#eupolitics

[rainsmediaradio]

ICYMI: Hungary Announces Withdrawal from the International Criminal Court Amid Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's Visit http://dlvr.it/TJxhKQ Follow, Like & Share

[ptitolier]

Europe: A Power in Search of Itself

Is the European Union redefining itself, or is it simply getting lost in an arms race beyond its control?

We are at a turning point: Europe is shifting toward a more military, more strategic political project… yet paradoxically, it remains just as dependent as before. €800 billion has been allocated to rearmament without real democratic debate, and a significant portion of this budget will go directly to American industries.

Few media outlets address this head-on: is this massive militarization pushing Europe toward a security-driven identity at the expense of its democratic and social principles?

- The Paradox of Sovereignty

Europe wants to protect itself, but how can we talk about sovereignty when our weapons come from across the Atlantic? As Jürgen Habermas pointed out, the EU was built on technocratic governance, often disconnected from democratic debate. This decision is a clear illustration of that: European citizens had no say in it.

- War as a Political Project?

Carl Schmitt reminds us that states define themselves by designating an enemy. Today, Russia plays that role for the EU, justifying massive militarization. But can a political entity define itself solely through opposition to an external threat?

History shows that great powers emerge through inclusive strategic choices, not just through fear and military escalation. By reinforcing an opaque security model, Europe risks drifting away from its founding ideals.

- Europe in a Permanent State of Exception?

In State of Exception, Giorgio Agamben explains how crises are used to extend emergency policies. One might think that Europe is building an independent defense force, but in reality, it is institutionalizing fear as a development strategy.

Does this militarization truly protect us, or does it lock us into an escalating cycle of tensions?

Far from being a step toward independence, this massive arms buildup rests on three illusions:

- The illusion of sovereignty → By funding our dependence on the U.S., we are not gaining autonomy.

- The illusion of democratic legitimacy → No public consultation, no meaningful debate.

- The illusion of peace through strength → More weapons have never guaranteed long-term stability.

So, does Europe genuinely aspire to be an independent power, or is it content to serve as NATO’s strategic outpost on the continent?

I explore this transformation in my latest article on Medium:

[worldviralnewstopic]

France urges European Commission to take tough stance against Elon Musk’s interference, read more

[taqato-alim]

Analysis of the opinion piece "The Germany Plan: Germany's know-it-all attitude in the world leads us into insignificance" of the Focus magazine

Here is a summary of the key points discussed in bullet points:

The document criticizes Germany for viewing itself too idealistically and lacking strategic thinking about geopolitical power realities.

It argues Germany needs to craft a long-term "Germany Plan" and act more assertively as an independent geopolitical player to serve its interests.

The core arguments align with established views that Germany could take on more leadership commensurate with its size and capabilities.

Potential issues identified include lack of acknowledgement of counterarguments, nuance, and allied considerations.

Key stakeholders impacted would be Germany itself, European allies, major powers like the US and China.

Balancing self-interests, independence and ideals ethically while respecting democratic processes will be important.

Developing a strategic vision need not contradict Germany's constitution if done through proper governmental and public involvement.

The author's personality and perspective reflects traits of a strategic, visionary thinker seeking optimized solutions.

Psychological biases in the one-sided argumentation could be mitigated with further nuanced considerations.

Overall the document raises valid strategic issues but could be strengthened by addressing alternative perspectives.

Here is a bullet point summary of the key ideas from the document:

Germany is geopolitically blind and lacks strategic thinking about its place in the world

Germany sees itself as a moral superpower but does not understand power politics and interests of other countries

Germany wants to act as a mediator but other countries do not see Germany as neutral and it cannot escape its economic and military dependence on the US

Germany does not understand that it needs to develop its own strategic interests and act accordingly, instead of just criticizing other countries

Germany needs a grand strategy and long-term plan for its role in the world that looks beyond only trading and considers power realities

Complaining is not a substitute for a strategy; Germany must be clear about its goals and how it can achieve them geopolitically

The new government has an opportunity to develop a "Germany plan" for the country's global role and interests going forward

Based on the content and style of writing, this document appears to be an opinion editorial or op-ed. Some key factors that indicate this:

Genre: It is published on a news website (Focus.de) in their "Meinung" (opinion) section, suggesting it is meant as commentary or opinion rather than just straight news reporting.

Tone: The writing takes a viewpoint and is argumentative, trying to persuade the reader of certain ideas, rather than just presenting facts in a neutral/objective way.

Structure: It's structured more like an essay, with a clear thesis about Germany lacking strategic thinking, and points made to support that thesis, rather than a typical news article structure.

Language: The language uses more evaluative and judgmental words like "blind", "moral superpower" to critique positions, rather than just reporting positions.

Goal: The goal seems to be commentary on current issues and policy debates, giving the author's perspective, rather than just informing readers of facts/what happened.

So in summary, based on these criteria around genre conventions, perspective, structure and language, this document best fits the genre of an opinion editorial or op-ed piece meant to comment on and critique policy issues from the author's viewpoint, rather than strictly news reporting.

The document does not explicitly outline a new strategic vision or geopolitical self-definition for Germany. However, it provides some clues about what the author sees as needed:

Developing own strategic interests independently of other countries, rather than just focusing on norms/ideals.

Considering power politics and geopolitical realities/interests of other states, not just criticizing them.

Being clear and assertive about long-term goals and how they can be achieved, not just reacting situationally.

Understanding economic and military dependence on the US limits independence.

Acting as more than just an economic/trading partner or moral mediator for others.

Taking on a leadership role commensurate with its size and influence.

Thinking beyond short-term issues to its enduring place and role globally.

Articulating a coherent, comprehensive "Germany plan" for strategically guiding its future path.

So in essence, the new vision called for seems to be one where Germany establishes itself more independently as a geopolitical player by crafting long-term strategic goals and pursuing its own interests with greater pragmatic assertiveness on the world stage, while acknowledging the realities of global power dynamics.

The document makes several points about how Germany is too idealistic and lacks strategic thinking about power realities:

Germany sees itself mainly as a moral/normative leader rather than understanding global politics involve interests and power.

It fails to acknowledge that others don't necessarily view Germany as a neutral mediator and it has dependencies, limiting independence.

By just focusing on norms and criticizing others' power politics, Germany doesn't strategize about its own place and interests realistically.

It doesn't consider that power dynamics influence geopolitics more than idealistic views alone.

Germany reacts situationally without a coherent long-term strategy to proactively shape outcomes.

An overemphasis on economic and moral issues means lacking awareness of strategic imperatives.

By not recognizing it needs to assert and achieve goals geopolitically, Germany remains toothless.

Complaining is not a substitute for hard power and clear objectives pursued pragmatically.

In summary, according to the document, Germany's overly idealistic lens and failure to truly understand that power realities drive world affairs leaves it geopolitically blind without a strategy to look after its own interests.

The document does not provide a lot of detail about the specific leadership role it thinks Germany should take on that commensurates with its size and influence. However, we can infer the following based on the overall arguments made:

Germany needs to recognize it is one of the largest and most powerful countries in Europe and the world.

With this standing comes greater responsibility to exert geopolitical leadership rather than just playing a supporting role.

It should act and be seen as an independent player rather than just following others or sticking to norms.

A leadership role would involve defining long-term strategic goals and actively working to shape global outcomes.

This would require a more assertive use of economic and soft power tools to achieve objectives.

Germany's voice should carry corresponding weight in international discussions and decisions.

It needs to help drive solutions on problems it is capable of influencing given its capabilities.

So in essence, the document argues Germany must comport itself geopolitically in line with being a leader that guides discussions and outcomes in proportion to its sizable power and global interconnectedness.

The document makes a few key points about how Germany is currently not acting as an independent geopolitical player:

Germany sees itself primarily as a moral/normative actor rather than pursuing its own strategic interests. This frames it as just sticking to ideals rather than interests.

It fails to acknowledge economic and military dependencies on the US, especially, that curb true independence in decision making.

By reacting situationally and not articulating long-term strategic goals, Germany allows others' agendas to dominate rather than steering the course.

As a economic partner focused on trade rather than power politics, Germany plays a supporting role to those that drive outcomes.

By positioning itself as an honest broker/mediator rather than a strategic competitor, it cedes influence to more assertive powers.

Constantly criticizing how others act realistically in the arena of power politics signals Germany's own reluctance to utilize tools of statecraft pragmatically.

So in summary, the document asserts that by failing to define interests over norms, downplaying dependencies, lacking strategy and proactively wielding its strengths, Germany surrenders too much independence and impact, leaving others to set the geopolitical agenda.

Based on the arguments made in the document, here is an evaluation of the situation it describes:

Challenges:

Germany views itself too idealistically without understanding power dynamics

Lacks independent strategic thinking and long-term geopolitical plans

Does not acknowledge limitations imposed by economic/military dependencies

Cedes influence by reacting rather than shaping outcomes assertively

Others may not respect its role given perceived strategic passiveness

Opportunities:

Germany has considerable resources and status it could leverage better

New government provides chance for fresh assessment and new direction

Frustration expressed indicates openness domestically to reforming approach

Public mood leaning toward greater responsibility in global problems

Allies looking for stronger principled leadership following Trump era

Complexity:

Difficult to change long-held perceptions and craft new national role definition

Balancing ideals vs realpolitik brings philosophical and electoral challenges

Dependencies curb autonomy somewhat in new strategy formulation

Risk of overreach or misalignment with partners' interests

Overall, the document portrays a situation demanding Germany retool its strategy yet one with openings for positive change if weaknesses acknowledged and a coherent long-term vision pursued assertively with partners. Transition requires nuanced leadership but enacted responsibly could lift Germany's standing in the process.

Here is an evaluation of the key arguments made in the document:

Argument that Germany's self-perception is too idealistic and lacks strategic thinking about power realities is persuasive. It fails to incorporate geopolitical considerations.

Point that Germany sees itself as a "moral superpower" rather than understanding interests of others is well-supported through comparison of self-image vs how it is likely perceived.

Idea Germany does not grasp its economic/military dependencies limit true independence is reasonable and not adequately challenged in the text.

Assertion complaining is not a strategy leaves Germany strategically adrift holds merit given lack of articulated long-term objectives.

Calling for a clear "Germany plan" is a logical conclusion if weaknesses in approach are to be remedied systematically.

Failure to acknowledge limits of other proposed roles like mediator undermines argument somewhat, but goal to exert leadership aligns with current needs/abilities.

Lack of counterarguments considered could make the perspective appear narrow, but perspective aligns with criticisms from other analysts.

Overall, while one-sided in focus, the core arguments regarding flaws in Germany's conception of itself and need for a strategic rethink through development of a new geopolitical vision are convincing qualifications of its position that warrant consideration in the policy debate.

While the document does not deeply elaborate on the state of world affairs, we can infer the following based on comments made:

Geopolitics continues to be characterized by competition between powerful states pursuing their strategic interests. Realpolitik dynamics dominate.

Germany's idealistic approach is somewhat out of step with this current reality in which hard power and national interest define many foreign policy outcomes.

Multilateralism and international cooperation are facing pressures as unilateralism and great power rivalry increase in some areas.

Populist nationalism is challenging post-WWII consensus-based order in some countries, adding uncertainty.

Dependencies created by globalization make strategic independence more complex for intertwined middle powers.

Solutions to transnational challenges require assertive cooperation between major players able to drive collective action.

Overall, it portrays a world where geopolitical pragmatism has risen relative to liberal values, creating risks if larger nations do not effectively work with this trend. Continued fluidity and increased burden-sharing is implied as being needed. But the depiction remains relatively high-level.

While underscoring the need for Germany to update its worldview, it could be argued more depth on the international situation factors into the analysis. But context reveals assumed realities driving the strategic recommendations.

Based on the information provided, the key stakeholders affected by the situation described in the document include:

Germany - Directly impacted as it is being pushed to reform its strategic thinking and global role to better serve its interests. Primary stakeholder.

European allies - Would be impacted as Germany taking a stronger leadership role could shape geopolitical dynamics in Europe. Secondary stakeholder.

United States - As Germany's most important partner but also restraining its autonomy, the US has a stake in its positioning. Secondary stakeholder.

Russia - May feel threatened or opposed to a more assertive German role. Russia's reaction a potential issue. Tertiary stakeholder.

China - A rising power that Germany's future strategy may address more directly. Interested party. Tertiary stakeholder.

Global cooperation mechanisms - Institutions like the UN could be affected by Germany playing a more active role in solving world problems. Tertiary stakeholder.

German public - Popular backing would influence new policy direction. Primary domestic stakeholder.

The identified stakeholders have varying degrees of stake in and potential ability to impact outcomes. Germany has most at stake domestically while allies and great powers have significant strategic interests. Domestic public support may determine success.

Here's an evaluation of how the situation described aligns with or diverges from the general consensus:

Aligns:

Most experts acknowledge Germany needs to define strategic interests more clearly distinct from allies like the US.

Views of Germany placing ideals over hard power are mainstream critique of its foreign policy approach.

Need for long-term strategic vision and stronger leadership role on global issues enjoys widespread backing.

Potentially diverges:

Degree of criticism toward Germany's self-perception as a "moral superpower" may be harsher than average analysis.

Assertions about complete lack of strategic thinking could overstate flaws vs acknowledging efforts already underway.

Calling other roles like mediator "toothless" discounts value while changes are implemented.

Tone implies situation more dire than moderate consensus portraying solvable challenges.

Allies' reliance on Germany's stabilizing influence may soften demands for rapid transformation.

Overall, while articulated forcefully, the document's core arguments align well with prevailing expert assessments regarding needed adjustments to Germany's strategy and global posture. Potential divergence is more in degree of rhetoric than substance of recommendations.

Here is an evaluation of the ethics involved in the situation described:

Pursuit of national self-interest: Developing a strategic vision to protect sovereignty and interests could be seen as ethically neutral or responsible from a realist perspective. However, purely self-interested "Germany first" approach risks harming allies.

Balancing ideals and realism: Crafting an ethical but also pragmatic foreign policy that balances values and cooperation with strategic priorities walks an ethical tightrope. Over- or under-emphasizing one risks compromising the other.

Democratic process: Any policy changes impacting Germany's role or relationships should be debated transparently among citizens to ensure ethical representation of public values and priorities.

Treatment of partners: The document implies need for a tougher line but changing dynamics abruptly or without allied consensus could breach ethical norms of fairness, trust and teamwork.

Impact on global stability: For Germany to adopt a more active yet potentially less predictable stance poses uncertainty that could undermine ethical commitments to peaceful, rule-based order.

Overall the situation is ethically complex, with responsibility to citizens but also allies. Goals of strategic independence and leadership could be pursued ethically through transparent democratic process and consensus-building versus unilateral disruption. Outcomes matter most for any evaluation.

Based on the analysis, here is an evaluation of who may profit and not profit from the ideas in the document:

Potential Profit:

Germany - Could gain more strategic autonomy and influence over geopolitics affecting it by crafting a coherent long-term vision.

German citizens - A strategy serving true national interests may yield economic and security benefits over time.

European allies - A stronger, more proactive Germany could provide greater stability and leadership in Europe.

Global cooperation - Germany engaging its considerable capabilities may contribute solving shared challenges.

Potentially do not profit:

Those opposed to more assertive German power - Nations like Russia may view influence growth warily.

Overly dependent partners - Countries used to German compliance could lose influence as priorities align less.

Domestic opponents - Interest groups and political factions backing the status quo could lose influence.

Short-term stability - Transition often brings disruption; a major strategic shift carries unknown risks.

Overall, the analysis implies most would profit from a Germany able to leverage its inherent strengths more strategically. Potential downsides relate more to transition difficulties and loss of advantage by those used to the status quo. Outcomes depend on execution.

While the document does not directly reference Germany's constitutional law, there are some considerations regarding how the situation and ideas relate:

Pursuit of national interests is not antithetical to Germany's post-WWII Basic Law which outlines sovereignty and guarantees domestic/international peace.

Democratic structures established by the constitution would need to oversee any policy reforms to ensure legitimacy and representation of citizen priorities.

Federal system of government implies strategic coordination with states/Europe would be required on foreign policy shifts.

International cooperation and commitment to norms like the UN/EU are consistent with Article 24 defining Germany's relations with other nations.

Flexibility within the framwork of sovereignty, democracy and partnership leaves room for a revised strategic definition as circumstances change over time.

Protection of basic rights and constitutional identity would still need preserving, limiting how far a realpolitik shift could extend.

Overall, provided the democratic process and respect for law/partners is maintained, developing fresh strategic thinking does not seem to contradict Germany's Basic Law and could indeed strengthen interpretation of duties within changing world contexts over the long term. Legitimacy and representation would be keys.

Based on the information provided, here is an evaluation of how different German government branches could be involved in the situation:

Executive branch (Chancellor/Cabinet):

Would take the lead role in crafting a new strategic vision or "Germany plan" through relevant ministries like defense, foreign affairs.

Key responsibility to coordinate closely with legislative and ensure public support.

Legislative branch (Bundestag):

Provides oversight of executive efforts and democratic legitimacy through open debate and votes.

Individual members and parties would influence policy direction through legislation.

Judicial branch (Courts):

Unlikely to directly shape strategic policy but ensures any governmental actions uphold constitution and legal norms.

Could potentially review proposals for compatibility with basic rights and legal framework.

Federal States:

As autonomous governance units, states would expect representation in discussions given federal system.

Local interests and economic/security priorities factor into strategic vision alignment.

Overall, a whole-of-government approach engaging all branches would align with democratic principles and balance regional/sectoral interests for effective and lawful reforms to foreign policy strategy. Close cooperation is imperative.

This document leans more toward opinion/subjective than fact/objective:

Science vs fiction: It deals with real geopolitical issues but does not present data or scientific analysis, so more on the fiction side of making arguments.

Empirical vs anecdotal: The arguments are based more on the author's analytical perspectives rather than quantitative data or statistics, so more anecdotal.

Fact vs opinion: While it references real circumstances in Germany, the core arguments about needed strategic thinking are opinions rather than demonstrable facts.

Objective vs subjective: As an op-ed, the analysis comes from a clear subjective viewpoint looking to persuade, rather than aiming for pure objectivity. Phrasing uses more judgmental than neutral language.

In summary, as an opinion editorial, the document resides firmly in the subjective analytical realm rather than relying on scientific facts or striving for full objectivity. The arguments are based on reasoned perspectives on international affairs rather than quantitatively verifiable or completely neutral assessments. So its rhetorical and persuasive nature place it toward the more subjective end of these spectrums compared to a purely factual report. The genre and intent involve assertion of a point of view over strictly neutral reporting.

In evaluating the perspective of this document, some key points:

Political stance: The perspective advocates for Germany developing more of its own strategic interests and global political positioning, implying a more realpolitik viewpoint.

Nationality: As a German publication, the perspective is coming from within the German discourse and system, seeking to influence domestic policy debates.

Expertise: The author is writing from the viewpoint of an analyst/commentator on geopolitics and foreign policy issues, implying some relevant expertise.

Goals: The goals seem to be prompting Germany to reflect on and reformulate its geopolitical role and self-definition, not simply criticize others.

Limitations acknowledged: While firmly believing in Germany needing a new stance, it acknowledges limitations in how others see Germany and in Germany's self-perception.

Holistic view: The perspective examines Germany's position from an international/geopolitical level more than just a domestic policy lens.

Overall, the perspective comes across as an informed, insider policy analysis aiming to nudge Germany toward a more pragmatic conceptualization and assertion of its geopolitical interests and role, while still showing awareness of caveats. The stance is not simplistically critical but offers a holistic international outlook.

In summary, the perspective can be characterized as an expert, reformist view advocating for Germany within the parameters of realpolitik considerations in global affairs.

Based on an analysis of the content, style, and stated goals, the key intentions of this document seem to be:

Persuasion: The primary intent is to persuade the reader of the need for Germany to develop a new strategic vision and geopolitical self-definition.

Critique: It aims to critique Germany's current stance as being too idealistic and lacking strategic thinking about power realities.

Policy influence: By critiquing the status quo, it hopes to influence policy debates and potential formulation of a new "Germany plan."

Raising awareness: It wants to raise awareness both within Germany and internationally about perceived gaps in how Germany understands its role.

Constructive reform: While critical, the goal appears to be constructively reforming perceptions rather than purely criticizing for criticism's sake.

Long-term thinking: The intention relates to long-term geopolitical positioning, not just addressing immediate issues.

German interests: Ultimately, the intent aligns with advocating for what the author views as better serving Germany's national interests on the global stage.

In summary, the primary intention can be said to be persuasive policy critique and influence aimed at encouraging strategic reform and long-term thinking about Germany's geopolitical standing and role, so as to better serve its perceived interests internationally. The tone aims for thoughtful analysis over simplistic criticism.

Here are some potential logical fallacies present in the document:

Oversimplification - At times presenting Germany's approaches or situation in other countries as overly simplistic without acknowledging nuances.

Sweeping generalization - Statements like Germany completely lacks strategic thinking or only views itself as a moral actor generalize its perspectives too broadly.

Black-or-white thinking - Portrayal of needing either pure realpolitik or idealism with no middle ground between the two approaches.

Ad hominem - Personal criticism of Germany having a "geopolitical blindness" attacks character rather than addressing specific counterarguments.

Slippery slope - Suggesting Germany must radically transform strategic thinking or others won't respect its role is an undefended slippery slope argument.

Anecdotal evidence - Relying on selected examples rather than comprehensive data to substantiate claims weakens objectivity.

Bandwagon - Implying change is needed because allies want stronger leadership leans on bandwagon logical fallacy.

However, the core argument that Germany could benefit from re-evaluating its global role strategically is sound. Potential fallacies mostly stem from tendencies toward absolutes and lack of opposing considerations that are common in opinion pieces. Overall logic and evidence remain mostly cogent.

Based on the analytical, logical and visionary nature of the arguments presented in the document, some MBTI personality traits that may characterize the author include:

Intuition (N) - The broad, overarching strategic thinking and focus on potential futures and ideas rather than nuts-and-bolts realities suggests an intuitive personality type.

Thinking (T) - The objective, rational and somewhat detached/critical tone of the arguments implies a thinking judgment process over feeling.

Judging (J) - The structured, organized manner of outlining perceived flaws and proposing solutions in a stylized manner points to a judging preference.

Possibly introversion (I) - The self-contained, cerebral style of analysis focusing inward on concepts rather than outward social engagement hints at introversion.

Combining these traits, the likely MBTI type would be either:

INTJ - "The Architect" - Strategic, visionary thinkers focused on synthesizing complex systems and driving reform through logical plans.

Or possibly:

ENTJ - "The Commander" - Assertive, confident leaders inspired by ambitious visions and willing to challenge conventional approaches.

In either case, the author's strategic, big-picture personality orientation seeking optimized solutions through rational analysis aligns well with NTJ "thinker" types. The document exemplifies their strengths.

Here is an evaluation of some psychological aspects reflected in the document:

Cognitive Biases:

Confirmatory bias - Emphasis on evidence supporting the author's view without fully exploring counterarguments.

Framing effect - Focuses problem definition around need for a new strategic vision rather than alternative lenses.

Needs/Motivations:

Need for achievement/change - Seeks to propel Germany to utilize its potential through reform efforts.

Need for power/autonomy - Wants Germany to assert independence and leadership on the global stage.

Emotions:

Frustration with status quo - Impatience and exasperation expressed with perceived shortcomings.

Optimism about potential - Hopeful, visionary tone regarding how Germany could elevate its role.

Defense Mechanisms:

Reaction formation - Criticizing others' use of realpolitik could deflect from advocating similar approaches.

Rationalization - Developing logical strategic frame obscures underlying needs driving argument.

Overall, while making cogent points, psychological biases emerge through advocacy-oriented problem framing, selectivity around evidence, and emotionally-driven reform motivations rather than detached assessment alone. Self-insights could strengthen recommendations.

Here are some common criteria for evaluating an opinion editorial/op-ed and an assessment based on this document:

Thesis/argument: The main thesis that Germany lacks strategic thinking about its global role and needs a "Germany plan" is clearly stated. The argument is well-articulated.

Evidence/examples: Specific examples andevidence are provided to support the core argument, such as Germany's views of itself as a moral superpower and inability to understand power politics.

Persuasiveness: The language and arguments are compelling and persuasive in making the case that Germany needs a rethink of its geopolitical stance. Different viewpoints are acknowledged.

Objectivity: While opinion pieces have a point of view, the analysis does not seem overtly biased and acknowledges limitations in Germany's own perspective.

Structure: The structure is logical, with a clear introduction of the core argument and points that build upon each other to support the overall thesis.

Clarity: The language and explanations used make the key arguments easily understandable for the general reader. Jargon or complexity is avoided.

Conclusion: A conclusion is drawn that sums up the need for Germany to develop a new strategic "Germany plan" for its role in the world.

Overall, this op-ed piece meets the generally expected high standards of the genre in putting forward a persuasive, well-supported yet readable argument on its topic of analysis. The criteria of thesis, evidence, structure and clarity are particularly well-demonstrated.

y2DpYQUAIi65Pngj97Eh

[surveycircle]

Tweeted

Participants needed for online survey! Topic: "EU Politics and Climate Change – Political Preferences" https://t.co/G5vCDKCN8H via @SurveyCircle #politics #preferences #ClimateChange #sustainability #EuPolitics #survey #surveycircle https://t.co/eakLBby4td

— Daily Research @SurveyCircle (@daily_research) May 17, 2023

[phungthaihy]

Baking Bread – Raisin Bread Recipe from Luxembourg | Baking tutorial | Kirmeskuchen http://ehelpdesk.tk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/logo-header.png [ad_1] Baking Bread – Raisin Bread Reci... #acrylicpainting #baker #baking #bakingbread #bakingtutorial #bakingtutorialfood #bakingtutorials #bread #breadbaking #breadrecipe #brussels #coloredpencildrawing #cooking #deutschewelle #dogbehavior #dogtraining #drawing #dw #dweuromaxx #eft #euparliament #eupolitics #europeanunion #figuredrawing #food #foodtutorial #georgmatthes #homemadebread #howtobakebread #howtobakebreadathome #howtobakebreadathomeinoven #howtomakebread #jean-claudejuncker #kirmeskuchen #lifestyle #luxembourg #neuro-linguisticprogramming #oilpainting #painting #pencildrawing #portraiture #procreatedigitalillustrationapp #raisinbread #recipe #satire #sketching #soapmaking #sourdoughbreadbaking #stepbysteptutorial #watercolorpainting

[aftocdn]

Στις Βρυξέλλες ο Μ. Βαρβιτσιώτης για τα ευρωπαϊκά κονδύλια

«Εμείς είμαστε εδώ για να δώσουμε τη μάχη, ώστε να διασφαλίσουμε ότι η Ελλάδα θα πάρει το καλύτερο δυνατόν από έναν περιορισμένο προϋπολογισμό, λόγω και της απουσίας του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου» τόνισε ο αναπληρωτής υπουργός Εξωτερικών Μιλτιάδης Βαρβιτσιώτης, σε δήλωσή του κατά την άφιξη στην έκτακτη συνεδρίαση του Συμβουλίου Γενικών Υποθέσεων της ΕΕ.

«Η σημερινή διαπραγμάτευση στο έκτακτο Συμβούλιο έχει θέμα τον προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ, ο όποιος έχει ήδη αργήσει να καταρτιστεί. Χρειάζεται γρήγορα να πάρουμε αποφάσεις. Γιατί οι Ευρωπαίοι πολίτες ζήτησαν περισσότερη Ευρώπη» ανέφερε ο κ. Βαρβιτσιώτης.

Επισήμανε περαιτέρω, πως οι προτάσεις που βρίσκονται σήμερα στο τραπέζι δεν ικανοποιούν αυτή τη φιλοδοξία. «Δεν δίνουν περισσότερα χρήματα στην Συνοχή, δεν δίνουν περισσότερα χρήματα στους αγρότες» προσέθεσε.

Στο ίδιο μήκος κ��ματος, σε ανάρτησή του στον προσωπικό του λογαριασμό στο Twitter, ο αναπληρωτής υπουργός Εξωτερικών σημείωσε: «Στο έκτακτο Συμβούλιο Γενικών Υποθέσεων, συζητάμε για τον νέο προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ 2021-2027. Δίνουμε και σήμερα τη μάχη για τα ευρωπαϊκά κονδύλια, με μια φιλόδοξη ατζέντα. Είμαστε ξεκάθαροι. Περισσότερη Ευρώπη με λιγότερους πόρους, δεν γίνεται».

Στο έκτακτο Συμβούλιο Γενικών Υποθέσεων, συζητάμε για τον νέο προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ 2021-2027. Δίνουμε και σήμερα τη μάχη για τα ευρωπαϊκά κονδύλια, με μια φιλόδοξη ατζέντα. Είμαστε ξεκάθαροι. Περισσότερη Ευρώπη με λιγότερους πόρους, δεν γίνεται. #mff #EUbudget #EUpolitics #GAC pic.twitter.com/PlFoRYKnGK

— Varvitsiotis Miltiadis (@MVarvitsiotis) February 17, 2020

Περισσότερη Ευρώπη με λιγότερους πόρους, δεν γίνεται.

Δείτε εδώ👇τη δήλωσή μου κατά την προσέλευση, στο έκτακτο Συμβούλιο Γενικών Υποθέσεων της ΕΕ #Brussels #GAC #EUbudget #MFF #EUpolitics pic.twitter.com/IdiYStIom1

— Varvitsiotis Miltiadis (@MVarvitsiotis) February 17, 2020

ΠΗΓΗ: ΑΠΕ-ΜΠΕ

Μοιράσου το άρθρο:

Source link

The post Στις Βρυξέλλες ο Μ. Βαρβιτσιώτης για τα ευρωπαϊκά κονδύλια appeared first on Προκηρύξεις, διορισμοί, δημόσιο και άλλα νέα!.

source https://aftocdn.gr/%ce%b5%ce%bb%ce%bb%ce%ac%ce%b4%ce%b1/%cf%83%cf%84%ce%b9%cf%82-%ce%b2%cf%81%cf%85%ce%be%ce%ad%ce%bb%ce%bb%ce%b5%cf%82-%ce%bf-%ce%bc-%ce%b2%ce%b1%cf%81%ce%b2%ce%b9%cf%84%cf%83%ce%b9%cf%8e%cf%84%ce%b7%cf%82-%ce%b3%ce%b9%ce%b1-%cf%84%ce%b1/

[instatrack]

Italy's populists are cheering. Voters have delivered a bruising rebuke to the country’s political establishment, with both the populist Five Star Movement and the anti-immigrant, Eurosceptic Northern League poised to make sweeping gains in the general election. The result is almost certainly a hung parliament, no clear majority and potentially months of negotiations. At the heart of the talks will be Five Star. The insurgent protest party founded by comedian Beppe Grillo in 2009 will be by far the biggest single party in parliament so now holds all the cards. It is the most destabilising version of a stalemate that investors or policymakers in the EU could have feared. “Italy is far from having sorted its longstanding problems, and now it will have new ones,” one political commentator said. Read more at FT.com #italy #italianpolitics #fivestar #rome #silvioberlusconi #luigidimaio #northernleague #matteosalvini #hungparliament #forzaitalia #eupolitics #europe #populists #matteorenzi #italia http://ift.tt/2FgEC39

[rodaportal]

🚨 ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS A BUSINESS! 🚨

🔥 Afroditi Latinopoulou’s Explosive Speech in the EU Parliament!

She reveals the TRUTH about illegal immigration, calling it a well-orchestrated business rather than a crisis. With the support of Germany and France, Europe is being flooded with illegal migrants, turning once-thriving cities into lawless ghettos.

🔴 Mass deportations NOW – Do you agree? 🔴 Should Europe follow Hungary & Poland’s strict border policies? 🔴 How should the EU really handle this crisis?

🎥 Watch the FULL VIDEO now! 👇 👉 https://youtu.be/Cyn6WkA8mCQ

💬 Drop your thoughts below – Let’s debate! 🔁 SHARE if you think Europe needs stronger borders! ✅ LIKE if you believe immigration policies must change!

[ptitolier]

Europe at a Crossroads: Between Dependence and Strategic Independence

Europe has spent decades relying on soft power, diplomacy, and transatlantic alliances to ensure peace and stability. But today, that balance is cracking.

The recent meeting between Macron and Trump at the White House was more than just a political encounter—it was a wake-up call.

- Trump’s rhetoric on NATO shows that US support is not guaranteed.

- The war in Ukraine has exposed Europe’s military vulnerability.

- Strategic autonomy remains an unfulfilled promise, not a reality.

For decades, Europe played the role of mediator, positioning itself between global superpowers. But can it continue to do so without real strategic influence?

The EU now faces an impossible choice:

- Continue as a diplomatic power, risking irrelevance.

- Invest in a stronger military, without becoming a secondhand replica of the US or Russia.

- OR find a new, third way—a vision where power is built through resilience, stability, and influence, rather than domination.

The problem? Right now, Europe lacks:

- A unified military strategy beyond NATO.

- A coherent foreign policy without internal divisions.

- The economic leverage to compete with the US or China.

So, what’s the path forward? Can the EU shape its own destiny, or is it doomed to remain a strategic satellite?

In my latest analysis, I explore these questions in depth. Read the full breakdown here:

"Want more in-depth analysis on Europe's strategic challenges? Follow my latest articles on Medium, where I break down current events with a sharp, critical perspective. Join the conversation and explore what the future holds for Europe’s global influence."

Macron challenges Trump on NATO: What does it mean for Europe?

During their latest meeting, Trump exaggerated, Macron corrected him. But behind this diplomatic exchange lies a deeper issue: Europe’s fragile strategic autonomy.

Maria Stenroos’s article on Yle ("Macron keskeytti ja korjasi Trumpia, joka liioitteli tahallaan", Feb 25, 2025) highlights Europe’s struggle to maintain influence between a volatile US and an aggressive Russia.

Can the EU shape its own future, or will it remain a strategic satellite?

[diplomaticbedouin-blog]

New month, new year, new #politishoutout 🙂 I hope everybody had a good start of the #new year! Today we look at one of the most successful new parties in the #Czech Republic as well as in the EU zone. Meet ANO 2011 🇨🇿 Why the #shoutout ? When I write a SO it's mainly due to #my personal engagement with the party, previous knowledge about the party and most important is their political performance. I first noticed the party when it showed that they have the most efficient coordination between their local, national and European reps. For example when they pushed the issue of keeping environmental efficiency with the growth of the economy in the Czech republic, they did the same in the European Parliament. So they do in other fields. This strategy allows the party to show greater success back home, but also make sure that if their initiative is blocked at home, they can show some success of it on the EU level and vice versa. One of their initiatives was the demand to make “digital” and “physical\paper” invoices equal in front of the authorities. Such a reform does not only save our carbon footprint, but it also saves a lot of administrative expenses for companies and individual in the county. Some countries in the EU still haven't made such critical reforms, I can only hope that via @alde_group in the @europeanparliament , ANO Bude Líp could push the same reforms on a European level🇪🇺. One of the core parts on my new “European Rejuvenation” #lecture is about the efficiency of political parties. ANO 2011 is an example for a party that does things right! 📸:Vojtěch Marek #instapolitics #instapundit #eupolitics #diplogram #🇨🇿

[rodaportal]

🚨 MUST-WATCH: Balázs Orbán, Viktor Orbán & Trump EXPOSE The Truth About War & Sovereignty! 🇭🇺🇺🇸

🔥 What’s REALLY happening behind the scenes? Balázs Orbán, Viktor Orbán, and Donald Trump break their silence on war, sovereignty, and the future of Europe. This interview reveals shocking insights into U.S. foreign policy, Hungary’s fight against globalist agendas, and the battle for free speech.

👉 Watch Now: 🎥 https://youtu.be/Ut2nU4UpSLk

⚠️ Topics Covered: 🔹 The real agenda behind U.S. intervention in Hungary 🇺🇸 🔹 How Hungary is resisting globalist control 🏛️ 🔹 Trump & Orbán’s plan for national sovereignty 🤝 🔹 Illegal migration & national security threats 🚨 🔹 The Biden administration’s attack on free speech ⚠️

💬 What do YOU think? Should nations defend their sovereignty or submit to globalist pressure? Drop your thoughts in the comments! 👇

📢 SHARE this video to let the truth be heard! The future of Hungary, Europe, and the world is at stake!

[rodaportal]

🚨 FREEDOM vs. CENSORSHIP 🚨

The battle is ON in the EU Parliament! 🌍 Watch fiery speeches where leaders challenge social media censorship, defend freedom of speech, and debate the future of democracy. 🗣️

💡 Is this about protecting democracy or silencing dissent? 📹 Don't miss this must-watch video filled with powerful moments, bold truths, and unfiltered opinions!

🔗 Watch here: https://youtu.be/KhMv9dqDQAU

💬 Featured Speakers: Christine Anderson, Jorge Buxadé, Afroditi Latinopoulou, Milan Uhrík, Ewa Zajączkowska, Virginie Joron, and many more!

🔥 Key Highlights: ✅ Social media as the new battleground 🛡️ ✅ The fight for free speech vs. Orwellian censorship 💻 ✅ Bold truths about TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), and democracy 🗳️

📣 What do you think? Does censorship protect democracy or undermine it? Let us know in the comments! 👇

[rodaportal]

📢 Geert Wilders SLAMS Russian Sanctions: How EU Policies HURT Everyday People

🚨 Are EU sanctions helping or hurting? Geert Wilders delivers a bold critique of sanctions against Russia, exposing how these policies hurt European citizens more than they impact Putin.

From rising utility bills to energy shortages, Wilders highlights the real consequences of these actions and calls for policies that prioritize the welfare of everyday people over ineffective measures.

🌍 Key Points in the Video:

✅ Why sanctions have FAILED to stop wars or bring peace.

✅ The unintended harm to Europe’s economy and citizens.

✅ How energy policies are driving up costs for families.

👉 Watch the full video now: https://youtu.be/zaU8akdpUqY

💬 What do you think? Are sanctions an effective tool, or is it time for a new approach? Share your thoughts below!

[rodaportal]

🚨 Geert Wilders EXPOSES EU Corruption and WEAK Leadership: A Bold Call to Reclaim National Sovereignty 🇳🇱🔥

Europe faces a critical moment, and Geert Wilders isn't holding back. From corruption in Brussels to the challenges of immigration, energy crises, and inflation, Wilders lays out a vision for a stronger, more sovereign Europe.

🌍 Key Highlights in the Video:

✅ The lack of strong leadership in Europe and the impact on citizens.

✅ The urgent need to reclaim national sovereignty and restore control over borders, laws, and policies.

✅ A powerful critique of unelected EU officials and their role in undermining democratic governance.

✅ Solutions for building stronger nation-states and protecting cultural identity.

🛡️ Why You Should Watch This:

If you care about Europe's future, this video is a must-watch. Wilders speaks passionately about the failures of the EU, the importance of national interests, and the path to a more self-reliant Europe.

👉 Watch the full video here: https://youtu.be/zaU8akdpUqY

📢 Let’s Discuss:

Do you think Europe needs stronger nation-states? How can we address the challenges of weak leadership and corruption in the EU? Share your thoughts in the comments!

[rodaportal]

🌍 Europe’s Future at the Forefront! 💪

Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, shares pivotal plans for establishing a European defense industry base and ensuring that competitiveness is at the heart of every decision for the next five years. 🛡️✨

📜 Learn how new legislative proposals will undergo a "competitiveness test" to drive progress and innovation across Europe. This is a must-watch for anyone passionate about Europe’s growth and leadership! 🇪🇺

🎥 Watch the full video here: https://youtu.be/zvD_YODNig4

📢 Share your thoughts below and let us know how you see this shaping Europe’s future! 👇