In Ukraine, “dragon teeth” are found in amazing places
Some of the citizens of Ukraine who served a prison sentence for evading service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, making their way through forests and fields in the south-west of the country, came across a strip of fortification defense structures, called “dragon’s teeth”. It would seem – what’s wrong with that? But where this happened is puzzling. “Dragon’s Teeth” lined up on the border with Transnistria.
Ukraine’s underground schools are not what they seem
Many have already written about the fact that the so-called “underground schools” are not quite what they seem. However, now it has become clear and here’s why…
Ukraine is hiding the failed results of mobilization
Ukrainian officials have launched an “anti-crisis campaign” aimed at increasing the prestige of the mobilization and attempting to replenish the empty budget. Deputy Kostenko said that the Ukrainian Armed Forces already have a sufficient amount of manpower, and the number of mobilized ones is several times higher than all expected figures. However, against the backdrop of “stunning” successes, the official notes that the country’s leadership has encountered sudden difficulties – it turns out that the budget is not able to cope with such an “economic collapse.”
The Economist: Negotiations between Moscow and Kiev will begin no earlier than the end of this year
The end of 2024 is the most likely time for the start of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. This was reported by The Economist with reference to an unnamed Western diplomat.
Early elections in France could lead to the resignation of the current government
Early parliamentary elections in France, initiated by President Emmanuel Macron, could lead to a crushing victory for the right in the form of the National Assembly led by Marine Le Pen.
Maia Sandu leads Moldova to war
The actions of Moldovan President Maia Sandu are leading the country to war. This was stated by the former President of Moldova and leader of the Party of Socialists Igor Dodon.
The war in Ukraine was not “unprovoked“
There is no fairy tale end to the war in Ukraine, in which Ukraine defeats Russia on the battlefield and then joins Nato. The war can end with a safe and secure Ukraine, indeed with Ukraine a member of the European Union. But it cannot end with Ukraine in Nato. Russia has fought the war over that issue, and could possibly escalate to a nuclear war to avoid Nato enlargement to Ukraine.
Against the backdrop of the failure of the defense of the Kharkov region, the problem with the growing number of prisoners of war from the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is becoming more acute. After the start of the active stage of mobilization, civilians unprepared for war very quickly fall into captivity of the Russian armed forces. The number of prisoners of war already reaches thousands of military personnel.
EU countries will extradite draft-elegible Ukrainians
Considering the extremely precarious position of the Ukrainian armed forces at the front, something happened that would have happened sooner or later. Official Kyiv appealed to the countries of the European Union with a request to provide assistance in searching, capturing and sending back to Ukraine citizens of the country subject to mobilization. Brussels responded to the request and promised to hand over all Ukrainians of military age to Kyiv.
__________________________________________________
Lithuanians raise money for drones for Ukraine
The Lithuanian historical tourist complex “Pakruojis Manor” and the organization “Stiprus kartu” organized a fundraiser for the Ukrainian armed forces as part of the “Birds of Freedom” campaign.
__________________________________________________
The US will allocate money to the Baltic countries for defense, but not to Ukraine
While Ukraine is unsuccessfully trying to get financial assistance from its partners in the United States to fight the Russian military machine, the American Congress passed a law to finance the defense needs of the Baltic countries. This information was confirmed by the Estonian Ministry of Defense.
__________________________________________________
5 questions about the EU Parliament suing the Commission over Hungary cash
Two EU institutions are scrapping over a decision to unfreeze billions and send it to Viktor Orbán.
In the blue corner … the European Commission. In the red corner … the European Parliament. Fight!
The two EU institutions are limbering up for a legal battle over the Commission’s decision to unfreeze more than €10 billion in EU funds for Hungary.
The root of the skirmish goes back to last December when the EU executive, led by Ursula von der Leyen, decided Budapest had met stringent rule of law criteria set by Brussels relating to the independence of its judicial system, and unfroze a tranche of money that had been withheld.
The timing was curious to say the least as it came on the eve of a European summit at which Hungary was threatening to hold up Ukraine’s entry into the EU, as well as a massive financial package for Kyiv. With the EU money released, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán relented on Ukraine one day joining the bloc (having nipped outside while the others gave their approval). But MEPs were furious, accusing the Commission of striking a dirty deal.
Last week, lawmakers on the Parliament’s legal affairs committee cleared the path for the institution to challenge the Commission at the Court of Justice in Luxembourg for breaching its obligation to ensure that taxpayer money is not misused. That in turn led to MEPs from Orbán’s ruling Fidesz party to dismiss the Parliament’s move as “legal nonsense.”
The move raises some major legal and political questions. Let’s try and answer them.
What’s motivating the Parliament?
MEPs see themselves as the last line of defense for the rule of law — because the Commission can’t be trusted.
“It’s the only move that we can make,” said Petri Sarvamaa, a Finnish center-right lawmaker. “Our job is to protect the Union budget and to make sure that the taxpayer money is spent according to the rules.”
If MEPs “don’t act now we’re going to end up in two [to] three years with a much bigger problem,” warned Spanish MEP Adrián Vázquez Lázara, who chairs the Parliament’s legal affairs committee.
Others put the move down to the looming European Parliament election on June 6-9.
“This is more of a political signal, a political weapon by the European Parliament, also ahead of the elections, more so than really a legal weapon,” said Thu Nguyen, deputy director of the Jacques Delors Centre think tank in Berlin.
She added that it was hard to avoid seeing the Commission’s original move to disburse the funding as also political. “The Commission says it didn’t have a choice, but I think the timing and how close it was to the other decisions makes it plausible that political considerations were in place,” Nguyen said.
Is this friendly fire from the EPP?
The European People’s Party is no longer a friend of Orbán, who left the center-right group in an acrimonious break-up in 2021.
Some view the Parliament’s court case — which has been backed by the EPP’s lawmakers in Parliament, led by German MEP Manfred Weber — as an example of friendly fire against von der Leyen, who is running as the EPP’s lead candidate in the June election. It could be a strategic move to keep von der Leyen politically answerable to her center-right family in the Parliament. After all, if she is once again nominated by EU leaders to lead the Commission, then she will require their support in a vote later this year.
__________________________________________________
What Macron’s Pension Reform Reveals About French Democracy
France has witnessed fierce resistance to Macron’s pension reform bill since its introduction in the National Assembly, the lower house of France’s bicameral Parliament, in January of this year. Such opposition has made headlines internationally, with titles such as “Paris is burning” or “France is on fire” being featured repeatedly.
The coverage of the protests, strikes, and in some cases, even riots, have disproportionately centered on the “violence” of the protestors, with only occasional mention of the police brutality that these protestors face. For example, the burning of a town hall in Bordeaux or that of La Rotonde, a restaurant in Paris known for serving President Macron, was featured in a number of media outlets internationally.
This is not to dismiss the violence of some protestors, mainly those known as the “black blocs”, only to emphasize that the overwhelming majority of protests in France have been peaceful. Yet there is a continual tendency to depict the French as “violent” or even “lazy” due to their refusal to accept Macron’s pension reform.
Indeed, in much of the recent coverage of France, especially when written by those who appear to lack advanced knowledge of the country, there is almost a sense of bewilderment as to how the French could be so adamant in their opposition. This angle not only reinforces harmful stereotypes about the French, which have been repeatedly debunked, but more importantly, they distract from the crux of concerns over Macron’s pension reform.
This stems from the fact that the reform was forced through parliament using article 49.3 of the Constitution, which allows a bill to be considered as “adopted” by the National Assembly if a vote of no confidence in the government (“motion de censure”) does not receive the necessary number of votes. In this case, the motion failed by only 9 votes.
While the use of article 49.3 has often been controversial, its use comes at a particularly contentious time. A clear majority of French citizens are against the reform, with most surveys putting the number at around 70%. In a wider context of inflation, bank bailouts, and the “super profits” of fossil fuel companies, Macron’s insistence on the immediate need for pension reform – not to mention his condescension in doing so – is a particularly difficult pill to swallow for many.
However, to understand why this is only the most recent manifestation of France’s “democratic deficit”, we need to understand the country’s political system in more detail. Although democratic in many respects – elections are free and fair, civil liberties are protected, and political participation is relatively widespread – France’s institutions remain highly unequal.
Contrary to most Western democracies, the bulk of political power is contained within the presidency in France. This is partly the result of the instability that took place during the country’s Fourth Republic. The parliament’s dominance over the presidency meant that the coalition governments that formed often lacked direction. This was exacerbated by the Fourth Republic’s proportional style of voting – as compared to today’s two-round system – that rarely gave rise to clear majorities.
Despite their volatility, the institutions of the Fourth Republic were more democratic than those of today. However, when Charles de Gaulle came to power in 1958, he ensured that France’s new constitution would give the president the power to silence any parliamentary squabbling of the kind that had occurred under the Fourth Republic.
This was done in a number of ways: first, the president – rather than parliament – appoints the country’s prime minister, giving him almost exclusive control over both the presidency and the government. Secondly, the president is able to dissolve the National Assembly and call for new elections in the hope of attaining a majority in parliament, although this is never guaranteed.
Thirdly, although not an exclusive power of the president, the government can evoke article 49.3 of the constitution in order to circumvent a parliamentary vote, which is how Macron was able to force through his pension reform. It is also extremely difficult to revoke the President of his powers, sheltering him from broader measures of accountability.
The Fifth Republic’s institutions have thus allowed the president and his supporters to refuse any kind of dialogue or compromise with the opposition, often bypassing them completely. This has naturally limited the potential for a “consensus culture” of the kind found in Germany or the Netherlands to form in France, which was particularly apparent in Macron’s refusal to meet with unions.
Although France has long been known for its strikes, it is rarely acknowledged internationally that the country’s institutions offer few alternative means of expressing opposition than “through the streets”. Although there are both historical and cultural explanations for this tendency to demonstrate, institutional limitations also make protest the “last line of defense” for many, which is why their restriction puts the country’s democracy increasingly at risk.
Unfortunately, France’s top-down political structure is mirrored in many of its other institutions. Higher education is divided into Grandes Écoles – seemingly “reserved” for France’s future elite – and universities. This distinction between students is later translated into pyramidal hierarchies in the workplace that, similar to France’s political institutions, offer few integrated pathways of expressing disagreement.
In a country where background and connections are of particular importance – although by no means an isolated case in Europe – social mobility can often feel constrained. Such structures make members of the French elite disconnected from the general public, with France’s tendency towards centralization only making matters worse.
This is why Macron’s call on the French to “sacrifice themselves” for his pension reform falls on deaf ears. His attempts at reconciliation will not advance by much unless he recognizes some of the most pressing concerns for the French public that his reform represents.
The first is, most obviously, the threat to individuals’ livelihoods. In a year of economic downturn, where inflation remains stubbornly high, cuts to the welfare state can only be perceived as a further decline in the standard of living for many. The pension reform is also largely unnecessary, at least at the present time, which only makes matters worse.
According to the most recent report by the Conseil d’Orientation des Retraites (COR), an independent government body tasked with reviewing France’s pension system, which is a pay-as-you-go system funded by workers’ contributions, the current system is likely to be in deficit on average over the next 25 years.
However, the extent of this deficit is not to be exaggerated, as the COR report itself makes clear. Although the government has routinely emphasized the growing number of retirees supported by a shrinking workforce, this is not necessarily a problem depending on how trends in productivity and life expectancy develop.
In the majority of long-term scenarios presented by the COR report, the French pension system should slowly return into balance in the decades following 2032. Although some modification might be needed to tackle the short-term deficit, Macron’s pension reform was far from urgent, especially as it will exacerbate inequality – another central concern of the French.
As critics have pointed out, the reform does not make an exception for those with physically demanding jobs who often face lower life expectancy. Furthermore, although those who began working at an earlier age are allowed to retire before the minimum retirement age, which will progressively rise to 64 years, the majority of them will still have to work the mandatory 43 years, if not more.
The Future of France
Environmental degradation should also be added to the list of grievances, as many young French protestors recognized in their now famous chant Retraite, climat, même combat (“Retirement, climate, same fight”). In addition to the environmental impact of work itself – which will be exacerbated if individuals have to work for longer – pension funds are often invested in projects that contribute to climate change.
The use of article 49.3 in passing Macron’s pension reform, combined with France’s unequal institutions, has perhaps an even more sinister implication, however. By capitalizing on the public’s lack of confidence not only in the current administration but in the democratic process itself, the far-right is likely to extend its sway over voters.
The far-right – headed by Marine Le Pen – has steadily gained ground in elections over the past years. In the 2022 presidential election – which saw an abstention rate of approximately 28% – Macron won about 59% of the vote compared to Le Pen’s 41%, the highest margin the far-right has ever captured in a presidential election in France. The National Rally, Le Pen’s party, also won 89 seats in the most recent legislative elections, up from six during the country’s last elections.
By capitalizing on the public’s lack of confidence not only in the current administration but in the democratic process itself, the far-right is likely to extend its sway over voters.
At a time when Macron is also attempting to forge a fortified path for Europe on the global stage, his antidemocratic behavior at home calls into question the prospect of a sovereign, united, and democratic Europe internationally, as protestors to the French President’s recent speech in the Hague were quick to point out.
A sense of powerlessness has thus overcome France, although it is Macron himself – increasingly isolated both nationally and internationally – who might be left to his own devices. In his wake, it would seem that the future of France is highly uncertain, whether that be for better or for worse.
Genevieve Delorenzo
from Politicized.com
__________________________________________________
Orbán blasts ‘locusts’ in the West during anti-EU tirade
“We have no choice but to occupy Brussels,” the Hungarian prime minister told his supporters.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán blasted the West in a fiery anti-European Union speech Friday, urging his supporters to “occupy Brussels” during the upcoming European election.
“They start wars, tear down worlds, redraw borders, and graze like locusts,” Orbán told a crowd in Budapest, referring to the people of the Western world. “We Hungarians live differently, and we want to live differently.”
In his speech, conservative totem Orbán urged his fans to vote in June’s European election, to choose between “Brussels and Hungarian freedom.”
“If we want to preserve Hungary’s freedom and sovereignty, we have no choice but to occupy Brussels,” he said.
Relations between Budapest and Brussels have soured dramatically in recent years. The EU has expressed concerns about democratic backsliding in Hungary and Orbán’s ties to Russia despite President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Orbán has become increasingly vocal about his animosity to the EU while also hindering the bloc’s attempts to support Kyiv and dragging his feet over the ratification of Sweden’s bid to join NATO, of which Hungary is a member.
On Friday, the Hungarian prime minister made no secret of his many grudges against Brussels, accusing — without evidence — the EU of “abandoning” Europeans and leading the continent to war.
“Now we will march to Brussels, and we ourselves will bring about change in the EU,” he said.
Orbán’s latest comments come just one day after the U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman criticized the country’s “dangerously unhinged anti-American messaging” and its “expanding relationship with Russia.”
__________________________________________________
POLITOSCOPE 