Current World News

Never let an opportunity go to waste, as they say

higurashihougi wrote:Comment from a netizen: USA politicians are uneducated thugs who do not know even the very basic of politeness and normal manners.

1:07
Stay classy America

It is a strategic mistake in outwardly placing UK Labour on the same level of Russophobic aggressive impetus as Tories.

The British Prime Minister has brought forward the date of his defeat, by Andrey Rezchikov for VZGLYAD. 05.23.2024.

The unexpected trick of calling early elections will work against Rishi Sunak.

The date for early parliamentary elections in Britain announced by Rishi Sunak turned out to be an unpleasant surprise even for his fellow party members. Observers predict that these elections will be historic and will lead to the defeat of the conservatives. Labor has a chance of winning a parliamentary majority after 14 years in opposition. What awaits Britain after Sunak and how will these elections affect relations between Moscow and London?

Early parliamentary elections scheduled for July 4, as announced the day before by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, caused a strong reaction in the Western press. Sunak's request was granted by King Charles III, who has the role of dissolving parliament. "Now is the time for the UK to choose our future - to decide whether we want to build on the progress we've made or risk finding ourselves back at the beginning, with no plan, no clarity," Sunak said.

The main question that observers are trying to answer concerns the date of the elections. According to the law, elections should have been held no later than January 2025. And almost no one doubts that as a result the Conservative Party will be overthrown after 14 years in power.

As CNN notes , opinion poll data is not in favor of the Conservative Party. But the Labor Party starts the campaign with a lead of about 20 points. When translated into parliamentary seats, these figures point to either a comfortable Labor victory or a potential Conservative electoral defeat.

According to a columnist for The Guardian newspaper, holding elections in the fall would give the government as much time as possible to change the situation. The calculation by Sunak's ministers appears to be "that events in Ukraine or the Middle East could trigger a new global shock and undermine the government's claims of economic recovery."

Sunak's party is likely to put the fight against illegal migration at the center of its election campaign, CNN predicts, but Labor will criticize the government's efforts to control prices, the state of the health care system and scandals that have damaged the Tories' reputation among large parts of British voters.

Experts interviewed by CNBC agreed that the election date shocked many conservatives who thought the vote would take place closer to the November US presidential election. Labor will now focus on criticizing the Conservatives' 14-year legacy. The election promises to be historic because it will be devastating for Sunak. The Labor Party has a chance of winning a parliamentary majority.

“The main complaints against the Conservatives are that the situation in the UK as a whole is very difficult. There is not a complete collapse, but if you look at all spheres of life, there are problems and quite significant crises everywhere,” notes political scientist Malek Dudakov.

The economy, which collapsed during the pandemic, has still not fully recovered and is showing weak growth. Inflation peaked in October 2022 and was then more than 11%. The economy fell into recession in the second half of last year before posting 0.6% growth in the first quarter of this year.

“In terms of the size of its GDP, Britain still cannot reach the pre-crisis level of 2019. Real incomes of the population are at the level of 15 years ago and do not keep up with inflation,” the interlocutor noted.

There is a serious crisis in the housing market; high prices prevent many Britons from purchasing property. “An equally serious crisis in medicine is due to the shortage of doctors. Queues to see specialized doctors in public clinics reach 20-30 weeks, that is, people wait for an appointment for six months,” the expert noted. Problems with migration are also not being resolved; about a million people come to the country every year, the political scientist adds, which aggravates the problems with the load on the social system.

“The Conservatives have no real success. If you look at their promises after coming to power in 2010, there are only failures in all areas. They promised to reduce the national debt, but it grew and reached 100% of GDP. The crime situation is only getting worse,” Dudakov continued. – General fatigue with conservatives has led to very low ratings of the current government. Therefore, Sunak will not be able to achieve success with his election date trick, the gap behind Labor is about 20 points. It will not be possible to improve the situation in six weeks of the election campaign.”

“Society has a contract with the authorities. It lies in the fact that the government should not worsen the financial situation of voters. But in fact, it has deteriorated greatly, voters will definitely look for someone to blame and present him with a bill,” notes Vladimir Bruter, an expert at the International Institute for Humanitarian and Political Studies.

“Labour will also have nothing to offer voters, except for a return to normality, as it were, so they promise to establish very close relations with the European Union. Britain needs restructuring, and Labor has a certain mandate for this, but they don’t want to do it for various reasons,” the expert emphasized.

The main intrigue of the upcoming elections is how devastating the Labor victory will be. At the same time, one should not expect a different position from them on the Ukrainian conflict, Dudakov warns. “The leader of the Labor Party, Keir Starmer, recently traveled to the Baltics, where he promoted a militaristic agenda. “Shadow” British Labor Foreign Minister David Lammy and a number of his colleagues traveled to Ukraine and promised to supply weapons,” the political scientist recalled. Bruter also agreed that Labor would not restore relations with Russia.

https://vz.ru/world/2024/5/23/1269628.html

US-Mexico Row Heats Up as Latin American State Pivots From America's Grip, by Svetlana Ekimenko for Sputnikglobe.com. 08.18.2024.

A diplomatic row is escalating between Mexico and the United States as part of a general pivot of the Latin American country away from Washington's overbearing influence.

Outgoing President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has accused the US of sponsoring opposition NGOs through USAID programmes.

Obrador said his Foreign Ministry had sent a diplomatic notice in protest at the funding of groups such as Mexicans Against Corruption and Impunity (MCCI), while he would personally write to US President Joe Biden about it.

The US government has sent nearly $5 million to MCCI since 2018, with private donors including the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, Mexico’s Financial Crimes Unit (UIF) said.

The US Agency for International Development (USAID), established by former President John F. Kennedy during the height of the Cold War, has long been controversial as a tool for to extend US influence under the cover of humanitarian aid. The agency has backed media, activist and political forces abroad to promote Washington's favored policies and support operations in countries targeted for regime change — so-called “color revolutions” like in Ukraine in 2004 and 2014.

But reported attempts by the US to influence the outcome of the elections in Mexico through its NGOs appear to have failed. President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum – who will be sworn in on October 1 – has vowed to continue the policies of her predecessor.

The current row comes as part of a general pivot away from the US driven by Obrador, also known by his initials AMLO.
The leader of the left-wing MORENA political party has repeatedly doubled-down on assurances that he will not tolerate Mexico being subservient to the US.

Last year Obrador rebuked “irresponsible” calls from some in the US Congress for military action against drug cartels. “We are not going to permit any foreign government to intervene in our territory,” he said.

Mexico’s president refused to grant the Pentagon permission to track a stray Chinese balloon through Mexican airspace using UIS military aircraft and surveillance drones last year. The US shot down the balloon, claiming it was on a spying mission for Beijing, despite China insisting it was a civilian craft conducting scientific research.

Obrador also accused the US Department of Defense of spying and vowed to restrict the exchange of military information after Mexico-related intelligence documents were leaked along with dozens of armed forces files last year.

AMLO conditioned helping Biden with his southern border migrant crisis on lifting sanctions on Cuba and Venezuela – both of which are Mexico's trading partners.

Mexico has sought to slash imports of genetically-modified US corn in favor of boosting local production, sparking a trade dispute.

Together with other major Latin American countries, Mexico pushed back on efforts by the US and EU to diplomatically isolate Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro after he was re-elected for a third term in office.

Mexico has refused to be drawn into supporting NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine, and declined to impose economic sanctions on Russia.

Trade volume between Russia and Mexico increased by 9.8 percent in the first four months of 2024 compared to the same period in 2023, amounting to $759.99 million.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240818/us-mexico-row-heats-up-as-latin-american-state-pivots-from-americas-grip-1119814085.html

NGOs should be classified as terrorist organizations. They are actually worse since they achieve regime change whereas terrorists typically just kill innocent people
and fail to achieve the political change they want.

Here’s why Putin’s latest trip is so important for the emerging world order, by Farhad Ibragimov – expert, lecturer at the Faculty of Economics of RUDN University, visiting lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, for RT. 08.23.2024.

Azerbaijan, a new Russian ally, is in position to play a crucial role in an emergent Eurasia.

President Vladimir Putin’s state visit to Azerbaijan can rightfully be described as historic. This marks the first time a Russian president has made an official state visit to this South Caucasian republic. The high status of this visit is a clear reflection of the current state of Russian-Azerbaijani relations, which are at an all-time high. Despite Azerbaijan not being a member of organizations such as the CSTO and EAEU, its relationship with Moscow remains robust.

A significant milestone in relations was the signing of the Declaration on Allied Interaction (the Moscow Declaration) on February 22, 2022, by the leaders of both countries, which, as Putin noted during his visit, is being successfully implemented. Azerbaijan is transitioning from being a strategic partner to becoming a strategic ally of Russia. This shift can be attributed in part to both countries’ shared commitment to establishing a new multipolar world, resulting in aligned positions on many issues within the current international agenda.

While Azerbaijan maintains a stance of strict neutrality in certain areas, it is also unafraid to express its views openly. Baku recognizes that the formation of a new world order is not mere fiction but a reality unfolding before our eyes. Trusting relationships between the leadership of both nations play a significant role in this development. Notably, during the meeting between Putin and Ilham Aliyev, the prospects of Azerbaijan joining BRICS and the SCO were discussed, signaling Baku’s readiness to define its foreign policy priorities.

This does not mean Azerbaijan is ready to sever ties with the West; however, European capitals – particularly Paris, Brussels, and London – have made it clear through their provocative behavior toward Azerbaijan that they do not intend to treat it as an equal partner, thus leaving Baku with little option. Azerbaijan has crafted its foreign policy to safeguard its interests without yielding to Western demands. In simple terms, Baku will not sacrifice its national interests merely to appease the Collective West.

Recently, neighbouring Georgia has adopted a similar perspective. For decades, it constrained itself by commitments to the West, hoping to become an ally at the expense of its relationship with Russia. Now, Georgia is openly pushing back against the West, recognizing that its own interests take precedence over illusory European promises, which have yielded nothing but a deterioration of ties with Moscow.

Increasingly, voices in Georgia are calling for the normalization of relations with Russia, looking to Azerbaijan’s experience under Aliyev’s leadership, which has embraced pragmatism in its dealings with neighbors such as Russia, Iran, and Turkey – thus establishing them as close partners. In essence, Baku’s approach has influenced Tbilisi, which in recent years has opted for a more consistent strategy rather than indulging in hysteria and Russophobia – tendencies that some post-Soviet republics have exploited.

This sets the stage for a compelling geopolitical landscape in the strategically significant South Caucasus region, which holds particular interest for Russia due to its historical and national dimensions.

The discussions between the presidents covered a wide range of international and regional issues – from education and the status of the Russian language, which Baku holds in high regard, to economic matters and relations with third countries, as well as regional security.

Additionally, Putin and Aliyev agreed to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War (World War II). The date May 9, 1945 remains a cornerstone connecting Russia and Azerbaijan, and its mention in the leaders’ statements is telling.

Azerbaijan’s strong ties with Russia, regarded in Baku as one of the world’s leading powers, are significant for this South Caucasian nation. Today, Azerbaijan can rightfully claim to be a key player in the region. This status has been bolstered not only by its growing geopolitical influence, but also by its economic advancements over the past two decades. Azerbaijan is now looking to elevate its role on the international stage, aiming to shape and contribute to global agendas.

It’s no coincidence that Azerbaijan is actively participating in the Non-Aligned Movement summit, hosting major global events (such as COP29, the UN Climate Change Conference in November, which is expected to draw around 80,000 attendees), and promoting initiatives linked to organizations such as the SCO and BRICS. In July 2023, the Azerbaijani president met with Chinese President Xi Jinping to discuss enhancing Azerbaijan’s status within the SCO (currently, Azerbaijan is a dialogue partner), with Beijing reportedly supporting Baku’s aspirations.

Regarding BRICS, Azerbaijan has closely observed the organization’s rapid growth, particularly in the last two years. The Global South is openly challenging Western dominance, asserting its voice – a reality that Europe and the US must now contend with, something that would have seemed unimaginable a decade or so ago.

Azerbaijan appreciates the increasing influence of the Global South, particularly with regard to new geopolitical projects such as BRICS, noting that not everyone gets invited into this club. For instance, Turkey expressed a desire to join BRICS in June; however, Moscow and Beijing deemed these ambitions premature, especially given Turkey’s membership in NATO, which is often at odds with Russia and China.

Despite Turkey’s attempts to balance its position between the West and East, similar to other NATO members such as Hungary and Slovakia, it has not yet achieved this goal.

In contrast, Azerbaijan navigates its partnerships more freely, having avoided military alliances, which allows for greater flexibility in choosing allies. Azerbaijan feels more secure and comfortable in its Eastern relationships, as reflected in its current foreign policy approach. Putin even extended an invitation to his Azerbaijani counterpart to attend the upcoming BRICS summit in Kazan, signaling Russia’s willingness to support Azerbaijan’s entry into BRICS. This development contributes to a shifting geopolitical landscape, not only in the South Caucasus but throughout the broader Eurasian region.

https://www.rt.com/russia/602898-putin-latest-trip-azerbaijan/

Latin America Rejects Zelensky's Overtures, by Dmitry Bavyrin for VZGLYAD, 09.20.2024.

The Ukraine-Latin American summit has been cancelled with a scandal. First, the region's leaders were not afraid to offend Volodymyr Zelensky, and then he himself decided to offend those who treated him with understanding. What happened? And why are the US's neighbors trying to stay away from Zelensky?

In a Soviet joke from the period of "perestroika" and the fight against alcohol, scientists conducted an experiment: they hung a bunch of bananas high up, put a wooden box under it, and brought in a monkey. The monkey tried unsuccessfully to jump to the fruit, but then figured out how to put the box under it, climbed onto it, and reached its goal.

In the next room, they hung a bottle of vodka from the ceiling, put a cabinet, and brought in an alcoholic. The alcoholic began to jump with desire. "Think about it," the experimenters advised him. "What is there to think about? You have to jump," he responded.

The joke is not particularly funny, like most propaganda jokes that claim to be moralizing. But the situation described in it amusingly duplicates the one that developed in the relations of Volodymyr Zelensky with the countries of Latin America. Their relations, frankly speaking, did not work out.

The one who calls himself the president of Ukraine has cancelled a summit with the heads of state of the Latin American region. The meeting was supposed to take place at the end of this week and before the "high week" at the UN General Assembly, where Zelensky is going to present his " plan for victory over Russia ".

The cancellation in this case is not his whim, but an attempt to hide the shame. Almost all declined the invitation to the meeting, at which the presidents of Latin America were planned to be convinced of the need to support the Kiev "plan" or at least "participate in the restoration of Ukraine," writes the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S.Paulo.

Its article clarifies that Brazilian leader Lula da Silva also received an invitation, but his participation in Kiev was not initially expected due to the open conflict between Lula and Zelensky, who calls the Brazilian authorities “pro-Russian.”

However, other presidents also did not have the time and/or desire to meet with Zelensky, with rare exceptions, for example, the President of Guatemala Bernardo Arevalo. He came to power only at the beginning of the year, but has already managed to hug Zelensky, visit US President Joe Biden, and in general made it clear that he is on a pro-Washington course, which is completely atypical for modern Latin America.

The rest should not have been invited in the first place. Zelensky's stubborn desire to jump to Latin America is similar to the behavior of that same alcoholic, who learns nothing from failures.

A similar, but even more shameful story for Zelensky happened last July, when he planned to appear as a “special guest star” at the EU-CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) summit, where he was invited by Spain and the President of the European Council Charles Michel. The leaders of Latin American countries opposed not only Zelensky’s participation, but also any mention of Ukraine in the final declaration, which Brussels had to accept.

If in 2023 they shied away from Zelensky even as an appendage to the EU leadership, why should it be any different in 2024, especially since the EU did not repeat its mistakes and avoided the role of matchmaker?

But even earlier, in the spring of 2022, it became clear from the first UN votes held after the start of the CBO that Latin America would not participate in either containing Russia or supporting Ukraine. This is explained by the fact that over the past 20 years, Washington has lost control over the vast Latin American region, once the “US backyard.”

Gone are the days when Colombia sent troops to fight in Korea at the request of the White House.

The current President of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, is a long-standing and sincere opponent of Washington imperialism and the NATO bloc as its offspring.

Such sentiments in the political elite of Latin America have become dominant, ranging from radical forms of rejection of the Ukrainian project of the United States, as among the leaders of Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba or Nicaragua, to the quite patient attitude of Lula da Silva, who sincerely tried to convince Zelensky to face reality.

Officially, from the Latin American side, this is usually declared as fundamental neutrality, but in Kyiv this is not considered neutrality – they consider it a “pro-Russian position” and, probably, for good reason.

Take Mexico, the world’s largest Spanish-speaking country and a close neighbor of the United States. Its rift with Washington began under outgoing President Lopez Obrador, and his successor, President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, publicly declined Zelensky’s invitation to visit Ukraine. In itself, this doesn’t seem to mean much: Sheinbaum explicitly promised her voters to focus on the country’s domestic problems and leave foreign policy aside. However, Russian President Vladimir Putin was invited to her inauguration, which shows that Sheinbaum does have foreign policy preferences – and they are the same as Lopez Obrador’s.

Apart from the small, albeit strategically important countries, which Washington maintains control over no matter what (for example, Panama with its canal), the only state in the region that Kyiv can rely on is Argentina and its extremely eccentric president, Javier Miley.

He and Zelensky immediately developed a tender relationship , while the previous Buenos Aires platform was torn down. For example, Miley withdrew Argentina's already approved application to join BRICS and began welcoming NATO functionaries . He even promised Zelensky to organize and host the Latin American summit that interested him so much, entirely dedicated to supporting Ukraine.

However, "something went wrong". It is described above - what exactly, but Miley managed to disappoint Zelensky in his own right. Because he remained himself.

The Argentine's eccentricity is partly due to the fact that he is an ideological person - a rather tough monetarist and "marketeer". His worldview does not include economic sanctions, including anti-Russian ones and even those imposed on Russia by Ukraine itself. At the same time, Miley is obsessed with saving state funds - his main economic mission, which means no gifts for foreign countries, be it cash tranches or military equipment (if you need it, buy it).

So Miley, who turned out, despite all the introductory information, to be a not-so-hopeless enemy of Russia , became useless for Zelensky on all three main issues: as a source of free resources, as a participant in the anti-Russian front, and as the organizer of the Latin American summit (which was initially clear; Miley has difficult relations with his neighbors, because they are mostly left-wing, and he is right-wing, and also a boor).

Zelensky's newfound ally in Guatemala's Arevalo is also likely to disappoint, as he is unlikely to offer more than political support and a pat on the back (i.e., no more than Miley). Guatemala is the largest country in Central America, but it is deeply eroded by the main Central American problems: the patchwork poverty of the slums and the sky-high crime rate, where the big players in the form of drug cartels have their own small armies.

This means that the authorities have a chronic shortage of what Zelensky needs: weapons and money.


Money is not something you can turn to Latin America for from Europe, but Zelensky is not strong in history, economics and geography.

For this reason, he does not understand that the anti-colonialist pathos directed at Russia, with the help of which Kyiv hoped to win the favor of the Global South, is not capable of impressing Latin America. Because its own colonial experience is connected with Ukraine's main allies - the USA and the EU countries, and it has nothing to share with Russia; on the contrary, under its historical formation called the USSR, Russia actively helped Latin Americans in the anti-colonialist struggle.

It seems that nothing can help Zelensky in his struggle and the situation he has found himself in due to his own ambitions and stubbornness, although he assures that he has a “ completely prepared plan for victory .”

For toxicological reasons, it is possible that his optimism is boundless, and his consciousness is not receptive even to his own experience. As the newspaper Folha de S.Paulo specifies, Zelensky still hopes to organize a summit with Latin American states on the third attempt - in 2025.

"What's there to think about? You have to jump here!"

https://vz.ru/world/2024/9/20/1288281.html

Don't know where to put this, so I'll insert it here due to its relevance:

Of the two fascisms, Austria was again forced to accept the worse one, by Dmitry Bavyrin for RiaNovosti. 10.25.2024.

A month after the parliamentary elections, the Austrian government finally decided what to do with the people's opinion: spit on it and rub it in. The voters decided that the government should go, and the government decided that it would not go, because otherwise fascism would begin and Austria would lose democracy. We must understand.

The President of the Eastern Reich (which is, by the way, the official name of the state) Alexander van der Bellen instructed the current Chancellor Karl Nehammer to form a government , whose Austrian People's Party (ÖVP) was clearly shown the door by the population: it received 26.3% of the votes (in the last elections it was 37.5%) and was only the second largest faction in parliament.

For the first time in Austria's post-war history, the winner of the election is not allowed to form a government. The explanation is as follows: no one wants to be friends with the current winner. The Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) is considered far-right, pro-fascist, populist, unacceptable and unacceptable, in short, it is the Austrian version of the Alternative for Germany or Marine Le Pen's National Rally . Therefore, the government will be formed by the losing parties - most likely the ÖVP, the Socialists and the Liberals.

From a political point of view, it's like a swan, a crayfish and a pike harnessed to the same cart. But what cart (in this case, the country) wouldn't you sacrifice to keep the fascists out of power.

True, there is a nuance that makes the behavior of the Austrian elites extremely hypocritical. The "fascist" APÖ had previously twice entered the government with the ÖVP at the helm, that is, it was still an acceptable party (albeit with some difficulty). But it turned out to be absolutely unacceptable after the second most important issue for its leader Herbert Kickl (the first, of course, is limiting migration, which is common to nationalists) became Austria's neutrality in the conflict with Russia . No sanctions, no help for Kiev - this is the APÖ's position now.

Nevertheless, it is important to refrain from feeling deep sympathy for Kikl, even though the APS was previously known as a “party of Russophiles.”

In this case, Kickl reasons like a normal politician and national egoist who does not want his country to pay someone else's bills in someone else's war, especially since it has to pay a lot: Austria was heavily dependent on trade with Russia. Such adequacy is pleasing in itself, because the leading idea in Western Europe has become to smash your head against the wall to spite Moscow , if Washington asks. And yet, Kickl's critics are right about something - he is quite the "Fuhrer".

The Freedom Party has a long and scandalous history, including the fact that its founders served in the SS. Much has changed since then, and the APS has no complaints about modern Russia. However, a ten-minute conversation with an average party activist about the events of 1941-1945 can be enough for a Russian to get into a fight.

It is dishonest to deny that the APS really does resemble a far-right party, and for a Russian it is unacceptable. If we leave aside Napoleon's march on Moscow, we do not have many historical disagreements with the French from the National Rally (Le Pen is a Gaullist to the core). But Kikl has some party members who would scratch their eyes out if their leader became chancellor, came to Moscow and laid the traditional wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

It is difficult to expect from a right-wing patriotic nationalist party what we expect from German-speakers: unconditional condemnation, rejection and repentance for everything that the fascists did in the 20th century. The Austrian socialists, on the contrary, would do just that - repent for the fascist past. But they support modern Ukraine with all their hearts.

In general, this is a conversation about the fact that Western Europe should not look for a prophet. There is no such thing as adequate people opposing Russophobes. The European choice is almost always a choice between several evils, between two chairs or between different fascisms, as in the Austrian case.

Knowing the different types of brown is a thankless task, but for an Austrian, fascists can indeed be divided into good and bad. The regime that took hold in the country in 1932 and lasted until the Anschluss with Nazi Germany in 1938 (that is, until one failed artist returned to the Austrian homeland "crowded and armed") was called Austrofascism by its opponents. The regime was nationalistic, militaristic, authoritarian - and at the same time surprisingly vegetarian by European standards . It preferred not to kill people.

The unquestionable principle of the Austrofascist chancellors Engelbert Dollfuss and Kurt Schuschnigg was also to save Austria from being absorbed into Germany. That is why the Nazis killed Dollfuss during an unsuccessful coup attempt in 1934, and arrested Schuschnigg during a second attempt four years later. He spent the war in concentration camps and then emigrated to the United States , where he taught political science. He can be called both an ideological fascist and a prominent member of the anti-Nazi resistance, who stood against Hitler from beginning to end.

So what makes the situation in Austria truly scary is not that some of its politicians revere the fascists of the past (and Kickl certainly does revere Schuschnigg). What is scary is that the alternative imposed on the Austrians also resembles the alternative of 1938 – the one with Hitler.

In 1938, Austria wanted to live on its own - with its own mind and national interest. It did not want to join the project of unifying Europe, to give up its sovereignty, to get involved in other people's wars and send soldiers to the Eastern Front. But it was forced. And now - it was forced again, and the instructions were given again and again in German (the native language of Ursula von der Leyen).

In modern history, there is also an Eastern Front, Nazi battalions and rehabilitated Banderovites. There are war crimes and persecution based on nationality. There is a psychopathic politician and a state claiming the role of world hegemon. And maybe there will be a world war if the spiral of escalation continues to twist, and Europe does not begin to think about its national interests. At least in the way that Kickl does.

By denying him the chancellorship, the Austrian elites did not put up a barrier to fascism, as the European press claims. They chose someone else's fascism. A worse fascism.

https://ria.ru/20241025/avstriya-1979853606.html