European News Thread

It's the same **** all over w europe... question is whether western europeans have become so cucked that they won't fight back and resist or whether there will be civil unrest to change things back to normal. Personally I don't see how this model where an ever decreasing european tax paying base has to keep supporting an ever increasing amount of third worlders will work out in the long run...

Thank God the Slavic lands atleast haven't been invaded and thoroughly indoctrinated.

The german Bundeswehr seems to think hard about recruiting non-german EU citizens!!!

dw.com/en/bundeswehr-floats-idea-of-recruiting-eu-citizens/a-46871622

Yeah...it's that bad!

Imagine..Poles in the german army...the core of a real EU army? :)

Well, why not? Though it does lool like they are mostly looking for highly specialized people, it could be a good idea to be more open for young Europeans. There are millions of young Europeans in Southern Europe without decent employment who might be interested.

It's a start, yes.

The UK launched a campaign to bring in more muslims into the military. They even launched an infamous ad showing a dude taking off his boots and praying while his squad guards him. Their campaign didn't work. Muslims are still underrepresented in the uk military. Seeing as how many dislike the culture and people, but love the benefits, they won't risk their lives fighting over it.

Hmm...it's not so easy I think.

There are two cases of fight, the one defending your country against an invasion (big in the past but very improbable now and in the future) or...and here comes the problem....fighting as an invader in far away lands, mostly muslim at that, Iraq...Afghanistan...some desert hole in Africa...

The UK is about to put muslims against muslims, for really weak cases...because they can't get their fill from the native population anymore, for demographic reasons...frankly I would ask myself too if I that's worth it.

PS: That would be a similiar case with the Bundeswehr...and german muslims.

Or for that matter the American Muslims.
If Muslims served in proportion to their one percent of the U.S. population there would be about 22,000 Muslims in the service.
Only 7,000 serve which is about one-third of one percent of America's population which is statistically insignificant.
A very ungrateful bunch knowing what they escaped from and what has been given to them in their new home.
Seems like America is the only Western Country that wants to understands that freedom is not free.

I am guessing that many ethnicities are under represented in the forces though Johnny - Poles included. That is because blacks and Latinos are so over represented in the military - I think that has little to do with innate patriotism and more to do with the job options for 18 year olds. Many Muslims are from more educated backgrounds as that is the only way they got into the US in the first place.

Is that why Muslim countries like Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc. have the lowest literacy rates, let alone higher education?

Nearly one in three people in the Arab world is illiterate, including nearly half of all women in the region, according to Tunisian Arab League Educational Cultural and Scientific Organisation (Alecso)

US doesn't take in people solely based on education. If it did there'd be FAR less unskilled, unemployed immigrants here from shithole countries. And Muslims don't have nearly the same levels of education or income on average as Indians and E Asians. According to a Gallup poll from 2009, American Muslims for the most part have lower incomes, less education and fewer jobs than the population as a whole.

Looks like the French Nazis under Le Pen received Russian money as well to help in the last election. Trump, BREXIT, Le Pen ... see the pattern? Russians seem to love right wing crooks.

washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-russian-bank-gave-marine-le-pens-party-a-loan-then-weird-things-began-happening/2018/12/27/960c7906-d320-11e8-a275-81c671a50422_story.html

Russia invests in an EU which might not be so hostile against Putin's Russia...I don't think it's an alliance of "right wing crooks". They are just the only real option right now.

And I think it will come to bite Putin in the ass...nationalists might now look favourable to equally nationalist Russia, but in the end nationalists hate each others nations. A longstanding alliance will be impossible...soon they will be enemies again.

He might wish a more or less soft EU back...

So what? Big deal. Campaigns receive money from all sorts of sources. Sarkozy received money from Ghaddafi, Bushes and Clintons from Saudi Arabia, half the MEPs from Soros, etc. What are somehow Trump, Le Pen, and other nationalists exempt from receiving foreign campaign funds/donations but the leftists can? Saudi Arabia alone purportedly funded nearly 20% of Clinton's bloated campaign budget according to the Saudi prince.


EU is soft asf. Putin could take over any minute if he wanted to and NATO knows that. Look how pathetic their response to Ukraine was. NATO's generals even say that if Putin started a group invasion there's nothing to stop him from capturing the Baltic states and he could go as far as the German border before everyone in NATO figured out how to react and send reinforcements and by that time he'd already have the territory he wants.

No, I don't think he can.

A military adventure costs billions and he would lose most of his income. Who will keep on buying his gas and oil? Ukraine was a calculated risk, attacking Europe is a totally different level.

And Putin wouldn't even dream of it trying...it would destroy all he tried to build. It would be his end!

If you don't know the answer to that, then you're hopeless. Receiving money from the Russians to influence elections in the US, France and Britain is totally okay, right? But, but, but ... Clinton. LOL!

It's either totally okay or totally wrong, same as receiving money from Saudis, morocco, Gaddafi, etc is totally okay or totally wrong.

Seeing as how numerous leftists have no problem receiving money from autocratic gulf states where there is no equality for women, gay marraige, free speech - all things the left claims to stand for, then they shouldn't have a problem when right wing politicians also receive money from autocratic regimes. To criticize right wingers for receiving money from Russia is simply hypocritical.

@Bratwurst Boy

No he wont. BUT if he did want to, geopolitical considerations aside, he would totally obliterate the Baltic states and get as far as germany within a matter of two three days and that's without even using nukes. Even Nato command admits this.

And then?

If this would gain him something more than some territory he doesn't need with a hostile population he doesn't want and the loss of customers for his raw materials he absolutely needs, he would do it. But he won't! As we both agree...

Putin is lots of things but surely not stupid! He might be militarily be able to do it but it would cost him everything in the end.

And I very much doubt that even the most EU-hating nationalist far right somewhere in Europe would dare to support Putin attacking another EU country...no matter how they love his money...

Attacking Europe would be suicide!

And it's the same thing with influencing elections. You're telling me usa, uk, france etc NEVER tried to sway an election in a foreign country? Of course they have - sometimes covertly, sometimes with direct use of force, sometimes with massive donations, propoganda, etc.

Therefore they shouldn't be surprised let alone claim the moral high ground when it happens to them.

I can't quite understand how you think taking money from Russians is bad and having Russians influence elections when the US did the same exact thing to Russia and the numerous new post soviet states in the 90s. Hell US even tried to influence elections in Poland in the 80s.

Your arguement is based on exceptionalism. A state can influence elections, but not have its elections influenced. A candidate can receive donations from autocratic regimes, but his or her opponent cannot. That's what your argument boils down to. Thus, Le Pen should be able to receive money from whoever she wants to, just as other French leaders from macron to Sarkozy tohe numerous meps have.

+Bratwurst Boy

No he's not stupid. In fact he's probably the wisest, most practical head of state since the 00s. I'm not saying that he would. I am saying that IF he wanted to, disregarding otger considerations, he Russian army would sweep eastern europe.

The only eu country he could potentially attack are the Baltic namely Estonia as it has a large russian population or Belarus since the EU wouldn't care much and have probably an even less tepid response than with ukraine

Above all, they love anything that destabilises more deveoped societies than their own; they see a strategic advantage. It hasn't worked though.

You have to ask yourself just one question: why is Russia handing over cash to far right groups in various countries across the globe? Answer is easy. To destabilize the west, to destroy NATO and the EU, and to install nationalist regimes that are all at each others' throat. Divide and conquer. I certainly wouldn't call it hypocritical to criticize people like Trump, Bannon, Le Pen and Farage for accepting dirty money and blame them for helping Putin to slowly destroy the west. You're okay with that, I assume?


Not yet, but Trump and his cronies are working on it. Why is Bannon still in Europe? Let's see what happens after Brexit.

Instead of TTIP (a free trade zone between EU and US) a new huge free trade zone will com to pass 2019 between the EU and the MERCOSUR members (South America)

After a free trade agreement with Japan the next big thing for the EU.

Since Donald binned all future trade agreement plans the EU goes it alone...and it's growing. (And it seems not even Bolsonaro is dumb enough to stop it).

ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/eu-mercosur-association-agreement

Yes, the USA will isolate herself if the country continues on the current path. That's what Trump and those that stand behind him want.

No different than Soros' aims.... again, hypocritical to criticize receiving money from one source and not all external sources that have a particular agenda contrary to majority voters' desires. I'm sure most Brits don't appreciate their politics being influenced by a person who is known to have 'broken the Bank of England' and continues to manipulate the currency through political inference. Yet that's somehow perceived as not a big deal but donations from Russia are, even though both parties obviously are donating money with the expectation of particular actions that suit their agenda. Otherwise, there is no reason for any person, any state, any group to donate to any politician, group, etc. Hell even donors expect to get a wing or building named after them when donating to hospitals and schools and be immortalized with some bronze plaque or statute.


Personally, I don't care. As long as my house is standing, cash is coming in, I can enjoy a Sunday ride on my Harley and have the ability to raise a family in a socially conservative household and protect myself and those in my home with lethal force I'm good.

Also, I believe in karma and because of that I don't feel any sort of uneasiness in terms of election manipulation. The left blows the US election interference/political manipulation totally out of proportion - Russians purchasing not even a full 6 figures of Facebook and Google ads is somehow a threat to our democracy, a manipulation of our politics and elections, yet accepting millions upon millions from Saudis, Muslim Brotherhood, Soros, etc. isn't? So to criticize people like Farage, Le Pen, Trump, etc. for accepting 'dirty money' without criticizing people like Clintons, Sarkozy, Macron, half the MEPs, etc. for doing the same thing is again, hypocritical.

If the US, France, Germany, UK, etc don't want their elections interfered in, then they shouldn't interfere in the elections and politics of others. Or at the very least they shouldn't be surprised and claim the moral high ground when their politics are interfered with by outside sources after decades of doing the same to them.

There is no evidence of half of MEPs getting funding from Soros. I presume you are referring to the list of MEPs that Open Sociery said shared liberal aims ?

There is no evidence of the Saudis funding 20 percent of Clinton's campaign.

I don't know about Sarkozy - it's possible because he is a dodgy guy.

The difference with what Putin was doing is that Putin has not declared it, it is not intended to genuinely support democracy and all parties know they have done wrong because they have spent two years hiding it.

I see now that the Alt Right press is moving from a position of denying any illegal funding to a position that Clinton, Soros blah blah blah. That is because proper legal processes are identifying the traitors who take Russian cash.

In which elections does Germany interfere?

There we go again ... but, but, but Hillary. Whataboutism, the trademark of the far right. The Russians are financially supporting anti-democratic forces in the hopes of destroying the west. Sorry, Dirk, but I will never understand how you can find excuses for people like Trump, Bannon, Miller and all the other demented f*ckers who want to take the world back to 1933. Nationalism has cost tens of millions of people their lives, and you want to return to that? Because ... the Clintons, Soros and other assorted conspiracy theories?

Marxists plot to undermine Hungary's existence (Poland, take note)

irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/new-generation-taps-hungary-s-protest-tradition-to-take-on-orbán-1.3740902

"Ms Donath studied sociology with a focus on migration ... then completed an internship at the European Commission before returning to Hungary, where she worked for an NGO that helps asylum seekers with funding from liberal philanthropist George Soros."

"Philanthropist"? Someone at the Irish Times has a sense of humour. If György Schwartz is a philanthropist then Lazar Kaganovitch was a community outreach worker.

Why do you only mention Hillary and not the others - macron,sarkozy, half the meps, basicall all of labor, etc.? It isn't just the Clintons - it's everyone both on the left and right.


So do soros, gulf monarchies, etc. There's no difference....


Absolutely. There's way too many stupid people. Plus my investments in Colt have been stagnating since there hasn't been a mass shooting in a while. If it were up to me every person below an IQ of 90 would be turned into high end luxury soap.

Unfortunately, nationalism will never be as efficient as 'democratic socialism'/communism at culling the herd.


They've interfered in many - Turkey, Poland, Russia - hell Germans were responsible for the October Revolution and financed Lenin.... They still interfere in Polish politics (and more so economics) regularly - for one trying to get the country to show 'solidarity' by having Polish people also subject to regular terror attacks and Polish women to be raped far more often and trying to push a Globo-Homo-Shlomo Corp. agenda . Thankfully it didn't work.

Point is, when you interfere in a country's elections, politics, etc you have ZERO claim to the moral high ground when it happens to you. So even IF America's election was interfered in, it's nothing more than karma, poetic justice, etc. If America didn't want their elections interfered in they shouldn't of messed with Russian politics in the 90's or more recently in the Russian sphere of influence namely Ukraine and Georgia.

@TheOther

There is no question of Trump isolating the US. His campaign to 'Drain the swamp' will have significant impact on eroding Social Marxism in the West. Most of Europe is under the dictatorship of the Globalist EU. Trump is very well thought of in Eastern Europe and anywhere where feelings of nationalism and patriotism have been marginalised over decades. Europe's right wing lurch is symptomatic of the forces that brought Trump to power....

One once the huge kickbacks that the German and French leadership took as a result of the US-Iran nuclear deal emerge, the elites will be lose their grip on power... Macron it already losing his...

Actually there's a ton of evidence that Saudis gave tens of millions to the Clinton foundation, and according to MBS himself funded 20% of her campaign.. Not just Saudis either - Oman, Yemen, Morocco, etc. Basically all the countries that have the type of laws and societies that the liberal Clintons claim to abhor, but have no problem taking money from...


226 MEPs to be exact. Most the people on the commission are Soros' ******* too.


Gaddafi funded most of his campaign. How did the Frenchie repay him? Getting the US neo-cons to invade him.

And if Putin wants to destabilize societies that are pushing crap like 72 genders and willingly flooding themselves with darkies, then I'm all for it. Again, can't take money from one source or push a particular agenda then criticize others for doing the exact same thing to represent a different viewpoint. That's what democracy is all about. Quite frankly, he should just skip the active measures and do a few Avangard tests on them instead. Seeing as the defense ministers of most of these cucked w European countries are women with zero to little military experience and are merely diversity hires, their response would be totally laughable.

Given that Germany owns 80% of the press in Poland, you can see press commentaries and reports being written by Ms Merkel. Do you not see Merkel's lapdog Tusk being groomed as the future president of Poland after holiday at the EU come to an end?


Just like there is no evidence that Clinton ran her own private email server, or that the Clinton Foundation was a huge money laundering campaign, or that Clinton was involved in selling 20% of US Uranium to Russia.

There is no evidence at all if you get your news from the Clinton News Network !