Enzo, again you miss the points not fitting your bubble. - From the article:
Our survey confirms that the majority of people in France are eager to end the war, even without an outright Ukrainian victory. In fact, when we asked Europeans whether NATO member countries should push for a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia, âyesâ answers were selected more than twice as often as ânoâ answers.
No, that is your bubble. The war is completely secondary to the other concerns that are fuelling the AfD / RN and other far-right groups in Europe, some of which I already mentioned below.
For most of those who want an end to the war, it is primarily because they think those funds could be better spent locally to alleviate their issues. This is the only argument with any merit IMO. (plus see my edit at the bottom)
Finally, it is not within their remit to decide whether to end the war or not. That is solely Ukraine's decision. If I understand the Ukrainians correctly, after all the shit the Russians have thrown at them, the Ukrainians would keep fighting with pitchforks if they have to. The only thing the French people can decide is whether to keep supporting Ukraine with weapons or not. That is their fair decision.
Thing is, a lot of people in Europe, understand it is in OUR OWN interest to push back Russian expansionism, or would you prefer to live in GDR V.2 with the FSB watching your every word?
btw. that quote is not actually accurate, most Europeans are still in favour of supporting Ukraine.
"Across Europe, there continues to be broad
support for the EU's response to the Russian invasion: humanitarian aid (supported by 89%
of EU citizens), welcoming refugees (84%), sanctions on Russia (72%), and financial support
for Ukraine (72%)."
and this survey of French youth:
"One of the questions specifically mentioning Ukraine was : "If France's defence required its participation in the war in Ukraine, would you be willing to join to defend your country?" Here 51% of French young men and women answered "yes" with 17% saying "definitely yes and 34% answering "probably yes"
Edit: also note: that high number in favour of a negotiated settlement is no surprise. Who isn't in favour of that? The only thing stopping it is Russian intransigence.
The trouble is, the far right are unlikely to find any solutions to the problems either: aging populations still wanting their pensions but not wanting the young immigrants to come in to do the work that would actually fund them, farmers (who are heavily subsidised by the EU) wanting to leave the EU, rural citizens who want cheap fuel but ignore the impact of global warming.. the contradictions abound.
Enzo, again you miss the points not fitting your bubble. - From the article:
Our survey confirms that the majority of people in France are eager to end the war, even without an outright Ukrainian victory. In fact, when we asked Europeans whether NATO member countries should push for a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia, âyesâ answers were selected more than twice as often as ânoâ answers.
That's quite a good synopsis. All across Europe a wave of disaffection is getting exploited by the far right (and fuelled to no small extent by funding and disinformation from Voldemort). So focus is shifting back to local concerns over national or even international solutions.
The trouble is, the far right are unlikely to find any solutions to the problems either: aging populations still wanting their pensions but not wanting the young immigrants to come in to do the work that would actually fund them, farmers (who are heavily subsidised by the EU) wanting to leave the EU, rural citizens who want cheap fuel but ignore the impact of global warming.. the contradictions abound.
Millions of British voters will head to the polls today to elect a new House of Commons and government. Labour is slated to win by a landslide, though not for its own merits or those of its lacklustre leader, Keir Starmer â but simply because people are desperate to get rid of the incumbent Tory government. That said, itâs unlikely much will change: the Labour Party today is little more than a more culturally progressive (i.e., woker) version of the Conservative Party; on all major economic and foreign policy issues, the two are virtually indistinguishable: pro-war, pro-NATO, pro-Israel and neoliberal to the core. Unfortunately, the Labour Party lost its way a long time ago, well before Starmer â or even Blair â came along. The roots of Labourâs rightward shift can be traced all the way back to the crisis of the 1970s. (...)
In August 2013, the U.S. government formally acknowledged the U.S. role in the coup by releasing a bulk of previously classified government documents that show it was in charge of both the planning and the execution of the coup. According to American journalist Stephen Kinzer, the operation included false flag attacks, paid protesters, provocations, the bribing of Iranian politicians and high-ranking security and army officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda. The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government". In 2023, the CIA took credit for the coup, contradicted by previous scholarly assessment that the CIA had botched the operation.
um.. are you srsly trying to draw some equivalence between the coup in Iran in 1953 and the pending collapse of Russia due to its insistence on waging a war of aggression on its neighbours and pursuing its own CIA-type hybrid campaign against the West? Looks like something got lost along the way there..
In August 2013, the U.S. government formally acknowledged the U.S. role in the coup by releasing a bulk of previously classified government documents that show it was in charge of both the planning and the execution of the coup. According to American journalist Stephen Kinzer, the operation included false flag attacks, paid protesters, provocations, the bribing of Iranian politicians and high-ranking security and army officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda. The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government". In 2023, the CIA took credit for the coup, contradicted by previous scholarly assessment that the CIA had botched the operation.
no, it was McCarthyism and the US going off the rails post WWII in the mistaken idea that the ends justify the means. I would take the coup in Chile as an even better example.
I'm not the one reducing geopolitics to a black and white game here. That's you.
In August 1941, United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill met to discuss their post-war goals. In that meeting, they agreed to the Atlantic Charter, which in part stipulated that they would, "respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them."<31> This agreement became the post-WWII stepping stone toward independence as nationalism grew throughout Africa.
What a great and noble way to sidestep. But since you're here. Is it an Anglo nobility/arrogance/hubris?
In August 1941, United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill met to discuss their post-war goals. In that meeting, they agreed to the Atlantic Charter, which in part stipulated that they would, "respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them."<31> This agreement became the post-WWII stepping stone toward independence as nationalism grew throughout Africa.
