- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
A 22-year-old German politician who secretly served in Ukraine’s army now faces expulsion from the pro-Russian Alternative for Germany party after calling his own leadership “Russia-kissers.”
You must log in or register to comment.
Indeed, the fascists in Europe are Russian testicle lickers and receive funding from Moscow. One of the primary missions for Russia and the f’ed up MAGA USA, divide and conquer the European Union. I fully support the EU and we must contain the Russians and MAGA.
I’d say it’s all about funding from Moscow. They are sort of shareholders in Russia’s resources, including its population that can be used to staff an army.
And if they play their cards right, they can take a share of the resources of their own countries, which they, looking at both Russia and MAGA and Israel, really want. Nation-states have a lot of resources. And it’s visible how one can have those resources maintaining a semblance of legality and with no revolution happening. People are ready to kill for much less, even risk death for a chance at getting much less.
Divide and conquer - I don’t think so. “International brotherhood of thieves” is more like it.
“Team red-blue vs team black” (meaning liberal-democrats+commies vs fascists) is past us, “team red vs team blue” (meaning commies vs liberal-democrats) is past us as well. Even “team empire vs team rebel” is secondary. It’s really “team thugs vs team suckers” now.
Yep, such positioning is not as epic as people in the interwebs would want it to be! It actually smells of piss. But that’s just how it is.
It’s not just funding. It’s also indirect support with propaganda on social media.
Fascists like fascists.
Especially if they get money/favors from each other.
Ew 🖕🖕🖕🖕 F that guy
Trump hardliners want a power shift in the EU with the help of European allies. and this is one example.
Translation:
There are increasing indications that the Trump movement is actively interfering with the political future of the European Union. In March, the most influential conservative think tank in Washington, the Heritage Foundation, invited conservative thinkers from Vienna and Budapest to present their plans for the EU during a workshop.
“It is right for the United States to be involved in the future of Europe,” Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation told Nieuwsuur. According to the prominent conservative thinker, Donald Trump is America’s first eurosceptic president. “The United States has protected Europe for so long that European governments should respect America’s views.”
Polish and Hungarian think tanks published an ambitious plan in March to fundamentally reform and dismantle the EU from within. A Hungarian investigative journalist uncovered the project, titled The Great Reset. The proposal was quickly adopted by the Heritage Foundation, the intellectual force behind Project 2025, the ideological blueprint for Trump’s agenda.
Power Back to Nation States
The now-public roadmap includes proposals to strip power from the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. It also calls for renaming the EU to the “European Community of Nations.” Power, according to the document, should return to the individual nation states of Europe.
“These proposals essentially amount to the complete dismantling of the European Commission, which would be reduced to handling only trivial matters,” explains Szabolcs Panyi, the journalist who obtained the document.
Nieuwsuur also spoke with one of the Polish authors of the plan, Zbigniew Przybyłowski of the conservative Ordo Iuris Institute: “We are calling for the restoration of democracy, freedom, and the sovereignty of nations. You could call that a power shift.”
“It’s quite unusual for such an article to appear on the U.S. State Department’s website.” – Lobbying expert Kenneth HaarU.S. Government Statement on Europe
In May of this year, a policy document appeared on the website of the U.S. State Department. In it, the American government raised alarm about the current state of Europe. The policy piece described Europe as having “degenerated into a hotbed of digital censorship, mass migration, and restrictions on religious freedom.” It criticized efforts to limit election participation, for example by labeling Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) as “extremist.”
The document, titled The Need for Civilizational Allies in Europe, called for strengthening ties with far-right and ultraconservative allies in Europe, such as French politician Marine Le Pen, AfD leader Alice Weidel, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, and Dutch PVV leader Geert Wilders. It is unclear whether the U.S. policy statement was influenced by the Polish-Hungarian Great Reset project.
“There has already been collaboration between the MAGA movement (Trump’s Make America Great Again campaign) and the European far-right,” says Danish lobby researcher Kenneth Haar. “But seeing such a document appear on the U.S. government’s official website is remarkable.”
“The Pro-European Candidate is a Disaster”
Haar points to the Conservative Political Action Conferences (CPAC) from the U.S., which have been held in Europe for the past three years. “These are very large conferences with hundreds of participants and prominent speakers, involving all major far-right parties in Europe.”
This also occurred recently during a tight race between two Polish presidential candidates. At a special CPAC conference in Poland, Trump’s former Homeland Security Secretary publicly called for a vote in favor of the eurosceptic candidate Karol Nawrocki. She labeled his pro-European opponent “a disaster.” Members of the Trump camp also expressed explicit support this year for Germany’s far-right AfD.
“The Heritage Foundation and the entire MAGA alliance appear to be succeeding in uniting Europe’s far-right parties in a way those parties haven’t been able to achieve on their own,” Haar adds.
Nile Gardiner, Director of European Policy at the Heritage Foundation, sees signs of a shift already: “A wind of change is blowing through Europe, including the Netherlands. There’s growing distrust of the concentration of power among unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.”
Brussels Silent
The European Commission has yet to respond to the ambitions coming from Washington. But according to Hungarian journalist Panyi, Brussels should be paying close attention to the far-reaching American involvement in European politics.
“We see that two EU member states—Hungary and Poland—are trying to shape the future of the EU outside of official decision-making procedures. They are enlisting the help of the U.S. in the hope that Trump will put pressure on the European Commission. That’s a threat.”
Gardiner, on the other hand, sees it as an opportunity. “Europe works best when it is a collaboration between sovereign nation states. The EU, by contrast, is about concentrating political power in Brussels. In 20 to 30 years, the EU will look very different than it does today.”
Disclosure
For this report, Nieuwsuur investigated the plans of European and American think tanks regarding the political future of Europe. Nieuwsuur spoke with experts, MEPs, and journalists from France, the Netherlands, Czechia, Hungary, the UK, Germany, and Poland. We interviewed the following sources:
-
Szabolcs Panyi, Hungarian investigative journalist, who uncovered The Great Reset project.
-
Kenneth Haar, Danish researcher with the Corporate Europe Observatory, an independent organization tracking U.S. lobbying efforts in the EU.
The U.S. State Department declined to comment on Nieuwsuur’s questions. The European Commission has not yet responded. Any future statements will be added here.
They should focus on their own political system… We like democracy, F*** off
Fuck you Donald! You are immigrants from Europe and therefore we are the Grandparents of your country.
Bitch.
FR !!! Amen brother
When the fucking fascist and communist talk about protecting culture and traditions, I understand to a certain point, but those assholes always use those excuses to ignite violence. The 1930’s and WW II are classic examples. F that shit and never again.
Why is this a comment on this post and not a post of its own? 🤔
We like democracy, F*** off
Would you say the EU is democratic? It’s the one thing they got right, that the EU is undermining democracy. The European Commission are representatives of representatives. Van der Leyen was a backroom deal.
Do you know Von Der Leyen is working on a new independent satellite system Eutelstat en IRIS to replace starlink and help ukraine? It was her proposal. Ursula von der Leyen doing a lot of great things for Europe make no mistake. I honestly don’t care about her pfizer gate, because thats how negotiations work in politics. It cant be all transparant because why show all your cards on first hand… Thats not how that business works. I think she handled it well. She’s also working to make Europe less dependent on oil and gas, but to rely more on green energy sources. Plus we have multiple parties representing different groups in the EU. Instead of having only 2 or 4 like in the US. Plus we investing in science and universities, climate, or own independent software and satellites… So yes we doing good under Von Der Leyen imo.
Plus she is a woman on the top, which is such a good example for girls growing up to see how far they can go in life which I am here for.
If you argue like that then we only need a king because there were kings who did great for their country.
It’s a great mistake to ignore the lack of democracy just because the wrong people point it out.
You need an argument for why the commission is still democratic, not just a list of benefits, no matter how good. Otherwise you confirm that it is not democratic.
Your comment shows a lack of understanding of what democracy is.
There is plenty of forms of democracy, and the appointment of the president of the European Commission is democratic.
It’s a form of parliamentary democracy, where the European Council, a symbolic “head of state” of the EU made of heads of states/governments of EU members, nominates a candidate, which has to then be approved by the European Parliament.
This is a democratic system very close to what is adopted in many democratic countries.
So yes, this is democratic. There is no “backroom deal”, this is just literally how a parliamentary democracy works. You elect representatives who make decisions for you, including appointing the executive.
Do you remember that the parliament was supposed to select the candidate but they changed it back after everybody had voted? It was within the legal framework but against the spirit of democracy.
I actually don’t, could you point me to sources so that I can read about it? Can’t seem to find anything about it myself.
In September 2018, Weber announced his candidacy (Spitzenkandidat) for the post of the President of the European Commission for the 2019 European election.[13] (Under the unofficial Spitzenkandidat system, the leader of the European party that commands the largest coalition in the European Parliament subsequent to an election to the European Parliament is likely to become the European Commission president.[5][6])
Weber’s European People’s Party won a plurality of seats in the European Parliament in May 2019, thus making him the lead candidate to succeed Jean-Claude Juncker as President of the European Commission unless the Spitzenkandidat system was abandoned.[5] On 28 May, leaders of EU governments tasked European Council President Donald Tusk with leading the negotiations with members of the European Parliament and national leaders to pick a new European Commission President at an EU summit in late June 2019.[7] Tusk hinted that Weber was the “lead candidate.”[7] This did not materialise with Ursula von der Leyen, a fellow member of the European People’s Party, being appointed president.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Weber
Haven’t found it mentioned on her page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_von_der_Leyen
Oh that! I thought you meant that when they decided of how the appointment should be done, they had a vote and ignored it.
I do see how that seems like it’s a non-democratic move, but it’s not. It is never up to the parliament to nominate the President of the Commission. The Parliament has a veto power, however. The Council nominates, “taking into account the result of the elections”, a candidate. The Parliament then approves them or vetoes them.
Their is a lot of subtility to the “democraticness” of a system.
While systematically picking the leader of the biggest coalition may seem like the most obviously democratic choice… It is actually not always the case. Especially in the European Parliament, where majorities are rare. So, if the leader of the largest group (let’s say, 30%) is impopular with the remaining 70%, who would all prefer another candidate, how is it democratic to go with the impopular candidate?
That’s why the parliament has a right to veto. The Parliament voted with a majority to elect Von der Leyen, when they were all aware that Weber was the most likely candidate initially. That makes her election democratic.
Just because Weber was the likely candidate due to the election results does not mean the Parliament would have elected him in the end, and that is also a consideration when the Council nominates a candidate. As a matter of fact, he was indeed impopular with a lot of coalitions, and Von der Leyen reveived 60% of the votes, with an informal coalition supporting her that consisted of the majority of the Parliament.
Do you remember that they put the focus on the candidates because from that election on they were supposed to be taken?
The point is not that the largest group has to be taken but that the parliament itself should choose the president. The current modus was acceptable when the EU had no power. Now the EU can create regulations that become law.
-
Dude hwo fought against Russians joined a pro-Russian party?
You can be a Nazi and still be against Russians.
Most Nazis historically were.
Not the old “Ukraine is actually being freed, not invaded, so Russia is actually the good guy here” bullshit
Like I wonder what sort of pitiful pos you have to be to ever push something like that as a narrative when tinydick Putler has an ICC warrant out for him for warcrimes and Zelensky doesn’t.
But tankies never admit to not having logic or reason, it just slowly goes more berserk, into “well the UN is actually always wrong and Putin is the saviour of humanity” territory and I’m just tired of talking to bootlickers so
Dog what? Where did this even come from?
So you’re unaware that Russians are claiming they had to invade Ukraine to “denazify” it, which why their illegal war of aggression war (for which Putler has an ICC warrant) was somehow a humanitarian act and actually in service of good?
You’ve never heard of propaganda, or tankies? Alright then. Welcome to the internet. First day?
I’m aware of all that, you’re just reading between lines that weren’t written. When is the last time you had a conversation in real life?
Do you accept it?
That Putler is an immoral tiny dicked dictator who has an ICC warrant out for him and that the invasion of Ukraine was an illegal war of aggression in which Putin has continued committing warcrimes, like forcefully relocating children?
When’s the last time you saw Russian disinfo on Lemmy? Or… do you not think this completely unregulated service we use has no bad actors.
And when is the last time you took a fucking shower, with soap?
Does someone know what’s the overall sentiment of the German far-right wing to the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Obviously the AfD is pro-Russia, and the far-right shares similar views on queer people - or “LGBT extremism” as the Russian state calls it - for example, but on the other hand I can also see them showing sympathy for Ukraine with controversial figures like Oleksandr Alfiorov as head of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory.
The modern far-right is heavily Pro-Russia overall. It’s the strongest in East Germany where there is also a lot of nostalgia for the GDR, both from the right and the left.
Add in some public AfD-figures making claims like “Hitler was a communist” and there is just infinite confusion and anyone ends up being free to believe whatever fits their view.
So you have far-right people opposing Ukraine because Ukraine had a Nazi-Battalion and you have far-right people claiming the Nazis were actually leftists. There’s no logic to be found here, but it all boils down to them being fans of Russia and gobbling up whatever gets pushed in their Facebook/Instagram/Twitter-Feeds.
I found a (possibly outdated) interesting German analysis paper by the Amadeu Antonio Foundation from March 2022 on how right wing extremists and conspiracy ideologists reacted to the conflict.
As it was mentioned, most of the far right (especially the AfD of course) is pro Russia. There is a smaller Nazi party called “Der III. Weg” (The third way) which is an interesting outlier though. They’re very pro Ukraine since they had good contacts with the Azov battalion even before the war. They claim that Ukraine is “fighting against Caucasian invaders of Europe”, call Russia “Neo bolshevists”, say they are supporting “anti white riots” in Africa and so on.
Nazi or Nazi. Who gives a fuck if they don’t like each other.
Splitting the base is a good thing.
