Macron has recently called a snap parliamentary election in the aftermath of the far-right getting a large proportion of the votes in the EU elections. Why exactly he called an election at a point of profound weakness is a little beyond me. Explanations that I've seen range from "He thinks the element of surprise will benefit his party and not others," to "WW3 is about to start and he doesn't want to be leader for it," (which, like, isn't true - Macron is the President of France, not Prime Minister, he won't be unseated by this election and he has said he will not stand down regardless of result), to "He doesn't want to swim in the shit-filled Seine."
While we still have a couple weeks to go, the polling I've seen generally puts the far-right in first place with the left-wing coalition slightly behind, with Macron's party all the way back in third place. Anybody who knows anything about French politics knows that while France does actually have something of a left opposition in aggregate (in contrast to the two wings of the Capitalist Party in the UK and the US, for example), French left coalitions are profoundly unstable and this one will inevitably split - perhaps even before the voting begins - meaning they aren't nearly as useful as they otherwise could be.
Living in a France governed by far right parties would be awful, but maybe they might at least be against the carnage in Ukraine, and sue for peace with Russia? Well, possibly not, if the example of Meloni in Italy is anything to go by. It seems that the differences between the "centrist" parties and the fascist ones truly are not that great, beholden to the exact same set of capitalists regardless of which party wins, and will likely bend the knee to NATO, though they may grumble a lot. Would a left coalition be better on Russia/NATO? They have already helpfully told us that they won't (only opposing sending French troops to Ukraine but otherwise being full steam ahead), and additionally are genocidal Zionists. Western leftists have long been hampered by a dramatically faulty misunderstanding of how geopolitics works, with many seemingly believing "imperialism is when countries interact with other countries" and "democracy is when you can vote between two parties even if widely popular policies aren't at all represented by either of them, and if those popular policies are enacted but it's by a one-party state then that's authoritarian evil" and other such strange ideas, making them terminally useless on foreign issues and pretty unremarkable on domestic issues too. France is no exception.
And just to top it all off, this is coming in a period of further imperial decline for the tattered remains of the French empire, with West Africa rebelling and Kanaky (New Caledonia) deeply unhappy with recent French decisions.
The COTW (Country of the Week) label is designed to spur discussion and debate about a specific country every week in order to help the community gain greater understanding of the domestic situation of often-understudied nations. If you've wanted to talk about the country or share your experiences, but have never found a relevant place to do so, now is your chance! However, don't worry - this is still a general news megathread where you can post about ongoing events from any country.
The Country of the Week is France! Feel free to chime in with books, essays, longform articles, even stories and anecdotes or rants. More detail here.
Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section. Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war. Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don't want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it's just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists' side.
Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.
Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR's former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR's forces. Russian language. https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one. https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts. https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster's telegram channel. https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator. https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps. https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language. https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language. https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a 'propaganda tax', if you don't believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses. https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.
DNC shenanigans inaugural meeting question: who will replace genocide joe?
michelle "i love serial killer" obama (inoffensive to yasqueen libs, has institutional support, but allegedly doesn't want to)
gavin "gruesome" newsome (quintessential california lib, also institutional support)
kamala "coconut tree" harris (hand-picked successor, is zoned out half of the time)
kathy "some black kids dont know what a computer is" hochul (team player, but got kamala foot-in-the-mouth disease)
hillary "bomb them all" clinton (sore loser, but has hangers on)
pete "haven't heard my name in a while, have you" buttigieg (blank space for mckinsey)
"retvrn to rockafeller" pritzker (forgot his name, too radical)
*changed ranking
there is also whitmer, dunno where to fit her. Can kinda work for libs like obama, no big scandals directly attached to her, being target of maga/fbi plot (basically mlk jr)
kamala "coconut tree" harris (hand-picked successor, is zoned out half of the time)
I saw a video where someone was talking about some other survey they did of who people thought should replace GenoJoe. Apparently his actual fucking vice president Copmala wasn't mentioned even once, although celebrities like Jon Stewart made the list. Turns out Wall Street's fav ain't too popular with everyone else. Who'd'a' thunk?
But they did do weekend at biden's, in 2020. I mean to me it seems so obvious to do, who will get mad biden got stabbed in the back? KKK dixiecrats cemetery?
does Michelle Obama have any standing/chance? that feels like a thoughtless talk-show suggestion, she'd do okay electorally if the DNC got behind her but there's a snowball's chance in hell they'd give her the time of day over their picked acolytes. unless she's way more enmeshed in the fundraising apparatus than i know of
Idk, I feel for shenanigans to work, someone has to be a) instantly recognizable (cause they will get 2 months to campaign) b) without immediate skeletons. Obama got instant recognition and same nostalgia genocide joe got. And dronebama seemingly is very active for whole joe reelection.
Whitmer/newsome are better from “we don’t do dynasties” angle, but dems seemingly don’t care about that. Although they are both politicians, and newsome might be even recognizable nationally.
Michelle hasn't served though. she did the token first lady shit as is required, but she's not delivered for the party through some real positions yet. Hillary had to do 12 years of work past first lady.
everyone instinctually knows that a popular movie star would bring an election home EZPZ on name recognition, but the political machine does not want to win on a ticket they're not sure is in lockstep with their interests. Michelle puts in a gubernatorial term cutting school lunch budgets and kidnapping children whose parents can't pay lunch debt and we'll talk
Yeah, the not doing some dirty work is a problem. On the other hand she knows all these people, one would think you can sell it under scenario. Kinda like joe was rammed through bypassing wall st and silicon valley.
But idk how strong resentment of upstarts is in dem party, obama has to sell out everything to get accepted despite doing the deeds in illinois.
Still maybe all of those points to newsome/whitmer then tbh, you convinced me. Maybe more whitmer, cause newsome just exudes california (despite hunting homeless people) and thus instantly hateable