Sounds like they're going to get some mysteriously vocal support and financial backing from Russia.
this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2026
161 points (92.6% liked)
Europe
12429 readers
702 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I like moving towards a stateless classless future but I'm not so naive as to deny that Russia is actively pursuing Nationalist conquest and directly opposed to a stateless classless future
Even in a best case scenario, where the US is fully invested into supporting NATO, unlikely as it is, NATO as a whole remains unreliable.
The Article 5, which is supposed to be the security guarantee of all members, doesn't provide any guarantees at all.
This assistance may or may not involve the use of armed force, and can include any action that Allies deem necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/collective-defence-and-article-5
Core part here - "any action that Allies deem necessary." This can be literally nothing, if a country deems nothing is necessary. There are no minimum requirements when it comes to supporting a member invoking article 5.
As opposed to Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union, which legally binds all member states to do everything in their power to support a member that got attacked, who doesn't even need to explicitly ask for it first.
This clause provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/mutual-defence-clause.html
Unfortunately, this only helps EU countries. Although it could potentially be extended to other close allies like Canada or the UK. That remains to be seen.
It's also nowhere close to a full 'guarantee', especially due to all the American assets rotting the EU from within, but it's still more meaningful than NATO ever was.
At this point, I can't quite comprehend why ideas of leaving NATO are still sometimes seen as extreme. The US is the evil guy. NATO is its own alliance. By supporting it, we quite literally are the baddies. There already exists an alternative, at least for 84% of NATO member states, and potentially coming for more.
That's an interesting perspective I hadn't thought of.
Putin really doesn't care if the far left or the far right wins power in France. They are the same picture to him.
I'm surprised to see so much Atlantist sentiment on Lemmy.
The US has proved not only that their security umbrella means nothing, but that it in fact invites foreign aggression. And once you're attacked they'll probably shit on you and go back on all their commitments. What's the point exactly?
Most of the NATO members are not the US, also in terms of population. If you propose leaving NATO without a realistic alternative of a kind of NATO without the US for example all you are doing is selling out Europe.
Um, but the "kind of NATO" is called EU already. The mutual defense wording in the EU treaties is by far stronger than the wording in the NATO contract. I mean, in the end it's all words on paper anyway, but there's that.
He is also against the EU though.
I am all for the EU as a meanginful defense union but capabilities need to exist and they don't yet. Blowing up the one thing while not having a working replacement at the same time means inviting hostile powers to carve up Europe.
He is also against the EU though
No he's not, what the fuck. You're thinking of his main political opponent, Marine Le Pen, who wants to exit NATO and the EU.
FI's platform is explicitly against exiting the Union or the Euro Zone.
FI’s platform is explicitly against exiting the Union or the Euro Zone.
LFI's platform also states that:
- they won't make any compromises
- they don't care if what they do violates the EU treaties
- they will end the primacy of EU law
- they will suspend:
- the sharing of budget plans with the EU
- the free movement of goods and capital
- France's involvement in EU defence
- free trade agreements
This is all anti-EU and no better than the far right.
It is much better than the far right though, and the reason is in the context which you swiftly omitted. They don't want to exit the Union but to headbutt agressively against the far right anti-immigration packages that are being forced down our throats, as well as the industry deregulation push that would force us to reverse social protection and ecological regulations we, as a people, have voted for.
FI is indeed not ready to apply in France any European law that gives the workers fewer rights, or sabotages our ecosystems ("principe de non-régression écologique et sociale"), or makes us a part of bullying the global South. Please show me where those objectives are in MLP's platform cause i have a hard time finding them.
It doesn't sound all that stupid when you take the context into account (which FI knows well as we have a bunch of deputies in Bruxelles).
Firstly, as usual LFI's vision pretty much stops at the French border. They claim it's a viable and good idea to create a constitutional principle of non-regression, but they only propose adding it to the French Constitution, not to a European treaty.
Secondly, it doesn't really matter why they want to end the primacy of European law. If the precedent is set, it will almost certainly end up being used for things they don't want, in France and in other member states. It's also likely to result in a diplomatic crisis and possibly to the breakup of the EU.
(which FI knows well as we have a bunch of deputies in Bruxelles)
The far right also has MEPs, it doesn't make them knowledgeable either.
No, I am not. Mekechon's opposition comes from a different, leftist, direction but it is opposition all the same. He is a staunch critic of the "neoloiberal European Union" and demands a fundamental renegotiation of the treaties. Are you seriously denying that?
Guess what, the far right in many member states is demanding the same. It is hard to keep track though with the far right, as the are oscilating between demanding leaving the EU, and "reforming", ie destroying it. To my understanding Le Pen is currently demanding to "reform", ie destroy the EU from within. As such a fundamental "reform" will fracture the Union or at least lead to a massive weakening of its political structure and its ability to act.
So your point is that any attempt at reforming the (grossly ultra-liberal) European Union would fracture the Union, and also that any criticism of its (grossly corrupt) operations is just playing the same team as the fascists ? How fucking convenient, especially for the fascists who actually spawned and bankrolled the whole Frexit movement.
How are you supposed to make something better when you're not allowed to formulate any criticism of it ?
No, I am claiming that it doesn't need any major treaty changes to change the political direction of the EU to a left leaning position. It would need however a left majority among voters, currently there is a clear right majority on EU level and most national capitals are right/conservative as well.
The EU's operations are not "grossly corrupt", corrrupt maybe but less so than most member states, certainly less corrupt than Germany or Austria, not sure about France but I would be surprised if things were different there. Most of the corruption is taking place on local level with EU funds. Fighting corruption on both levels is possible without any treaty change, as the creation of EPPO has shown. Great institution that has a mandate to fight corruption on both, European and national level, as long as it has something to do with EU institutions, policies or subsidies.
The EU’s operations are not “grossly corrupt”, corrrupt maybe but less so than most member states
How do you know?
You can read the court of auditor reports and compare them to national ones, you can observe how when there are business lobby groups fighting for something, it is often some national governments who are already fully in line, copy pasting their positions and fighting for it in Brussels, while in Brussels the Commission is still on the fence and the European Parliament hosts meaningful opposition. Also on multiple occasions, where the national level was already completely in line, including national parliaments, initiatives still failed in the European Parliament, against massive lobbying campaigns because the public made a fuss about it
I also know from people, who are no business lobbyists that you can get heard by the Commission if you represent something of interest, eg open source initiatives. I also know from the business perspective that bribing agencies for getting some registration on EU level is not an option and that things that are not working as they should are rather issues of lack of resources or unclear legislation.
My favourite example however is the former interior minister of Austria, who afterwards continued his career as MEP in Brussels/Strasbourg. It is pretty clear he did not change the way he was doing politics but within a short time, he was uncovered to be bribed. That alone never happened in Austria in his long career before and unlike in Austria, it did have severe consequences, he did not only lose his job, was subject to prosecution but was entirely shunned by the party, as this had become such a big deal (also something that rarely happens in Austria with any corrupt politician). Of course Austrian nationalists were talking about how corrupt Brussels is, when in fact the Austrian modus operandi lead in Brussels to the destruction of a politician's career.
EDIT: Things have improved further since the creation of the EPPO. A bribing case like the one above relied before purily on action from member state's institutions. Now, EPPO can get active on its own and launch investigations and inquire assistance when raiding someone for example.
load more comments
(7 replies)
It's against leaving, everyone's is. But they're very much eurosceptics.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
"French far left" Lol. You don't know what's far...
He's just doing his job.
view more: next ›