this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
-34 points (26.4% liked)

World News

40854 readers
274 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zeppo@sh.itjust.works 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Brought to you by: Russia Today

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I mean, they actually submitted the idea of removing two national holidays to "save money". The dishonest part here is "to fight Russia", even though the next budget is expected to increase the army's budget.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But who are they increasing the army's budget for? Just for fun?

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, it's to totally send boots in Russia and walk on Moscow of course, we've almost done it once, we can do it again!
That's totally not a big jump to a fantasized conclusion fed to y'all by known Russian propagandists. The author of the article somehow manages to grasp the problem and dishonestly draw wrong conclusions from it.

There are many reasons to increase the Army's budget. Funneling money to Macron's friends in the armament industry is one of them, preparing the public opinion for a war that will never happen to justify "sacrifices" and austerity is another.

I don't think there's any point in debating about this on .ml anyway. You've probably made up your mind about this already.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There are many reasons to increase the Army’s budget. Funneling money to Macron’s friends in the armament industry is one of them, preparing the public opinion for a war that will never happen to justify “sacrifices” and austerity is another.

These are probably also reasons, but you think war with Russia isn't on the minds of every government in Europe right now? They're already fighting a proxy war with Russia! At the very least I think this is one of many reasons for increased military funding.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

Funding the army to protect yourself and your neighbours from aggression is very different from funding the army to invade a sovereign country.

I'm not arguing it's not one of the reasons for increasing the budget, but arguing it's to attack Russia is just dishonest.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Oh. Now I see the problem - you're still operating with centuries-old thinking. You think "war with Russia" means France launching a unilateral invasion of Russia.

Funding NATO is literally the equivalent of preparing for war with Russia. NATO was formed explicitly to counter the USSR. It was staffed with Nazi officers from the Third Reich on the basis that the Third Reich was 100% dedicated to destroying the Soviet Union and enslaving Russia. When the USSR was dissolved, NATO didn't dissolve itself, it became an openly aggressive military force launching invasions of several countries under various pretenses.

The idea of austerity for increased NATO funding can only be interpreted as money for war with Russia. Sure, you can pretend NATO is purely defensive but even if that's the case it's still accurate to say that France is engaging in austerity to fund a war with Russia, just a defensive one.

The reality, however, is that the West has been hell bent on dominating Russia for over 200 years and the quintessential example of that history is Napoleon's campaign to invade Russia - one of the deadliest canpaigns in history. And since the Third Reich was also a Western attempt to invade Russia resulting in massive bloodshed, it becomes really difficult to ignore the obvious problem of France funding NATO (remember, originally helmed with handpicked Third Reich officers) as some kind of "just defensive pact" especially when NATO dropped DU bombs on Yugoslavia in its supposed war for humanitarianism, and NATO's involvement in offensive operations in East Asia.

So you may take issue with the imagined implication that France is going to send an army under the French flag to march on Moscow - I think that's silly too. But you're arguing against a strawman.

[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Not dishonest, but following the jingoistic remarks made by several European leaders plus the current NATO proxy war and economic murder attempt of Russia, it's at the very least in the cards, lol. The budget could go into Ukrainian drones (it already is, this is just a proposed increase) just like the American budget serves to bomb tf out of Palestine and neighbours. It's dishonest to say otherwise, come on.

[–] xzite@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

plus the current NATO proxy war and economic murder attempt of Russia

Wow, why would "NATO" do this? Russia hasn't invaded anyone since ~~2022~~ ~~2014~~ ~~2008~~ ~~1999~~ ~~1994~~ ~~1979~~ ~~1968~~ 1956, that's such a long time ago, and those Hungarians totally deserved it.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

They are already attacking Russia through a proxy. They've not been shy about it. They are increasing military spending because they think their proxy is about to collapse and their liege the US is already demanding everyone else step up so they can pivot to China.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago

French officials daring the population to bring out the guillotines? Time is a flat circle.

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The real reason is because France is being kicked out of Africa so they have to turn inwards and colonize their own people.

The more African countries free themselves from the shackles of French imperialism, the worse it will get for the average French. Then it would be very easy to sell them the next war for them to needlessly die in.

[–] LordWiggle@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Russian propaganda is world news now? Wtf dude

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

It is world news. Why should only Western propaganda be shared?

[–] jackeroni@lemmy.ml -4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It is not propaganda, it is only labeled like that because of the empire's need to discredit it

[–] Zeppo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

Kind of like how they attempt to discredit Europe's extremely reasonable concerns about Russia (conswidering they've been bombing the shit out of ukraine for a couple of years?) starting a war by calling it a "fantasy"?

[–] LordWiggle@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It's complete bullshit, some facts are portrayed completely out of proportion and it has a clear propaganda bias.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

As opposed to what? What sources do you use that don't portray any facts out of proportion or have any bias?

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu -5 points 11 months ago

Welcome on .ml !

[–] LordWiggle@lemmy.world -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Hey Russia, your army is mass deserting. They are treated better as POW's than by their own government.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I wish I knew where to bet on the fact that if Ukraine has a complete collapse and an unconditional surrender half of you libs will go "these Russian bots lol have fun when Ukraine unveils their gambit and kills the entire Russian government and are celebrated as heroes by everyone in the country"

[–] LordWiggle@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

Why would I laugh about Russian bots spreading nazi propaganda. Also, what Ukrainian collapse? Right now the chances of Russia having a complete collapse is bigger than Ukraine.