397
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2026
397 points (94.4% liked)
Europe
11036 readers
963 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The irony is that the tension with China and Russia originates from the US. The Ukraine war cannot be undone but there is less to forgive than the cruelty of WW 2. If we split from the US we could rebuild our relations with China and Russia.
That's why I believe that the tensions with the US are superficial. We don't act as if the US are dead against us. We play good cop, bad cop because it would be difficult to explain to European democracies that we support the war against Iran to limit the oil supply for China.
Two days ago the son of the Shah was in Berlin. At least Germany supports the regime change.
Sure, except for the small imperialist invasion of Ukraine, Russia has been the most friendly and reliable partner for Europe. I wish we could forgive and forget 🥰
Yeah and all the meddling and interference and financing far right parties and so on. They're definitely friendly !
Unless of course you also count the decades of aggression and covert warfare against European countries (sabotage, psyops, cyberattacks etc).
But aside from that.....
Whoosh
OMG samesies ❤
After ww2 germany was occupied for years. I don’t think Russia should be let off the hook for what they are doing in Ukraine.
Germany became trustworthy and stable through democratic systems and the rule of law. OP pulling an equivalence to Russia of today is insane.
I am not pulling an equivalence. I am not saying that current Russia should be treated like current Germany. I am just saying that there can be reconsiliation. Russia's main demand is no Nato. If Europe can offer that because we split with America then we should check what Russia has to offer. Maybe Putin is willing to step down for it.
This is bullshit. 'No NATO' is one of Russia's many lies, a talking point, a pushed narrative, a lie they used at some point. At the same time, Putin has publicly stated intention of getting control of UDSSR land "back".
NATO was never an enemy of a collaborative or just Russia. It was only opposition to military action.
Giving in to 'no Nato' is giving up on autonomy and on being able to defend, with all its consequences.
Today's USA under Trump is more of an ally to Russia than not. Trump is actively working for Putin and against Europe. It's just that the political and systematic environment protects us from worse, for now.
Do you have a source? I know there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics with the author being close to Putin, and there is a quote in another comment in that direction. But it requires to win a war against Europe. That's not realistic.
Russia wanted to be part of Nato. Putin's speech in front of the German parliament in 2001 looks sincere to me. On the other hand chancellor Kohl's notes show that the West never had the intention to integrate Russia but they promised it.
There is article 42 of the EU. There is also nothing preventing Nato from officially fighting for Ukraine right now.
Deception. Trump would be impeached if that would be true. The US still have their base in Wiesbaden, they just let the EU pay for everything.
Putin would need a strong but independent EU against the US while the US needs a fractured EU to keep them paying and following their lead. Both support the right wing parties but with different goals.
Lol no...just no. NATO and Ukraine being magically run by nazis is just an excuse. Putin wants power and to rebuild the USSR.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7632057
That was in 2005. The writing was on the wall, and no one believed it.
"No Nato", but did you ask why "no Nato"? That has much less to do with the US, and much more to do with them trying to recover their previous imperial holdings in eastern Europe.
Of course you can argue these eastern European countries are now imperial holdings of western Europe in some ways, but they themselves overwhemingly prefer that than to be subject to Russian rule again.
Reconciliation with Russia is only possible when Russia stops being an aspiring empire, which is unlikely to happen any time soon.
How can Russia believe to win the necessary wars? People suggest that Russia can win the propaganda war in the EU to take enough countries out of the EU and then have no opposition when conquering the Baltics. But buying ads cannot beat owning the algorithm.
The strategic benefit of the Baltics for Russia is that defending is easier. It doesn't make sense to start a war to get them.
Russia doesn't oppose the EU with article 42. I think it's actually Nato and the influence of the US that they don't want.
If there is no western European support (because for example Germany is ruled by the AfD, France by the FN and the UK by Reform... not exactly an unrealistic scenario right now, and the "algorithm" is helping them with that) then they can win, or at the very least pressure these smaller states to become vassals like Belarus is right now.
But even if you personally disagree that this is a realistic scenario, it doesn't change the fact that the large majority of the eastern European states believe so and thus will prevent any attempts at reconciliation with Russia on EU level.
The US control the social networks. That's not my personal preference but a fact.
If they believe that soon the EU won't protect them they would seek reconciliation immediately. They can only be aggressive towards Russia because they expect Russia to lose and to be dismantled.
And the US is currently (intentionally or not) helping Russia in this information warfare against western European liberal governments.
And you are mixing up who is aggressive against whom. The eastern European states pose very little threat for Russia but feel (justified or not) massively threatened by them.
I mean news like
With their history I understand why they want Russia's power to be dismantled but it only makes sense to openly call for it if they don't expect to fight Russia on their own in 5 years. Otherwise it would be better to try to avoid the war by trying to create peaceful relations before the protection runs out.
All I want to say with this is that Russia has not that much of an influence on the media.
The West uses the extreme right parties to split the workers so that neoliberal policies can be implemented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
We live in times of information warfare. That means that everything can be deception. As long as the billionaires don't push for an impeachment I am sure that Trump is deception and with him everything that looks like successful Russian influence.
In South America we can see the US influence. Why should it be any different in Europe? At least in Germany we have a chancellor who was paid by an American company for years.
Russia can't want a Europe that is controlled by the US. To me, the Russian support for the opposition looks not so much like an attempt to destroy Europe but as an attempt to get the US out.
Again, have the US out for what? And why would Lithuania try to appease the agressor preemtively when it is far from certain that Russia will succeed in their campaign to destabilize the EU (which is currently supported by the US).
The real fear the Russian government has is that some of their remaining imperial holdings also decide that enough is enough. So by attacking Ukraine and trying to cow the baltic states into submission, they are trying to frighten anyone that might see these states as positive examples how former soviet states can be much freer than they themselves are under Russian domination.
That's why I think that the Russian influence on social networks is not big.
I think so, too. The question is which fate they can expect from joining the American free market. If they end up homeless without healthcare like poor American citizens then their freedom will be a trap. I think that the US cannot afford to have countries with better healthcare and housing in their sphere of influence in the long run. Germany is starting to discuss no treatment for unemployed.
But there is also the US problem of being overtaken by China. I think that problem can only be solved with a war. Russia would be involved. So some geostrategic considerations should influence Russia, too.
The typical Russian citizen living in the imperial holdings doesn't aspire to US free market style conditions, but they can see on social media and from personal connections / travels that other often even Russian speaking people living in the Baltic states and (pre-war) Ukraine enjoy significantly more personal freedom and often also higher quality of life.
This is a direct practical refutation of the dominant propaganda narrative of the Russian government that if anything changes it will only change for the worse.
How people in the US or even western Europe live is entirely irrelevant to this perception.
There is no point in asking what ifs, and the EU is certainly not trying to emulate the US even though it does have its own problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lys%C3%A9e_Treaty
The section called 'Controversy'. Have we managed to become independent?
That's why Russia must be worried. People see the material improvement but don't consider the long-term perspective.
Which relations specifically do you suggest we rebuild?
The Russia before the recent invasion was a Russia preparing for war. Russia has and had explicit pursued goals of destabilization of Europe and making Europe dependent. and Russia wants its UDSSR land and control back. The US isn't the problem in that relationship. I certainly don't want back into that trajectory.
China has its own voiced claims and seekings of foreign territories. They're fundamentally egoistic and pursuing control and dominance. It was an asymmetric trade, making use of the open European market while having a closed domestic market. They were stealing know-how and then used subsidization to weaken and drive out European competition. I don't want back onto that relationship and trajectory either.
We need new kinds of relations. And the US doesn't stand in the way of that. It's another party we need new kinds of relations with.
The relations of 2001 when Putin gave his speech to the German parliament. An economic union from Portugal till Vladivostok was on the table. Russia wants to be self-reliant now after we rejected that.
Aren't they justified to be cautious? If Europe could, we would treat them like Africa or the US like Latin America. Unlike the US we are already number two, so not much to lose if China becomes number one. Nobody knows how relations are if containment is not part of the equation.
Which kinds? Mercosur was not a full success.
Maybe the people, but haven't we learned by now you can't trust a dictatorship? No more trade relations with dictators..
You are absolutely right in that dictatorships are unreliable and will either stab you in the back when you cozy up to them or try to stab you in the front if you don‘t. Unfortunately there are too many people and especially politicians that can‘t let go of the status quo because they either profited massively from it or in other cases at least think they did. They don‘t realize or care that the dream of prosperity by giving dictators what they want is becoming more and more of a nightmare for of us.
Simply put I think too many people are selfish and don‘t believe tensions with autocracies are negatively affecting them.
And the government made clear there won't be an official meeting. Instead, he met with selected members of the Bundestag (parliament). What are you trying to say?
What they were saying is in the sentence following the one you quoted.
Of course, as you point out, they're making wrong assumptions or deliberately mislead. With that, what they were saying falls apart.
The way he is paraded around in the German media suggests strong political support, though.
Supporting the Shah is a bit of a political tradition in Germany, he was a well liked (by the political caste) state guest back in the day when he was running the regime in Iran. His state visits even gave the German language a new word: "Jubelperser" - "jubilant Persians", a euphemism for agents of his security service who would beat up counter demonstrators with iron rods under the watchful benevolent eyes of the German police.
Sure, there is strong political support for the idea of Pahlavi taking over again. But just not by 'Germany', as the user made it seem.
Important members of the biggest ruling party meeting with him suggests otherwise.
It's a whole lot of support while still allowing some deniability.
As far as I read, he met with several foreign affairs politicians from various parliamentary groups in the Bundestag. The only named participant I know of is CDU's Laschet. He was cited with "Of course I want to talk to Pahlavi, as he's a person of relevance when it comes to transition in Iran." Green's Nouripour said, while he himself wouldn't have attended that meeting, he yet thinks it is ok and even sensible of Laschet to speak with the various facets of Iranian opposition and that other members of his party will also attend the meeting. There are very critical voices from Laschet's party as well as other parties. At least I do not know what they actually discussed in that meeting, so I am cautious to blindly assume they fully supported him and did not voice any concerns. Meeting a political figure from abroad does not automatically equal supporting them.
What are you trying to say? That that isn't support? Laschet is the former chancellor candidate. That's the highest ranking member of the CDU that still allows some form of denial. Obviously it works but why? How can the meeting be interpreted any different but as support?
So? Laschet is the current chair of the Bundestag's Foreign Affairs Committee. Call me crazy, but I guess meeting with influential foreign political figures might have more to do with that than some election a couple of years ago.
And while he might support Pahlavi, not even his party is unanimously doing so. Meetings of political figures can also be used to voice concerns and criticism.
Hence, to insinuate that Germany supports him is at best uninformed, at worst malicious.
Of course, the meeting can be held for the personal goals of Laschet but how likely is that? Current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee, it can't be much more official while the war is illegal.
No one here said that. When the current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee meets such a person (together with foreign affairs politicians from other parties), the most obvious reason for that meeting would be their respective function in foreign affairs.
Given the criticism from across a plethora of parties - involved and uninvolved - and the clear message by the government to not meet him, your statement of 'Germany' supporting is false: either uninformed or malicious.
The government doesn't meet Pahlavi because it looks bad. How does it not look bad if somebody else meets him who has deep ties to the government?
Problem is that you keep on filling the circumstances with your own personal opinions/assumptions and then confuse these for facts. It is your choice to interpret these things in the most negative way possible or suspecting a conspiracy/"something bigger", but don't be surprised if others won't follow you on that path and grow tired of you trying to keep that wheel spinning.
The facts are: the government explicitly stated they won't meet Pahlavi. Pahlavi met with foreign affairs politicians / members of the Bundestag from various parties. These parties also raised concerns about this meeting. Laschet himself was cited with “Of course I want to talk to Pahlavi, as he’s a person of relevance when it comes to transition in Iran.” Details of this meeting and participants beyond Laschet are not known.
Yet, for you this is all clear and you'll happily interpret it as a sign of support. Not only by Laschet, but the whole of Germany. What's there left to say to that?
If the meeting doesn't mean anything why has the government not met him? Adding one layer of indirection doesn't change much.
Because the government meeting Pahlavi is something else than Laschet meeting Pahlavi. One is our official government, where a meeting would undoubtedly convey some sort of support they apparently don't want to display. The other is current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee, where a meeting is much more normal and does not convey that gravitas. Isn't that pretty obvious?
If there is need for talks, why not a nameless Parliamentary State Secretary who meets a nameless member of the Iranian opposition?
The support consists in legitimizing Pahlavi. Meeting the current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee has less gravitas than being received with full military honors but there is still gravitas. It not fully confirms but suggests that he inherited the leadership and that the reign of his father was legit. It also signals that regime change is possible. If we would oppose the war we wouldn't do that.
Pahlavi is a relevant figure of the Iranian opposition, whether you and I like that or not. Whether he meets Laschet or not. Especially for Iranians in exile, he's the most prominent figure for an alternative to the current Mullah regime. And of course, regime change is possible - and desired by Iranians. Don't forget that the regime had to kill more than ten thousand people on the streets who were protesting against them only three months ago and that after the news emerged that Khamenei is dead, people in Iran filled the streets to celebrate.
So, what exactly is your problem here?
I have no problem. To me the reception of Pahlavi just means that we support him and do our part to maintain the momentum of the revolution. The revolution doesn't seem to be very successful right now so that any assurance helps to keep the people motivated.
That can be your opinion. But you shouldn't rule out other interpretations.
Fuck Russia. Putin and his oligarchs are a snake that nobody can trust.
Put in power literally by US and EU confrontational policies and wouldn't exist without the westernization of Russia demanded European nations in the 1990s.
Kinda too late to kill your own monster child.
LoL This is completely ridiculous. It was a bunch of Russian oligarchs who put Putin on the Kremlin throne thinking they had a passive pawn, but instead ended up becoming the puppets themselves. After the fall of the USSR, most of the countries that comprised it did not develop into the despotic, revanchist, chauvinistic, and increasingly totalitarian country that Russia is today.
The attempt at Westernization in all the former Soviet republics in Europe also occurred, but it did not have the devastating consequences that the Russians experienced. The benchmark for what went really wrong in Russia is different and comes from within.
100% this. Its crazy to see the mental gymnastics America's vassals do to explain how a decision that fucks them over and benefits the US/hurts our enemies was actually good for Europe.
IDK about rebuilding your relationship with Russia tho, your and their national bourgeois have such conflicting interests, and even if they wanted peace, they can’t stop the fascists in either country.
What are the conflicts? I thought the classic threat to the US is Russian resources and German engineering. Add the full EU to that and a single economic zone from Portugal to Vladivostok would become the central market of the world. The bourgeois must like that.
The Euro bourgeois want cheap resources, Russia has cheap resources. A developed Russia means expensive resources.