganz im Gegenteil, hunderttausende Merkel-Gäste, die sich vor dem Assad-Regime nach Deutschland gerettet haben und nun den islamistischen Umsturz in ihrer Heimat auf Deutschlands Straßen feiern, fiebern geradezu der Remigration, also der Rückkehr in ihren Staat entgegen. Es wäre in der Tat […] http://dlvr.it/TGgm4G «

[darkmaga-returns]

The NEOCONs have orchestrated this entire Ukraine war against Russia. They have used the Ukrainian people as pawns and could care less if any survive. Every time the NEOCOs engage in their favorite pastime, the overthrow of governments and regime change, they will employ extremists to do their dirty work. The Western Media only publishes the NEOCON propaganda, and until the West wakes the hell up that this is ALL FAKE NEWS, we do not stand a chance of ever stopping World War III.

Even the New York Times reported that two years ago, Gen. Mark A. Milley, then President Biden’s chief military adviser, suggested that neither Russia nor Ukraine could win the war. He had said that a negotiated settlement was the only route to peace. The NEOCONs do not want peace. They sent in Boris Johnson to kill any peace deal. British friends wanted me to meet with Boris when he became PM. I politely declined, for I knew who he took his orders from, and that would be a waste of time.

Video Player

00:00

00:57

Nothing is ever what it seems because we no longer have a free independent press. The entire Benghazi incident was all because the NEOCONs were sending in arms to both Syria and Lybia to support extremists there to overthrow those governments. When Hillary was asked why the embassy was attacked, she refused to answer and said what difference does it make. It made all the difference. My sources were from Congress directly as to the real facts that Hillary refused to answer.

I have had employees from both Donestk and Kyiv. I know the hatred is so deeply rooted that it will NEVER be subdued. The Neocons instructed Kiev to immediately attack the Donbas in 2014 to force Russia to come to their aid. This has been an intended war against Russia from the outset. That is why Merkel openly said that they never negotiated with Russia in good faith; it was all a stall tactic to enable Ukraine to raise the largest army in Europe to wage war against Russia. The NEOCONs have exploited that hatred of Russians, which was why they joined Hitler and supported ethnic has been

In Ukraine, the American NEOCONs backed white ethnic cleansing braindead Nazis to overthrow the government in 2014. Extremists are more violent, more manageable to motivate, and cheaper to train since you do not care if they survive.

[awesome-casuallyfamouscollector]

From monopolist to peddler: The Kremlin is “swollen” from excess gas

(От монополиста до коробейника: Кремль "вздуло" от лишнего газа)

P.S. We all remember how the German political elite led by Angela Merkel tried to tell all Europeans that there is no alternative to GAZPROM gas. Currently, the European gas and energy market as a whole operates successfully almost without the presence of GAZPROM. The question arises why, before the war, German and other Western politicians tried so hard to help the Kremlin to get more money to finance aggression and international terrorist organizations...in the Middle East. Angela Merkel and other German politicians worked for the Kremlin regime against European security interests...

[shape]

Julian Reichelt:

Israel furchtlos, Mullahs skrupellos, Drohnenangriff erfolglos, Biden machtlos, ARD planlos – Die Analyse der Nacht!

Noch ist es zu früh, um den iranischen Angriff auf Israel zu bewerten, denn noch immer sind iranische Drohnen und ballistische Raketen in der Luft oder abschussbereit auf Israel gerichtet. Doch nur wenige Stunden nach Beginn dieses Terrorüberfalls aus der Luft sind schon einige Dinge klar.

1. Das Mullah-Regime ist eine skrupellose islamistische Endzeit-Sekte, die zur totalen Eskalation bereit ist. Dieses Regime ist eine existenzielle Bedrohung für den freien Westen und muss vollständig isoliert, bekämpft und in letzter Konsequenz gestürzt oder ausgelöscht werden. Die deutsche Politik unter Angela Merkel und Frank-Walter Steinmeier war eine historische katastrophale Fehleinschätzung, die Teheran mit Milliarden Dollar versorgt hat. 

2. Israels Verteidigungsfähigkeit ist überragend und sollte ein Vorbild für die abgewirtschaftete Bundeswehr sein. Die Abschuss-Quote lag bei nahezu hundert Prozent, obwohl das Mullah-Regime mit Hunderten Drohnen versuchte, die israelische Luftabwehr zu überwältigen. Juden sind selbst unter einem massiven iranischen Angriff in Israel sicherer als in den Straßen der deutschen Hauptstadt (oder irgendeiner deutschen Stadt).

3. Der Satz „Israels Sicherheit ist deutsche Staatsräson“ von Angela Merkel, Olaf Scholz und Annalena Baerbock ist vollkommen bedeutungslos, eine hohle Phrase. Während Kampfjets aus den USA und Großbritannien im Luftkampf iranische Drohnen abschossen, während französische Jets Israels Feinde im Jemen bombardierten, schlief die deutsche Politik genüsslich durchs Wochenende und schaffte es kaum, einen unterstützenden Tweet zu formulieren. In den letzten Wochen versorgte die deutsche Luftwaffe Gaza und damit auch die Terroristen der Hamas aus der Luft, aber als es um Israels Existenz und Sicherheit ging, sah Deutschland tatenlos zu. Für das deutsche Image im westlichen Bündnis eine historische Nacht des Totalversagens.

4. Die muslimische Welt verachtet die Mullahs. Mit seinem Angriff auf Israel hat der Iran die größte israelisch-arabische Allianz der Weltgeschichte geschmiedet. Jordanische und saudi-arabische Jet-Piloten kämpften an Israels Seite, schossen Hunderte Drohnen schon im Anflug ab.

5. US-Präsident Joe Biden hat jegliche Aura der Macht verloren. Er warnte den Iran vor wenigen Tagen: „Don't!“, also „Tut es nicht!“ Doch die Mullahs ließen sich vom vermeintlich mächtigsten Mann der Welt nicht abschrecken. Eine bittere Nachricht für den Westen, mit Joe Biden an der Spitze ist die freie Welt in höchster Gefahr.

6. Israels Premier Benjamin Netanjahu hat seine warnenden Worte an den Iran klug gewählt: "Wer uns verletzt, den verletzen wir", sagte er vor wenigen Tagen. Ganz bewusst vermied er zu sagen, Israel würde angreifen, wer Israel angreift. Dadurch, dass der Iran Israel am Ende nicht wirklich "verletzen" konnte, hat Netanjahu nun alle Optionen. Vor allem kann er wieder massiv Druck auf die USA aufbauen, Israel im Kampf gegen die Terroristen der Hamas zu unterstützen.

7. Das öffentlich-rechtliche Fernsehen liegt in Trümmern. Für zehn Milliarden Euro Zwangsgebühren schaffen es ARD und ZDF nicht, in einer historischen Nachrichtenlage von Quiz-Shows auf Live-Berichterstattung umzustellen. Die Lage ist so dramatisch, dass sich sogar ARD-Chefideologe Georg Restle unverhohlen gegen den eigenen Sender wandte. Auf X schrieb er wütend: "Gut, dass es die BBC gibt, um sich live im TV darüber zu informieren, was in Israel gerade geschieht. #Programmauftrag"

[bunkerblogwebradio]

Netanjahu: Hitler queria apenas expulsar os judeus

Mas uma afirmação aqui é verdadeira. Os jovens respondem – NR.

Que o primeiro-ministro israelita, Benjamin Netanjahu, seja um mentiroso, criminoso de guerra e psicopata, eu já escrevi suficientemente. Agora ele afirmou uma coisa que recai sob a classificação do tema “Revisionismo do Holocausto” e deixou muitos boquiabertos. Na terça à noite, durante um Congresso Internacional Sionista em Jerusalém, ele afirmou que até o final de 1941, Hitler queria apenas a expulsão dos judeus. O genocídio não teria sido uma ideia dele, mas sim do Grande Mufti de Jerusalém. Amin al-Husseini pressionou Hitler para cometer o extermínio sistemático dos judeus. Netanjahu transfere a culpa pelo “Holocausto” aos palestinos. Inacreditável.

“Hitler não queria exterminar os judeus naquele momento, mas sim expulsá-los”, disse Netanjahu na terça-feira, segundo testemunhas. “E Amin al-Husseini foi até Hitler e disse: ‘Se você os expulsa, eles vem todos para cá’. – ‘Mas o que eu devo então fazer com eles?’, perguntou ele (Hitler). Ele (Husseini) disse: ‘Queime-os’.” Além disso o Mufti acusou os judeus falsamente de que eles queriam destruir a mesquita Al-Aksa no Monte do Templo, disse Netanjahu em relação ao recente conflito com a liderança palestina.

E justamente sobre isso que se trata, ou seja, sobre o conflito que já dura décadas em torno da área do Al-Aksa e a atual guerra contra os palestinos. Por isso Netanjahu está até predisposto a quase inocentar Hitler e jogar a culpa coletiva sobre os palestinos. Inacreditável tal falsificação histórica por motivos tão baixos.

Da mesma forma é inacreditável acreditar na versão estabelecida do tal “holocausto judeu”. Um mito de pés de barro, sustentado com muita propaganda, dinheiro, ignorância e… preguiça mental – NR.

Da mesma forma como Netanjahu mentiu sobre um inexistente programa atômico iraniano, ele mente agora afirmando que os palestinos seriam culpados pelo holocausto, pela suposição de que o então Mufti de Jerusalém teria cochichado isso no ouvido de Hitler.

Não existe qualquer prova para um diálogo entre Hitler e Husseini em referência ao afirmado por Netanjahu, mas trata-se de pura fantasia. A única coisa comprovada historicamente é que Husseini foi recebido oficialmente por Hitler a 28 de novembro de 1941, em Berlim.

Além disso, Husseini fugiu do Oriente Médio para a Europa no início de 1941. Como ele poderia então ter dito a Hitler: “Se você os expulsar, eles virão todos para cá”. Já fazia tempo que ele não estava mais em Jerusalém.

Netanjahu encontra-se hoje, quarta-feira, com Angela Merkel, em Berlim, e o governo federal criticou sua declaração. Pano de fundo do encontro é a recente onda de conflitos no Oriente Médio. Netanjahu argumenta que a política de seu regime de Apartheid não é culpada pelo que está ocorrendo, mas sim a incitação e a provocação da liderança palestina.

Através de sua explicação, ele quis mostrar “que o pai da nação palestina ainda naquela época, sem Estado ou sem a chamada ‘ocupação’, sem território palestino e sem assentamentos, proferiu seu discurso de ódio sistemático para extermínio dos judeus”, disse Netanjahu antes de partir para Berlim.

Denominar al-Husseini “pai da nação palestina” é uma falsidade, pois ele foi um defensor dos direitos islâmicos e não possuía qualquer cargo político. Quem o tornou Mufti de Jerusalém em 1921? Foi a administração britânica na Palestina. Além disso, quem extermina quem aqui há mais de 70 anos? Os sionistas exterminam os palestinos, e de forma sistêmica!

Para recordar, os palestinos vivem há mais de 2.000 anos na Palestina, são praticamente os descendentes da população do tempo de Jesus. A Palestina era uma província do Império Romano. Quando o imperador Constantino I converteu-se para o cristianismo e o declarou religio licita (região permitida) em 313, a Palestina também se tornou cristã. Sua mãe Helena visitou Jerusalém e a Palestina, a terra santa dos cristãos.

Até o ano de 529, a maioria da população já estava cristianizada. O Império Romano do Oriente terminou com a ocupação pelos persas do Império Sassânida (614-629), que adentraram na Palestina como árabes muçulmanos e conquistaram Jerusalém em 638.

Após a conquista islâmica da Palestina, foram construídas a mesquita do Domo do Rochedo (início em 686 – término em 691) e provavelmente, alguns anos depois, a mesquita de Al-Aksa.

Segunda a crença muçulmana, o profeta Maomé cavalgou seu cavalo Buraq partindo da Kaaba, em Meca, até Jerusalém; prendeu seu cavalo no Muro de Al-Buraq e ascendeu aos céus. Por isso a área em torno da mesquita de Al-Aksa e também Jerusalém são sagrados para os muçulmanos.

Com o início das Cruzadas ao final do século XI, surgiram os quatro Estados Cruzados cristãos (Levante), dentre eles o Reino Latino de Jerusalém, fundado em 1099 por Balduíno I, que transformou o Domo do Rochedo em um lugar sagrado cristão e residiu na mesquita Al-Aksa.

O sultão sunita Saladim venceu um exército de cruzados em 1187 na batalha de Hattin, ocupou a Palestina e conquistou Jerusalém. Igrejas e templos foram transformadas na maior parte em mesquitas, com acesso permitido a cristãos e judeus.

Em 1516, os turcos otomanos conquistaram o Egito, a Síria, Palestina, que permaneceram sob domínio do Império Otomano pelos próximos 400 anos. Em 1517, o califado caiu em poder dos otomanos; eles formaram a liderança religiosa. O território foi dividido em diferentes distritos. Às comunidades cristã e judaica foi concedida um grande grau de autonomia.

No início do século XIX viviam entre 275.000 a 300.000 pessoas no país. 90% deles eram muçulmanos, 7.000 até 10.000 judeus e entre 20.000 a 30.000 cristãos.

Em 1881 viviam 457.000 pessoas na Palestina. 400.000 eram muçulmanos, 13.000 até 20.000 judeus e 42.000 cristãos – em sua maioria ortodoxos gregos.

A afirmação dos sionistas, a Palestina seria uma terra vazia, um deserto, e eles teriam povoado primeiro e a tornado frutífera, é umas das maiores mentiras da história. Na realidade existiam vários povoados e cidades palestinas e a agricultura era uma importante atividade comercial, a exemplo do cultivo de laranja em Jaffa, já na época um produto de exportação.

Em 1882, o fanático sionista Barão Edmond Rothschild começou a comprar terras na Palestina e, em 1889, entregou 25.000 hectares de terras agrícolas palestinas – juntamente com os povoados ali presentes – à Associação de Colonização Judaica. Com isso teve início a colonização da Palestina principalmente através de judeus russos e do leste europeu, e a primeira repressão da população palestina.

Caso não existisse uma Palestina e/ou palestinos, como afirmam hoje os sionistas, de quem Rothschild teria comprado as terras com sua imensa fortuna? Das pulgas do deserto? Ou seja, existiam palestinos, que infelizmente aceitaram o dinheiro sujo de Rothschild e lhe entregaram suas terras.

Durante a Primeira Guerra Mundial, os britânicos conquistaram a Palestina, vindo do Egito. Eles ocuparam Jerusalém e todas as cidades até Damasco. O exército britânico foi aliás o primeiro a utilizar gás venenoso no Oriente Médio, contra os turcos na conquista de Gaza. Após a I Guerra Mundial e derrota dos otomanos, a Palestina se transformou em um protetorado de administração britânica.

No meio da Primeira Guerra, quando a derrota dos britânicos e franceses era iminente, aconteceu a Declaração de Balfour a 2 de novembro de 1917. A Grã Bretanha concordava ali com os objetivos sionistas fixados em 1897, em transformar a Palestina em um “lar nacional” para o povo judeu.

Quer dizer, embora nesta época a Palestina pertencesse ao Império Otomano, o governo britânico prometeu ao movimento sionista lhe presentear a Palestina. Em contrapartida os britânicos receberam a garantia que os sionistas iriam trazer os EUA como aliado na guerra contra o Reich alemão e, desta forma, vencer a guerra.

Por isso a Alemanha perdeu a Primeira Guerra Mundial, por causa de um complô sionista para receber a Palestina.

A Declaração de Balfour foi incorporada no Tratado de Paz entre aliados e a Turquia. A 24 de julho de 1922, a Declaração também foi incorporada no mandato da Liga das Nações para a Palestina, e que fixava as condições para transição da administração britânica do território com consideração à população judaica e palestina.

A construção da empreitada sionista denominada Israel no protetorado britânico, em maio de 1948, portanto, foi consequência direta da Declaração Balfour. 700.000 palestinos foram expulsos violentamente pelos comandos terroristas dos sionistas, catástrofe e genocídio este chamado de Nakba. Vieram então judeus europeus para ocupar suas casas e roubar suas terras.

Há 70 anos os palestinos estão expulsos de sua Pátria e formam o maior grupo de refugiados do mundo. Os sionistas vem roubando sistematicamente cada vez mais terras e constroem assentamentos ilegais. Nos últimos anos eles também são caçados em Jerusalém e têm suas casas desapropriadas.

As mesquitas do Domo do Rochedo e a al-Aksa são reivindicadas pelos judeus e o exército israelita impede constantemente a peregrinação religiosa dos muçulmanos até elas.

Desde o início de outubro, nós somos testemunhas dos ataques maldosos dos soldados israelitas, colonos judeus extremistas e judeus civis “normais”, que clamam “morte aos árabes” e atiram contra demonstrantes palestinos e crianças, e enquanto estes jazem ao chão ensanguentados, os judeus se regozijam xingando-os.

Jovens palestinos demonstram nas ruas de todas as cidades palestina contra os extremistas colonos judeus religiosos, por causa da violação da sagrada mesquita de al-Aksa, o terceiro lugar mais sagrado do islã, depois da mesquita al-Haram, em Meca, e da mesquita al-Nabawi, em Medina.

Os extremistas judeus invadiram o entorno da mesquita al-Aksa, sob proteção dos soldados israelitas. Estes utilizam bombas de gás lacrimogênio, bombas de efeito moral e balas de borracha contra os visitantes da mesquita. Em sua tentativa de evacuar a mesquita, os soldados arrombaram portas e quebraram janelas.

Esta violação grosseira contribuiu bastante para o início da Terceira Intifada (resistência).

Os sionistas – outro nome para talmudistas satânicos – tentam há muito tempo ganhar o controle da área junto à al-Aksa, a qual eles denominam a Monte do Templo, uma tentativa de afirmar seu mito sobre um templo de Salomão, uma lenda que serve para justificar seu direito de posse sobre Jerusalém e toda a Palestina.

Em 1887, o já citado barão de Rothschild tentou comprar e demolir por completo o bairro marroquino de frete a Muro de Al-Buraq, chamado pelos judeus de muro das lamentações. Intenção aqui era conseguir espaço para os judeus alcançarem o muro. Sua oferta foi rejeitada. Em 1895, o rabino Chaim Hirschensohn e a Zionist Palestine Land Development Company também tentaram a compra.

1919, após os britânicos terem tomado o controle sobre Jerusalém, o líder sionista Chaim Weizmann tentou em vão comprar o bairro dos ingleses. Ele também intencionava demoli-lo. O milionário norte-americano Nathan Straus queria primeiramente alugar e posteriormente comprar, mas sem sucesso.

O conflito entre muçulmanos e judeus sobre os locais sagrados aumentam consideravelmente o avanço da colonização da Palestina pelos imigrantes judeus. Entre 1948 e 1967, Al-Quds (Jerusalém), juntamente com al-Aksa e o Muro de Al-Buraq, estavam sob controle jordaniano.

Logo após o final da chamada Guerra dos Seis Dias, Tivadar (Teddy), um hudeu húngaro, prefeito de Jerusalém Ocidental, ordenou que pá-carregadeiras destruíssem completamente o bairro de 774 anos. Nesta ação foram destruídas completamente 138 casas, duas mesquitas e uma escola.

Como resultado, uma imensa área foi desobstruída para que os judeus pudessem orar junto o Muro de Al-Buraq ou das lamentações. Quer dizer, a nova empreitada é algo bastante recente e não tem um fundo histórico.

A 29 de setembro de 2000, Ariel Sharon, então líder da oposição com seus adeptos do Likud, forçou a entrada à área da al-Aksa, protegido aqui por centenas de policiais armados. Aconteceu um conflito entre os visitantes da mesquita e a polícia, onde 7 palestinos foram alvejados mortalmente e 250 ficaram feridos. A provocação de Sharon desencadeou a Segunda Intifada

Há 48 anos, todo um exército de arqueólogos israelitas e ocidentais escavam junto ao Monte do Templo, para encontrar alguma prova de algum templo de Salomão. Eles fizeram túneis por dentro de toda a montanha e sob a mesquita o que pode levar até à ruína da construção. Eles apenas acharam artefatos palestinos, egípcios, romanos, persas e islâmicos. Nenhum rastro de um antiquíssimo templo judaico.

Como disse, seguiu-se aqui uma lenda inventada e com isso justifica-se a ocupação da área junto à al-Aksa, de Jerusalém e de toda a Palestina.

As novas gerações de palestinos já estão cheios dos 67 anos de ocupação sionista, colonização racista, limpeza étnica violenta, roubo de terras, assentamentos ilegais, discriminação, humilhação e guerra, destruição de casas, confinamento em guetos, unilateralidade internacional e injustiça.

Os sionistas não querem a guerra, corroborado por décadas de “negociações”. Os jovens palestinos aprenderam das gerações anteriores à Intifada, que a resistência ativa é o único modo de conseguir sua liberdade e seus direitos. Por isso centenas de milhares de jovens palestinos vão para as ruas nos territórios ocupados, na Cisjordânia e em Gaza, para confrontam soldados israelitas armados até os dentes e franco-atiradores.

A nova geração de palestinos entende muito bem que a luta por al-Aksa é a luta por Al-Quds (Jerusalém), é a luta por toda a Palestina e sua luta pela liberdade.

Justamente por isso, quando Netanjahu afirma que não foi Hitler, mas sim os palestinos os responsáveis pelo Holocausto, uma mentira descarada e incabível. É uma gritante injustiça que os palestinos devam pagar sendo expulsos de sua pátria, por um crime europeu da Segunda Guerra Mundial.

“Crime europeu”? O tal “holocausto judeu” vem se constituindo no maior embuste propagandístico da história humana. Em um futuro próximo, vai ser considerado com certeza o progenitor das demais mentiras (ida do homem à Lua, 11 de setembro, armas de destruição em massa no Iraque etc) que somos obrigados a escutar em pleno século XXI – NR.

O presidente palestino Mahmoud Abbas disse após um encontro com o secretário geral da ONU, Ban Ki-Moon, em Ramallah: “Netanjahu inocentou Hitler de seus crimes e colocou a culpa em Amin al-Husseini. É desta forma desprezível que ele quer atacar nosso povo “.

Alles Schall und Rauch

[fondsinformation]

Krieg, Gewinne und Freiheit für Kapital

Das Berliner Kriegskabinett: auf Beutezug Tagesschau & Co. fragen nicht, warum Deutschland den Krieg in der Ukraine verlängert – Die Absichten hinter Merkels Friedensverrat gelten fort und sollen den Wähler nicht erschüttern Von Friedhelm Klinkhammer und Volker Bräutigam Mal ehrlich: Wussten Sie, dass Großbritannien, obwohl auf Seiten der Sieger,  noch im Dezember 2006 Kriegskredite aus der Zeit des II. Weltkriegs an die USA zurückzahlte? Kriege werden – eine Binsenweisheit – nicht aus hehren idealistischen Gründen geführt, sondern vorrangig aus ökonomischen Interessen. Auch unserem Berliner Kriegskabinett geht es nicht um Freiheit und Demokratie der Ukrainer, sondern um reiche Beute in deren Land: um Zugriff auf immense Bodenschätze, unter anderem Lithium. Übrigens: Deutschland wird derzeit selbst von der Siegermacht USA besonders stramm gemolken (als US-Vasall, als Netto-Verlust-Träger der US-Sanktionen, als Nord Stream-Geschädigter; die bekannten 100 Millionen Euro Tribut pro Jahr zur Finanzierung der hiesigen US-Garnisonen sind Peanuts dagegen). Aber das steht auf einem anderen Blatt. ARD-Tagesschau, ZDF-heute und Deutschlandradio-Nachrichten schert es nicht, aus welch tatsächlichen Gründen die Bundesregierung Geld, Waffen, informationelle und logistische Hilfe in die Ukraine pumpt – bis dato mindestens 30 Milliarden Euro (indirekte Kosten wie die Flüchtlingsaufnahme nicht gerechnet). Profunde Kenntnis der Bundesbürger von den politikleitenden Interessen an der deutschen Kriegsbeteiligung ergäbe mit Sicherheit ein anderes, qualifizierteres Meinungsbild dazu, als es die Tagesschau in ihrem „Deutschlandtrend“ vermittelt: 31 Prozent halten die deutschen Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine für angemessen, 25 Prozent gehen sie nicht weit genug; eine deutliche Mehrheit ist also für massiven Waffenexport ins Kriegsgebiet. Dass sich die Bundesregierung nicht nur als gefügiger US-Vasall, sondern auch aus eigenen Stücken, im kommerziellen Interesse seiner (Rüstungs-)Wirtschaft, zur Kriegspartei machte, spielt im Diskurs über den Ukraine-Krieg leider keine Rolle. („Wir müssen doch den armen Menschen dort helfen“). Keiner fragt nach Ungerührt vom massenhaften Sterben auf dem „Schlachtfeld“ schiebt unser Berliner politisches Funktionsmobiliar weitere Milliarden in die Ukraine. Ungestört von den „Qualitätsmedien“, unbeeindruckt von der impotenten „Vierte Gewalt“-Täterin Tagesschau und deren öffentlich-rechtlichen Komplizen. Kritische Nachfrage nach den wahren Kriegsgründen? Fehlanzeige, obwohl sich die Lage zuhause längst als hochexplosiv erweist: Die Schuldenbremse versagt, die Verbraucherpreise explodieren, Geld für den geordneten Unterhalt und Ausbau der Infrastruktur fehlt. Massiver Sozialabbau droht, das Renten-, Bildungs- und Transportsystem, die Gesundheits- und die Energieversorgung sind in Gefahr. Ganze Wirtschaftsbereiche werden plattgemacht, Bauern rebellieren, das Bruttosozialprodukt schrumpft bedrohlich, die Produktivität der Beschäftigten sinkt. Die kaltschnäuzige Reaktion darauf: Die Bundesregierung verdoppelt die Militärhilfe für die Ukraine. Wie das ARD-Hauptstadtstudio aus Kreisen des Haushaltsausschusses erfuhr, einigte sich die Ampelkoalition darauf, die Unterstützung von vier auf acht Milliarden Euro aufzustocken. 3941956965:rightNiemand, schon gar nicht das ARD-Hauptstadtstudio, riskiert konsequent die Frage: Was sind die Motive und Ziele dieser desaströsen Politik, die die eigene, die deutsche Bevölkerung sehenden Auges ins Unglück stürzt, während sie das korrupte, neonazistische, autoritäre System in der Ukraine immer noch mit Milliardenbeträgen päppelt? Obwohl Kiews antidemokratisches Regime vor dem Zusammenbruch und einer verheerenden militärischen Niederlage steht? An den demagogischen Schwachsinn, dass Putin sich Westeuropa militärisch vornehme, wenn er erst einmal die Ukraine besiegt habe, glauben doch weder Agnes-Marie Strack-Zimmermann noch Boris Pistorius, sondern allenfalls Annalena Baerbock und der dauerbeleidigte, weil nur Beinahe-Landwirtschaftsminister Anton Hofreiter. Sogar der Russenfresser und Polit-Scharfmacher Michael Roth (SPD), einst gar Staatsminister und derzeit immerhin noch Vorsitzender des Auswärtigen Ausschusses des Bundestages, beklagte die Wissenslücke im hiesigen Diskurs: Die Debatte über die Beweggründe und Ziele der deutschen Einmischung in den Ukraine-Konflikt komme zu kurz. Es gehe doch nicht um Nächstenliebe, sondern um „deutsche und europäische Interessen“. https://geld-anlagen.eu/us-ruestungsunternehmen-boomen/ Welche denn konkret, werter Herr Ex-Staatssekretär? Welches Interesse sollten einfache deutsche und andere westeuropäische Mitbürger an der Fortführung des schrecklichen Gemetzels in der Ukraine haben, an dem sich die Plutokraten der westlichen Welt gerade dumm und dämlich verdienen? Was wohl bewog den Wirtschaftsminister Habeck, in Davos für Investitionen in der Ukraine zu werben und staatliche Sicherheitsgarantien dafür zu versprechen? Die seien „…ein ungeheuer erfolgreicher Schritt, der zeigt, dass wir daran glauben und darauf vertrauen, dass die Ukraine diese schwierige Situation erfolgreich besteht, aber auch, dass deutsche Unternehmen in die Ukraine investieren werden.“ Warum wohl sollten/wollen deutsche Unternehmen in der Ukraine investieren? Sage bitte niemand: „Um dort Arbeitsplätze zu schaffen“. Kungeln mit Milliardären Selbst die Tagesschau-Sendung „Wirtschaft vor acht“ lässt wissen, dass die Geschicke der Welt nicht das Ergebnis transparenter demokratischer Entscheidungsprozesse gemäß Volkes Willen sind, sondern dass „die Lenker der Wirtschaft“ im Hinterzimmer darüber befinden: „Alljährlich treffen sich die Spitzen von Staaten, die Lenker der Wirtschaft und sonstige wichtige Persönlichkeiten in den Schweizer Bergen, um die Weltlage zu besprechen … Davos (ist) mehr als eine Ansammlung von Vorträgen und Meinungsaustausch, sondern … der Ort der Vier-Augen-Gespräche (sic!) im ganz kleinen Kreis (sic!)“ Mit Namen und konkreten Fakten kann ARD-Moderator Markus Gürne hier natürlich nicht dienen. Dass es neben dem „Weltwirtschaftsgipfel“ in Davos auch noch die geheimen Treffen der „Bilderberger“ und der „Trilateralen Kommission“ gibt, auf denen sich die Spitzenpolitiker der Welt von den Multimilliardären „beraten“ lassen, sei hier nur der Vollständigkeit halber erwähnt; für die Tagesschau sind sie ja nie und nimmer von nachrichtlichem Interesse. Unser Thema bleibt das kommerzielle Interesse, das der kollektive Westen mit seiner Kriegsteilnahme in der Ukraine und mit seinem Wirtschaftskrieg gegen Russland verfolgt. Baerbocks Wunsch, „Russland ruinieren“, spricht die Problematik nur oberflächlich an. Er ist so unqualifiziert wie die Verlautbarung des US-Präsidenten Biden, den demokratisch gewählten Putin stürzen zu wollen. Russlands Bevölkerung hat längst verstanden: Der kollektive Westen ist auf Unterwerfung ihres Landes aus (zu dem auch die vormals ukrainischen Donbass-Republiken gehören) und auf das räuberische Ausbeuten seiner Reichtümer. Subversive Absichten Im Westen – nicht nur gelegentlich und auf Stammtischniveau – werden gerne Vorstellungen von einer „Dekolonialisierung“ Russlands diskutiert, d.h.  Zerschlagung in viele schwache Einzelstaaten. Die lautstärksten Fürsprecher solcher Ideen sind Exil-Russen, deren infame Lobbyarbeit vom Westen politisch unterstützt und von Abgeordneten des Europäischen Parlamentes sogar materiell gesponsert wird: „Ich werde auf jeden Fall die Namen dieser 34 Staaten lernen“, hieß es auf einem im Europäischen Parlament veranstalteten „Forum der Freien Völker Russlands“. Auch in den westlichen Leit- und Konzernmedien wird die aktive Schwächung Russlands durch Zerfall diskutiert. Dessen Bürger registrieren das sehr aufmerksam. Es erinnert sie an ihre Erfahrungen mit den Wortbrüchen und der Beutegier des Westens nach dem Zerfall der Sowjetunion, an ihr Elend in der Jelzin-Ära. Knallbonbons Genau darauf aber wirken die heute maßgebenden Sozialdemokraten offenkundig hin. Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz: „Dieser Krieg ist wahrscheinlich so schnell nicht vorbei… (Es ist wichtig), dass wir lange in der Lage sind, das zu tun, was notwendig ist, (nämlich) die Ukraine weiter in ihrem Verteidigungskampf zu unterstützen“. Pure Maulhurerei, nicht einmal eine andeutungsweise logische Beschreibung der vorgeblichen „Notwendigkeit“. Scholz behauptet geschichtsfälschend, „Russland habe 2022 mit seinem Überfall auf die Ukraine ‚alle Verständigung über Frieden und Sicherheit in Europa aufgekündigt‘.“ Dass Kiew unter maßgeblicher deutscher Anleitung und Mitwirkung (Steinmeiers trügerischer Deal, Merkels Minsk-II-Betrug) schon seit 2014 einen Angriffskrieg gegen die Ost-Ukraine führte, auf den Putin nach acht Jahren militärisch reagierte, hatte NATO-Generalsekretär Stoltenberg schon vor einem Jahr preisgegeben. Der Krieg habe nicht erst am 24. Februar 2022 (Einmarsch russischer Truppen im Donbass) begonnen, sondern: „Er begann im Jahr 2014“ (im Original auf Englisch: „… because the war didn’t start in February last year. It started in 2014“).  Dazu Thomas Mayer, Buchautor und vormals Kampagnenleiter der Schweizer Vollgeld-Initiative: (Stoltenbergs) „Aussage war ein seltenes Versehen. Als Regel galt die millionenfach in den westlichen Medien wiederholte Sprachregelung „unprovozierter völkerrechtswidriger Angriffskrieg“. Das sollte als unumstößliche Tatsache ins öffentliche Bewusstsein eingebrannt werden … So wurde das Völkerrecht für Kriegspropaganda missbraucht. Tatsächlich kann der Kriegseintritt Russlands stringent völkerrechtskonform begründet werden. Doch Kanzler Scholz und erst recht die Qualitätsjournalisten der Staats- und Konzernmedien scheren sich nicht um völkerrechtliche Regeln. Sie ignorieren, dass der Westen bis zuletzt sämtliche Verständigungsangebote Putins zur Vermeidung eines Krieges ausgeschlagen hatte. Es würde nichts nützen, sie an den Lehrsatz des italienischen Philosophen Nicolò Machiavelli zu erinnern: „Nicht, wer zuerst die Waffen ergreift, ist Anstifter des Unheils, sondern, wer dazu nötigt.“ Deutschlands Ukraine-Politik ist kriegstreibend. Panzer, Artilleriegeschütze und Raketen sind Angriffswaffen, Granaten aus deutschen Fabriken schaffen keinen Frieden, sondern lassen die Leichenberge in der Ukraine wachsen. Die absurde Debatte im Bundestag über den – am Ende deutlich abgelehnten – Antrag der Unionsfraktion, endlich auch weitreichende „Taurus“-Raketen an Kiew zu liefern, beweist allerdings nur, dass die Befürworter einer rationalen, auf Ausgleich mit Russland bedachten Politik keine Mehrheit im Reichstag haben. Die Euromilliarden, die der Kanzler dem korrupten Präsidenten Selenskyj in die weit geöffneten Taschen schiebt, generieren nicht nur Rekordprofite der deutschen Rüstungswirtschaft; sie bereichern auch einen Machthaber, der per Gesetz jegliche Friedensverhandlungen mit Russland verbieten ließ. Einen egomanen Menschenverächter, der bereits mit der Sprache, in der er über Russen herzieht („Tiere“) seine nazistische Gesinnung demonstriert. Kriegswillige Deutschlands Ziele in der Ukraine bleiben unerklärt. Der Kanzler und sein Kabinett (auch der vielgepriesene Verteidigungsminister Pistorius) vermeiden sichtlich, sich konkret zu den Kriegszielen zu äußern. Pistorius räumte zwar ein, dass Deutschland in der Ukraine „Kriegsbeteiligter“ sei, (was offensichtlich niemanden in den deutschen Redaktionsstuben sonderlich aufregte) welche Absichten damit verfolgt werden, sagte aber auch er nicht. Er betreibt lieber medienwirksame Scharfmacherei: „Deutschland und seine Verbündeten müssen sich mit der neuen Bedrohungslage auseinandersetzen. Wir müssen kriegstüchtig werden.“ So redet eben ein Sozialdemokrat der neuen Generation, dessen Abstand zu Willy Brandts friedensstiftender Entspannungspolitik ebenso groß ist wie seine Bereitschaft, das Friedensgebot des Grundgesetzes zu missachten und Verfassungsbruch zu organisieren. Ohne diplomatische Schnörkel redete auch ein CDU-Abgeordneter daher und geriet damit ins Rampenlicht. Roderich Kiesewetter, Ex-Oberst i.G. (= „im Generalstab“), im Tagesschau-Video (Zitat ab Min. 08‘28“): „Aber es hat auch eine extrem wirtschaftliche Frage: Wenn die Ukraine zerfällt, sind die Folgekosten viel größer, als wenn wir jetzt viel stärker reingehen. Und wenn Europa die Energiewende vollziehen will, braucht es eigene Lithium-Vorkommen. Die größten Lithium-Vorkommen in Europa liegen im Donezk-Luhansk-Gebiet… Deswegen will Russland diese auch, um uns abhängig zu machen von der Energiewende, mit Blick auf Elektromotoren. Also, wir haben hier auch ganz andere Ziele noch im Hintergrund.“ Der Mann macht kein Hehl daraus, dass deutsche Wirtschaftsinteressen dem Ukraine-Krieg zugrunde liegen. Es beeindruckt, mit welcher Selbstverständlichkeit er wissen lässt, dass auch dieser Krieg dem westlichen Kapitalinteresse am Profitmachen dient, gleichgültig, wie viele Menschen dabei draufgehen. Das gesamte Tagesschau-Interview ist übrigens ein eindrucksvolles Beispiel für die Unfähigkeit vieler Journalisten des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks. Sie stellen keine substantiell interessierenden Fragen, sondern beschränken sich auf die Rolle des simplen Stichwortgebers; sie agieren als animierende Mikrofon-Halter. Räuberische Gier Was die westlichen Geldeliten an der Ukraine interessiert und weshalb sie das Land als lohnendes Ausbeutungsopfer im Blick haben, belegen nicht nur die gierigen Aufkäufe ihrer Immobilienhaie. Das Wirtschaftsmagazin „Forbes“ bewertete schon 2005 den Vorrat an entdeckten Bodenschätzen in der Ukraine mit 7 bis 10 Billionen (!) Dollar. Inzwischen beläuft er sich auf 14,8 Billionen Dollar. Was für ein Pech für die Beutegierigen: 70 Prozent dieses natürlichen Reichtums liegen in den nunmehr russischen Gebieten Donezk und Lugansk. Ihr Schätzwert: etwa 8 Billionen Dollar. Bekanntlich ist es hierzulande ganz „normal“, einem verabscheuten Konkurrenten die eigenen (fragwürdigen) Absichten zu unterstellen, besonders, wenn man selbst im Nachteil ist. Es überrascht also nicht, dass man im Westen behauptet/mutmaßt, dieser Reichtum habe „Putin zum Einmarsch in die Ukraine motiviert.“ Andersherum wird allerdings eher ein Schuh draus. Der Westen ist scharf auf besagte Bodenschätze, er braucht sie: „Europa hat in der Vergangenheit eine beträchtliche Anzahl von Rohstoffen, über die auch die Ukraine verfügt, aus Russland bezogen – neben Öl, Gas und Kohle sowie Eisen und Stahl vor allem wichtige Nichteisenmetalle …“ Eingeräumt (und beklagt) wird, dass die hohe Abhängigkeit von metallenen Rohstoffen (Nickel, Titan, Lithium u.a.) Deutschland als größten westeuropäischen Industriestandort behindert, seine Entwicklung einer „grünen“ Energiewirtschaft voranzutreiben, weil es dabei „von autoritär regierten Ländern“ wie Russland und China abhängig sei. Kaiser ohne Kleider Tja. Mit den antirussischen Sanktionen haben sich die westeuropäischen Politiklenker ins eigene Knie geschossen. Den Schmerz, die wirtschaftlichen Folgen, müssen aber wieder die Bürger ertragen, besonders die von Erwerbsarbeit abhängigen. Sollte Russland, wie sich abzeichnet, Sieger in diesem Krieg bleiben, wird der Rohstoffmangel in Westeuropa zu erheblichen Kostensteigerungen führen und Deutschlands industrielle Wirtschaftskraft weiter schwächen. Sollte wider Erwarten die Ukraine siegen, wäre das zwar für „unsere“ Wirtschaft gut. Die Ukrainer aber müssen so oder so für diesen Krieg bezahlen, gleichgültig, wie er endet. Das Land musste bereits jetzt eine Verdoppelung der Staatsverschuldung hinnehmen (in Relation zum Brutto-Inlandsprodukt der Jahre 2021 bis 2024): von 48 auf 96 Prozent. Die Kosten für einen Wiederaufbau bleiben hier außer Betracht. Der unschätzbare Verlust an Menschenleben erst recht. Möglicherweise, so ein erlaubter Rückschluss, wird auch die Ukraine noch im Jahrhundert danach Kriegskredite an den Wertewesten abstottern müssen. Ob sie überhaupt wieder zahlungsfähig wird, ist allerdings eine andere Frage. Mit seiner Bemerkung im Tagesschau-„Bericht aus Berlin Extra“ (ab ca. Min. 09‘04“) hat der unsägliche Unionsabgeordnete Kiesewetter jedenfalls recht: „Unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger (verdienten) „mehr Orientierung aus der Politik. Ein Bundeskanzler könnte deutlich mehr erklären. Er macht es zu wenig.“ Na klar. Andernfalls stünde dieser Kanzler als politischer Prokurist der Kriegsgewinnler und Profiteure am ukrainischen Massensterben da. Seine „unerträgliche Schweigsamkeit“ ist Taktik. Der Durchschnitts-Wähler durchschaut das nicht, denn seine Tagesschau besorgt ihm ja nur eine Mattscheibe. Anmerkung der Autoren: Unsere Beiträge stehen zur freien Verfügung. Wir schreiben nicht für Honorar, sondern gegen die „mediale Massenverblödung“ (in memoriam Peter Scholl-Latour). Die Texte werden vom Verein „Ständige Publikumskonferenz öffentlich-rechtlicher Medien e.V.“ dokumentiert: https://publikumskonferenz.de/blog - Fördermitglied werden * * * Siehe auch: William Hartung, Profiteers Of Armageddon: Producers Of The Next Generation Of Nuclear Weapons   Beiträge und Artikel anderer Autoren müssen nicht die Sichtweise der Webseiteninhabers widerspiegeln, sondern dienen nur der vergleichenden Information und Anregung zur eigenen Meinungsbildung. Wie aufschlussreich fanden Sie diesen Artikel? Lesen Sie den ganzen Artikel

[kendrixtermina]

So I finally finished the much-recommended Book "the 100 years war on Palestine" by one Mr. Al-Khalidi.

Some observations:

First, the book is rightfully recced & pretty interesting. The author is very educated & has alot of insider knowledge due to his background. I would enjoy hearing this guy talk about the history of his country & his family's experience with it over 7 generations even if nothing particularly bad or exceptional had happened to the country

One interesting thing he points out is that in the 60s and 70s some miscalculations happened due to how ppl in the middle east were used to dealing with monarchies or warlord dictators. If you want your way in those systems the thing to do is to personally appeal to powerful ppl or get your guys close to their ears, so ppl mistakenly assumed the win condition was to get some powerful american to listen to you - He says they should've tried to sway public opinion in US & Israel instead

Big Palestinian factions have been asking for an unitarian democratic state since 68'!! this is striking bc so many ppl in the west believe the "neither side wants peace or compromise" carnard.... even educated/intelligent ones... Which is probably why the Zionists invested so much $ in propaganda, there's no honest, non-racist argument against equal rights.

His analysis is basically that agreeing to the 2 state solution was a mistake & that Arafat missed a huge opportunity to not only press for equality, but do so at a time when it was possible with peaceful means during the window of time when the ghandi trap may still have worked. The 1st intifada built up a lot of political/moral capital similar to what brought down past unequal regimes but instead of pulling a Ghandi/MLK and demanding full equality they got snared in unequal treaties (he attributes this to the PLO being mostly made up of ppl that fled the country & operated in neighboring arab states, so they weren't familiar enough with the reality on the ground in Palestine proper)

Over here we often discuss resistance in terms of violent vs. nonviolent but he puts more emphasis on what kind & what's right in which circumstance. He's not against armed resistance per se but for example decries the suicide bombings as blind revenge that mostly had counterproductive effects.

At one point Israel assassinated a moderate Hamas member who was vocally against suicide bondings. Rly lampshades how they want a bogeyman to fearmonger against, not security...

He singles out 2006 as the point where Hamas did an u-turn from straight up fundamentalism to a slogan of "reform & change" (interestingly, they even won some Christian neighborhoods, ppl were just fed up with the PLO's quisling behavior at that point) - though he's overall critical of them & found their actions up to 2017 non-useful squabbly infighting. Wonder what he'd say of later initiatives.

(Reminds me of how the CDU in Germany (centrist/moderate conservatives) had a bunch of muslim representatives despite the 'c' standing for 'christian' - cause they liked the benefits for traditional families & that it had "a place for religion" unlike other parties. That was during Merkel's day tho, nowadays the leadership has some idiots spouting borderline neo-colonial BS so I dunno if any muslims still feel like voting for them. prolly not. )

interestingly the two big parties/factions were initially willing to form a coalition government but Israel & the US torpedoed it, cue civil war in gaza...

[feelmir]

Putin declared on Sunday he believed naively that there there would be no confrontation the West after the restoration of wild capitalism in Russia by former communist turned anti communist Mikhail Gorbatchev leading to the demise of the unique global power able to bridle hegemonic and imperialist appetence of the US and its proxies in western European and the new colonized countries in Eastern Europe, former members of the Socialist bloc. Putin’s confession comes late but better late than never. As new leader of Russia since 2000, Putin former KGB operator working in Eastern Germany turned politician had enough time to observe what the West and NATO were intriguing against Russia, the expansion of NATO eastward, colour revolutions in the ex Soviet Republic, in Ukraine 2004, Georgia, 2005, launch in August 2008 aggression by then Georgian US agent Mikhail Sakhasvili against South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Euromaidan nazi coup in 2014. Putin’s naivety appears in daylight when he allowed the new nazi regime in Kiev and signing the Minsk Accords which were a mere deception according to Merkel and Hollande in order to give the new Ukrainian regime enough time to strengthen the army, building fortifications with the support of NATO’s member states, before preparing aggression against Russia.

[giancarlonicoli]

24 lug 2023 18:20

“LA MORTE DI REGENI? UNA FAIDA ALL’INTERNO DEI SERVIZI EGIZIANI” - L’EX DEPUTATO DI FORZA ITALIA, FABRIZIO CICCHITTO, DA’ UNA SUA LETTURA SUL CASO DEL RICERCATORE ITALIANO UCCISO IN EGITTO: “L’ENI AVEVA FATTO UNA GRANDE OPERAZIONE PROPRIO IN EGITTO PER NUOVI GIACIMENTI DI PETROLIO VINCENDO LA CONCORRENZA FRANCESE E INGLESE. È FORTE L’IMPRESSIONE CHE UNA FRAZIONE DELL’INTELLIGENCE DEL CAIRO, FILOFRANCESE O COMUNQUE ANTITALIANA, ABBIA VOLUTO FARE SCOPPIARE IL CASO PROPRIO AVENDO DI MIRA LA PARTITA SUI NUOVI GIACIMENTI SU CUI L’ENI ERA ARRIVATO IN ANTICIPO RISPETTO AI CONCORRENTI” -

Estratto dell’articolo di Fabrizio Cicchitto per “Libero quotidiano”

Vogliamo prendere di petto la liberazione di Patrick Zaki. Senza autocensure diplomatiche. È merito di questo governo comunque essersi rioccupato del Mediterraneo dopo che non solo l’Italia, ma l’Occidente intero, si era ritirato da esso dopo la criminale operazione contro Gheddafi promossa da Sarkozy, il quale voleva fare scomparire le prove dei finanziamenti ricevuti dalla Libia in una operazione sostenuta da Obama e dalla Clinton mentre la Merkel si era sfilata. […]

il caso Regeni è molto complicato: premesso che i servizi egiziani sono rozzi, brutali e criminali, la vicenda è partita male sin dalle origini. Quei servizi hanno avuto la sensazione che egli fosse un agente inglese ciò anche a causa della tutor di Cambridge che, non si sa se per malizia o per stupidità, diede a Regeni il compito di fare uno studio sul sindacato ambulanti che rappresenta un pezzo del regime.

Regeni parlò col capo di quel sindacato, si rifiutò di dargli dei soldi e quello lo denunciò ai servizi e subito scattò l’operazione selvaggia e criminale. Per essi si trattava di un italiano, spia degli inglesi e così, essendo appunto rozzi, brutali e criminali, non ci andarono troppo per il sottile. Quando si seppe che Regeni era scomparso ci fu una reazione durissima da parte del nostro ambasciatore Massari. Allora deve essere scattata qualche altra iniziativa tempo prima.

L’Eni aveva fatto una grande operazione proprio in Egitto per nuovi giacimenti di petrolio vincendo la concorrenza francese e inglese. Una volta che i servizi egiziani si accorsero dalla reazione dell’ambasciatore italiano e che avevano per le mani una vittima pericolosa, avrebbero potuto far scomparire il cadavere nel deserto. Invece il cadavere di Regeni, orribilmente torturato, fu ritrovato in un posto frequentato e portato all’obitorio dove con la forza fece irruzione l’ambasciatore Massari.

Tutto ciò avvenne in concomitanza con l’arrivo di una delegazione di imprenditori italiani con la ministra Guidi. A quel punto tutto saltò per aria: la nostra delegazione interruppe i suoi lavori e tornò in Italia ed esplose il caso Regeni. Alla luce di questa successione dei fatti, è forte l’impressione che allora si sia aperta anche una faida all’interno dei servizi egiziani e che una frazione di essi, filofrancese o comunque antitaliana, ha voluto fare scoppiare il caso proprio avendo di mira la partita sui nuovi giacimenti petroliferi su cui l’Eni era arrivato in anticipo rispetto ai concorrenti. Questa sommaria ricostruzione dei fatti dimostra che il governo, la diplomazia e i servizi del nostro Paese si sono mossi bene per recuperare Patrick.

[korrektheiten]

Biden mit höchsten deutschen Orden behängt – als Judaslohn für Nord Stream?

Ansage: »In der deutschen Politik regiert inzwischen endgültig der Masochismus: Wer Land und Volk den meisten Schaden zufügt, darf mit den höchsten Auszeichnungen rechnen. So war es mit den Verleihungen des Bundesverdienstkreuzes für Mitglieder des Corona-Regimes oder die Große Deutschlandzerstörerin Angela Merkel – und so ist es nun mit US-Präsident Joe Biden, der derzeit zu seinem […] The post Biden mit höchsten deutschen Orden behängt – als Judaslohn für Nord Stream? first appeared on Ansage. http://dlvr.it/TFTk7K «

[velvialifestylesummit]

The digital trend of international currencies to be regulated and monitored by a monetary panel with the designated elites for the standardisation of digital currency should be enacted to subsume the eminent consulting members including Barack Obama, Elun Musk, Donald Trump, President Jokowi, Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel, Hilary Clinton, Sergei Lavrov, Medvedev, WenJiaBao, Wang Yi, Bill Gates, Jerome Powell, Scott Morrison and Tharman Sham, PM SAUDI ARABIA MBS and PM SINGAPORE LEE HSIENG LOONG. This is to tackle the unregulated cryptocurrency where the marketplace tends to be the hedging fund to absorb the hot monies unleashed from the troublous banking institutions with unprofessional investment expertise like the Silicone Valley Bank. As happened to the scandalous mismanagement of Sapura Energy Malaysia under insolvency, the unrestricted liabilities of the bipartisan regime including the pendulous Biden Administration seems to avert the periodic anarchy of America through fundraising imploration. The daily payment for shopping and other transactions to be scanned by the AI digital account holder device should be provided for the digital monetary issuance in 2023. As triggered by the economic movement and monetary fluctuations, the unsteadiness of stock indexes and unbearable inflation rate can be avoided by the standardisation of one digital currency in the world. This is the monetary system to be adopted by Third International to cope with the longstanding insuperable economic dilemmas including hyperinflation and impoverishment amid the culminating inflation dilemma in the UK.

[abfindunginfo]

De Gaulle zum Konflikt in der Ukraine und zum Frieden

Wer ist de Gaulle? Den Jüngeren wird der Name vielleicht nicht viel sagen. Die Älteren erinnern sich an General Charles de Gaulle. De Gaulle - der "Ältere" Charles de Gaulle hat mehrere Jahrzehnte die französische Politik geprägt. Zu Beginn des Zweiten Weltkriegs kämpfte er entschieden als Colonel an der Spitze einer Panzerdivision gegen die Invasion des faschistischen Deutschlands. Der Kollaboration des Vichy-Regimes setze er die Gründung des Komitees Freies Frankreich (France libre) entgegen. Er wurde Chef der „Freien Französischen Streitkräfte“ (Forces françaises libres, FFL) und stand an der Spitze des französischen Widerstands gegen die deutsche Besatzung. Von 1944 bis 1946 war er dann Präsident der Provisorischen Regierung und setzte Ende der fünfziger Jahre eine Verfassungsreform durch, mit der die Fünfte Republik begründet wurde. Als deren Präsident war er ein weltweit anerkannter Politiker. Unter seinem maßgeblichen Einfluss verfolgte Frankreich eine relativ eigenständige Politik innerhalb der westlichen Allianz - auch in Bezug auf die osteuropäischen Staaten unter der Führung der Sowjetunion. De Gaulle - der Enkel Daran erinnerte sein Enkel Pierre de Gaulle mehrfach in einem Interview, das am 27.12.2022 auf Agoracox gesendet wurde. Pierre De Gaulle ist Berater für Unternehmensstrategie und Finanzen. Die Association Dialogue Franco-Russe bietet dieses außergewöhnliche Gespräch mit dem Enkel von General de Gaulle an. Zum Nachlesen hier noch eine Übersetzung des gesamten von Agoravox abgedruckten Textes: Irina Dubois: Guten Tag, Herr de Gaulle. Vielen Dank, dass Sie heute beim französisch-russischen Dialog bei uns sind. Sie beraten in den Bereichen Unternehmensstrategie und Finanzen, Sie haben 15 Jahre Erfahrung in der Leitung von Privatbanken und es ist wahrscheinlich überflüssig, an die großen Taten Ihres Großvaters General de Gaulle zu erinnern. Wir schreiben das Jahr 2022 und es ist ein beispielloses und sehr, sehr komplexes, schwieriges Jahr für die französisch-russischen Beziehungen. Es ist in gewisser Weise ein antirussisches Jahr, würde ich sagen, ganz zu schweigen von der Politik. Und trotzdem gibt es ab September/Oktober immer mehr Persönlichkeiten, bescheiden ausgedrückt, die sich für die Normalisierung unserer französisch-russischen Beziehungen aussprechen, und Sie gehören dazu. Warum glauben Sie, dass es für Frankreich so wichtig ist, sich nicht von Russland zu trennen? Pierre De Gaulle: Guten Tag, Madame. Ich danke Ihnen für Ihren Empfang und dafür, dass Sie mir die Gelegenheit geben, in diesem Kulturhaus zu sprechen, das all das feiert, was das französische und das russische Volk durch die Kultur verbindet. Und ich denke, dass es im Interesse Frankreichs ist, diese Politik und dieses Gleichgewicht fortzusetzen, weil es für die Stabilität Europas von entscheidender Bedeutung ist. Ich denke, die öffentliche Meinung beginnt, sich des perversen Spiels und der Lügen der Amerikaner und insbesondere der NATO bewusst zu werden, diese Ukraine-Krise zu nutzen, um Europa zu destabilisieren, dass das mit Russland verbündete Europa einen sowohl politisch als auch wirtschaftlich, kulturell und sozial starken Block von etwa 500 Millionen Menschen darstellt, dass die Amerikaner seit dem Vietnamkrieg und seit den darauf folgenden Wirtschaftskrisen, die insbesondere mit der Aufgabe des Goldstandards für den Dollar zusammenhängen, immer versucht haben, durch Gewalt, durch List und durch ihre Politik diesen Verlust an Einfluss sowohl wirtschaftlich als auch politisch aufzuholen, den Verlust an Einfluss des Dollars als einzige Währung in der Welt aufzuholen, und dass diese Politik weitergeht. Ich möchte sagen... Ich empöre mich und ich protestiere gegen diese intellektuelle Unehrlichkeit in der Ukraine-Krise, denn die Kriegsauslöser sind die Amerikaner, die Kriegsauslöser sind die NATO, und ich möchte als Beweis die jüngsten Äußerungen von Frau Merkel anführen, die sagte, sie habe nie die Absicht gehabt, die Minsker Vereinbarungen umzusetzen, die Minsker Abkommen, die ausgehandelt und unterzeichnet wurden, um die Sicherheit, Integrität und den Respekt der russischsprachigen Bevölkerung im Donbass zu gewährleisten, und dass die Deutschen und Franzosen sich für diese Abkommen für das Gleichgewicht, die Stabilität und den Schutz der Bevölkerung in dieser Region verbürgt haben. Frau Merkel, die sagte, sie habe nie die Absicht gesehen, die Minsker Vereinbarungen umzusetzen, hat alles getan, um die NATO die Ukraine bewaffnen zu lassen, hat alles getan, um die Grundlagen für diesen Konflikt zu legen, und ich finde das schlimm, weil Millionen von Menschen darunter leiden. Indem sie diese ukrainische nationalistische Expansion zuließ, hat sie zugelassen, dass 16.000 bis 18.000 Menschen getötet und bombardiert wurden. Sie hat zugelassen, dass diese nationalistischen ukrainischen Bevölkerungsgruppen die russische Kultur auslöschen, das Gefühl ihrer Zugehörigkeit zu Russland selbst auslöschen. Sie hat ihre Möglichkeit, die Sprache zu praktizieren, vernichtet und sie hat leider zugelassen, dass sich diese Verbrechen etablieren. Das heißt, wissentlich haben sie zu diesem Krieg beigetragen und wissentlich haben sie zu dieser Eskalation beigetragen. Die USA setzen leider diese militärische Eskalation fort, unter der die ukrainische Bevölkerung als erste leidet, aber auch die europäische Bevölkerung. Das Ausmaß, die Anzahl und die Tiefe der Sanktionen zeigen, dass dies alles sehr lange im Voraus organisiert wurde und dass es sich tatsächlich auch um einen Wirtschaftskrieg handelt, von dem die Amerikaner profitieren. Die Amerikaner verkaufen ihr Gas vier- bis siebenmal teurer an die Europäer als sie es für ihr eigenes Land tun, und leider leidet jeder in seinem Alltag in Europa darunter, denn all dies führt zu einer Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise, die absolut beispiellos ist, und man wird Ihnen sagen: "Das ist die Schuld der Russen: aber die Russen sind schuld, sehr gut, aber die Russen verteidigen sich, denn es wurden 11.000 Sanktionen gegen sie verhängt, plus ein neuntes Sanktionspaket, das gestern beschlossen wurde, und es ist völlig legitim und normal, dass die Russen sich verteidigen. Wir befinden uns in einem aktuellen Modell, in dem die grundlegenden Eigenschaften des Patriotismus, der Liebe zum Vaterland und der Verteidigung des Volkes als anormal angesehen werden. Ich denke, das ist sehr ernst und ich bin froh, dass eine Reihe von Politikern, Intellektuellen, Wirtschaftsvertretern und Eliten zu Überlegungen des Gleichgewichts zurückkehren, zu einer gewissen Logik zurückkehren und zu dem zurückkehren, was immer die Geschichte der Beziehungen zwischen Frankreich und Russland ausgemacht hat, nämlich dieses Gleichgewicht zu bewahren, die Verständigung zu bewahren, die Zusammenarbeit zu bewahren, den Dialog der Zivilisationen zu bewahren und ich denke angesichts des nahenden Weihnachtsfestes an all das, was uns für die Zukunft und für unsere Schicksalsgemeinschaft vereint. Für mich besteht also die Notwendigkeit, der Imperativ, eine gute Beziehung zu Russland aufrechtzuerhalten, und das ist meiner Meinung nach nicht nur völlig legitim, sondern auch eine Pflicht für Europa und die Stabilität in der Welt und in Europa. Irina Dubois: Genau, da Sie von Stabilität sprechen, wir sprechen im französisch-russischen Dialog viel über Souveränität, über die Souveränität der Staaten. Die berühmte Formel von General de Gaulle, dass das Europa der Nationen nicht mehr existiert, existiert nicht. Wie kann man in der heutigen globalisierten Welt eine unabhängige internationale Beziehung aufbauen? Pierre De Gaulle: Was also Europa betrifft, war mein Großvater tatsächlich ein Befürworter eines Europas der Nationen, d. h., dass jedes Land im Hinblick auf eine Europäische Union sowohl wirtschaftlich als auch politisch zusammenarbeiten würde, aber auch mit einer gewissen politischen Autonomie und Entscheidungsfreiheit Wir befinden uns in einem System, in dem es sich um eine Technokratie handelt, die Richtlinien vorgibt, die in jedem Mitgliedstaat umgesetzt werden müssen, eine Technokratie, die leider äußerst korrupt ist. Man spricht jetzt nicht mehr darüber, aber damals, als die Präsidentin der Europäischen Kommission ernannt wurde, hinterließ sie immerhin einen Schuldenberg von etwa 100 Millionen Euro an unerklärten Kosten für die Beschäftigung von externen Beratern, Beratungsfirmen, als sie Verteidigungsministerin war. Diese Fragen werden verschwiegen. Es wurde auch viel über die Verbindungen der Präsidentin der Europäischen Kommission mit der Pharmaindustrie gesprochen. Ich möchte daran erinnern, dass ihr Sohn für ein amerikanisches Biotechnologieunternehmen arbeitet und dass kürzlich, was die Verbindungen zwischen Frau Van der Leyen und dem Vorstandsvorsitzenden von Pfizer betrifft, der Vorstandsvorsitzende von Pfizer zweimal aufgefordert wurde, vor der Europäischen Kommission auszusagen und sich zu äußern. Zweimal hat er sich geweigert. Ich würde mir wünschen, dass es auf der Ebene der Europäischen Kommission, die bestimmte Gesetze erlässt, etwas mehr Ehrlichkeit und Transparenz gäbe. Sie, die nicht gewählt sind, haben auf keinen Fall Respekt vor dem gegebenen Wort. Darin liegt leider das Übel. Die heutigen europäischen Führer. Ich würde mir wünschen, dass es etwas mehr Transparenz gibt. Vor kurzem haben wir in der Katar-Affäre Geldkoffer gesehen, die sich seltsamerweise im Haus einer der Präsidentinnen der Europäischen Kommission befanden. In einer Zeit, in der wir uns in einer großen Krise befinden, einer politischen Krise, einer Wirtschaftskrise, die wiederum von den Amerikanern und der NATO perfekt gewollt und gezielt inszeniert wird, wünsche ich mir erneut etwas mehr Transparenz und Ehrlichkeit im Dialog und vor allem die Einhaltung des gegebenen Wortes. Noch einmal: Wenn Deutschland, Frankreich und die OSZE, die sich für das Minsker Abkommen verbürgt hatten, zu ihrem Wort gestanden hätten, wären wir nicht in der gegenwärtigen Situation. Irina Dubois: Der General wollte immer, und Sie haben es gerade gesagt, die Beziehung zu Russland zu jeder Zeit fortsetzen. Und in seinen Kriegserinnerungen, gerade gestern vor unserem Treffen, las ich die Auszüge aus seiner Reise nach Russland, 1944, als er Stalin traf und ich erlaube mir daher zu zitieren: "Ich stellte fest, wie sehr die Tatsache, dass Russland und Frankreich sich voneinander getrennt hatten, die Entfesselung der germanischen Ambitionen beeinflusst hatte. Angesichts der germanischen Gefahr lag das gemeinsame Vorgehen Russlands und Frankreichs in der Natur der Sache." Der General betrachtete die französisch-russische Beziehung als natürlich, was er in verschiedenen Auszügen aus seinen Memoiren immer wieder wiederholt. Ich möchte Sie fragen: Glauben Sie, dass der Gaullismus in Frankreich heute noch lebendig ist? Wer sind diese Politiker Ihrer Meinung nach vielleicht, ob Sie sie benennen wollen oder nicht, oder eben als Erbe des Generals. Pierre De Gaulle: Schauen Sie, ich werde nicht für einen bestimmten Politiker in Frankreich Partei ergreifen, außer dass ich gegen die Politik bin, die derzeit vom Präsidenten der Republik und seiner Regierung praktiziert wird, insbesondere was die Beziehungen zu Russland betrifft. Ich denke, wie ich schon oft in Interviews gesagt habe, dass man mit Ländern, die so stark, so vollständig und so wichtig sind wie Russland, China oder auch Algerien, nicht "zur gleichen Zeit" handeln kann. Das bedeutet, die russische Kultur nicht zu verstehen und die Mentalität nicht zu begreifen. Es bedeutet auch, die gesamte Geschichte, das gesamte Alter und die gesamte Nähe der Beziehungen, die man mit Russland hatte, nicht zu respektieren. Was den Gaullismus betrifft, so ist er ein Erbe, ein Beispiel, die Fähigkeit, in allen Dingen die Größe Frankreichs, der Nation und des Landes zu fördern, was normale und grundlegende Werte sind, die heute leider verpönt sind. Ihr Präsident hatte gerade eine Sendung, ich glaube, sie hieß Grundwerte oder Grundrealitäten, gegenüber der russischen Jugend gestartet, in der das Vaterland, das Hissen der Flagge und die patriotischen Werte und die Liebe zur Nation geehrt wurden. Das war völlig normal. Ich bin in diesem Umfeld aufgewachsen. In vielen Ländern wie zum Beispiel Algerien, wie China, wie Großbritannien, den USA, aber man feiert das Hissen der Nationalfarben, die Flagge und die Liebe zum Vaterland. Das ist völlig normal und wird nun von einem System, das dazu neigt, die wesentlichen Werte wie Familie, Tradition und Religion zu dekonstruieren, zur Abnormalität erhoben. Glücklicherweise hält in Ihrem Land Präsident Putin diese Werte aufrecht, und ich würde mir wünschen, dass es in Frankreich einen politischen Führer gäbe, der diese Werte und die Größe Frankreichs fördert. Das Erbe von General de Gaulle ist in der Tat eine bestimmte Vorstellung von Frankreich. Ein Frankreich, das auf der internationalen Bühne präsent ist, aber auch ein Frankreich, das sich die Mittel für seine Politik verschafft. Es ist auch das Erbe eines charismatischen Führers mit einer Vision, einer echten Strategie und einer republikanischen Legitimität. Ich denke, eine unabhängige internationale Beziehung zu entwickeln bedeutet, natürlich die Mittel für seine Politik zu haben, aber auch diese ganze Perspektive der Antizipation von Entscheidungen zu haben, eine klare Strategie zu haben, eine klare Vision zu haben, offene Botschaften, präzise Botschaften, eine echte Strategie für die Franzosen und für das Volk zu haben, denn das ist es, was diese Führer repräsentieren, da sie im Dienst des Volkes stehen. Sie stehen im Dienst der Nation, sie stehen im Dienst des Vaterlandes und sie müssen in allem die Werte ihres Landes fördern und tragen. Leider sehe ich keine aufstrebenden Persönlichkeiten in Frankreich, die diese Fackel übernehmen, aber mein Großvater hat sein ganzes Leben lang für die Größe Frankreichs gearbeitet, er hat auch ein Erbe hinterlassen, und dieses Erbe liegt in den Händen der Franzosen. Es wurde von der Geschichte geschrieben und es liegt an jedem Einzelnen von uns, dieses Werk fortzusetzen und die Fackel zu übernehmen. Irina Dubois: Die Gesellschaft in Frankreich ist in Bezug auf den Konflikt in der Ukraine gespalten, in Kategorien von Menschen, die denken, dass es egal ist, was Russland tut, sie sind dagegen, weil sie es für eine Diktatur halten, ein Land, das nichts mit den demokratischen Werten Europas zu tun hat, es gibt eine andere Kategorie, die denkt, dass die wirtschaftlichen Interessen Frankreichs schließlich nicht in der Ukraine liegen und nicht mit diesem Konflikt verbunden sind, und dann gibt es diejenigen, die, glaube ich, ziemlich gleichgültig gegenüber dem Konflikt sind. Und es gibt eine Kategorie von Menschen, die wirklich glauben, dass es sich um einen Kampf der Zivilisation handelt, etwas, das über den Krieg in der Ukraine hinausgeht, und Sie haben das ganz am Anfang erwähnt. Pierre De Gaulle: Ja, also dieser Konflikt hat Auswirkungen auf die Welt und auf Europa. Er wird durch den Willen der Amerikaner und der NATO ausgelöst und von der Europäischen Kommission weitgehend aufrechterhalten. Eine grundlegende und große Krise, die das tägliche Leben aller Menschen betrifft. Ja, ich habe Berichte von kleinen Handwerkern, kleinen Geschäftsleuten, Menschen, die unter dieser Situation leiden, Bäcker. Ungefähr 50 % von ihnen sind sowohl in Frankreich als auch in Belgien und Europa bankrott, weil ihre Stromrechnung von 1500 Euro pro Monat auf 5000 Euro gestiegen ist, was die Fortführung ihrer Tätigkeit völlig unmöglich macht und Hunderttausende Menschen in Europa in die Arbeitslosigkeit und in die Krise stürzen wird. Diese Krise ist ernst, weil die Auswirkungen viel weiter reichen, was leider von Journalisten verschwiegen wird und von der intellektuellen Gemeinschaft, die, um jede Debatte oder jeden Dialog zu vermeiden, die Menschen in prorussisch oder pro-amerikanisch oder pro-Putin kategorisiert oder sich auf wer weiß welche Diktatur beruft. Man muss wissen, dass weniger als 50 % der Hilfe, die ..., also der Hilfe, oder genauer gesagt der Subventionen, die den Ukrainern gewährt werden, bei den Ukrainern ankommt. Man muss wissen, dass 50 % der Waffen, die den Ukrainern gegeben werden, auf den internationalen Märkten weiterverkauft werden, um Terroristen zu versorgen, um politische Krisen, Konflikte und Revolutionen zu versorgen. Vor kurzem hat die ukrainische Regierung einen fast 1000 Seiten umfassenden Katalog mit Waffen veröffentlicht, die nach Südamerika, Afrika und in die arabischen Länder verkauft werden sollen und die den Terrorismus auf der ganzen Welt anheizen werden. Es handelt sich dabei um schwere und leichte Waffen. Es ist leider eines der korruptesten Länder der Welt. Ich kritisiere keinesfalls die Ukrainer, sondern das Regime, das 2014 von den Amerikanern mit diesem berühmten Staatsstreich eingesetzt wurde, bei dem Frau Nuland, die ukrainischer Abstammung ist, ebenso wie dieser Biden, sich mit den Worten "Fuck EU!" äußerte. Verzeihen Sie mir, ich zitiere sie, ich zitiere sie wörtlich, das heißt, dass sie unter Missachtung jeglicher Rücksichtnahme, selbst auf die Ukrainer, eine Diktatur errichtet hat. Ich protestiere und bin empört, dass in Frankreich und Europa ein Bataillon namens Asow verherrlicht wird, das die gleichen Embleme wie die Division Das Reich verwendet! Meine Eltern haben gegen den Nationalsozialismus gekämpft, meine Großeltern, sie wurden sogar aus Gründen des Widerstands deportiert, und für mich ist es absolut skandalös, dass Leute gefördert werden, die in Dombass Massaker, Mord und Diskriminierung an der Bevölkerung verübt haben. Bereits 2019 sagten die Aussagen des engsten Beraters des späteren Präsidenten Zelenski, Arestowitsch, in einem Interview im Februar 2019, dass man unbedingt einen Krieg gegen Russland führen müsse, dass er ihn wolle und dass sie auf jeden Fall Subventionen, Waffen, Unterstützung aus Europa und der Europäischen Union, Unterstützung von der NATO erhalten würden und dass die Ukraine nicht verlieren könne. Die Amerikaner haben die ukrainische Bevölkerung und die ukrainische Regierung übrigens völlig getäuscht, was den meiner Meinung nach völlig unrealistischen Sieg der Ukraine in diesem Krieg betrifft, denn der große Verlierer dieses Krieges ist ohnehin die ukrainische Bevölkerung selbst und auch als Folgewirkung Europa mit all der Krise, in die es sich durch den Willen der Politiker hineinmanövriert hat. Irina Dubois: Das ist eigentlich sehr, sehr traurig, es ist das Leiden Europas, es ist das Leiden des Volkes ... Pierre De Gaulle: Es ist traurig, aber ich glaube an dieses Wiederaufleben, an diese Rückkehr zu den Realitäten, deshalb ist es für mich sehr wichtig, all diese Lügen und die ganze Logik, die zu diesem Konflikt geführt hat, zu entlarven. Aber in diesem Konflikt versucht man uns glauben zu machen, dass Russland isoliert ist. Das ist völlig falsch, denn es gibt Menschen, die sich der Herausforderungen und Realitäten in Frankreich, Europa und der Welt bewusst sind, denn diese Menschen sind dafür verantwortlich, die grundlegenden Wahrheiten wiederherzustellen, die Lügen aufzudecken und die Logik, die zu diesem Krieg geführt hat, zu entlarven. Nun glaube ich auch an die Erneuerung, ich glaube auch an den Wiederaufbau, der ganz einfach folgen wird, weil ich auf das zurückkomme, was Sie über meinen Großvater gesagt haben: Man kann nicht ohne Russland auskommen, man kann nicht ohne diesen Kontinent an sich auskommen. Es ist nicht ganz ein Kontinent, aber es ist auf jeden Fall das größte Land der Welt, das aufgrund seiner Geografie, Kultur und Geschichte ein absolut beträchtliches wirtschaftliches, politisches, industrielles, geopolitisches und kulturelles Potenzial darstellt. Lesen Sie den ganzen Artikel