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.
Would the bourgeoisie engineer a nuclear war in the middle east to stop climate change? @Droplet@hexbear.net has a theory the news mega will may find interesting.
Can someone with climate science knowledge help out with the following hypothesis:
Let’s say the US wants to engineer a nuclear war in the Middle East to “cool” the global temperature for a determined period of time. This can be done by provoking Israel to use its nukes in a “last stand” as it is being militarily defeated by the regional forces, as an example.
According to the climate model proposed by Robock et al. (2007), a regional nuclear conflict in the subtropics that detonated 100 Hiroshima-size (15 kt) nuclear weapons (0.03% of the global nuclear arsenal) could lead to a release of 5 Tg of smoke into the atmosphere, resulting in global climate change of -1 degree Celcius (which would revert the global temperature, at least transiently, back to the Little Ice Age period between 1400s and 1800s, and would also result in significant changes to precipitation rate, crop growth etc.).
Guess what, Israel/Palestine is located exactly within the subtropical band.
Let’s say several hundred millions of people die from the nuclear fallout (far away from the Imperial Core), and hundreds of millions more die to starvation due to crops failure, the global temperature goes down, the global population gets trimmed, reducing demand for global resources, the imperialists subsequently take advantage of the chaos and instability resulted to harvest the capital assets in the Global South.
Is this something that would be dreamed up by the bourgeois class in the Western imperial core?
In terms of cursed machinations of the bourgeoisie, it's the opposite direction. There's a faction of the bourgeoisie who actually want climate change. And I don't mean this in terms of spez thinking he can survive in a bunker in New Zealand or oil companies that don't give a shit about climate change. But there's a whole faction who sees climate change opening up new markets that they can exploit through disaster capitalism. There's also a technocratic ecofascist faction who sees climate change as the great scythe that will cull the undesirables of the human population (ie everyone in the Global South and the poor in the imperial core).
The really ghoulish possibility is if some fascist capitalist ghoul understands enough of Marxism to think they can solve the tendency of the rate of profit to fall through destruction of constant capital. The tendency of the rate of profit to fall is partially because the organic composition of capital shifts from variable capital to constant capital, so by destroying enough constant capital, organic composition will once again be dominated by variable capital and the rate of profit will rise. Of course, destruction of constant capital means destruction of infrastructure, factories, tech centers, and all signs of modern life. The means of doing so is through world war. You already saw this in the aftermath of WWII where the rate of profit actually went up.
"Nuclear winter" is bad science and is basically rejected by modern climatologists.
Current atmospheric data has shown that while large fires can have a cooling effect it only lasts up to 2 months as the smoke settles and there is no reason to think more smoke would fall slower. Any cooling effect is short lived and dwarfed by the rise in temperatures from the increased atmospheric CO2.
Worst of all "nuclear" is just thrown in as a scare word. There's no reason that nukes must be the catalyst for massive fire storms and no guarantee that a nuclear war would even cause them.
If they wanted to do geoengineering they would have other ways of doing it that wouldn't come with so many loose ends.
Setting up a nuclear war in a place this important to global logistics and energy supply would be bad for business and could risk escalating into something that would harm these ghouls personally.
It would be a lot easier to manufacture consent for "peaceful discharges of nuclear energy" in the Sahara or somewhere if that is what they wanted.
If it makes you feel any better, during the Deep Water Horizon incident, they had experts come in from various fields come to the White House to propose "novel soltions" to cap the well. One of my professors was on a team that pitched using a tactical nuclear warheas to collapse the well. They were basically laughed out of the White House. That was a different admin, but still.
We should be more skeptical towards conspiracy theories. We tend to hold two very conflicting realities at once.
The neolibs are incredibly incompetent failchildren that can't think further beyond than tonight's dinner. This is why they fail to consider the consequences of their actions obviously, often failing to consider just what will happen 6 months down the line.
But also they're deeply cunning and tactical minded, coming up with complex theories on how to tackle deep important long term subjects like climate change which they really suddenly give a shit about lol.