Four men were given preliminary charges in the investigation into the Sept. 8 theft from the small Renoir Museum in the town of Cagnes-sur-Mer on the French Riviera.

Le Libre Penseur

Vendredi 18 septembre 2026, Emmanuel macron réunit à l’Élysée chefs de partis et candidats à la présidentielle de 2027. Les patrons de la DGSE et de la DGSI sont là, la situation est grave ! Il affirme que la menace hybride russe s’intensifie : drones, cyberattaques, sabotages… La fin du monde ! Il cite Leipzig, où un drone chargé d’explosifs a été trouvé près d’un avion-cargo. Il ordonne un plan de protection des infrastructures critiques. Le message est clair, le pays doit se tendre. Cette mise en scène de tension sert à éviter le bilan et à peser sur le climat électoral. Point.

Georges Malbrunot va par contre citer un agent du renseignement français (DGSI). La menace existe oui, mais macron la surestime largement, c’est du vent. Aucun nouvel épisode n’aurait été détecté ces dernières semaines. Pourquoi sortir cela maintenant ? Sauf stratégie de communication avant la présidentielle, en visant Marine Le Pen et Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

L’agent ajoute autre chose. Poutine serait acculé en Ukraine, il perd beaucoup d’hommes. Des renforts nord-coréens arrivent et en Afrique, la logistique russe coince. Selon lui, mieux vaudrait frapper les télécoms russes que multiplier les discours. Il décrit aussi une offensive des services vers les médias pour appuyer la communication de l’Élysée. De la pure propagande bidon et grossière comme on en a l’habitude depuis 9 ans de macronisme dégénéré.

D’autant que ce n’est pas la première fois que macron ment concernant la menace russe, c’est un multi récidiviste. Il nous avait déjà fait le coup des cyberattaques des hôpitaux ! Pourtant les médias complices corrompus continuent de diffuser ses fake news sans aucun regard critique ou analyse sérieuse !

Le même jour, Poutine répète que la Russie n’a aucune intention agressive envers l’Europe. Aucun fondement, dit-il. Moscou serait prêt à rétablir des relations. Il ajoute : laissez-nous vivre en paix, sinon nous réagirons. On entend pourtant depuis des années que Poutine est mourant : multi cancers, tremblements, rumeurs de décès… Il a 73 ans certes mais il apparaît encore, il est allé en Inde. Rien de public ne prouve une mort imminente.

On dit aussi qu’il perd la guerre. En septembre 2026, c’est une guerre d’usure. La Russie avance peu et cher. L’Ukraine frappe Moscou et des raffineries. Ni effondrement russe ni victoire nette. Imaginer une attaque des 27 pays de l’UE est d’une grande absurdité et totalement contradictoire avec le discours dominant.

Deux jours plus tôt, Challenges révèle un autre fait. Le téléphone de Dora Cattuti, conseillère Afrique du Nord et Moyen-Orient à la cellule diplomatique de l’Élysée, aurait été piraté ; l’opération est attribuée au Mossad. Le logiciel espion a été mis en place via un faux mail de l’Autorité palestinienne. Découvert lors d’un contrôle de sécurité. L’Élysée parle d’inexactitudes et ne confirme pas. Le Quai d’Orsay se tait car il n peut pas sanctionner Tel-Aviv. Ce n’est pas une première : Pegasus, outil israélien, a déjà ciblé des responsables français. Paris avait même étudié son achat avant d’y renoncer.

Cette nouvelle affaire est d’autant plus grave qu’elle n’est pas une première et que l’Élysée ne fera absolument rien. Pas de sanctions, pas de convocation de l’ambassadeur israélien… walou ! Telles des serpillères, les membres de l’exécutif vont encore ramper.

Alors qui menace vraiment ? Mettre en scène une seule alerte et taire l’autre n’éclaire personne. Au contraire il est question de propagande et de tromperie. C’est aussi un joli écran de fumée pour camoufler 10 années de carnage de la macronie, 10 années de sabotage, 10 années de suicide français sans avoir besoin ni des Russes, ni des Iraniens, ni des fréristes…

Et ce n’est pas le risible air martial très théâtralisé de ce nain insignifiant qui va rendre réel un mensonge aussi pathétique.

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham said Russia interfered in the 2016 referendum that took Britain out of the European Union, in podcast excerpts released on 11 October, the Associated Press reported. His remarks are believed to be the first time a British prime minister has publicly acknowledged such meddling.

Russia’s information war keeps running through Europe’s ballots. German security sources said in August that Moscow was escalating disinformation before state elections, and Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation found more than 200 Russian fake news sites aimed at France last year.

One question, one clear answer

Burnham told The Rest Is Politics podcast that he asked his advisers whether Russia had interfered in the 2016 vote. He asked after taking office in July.

“I’ve had the clear answer that yes, there was,” he said.

He argued that such things must now be put clearly on the record. He did not say how Russia interfered or offer evidence, and Moscow has long denied interfering in foreign votes.

Burnham said he had discussed Russian interference with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin the previous week. “You know he was saying to me that the AfD are clearly linked to Russia, funded I believe,” Burnham said, referring to Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany party. Putting such interference on the record would help “voters in Germany and France understand that some of this politics is instigated via our enemies, namely Russia,” he added.

Years of silence

In 2020, Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee found that the government had actively avoided investigating whether Russia meddled in the referendum. The report noted open-source signs of Russian attempts to sway the Brexit campaign. The government, it said, had never looked for hard evidence.

The government rejected the committee’s call for a review.

“We have seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU Referendum,” it said.

That same year, London said Russian actors had almost certainly tried to interfere in the 2019 general election. The government said they did it by amplifying leaked UK-US trade documents online.

From 2019 to 2016

Three weeks ago, Burnham stopped short of this. At the UN General Assembly on 22 September, he said the Kremlin spends around £1.3 billion each year on manipulating information. That is roughly $1.7 billion at recent exchange rates. He cited evidence that Russian agencies tried to interfere in the 2019 general election, but he did not mention 2016.

In the same speech, he said Britain had already helped Moldova protect its elections from Russian interference.

Caught between the methodical repression of its own youth and the shock of a global geopolitical shift that marginalizes it, Emmanuel Macron’s France sees the republican myth collapse under the combined effect of its internal cynicism and a historic strategic defeat abroad. In reality, May 1968 revealed the vulnerability of technocratic certainties in France. However, […]

France faces growing pressure from eurozone governments and financial markets to secure its 2027 budget as borrowing costs climb towards levels not seen for more than two decades, raising questions about Paris’s ability to restore control over its public finances.

France is coming under increasingly direct pressure from its eurozone partners to resolve the political dispute surrounding its 2027 budget, with European finance ministers warning that continued uncertainty threatens confidence in the country’s public finances.

The warning follows a sharp increase in French government borrowing costs. Yields on ten-year sovereign bonds have risen by nearly 80 basis points since September, reaching levels last recorded in 2002. Investors are demanding higher returns to finance a government whose debt continues to increase while its capacity to impose spending restraint remains constrained by parliamentary divisions.

At the Eurogroup’s October discussions, finance ministers and European Central Bank officials pressed Paris to demonstrate that it can adopt a credible budget and comply with its commitments under the EU’s fiscal framework.

France’s difficulties have implications beyond its domestic politics. As the eurozone’s second-largest economy, France occupies a position fundamentally different from smaller countries that experienced sovereign debt crises during the previous decade.

Borrowing costs expose political weakness

The French government expects to borrow approximately €340 billion in 2027, making continued access to financial markets at sustainable rates an essential element of its fiscal strategy.

That financing requirement reflects both the need to cover the annual deficit and to refinance existing debt as government securities mature.

France’s public debt is already approaching 120 per cent of gross domestic product. As EU Today previously reported, official projections indicated that the debt ratio could reach 121.7 per cent in 2027, up from 115.7 per cent at the end of 2025.

The latest increase in yields adds another complication. Higher interest costs do not affect the entire stock of debt immediately because much of it was issued at earlier rates. They do, however, increase the cost of new borrowing and refinancing, progressively reducing the money available for other government commitments.

France also faces a difficult political timetable. With the presidential election approaching in 2027, parties are reluctant to accept measures involving spending reductions, higher taxation or changes to public services.

Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s government has been attempting to reduce the deficit from an estimated 5.4 per cent of GDP in 2026 towards five per cent. Even that objective remains substantially above the EU’s three per cent reference value.

Brussels has limited room to compromise

Economic Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis has emphasised the importance of predictable fiscal policy and credible deficit reduction.

France is already subject to the EU’s excessive deficit procedure, under which member states must demonstrate progress towards agreed fiscal objectives.

The reformed European fiscal framework permits certain deviations from expenditure commitments in exceptional circumstances, but it does not provide an unrestricted exemption from debt sustainability requirements.

Paris therefore faces a double constraint. It must convince domestic political forces to support a budget while demonstrating to Brussels that its spending plans are sufficiently credible.

The danger is not necessarily an immediate financing crisis. France retains a large, diversified economy, deep financial markets and substantial tax-raising capacity.

The more immediate risk is that prolonged political deadlock produces progressively higher borrowing costs, making future fiscal adjustments more expensive.

Why the ECB cannot simply intervene

The European Central Bank has instruments designed to counter destabilising market conditions, but these are not intended to finance governments that are unwilling or unable to implement sustainable fiscal policies.

Bank of France Governor Emmanuel Moulin said on 7 October that France did not currently require ECB assistance. He argued that the solution lay in adopting a credible budget rather than expecting monetary intervention.

His position follows increasing speculation about whether the ECB could intervene if French bond yields continue rising.

Such intervention would raise difficult questions about the relationship between monetary policy and national fiscal responsibility. The ECB must consider financial stability across the entire eurozone, but it cannot remove the political obligations of individual governments.

France’s existing excessive deficit procedure also complicates its eligibility for certain forms of exceptional support.

The wider European consequences

France’s problems are developing at a particularly difficult moment for European public finances.

Governments are confronting higher defence commitments, expensive measures to protect households against energy inflation and demands for greater investment in industrial competitiveness.

Italy, another heavily indebted eurozone economy, is facing related pressures. The combination places additional importance on the credibility of the EU’s fiscal rules.

The political consequences within France are already visible. Marine Le Pen has presented a programme proposing €140 billion in spending reductions, while other parties have advanced sharply different approaches to taxation, debt and public expenditure.

Those competing programmes illustrate the difficulty of securing a parliamentary consensus capable of reassuring markets.

The approaching presidential election reduces the likelihood of a durable settlement before voters choose France’s next head of state.

Eurozone partners cannot resolve that impasse from Brussels or Frankfurt. They can insist on fiscal commitments and provide a framework for adjustment, but the political decisions remain with Paris.

France’s immediate challenge is to prevent its budget dispute from becoming a broader loss of confidence in the government’s capacity to manage its finances.

On October 9, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced blocking sanctions against the International Criminal Court as an institution: a ban on all transactions, the freezing of assets under US jurisdiction, and the cutoff of cloud services, software, and payment processing. “Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC,” he said. The sanctions include a six-month transition period and take full effect by April 2027. That date, not the announcement itself, is Europe’s real deadline.

Rubio has repeatedly tied Israeli interests to US actions against the court. The ICC previously issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of war crimes in Gaza. While the October 9 announcement focused heavily on protecting American personnel, the administration had previously denounced the tribunal’s investigations against “the United States and our close ally Israel” as “illegitimate and baseless,” indicating that Washington’s campaign is aimed at shielding both US and Israeli officials.

---

Europe: Between Declaration and Enforcement

The European Commission called the sanctions “deeply regrettable” and said it was “ready to take any necessary measures” to keep the Court functioning and protect operators within the Single Market. But the same formula contains a brake: the six-month delay “leaves room for dialogue.”

Kaja Kallas, speaking for the EU, called threats against the Court “unacceptable,” reaffirming commitment to the rules-based order but stopping short of announcing any protective mechanism. António Costa promised support through political, diplomatic, financial, and practical means, without naming a single concrete instrument.

Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot is one of those publicly demanding activation of the EU Blocking Statute. “The Court’s independence cannot depend on whom it investigates. Europe must act,” he said, after securing a place for the issue on the agenda of the October 12 meeting of EU foreign ministers.

The Netherlands, where the Court sits, asked the European Commission to prepare the statute but called it a “nuclear option,” emphasizing that six months provide space for dialogue. Germany and France joined a joint statement by eight countries expressing “strong disagreement,” without mentioning countermeasures.

Why the Blocking Statute Is No Panacea

The Blocking Statute (Council Regulation No. 2271/96 of 1996) was created to counter US extraterritorial sanctions related to Cuba, Iran, and Libya. Its mechanism includes a prohibition on EU companies and citizens complying with the designated third-country sanctions, a refusal to recognize foreign court judgments based on those sanctions, and the right to recover damages in court. In 2018, after the US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, the regulation was expanded.

Adding the US sanctions against the ICC to the regulation’s annex would mean a legal prohibition on European banks, insurers, and cloud providers complying with the US restrictions. But its purpose is not to save the ICC itself. It protects European operators and jurisdiction: the regulation binds European operators and cannot compel American banks, Microsoft, Amazon, or payment systems to keep servicing the Court.

Activating the statute in this case would be unprecedented: in its thirty years of existence, it has never been applied against US sanctions affecting an international judicial institution. Its earlier use concerned US measures against those same countries, which were bilateral trade restrictions rather than an assault on a body of international justice. If the EU goes ahead, it would be the first time the Blocking Statute is transformed from a trade-defense instrument into an instrument for defending what Brussels calls the “international legal order.”

That is why it is called “nuclear”: it means legal confrontation, but it does not solve the problem of technological dependence. The ICC relies on American banking services, payment systems, cloud servers, and software. The Blocking Statute can prohibit European companies from complying with the sanctions, but it does not create an alternative to dollar clearing, global payment networks, or the servers where the Court’s data is stored.

For Washington, it is enough that American companies themselves refuse to work with the ICC because of the risk of secondary sanctions; the Blocking Statute cannot prevent that.

What Is Already Happening and What Might Happen

The practical effects of the sanctions are already beginning to show. In response to earlier US measures, the ICC has shifted its office and collaboration software from Microsoft to openDesk, a German open-source platform, and developed workarounds for banking, insurance, and payroll. It has also paid staff months in advance to limit potential payroll disruption. But these safeguards do not eliminate the Court’s broader reliance on American financial and technological infrastructure, and full sanctions could still disrupt its operations.

The alternatives Europe can offer are limited: activating the Blocking Statute, developing payment and clearing alternatives to dollar-based infrastructure, and providing European cloud services. None can be implemented quickly enough to replace American financial and technological infrastructure by April 2027.

The Asymmetry That Explains Everything

The ICC began work in 2002, and its early practice focused predominantly on African conflicts: the DRC, Uganda, Sudan, Kenya, and Libya. This imbalance fueled accusations of selectivity and neocolonialism; in 2025, three Sahel states announced their withdrawal, calling the Court an “instrument of neocolonial suppression.”

The United States signed the Rome Statute under Clinton but never ratified it; in 2002, Congress passed the American Service Members’ Protection Act, authorizing the president to use “all necessary means” to free any American detained by the ICC. Washington did not object to the Court’s early focus on African situations, even as it rejected jurisdiction over itself. Its opposition hardened once the ICC moved toward cases involving the US and its allies.

In 2020, after the Appeals Chamber authorized an investigation into crimes by US military personnel and the CIA in Afghanistan, Washington sanctioned Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and a senior Court official. The following year, Prosecutor Karim Khan “deprioritized” the American component of the case. No US citizen has ever been indicted by the ICC.

Rubio calls the ICC a “body of globalists” threatening US sovereignty and has urged US allies to rein it in. The criticism has a real basis: the Court can hear cases involving crimes committed on the territory of a state party even if the accused’s country has not joined the Rome Statute. But the ICC remains a treaty court, dependent on state cooperation, Western donors, and political decisions of the UN Security Council.

Washington’s contradiction is built into the design itself: the US is attacking an institution that grew out of the liberal order it helped create. Europe’s is different: a declaratory commitment to international law coexists with the practical costs of reducing reliance on American infrastructure.

What October 12 Will Reveal

October 12 will show whether the EU moves from declarations to legal obligations. If the final document includes a European Commission decision to add the US sanctions against the ICC to the annex of Regulation 2271/96, that would mean a legal prohibition on European companies complying with the US measures — an unprecedented use of the Blocking Statute.

If the outcome is a general declaration, a call on Washington to rescind the sanctions, and a mandate for the Commission to “prepare options,” that would confirm a scenario in which Europe defends the principle of ICC independence but is not prepared to pay for that defense through a direct collision with US extraterritorial jurisdiction.

The probability of full and immediate activation of the statute on October 12 is low. A more realistic scenario is a political declaration of support, a Commission mandate to prepare a legal mechanism, and the preservation of the six-month pause for negotiations.

The Dilemma Beyond The Hague

The question is not whether the ICC survives past April 2027. The question is whether Europe can defend what Brussels calls the “international legal order” when the costs of that defense fall on its own companies, banks, and technological supply chains.

The Blocking Statute is a test of the EU’s ability to act not as a regulator but as a geopolitical player willing to bear the costs of conflict. If Europe limits itself to declarations and negotiations, it will confirm the formula Washington has already internalized: European sovereignty ends where American extraterritorial jurisdiction begins.

If it activates the statute, it will launch an open legal conflict with an ally on which its security depends. For now, every signal points to a third option: prepare the instrument, defer the decision, and bet that Washington will back down on its own.

---

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• Saudi Arabia Has Allies. But Who Will Fight Its War in Yemen?
• The Baltic Fuse: How Europe Is Building the Infrastructure for War With Russia
• Trump’s Surprise Energy Ceasefire Comes With Threats for Kyiv

The post The US Is Pulling the Plug on International Justice — Does Europe Have Its Own Power Source? appeared first on South Front.

Saudi Arabia is desperately trying to reverse its losses on the ground in the Yemeni conflict, while Houthi attacks reach its airports and threaten its oil trade. Yet the coalition Riyadh has assembled does not match the war it wants to fight. Washington is engaged in the conflict with Iran, Turkey excludes offensive deployments, and Pakistan draws the line at crossing into Yemen. The kingdom has foreign support, but the burden of recovering and holding territory still falls on its weakened Yemeni partners.

Retreat Before the Counteroffensive

By early October 2026, Riyadh was responding to a deteriorating military position. The Houthis’ September advance along Yemen’s western coast brought the loss of Mokha and strategic positions around Bab el-Mandeb. These setbacks exposed the weakness of Saudi-backed forces and strengthened the Houthis’ leverage over a shipping route increasingly important to Saudi oil exports.

The renewed Saudi–Houthi escalation began with the July 13, 2026, strike on Sanaa airport’s runway. Saudi aircraft sought to prevent an Iranian Mahan Air flight carrying a senior Houthi delegation from landing without coalition permission. The plane later landed in Hodeida after Omani mediation, but the Houthis retaliated against Abha airport and subsequently announced a blockade on Saudi shipping. The strike broke the relative calm established by the 2022 truce; September’s coastal offensive then turned the confrontation into a major territorial setback for Riyadh’s partners.

The retreat exposed divisions within the anti-Houthi camp. Saudi–Emirati cooperation had broken down, and the withdrawal of the UAE left command arrangements that Riyadh failed to replace effectively. The factions expected to carry the offensive remained divided and poorly prepared for a sustained campaign. Saudi airpower could not compensate for the absence of a coherent local force.

The cost is also being felt inside Saudi Arabia. The October 10, 2026, attack on Riyadh’s King Khalid International Airport killed 12 people and wounded 309, according to Saudi authorities, and temporarily suspended operations. Riyadh blamed the Houthis, who renewed their warning against using Saudi airports and airspace on October 11. Airport disruption, cancelled flights and attacks on oil facilities bring the economic consequences of the war directly into the kingdom. The Saudi air campaign has not secured its civilian infrastructure.

Operation Dawn of Yemen began on October 5, 2026, after Saudi-backed Yemeni leader Rashad al-Alimi announced military action the previous day. The immediate objective was to recover the coastal positions lost in September, alongside the Saudi-backed Yemeni government’s broader ambition to restore its authority over Houthi-held territory. On October 11, the coalition announced the destruction of 136 military targets in a large-scale operation. That tally says little about whether Saudi-backed units can hold territory, secure supply routes or reopen shipping lanes.

Houthi footage released October 10, 2026: Shawaz drone strikes on Saudi-backed forces in Kahbub and Al-Waziya, as presented by the movement’s military media

---

Why Taiz Matters

The counteroffensive has produced conflicting accounts of control on the coast. On October 9, 2026, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Yemen announced that Bab el-Mandeb and Mayun Island had been cleared of Houthi forces. The Houthis maintained that they still held those positions. Control of the waterway remains contested, despite Riyadh’s announcements of success.

Taiz adds another strain after the coastal setbacks. Pressure on its approaches threatens supply routes and forces Saudi-backed units to divide their effort between the inland front and the Red Sea coast. The Houthis can disrupt their opponents’ counteroffensive without winning every coastal engagement: sustained pressure inland prevents those opponents from concentrating their forces. Saudi airpower does not resolve the fragmentation of the Saudi-backed Yemeni forces expected to hold the ground.

Houthi military footage released October 10, 2026: the movement presents advances and the surrender of opposing fighters in Sami, As-Silw and Al-Mawasit, Taiz province. The fighting places further pressure on the ground forces on which Riyadh’s campaign depends

---

The Iran War Narrows Saudi Options

The US–Israeli war with Iran, which began in February 2026, has expanded the military demands on Washington. Regional deployments, shipping protection and operations against Iran compete with Saudi requests for a larger American role in Yemen. Riyadh cannot assume that American support will expand on its terms. Its dependence on outside assistance has grown at the same time as the regional war has made that assistance more conditional.

The Iran war compounds Saudi Arabia’s vulnerability. Disruption at Hormuz has increased Riyadh’s dependence on its westbound pipeline and Red Sea ports. Southbound cargoes from Yanbu must pass Bab el-Mandeb; northbound exports follow a different route. Moving crude across the peninsula bypasses Hormuz, but it does not remove the threat to shipping off Yemen.

Pressure at Bab el-Mandeb gives Iran an additional advantage while the Houthis gain territory and bargaining power of their own. Their overlapping interests put Riyadh under pressure on two fronts. A Washington–Tehran agreement would not automatically end the war in Yemen: the Houthis have their own territorial, political and economic demands.

Washington is already involved through military advisers, intelligence and targeting support. The issue is the extent of that involvement, not American neutrality. Earlier in October 2026, Trump rejected Saudi requests for direct strikes; after the Riyadh airport attack, he said the United States might join them. Riyadh still lacks a firm American commitment to the wider offensive. Its requests compete with Washington’s military operations and priorities in the Iran war.

Allies Draw Their Own Lines

Riyadh’s response is to widen its support network through the Mecca pact, signed with Turkey and Pakistan on August 7, 2026, and activated on October 5. But an agreement to defend Saudi Arabia is not an agreement to win its war in Yemen. Pakistan’s military presence and Turkey’s technical, intelligence and air-defense assistance address the kingdom’s security without supplying a joint ground campaign across the border.

The alliance has a secretary-general, retired Pakistani general Nauman Mahmood, but its detailed force-generation timetable, operational command arrangements, cost-sharing formula and mission duration remain unpublished. On October 8, 2026, Ankara excluded offensive operations while parliamentary ratification was pending. On October 9, Islamabad confirmed a substantial military presence in the kingdom but ruled out crossing into Yemen to attack the Houthis. Riyadh is obtaining defensive commitments, not a combined expeditionary army.

Pakistan’s decision-making has also shifted. In 2015, parliament unanimously rejected participation in the Yemen war while promising to defend Saudi territory and holy sites. In October 2026, reinforcement commitments are proceeding without a parliamentary vote. The government says it followed the necessary procedures. The political result is a narrower domestic debate over a commitment that could draw Pakistan further into the conflict.

Fewer political checks make deployments easier to authorize and harder to reconsider once costs and casualties accumulate. Pakistan’s own security pressures add another burden: the October 11, 2026, emergency in opposition-run Khyber Pakhtunkhwa coincides with its commitments to Saudi Arabia. Islamabad is extending support abroad while managing a deepening confrontation at home.

Saudi-led coalition footage, October 9, 2026: the coalition announces strikes on three Houthi missile launchers. The continuing attacks inside Saudi Arabia expose the limits of destroying individual launch sites

---

Defensive support can still sustain the offensive by freeing Saudi assets for use in Yemen. France’s support for the defense of Yanbu and Britain’s refueling assistance contribute to that effort. But none of this repairs the weakness of Riyadh’s Yemeni ground forces. Pakistan also has its border with Iran and its mediation role to consider, while Turkey keeps its commitment separate from offensive operations. Each partner sets limits according to its own interests.

Different Interests, No Shared Victory

Pakistan’s proposed $1.21 billion IMF disbursement awaits board approval. Turkey’s September 2026 inflation was 29.73%, with its policy rate at 37%. Both face financial pressures that favor limited missions over an open-ended expedition. Who pays for the current assistance remains undisclosed.

Saudi Arabia’s updated deficit forecast is 4.9% of GDP. September 2026’s non-oil purchasing managers’ index stood at 55.3, indicating expansion before the latest escalation. The airport attacks and disruption to transport now place that activity under additional pressure. Riyadh must finance the campaign while protecting the infrastructure and trade on which its wider economic plans depend.

The Houthis are using that pressure to advance their negotiating demands. On October 10, 2026, the Houthi authorities proposed reciprocal exclusion of airports, ports and other humanitarian infrastructure from blockade and attack. The proposal seeks to exchange limits on disruption for concessions over access and blockade. It puts the economic consequences of continued fighting at the center of the bargaining.

The conflict of interests runs through the entire coalition. Riyadh wants to reverse Houthi gains and protect Saudi infrastructure. The Saudi-backed Yemeni government wants to restore its authority. Turkey and Pakistan seek bounded commitments, and Washington calculates its involvement against the Iran war. The Houthis seek concessions while preserving their military leverage. A common adversary has not produced an agreed objective or a shared willingness to bear the cost.

Saudi Arabia therefore has partners willing to help defend the kingdom, but those partners have made no common commitment to reverse Riyadh’s setbacks in Yemen or sustain the ground campaign of the Saudi-backed Yemeni government. That is the gap behind the coalition’s announcements and strike tallies. Without stronger local forces and a political settlement addressing shipping, attacks and access, additional foreign support can prolong the campaign without resolving it. Riyadh risks remaining surrounded by allies while carrying a war none of them has agreed to finish.

---

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• Houthis Claim Key Taiz District as Pressure Tightens on Provincial Capital (Videos)
• Military Situation In Yemen On October 11, 2026 (Map Update)
• Houthis Strike Riyadh Airport Again, Claim Hits on Saudi Oil and Gas Facilities (Videos)

The post Saudi Arabia Has Allies. But Who Will Fight Its War in Yemen? appeared first on South Front.

Europe is shortening the time it takes to wage a major war. Military transport approvals are meant to take hours rather than days, intelligence to feed more quickly into strike decisions, and a new generation of missiles to bring targets deep inside Russia within reach. Behind the forward garrisons, Europe is building transport networks, reserves, and ammunition production capacity. Taken together, these measures point beyond deterrence to practical preparations for waging war against Russia, including operations deep inside its territory.

The dates 2027, 2028, and 2030 in European rearmament programs can easily suggest that there is still time. But they mark a schedule for building military capabilities, not a guaranteed period of peace. The central question for the coming months is not whether armies will finish rearming in time, but whether a clash can be avoided before they do.

Estonia: A Narrow Front, a Deep Strike

Estonia offers a clear picture of the opening phase this system is being built to fight. The country’s military budget rose 42% in 2026 to €2.4 billion, or 5.4% of gross domestic product. Arms procurement accounts for €1.27 billion – more than half the total. Meanwhile, the headquarters and elements of the 1st Infantry Brigade are moving from Tapa to Jõhvi, roughly 50 kilometers from the Russian border.

A €20.5 million base is under construction in Narva, with €19 million coming from the European Union. Completion is scheduled for summer 2028. Its permanent garrison will number around 200, but it will accommodate up to 1,000 troops in a crisis. The gap between those figures reveals a base designed for rapid expansion. A small garrison is being equipped to receive reinforcements quickly, right on the border.

Holding that ground requires more than barracks. Procurement programs call for nine American HIMARS and nine South Korean Chunmoo multiple-launch rocket systems, both capable of firing ballistic missiles. The relevant munitions have stated ranges of up to 300 and 290 kilometers, respectively. The new concept combines holding the border with deep strikes from the first day of an invasion.

The scale of the response could far exceed that of the opening clash. A battle for a border town could lead to strikes on targets hundreds of kilometers away. Tallinn wants to deny its opponent the option of fighting a small war by preparing to expand its geographical scope.

This also changes what allied assistance means. Allied planning must account not only for how long a small army can hold out until reinforcements arrive, but also for how far the fighting may spread before they reach the front. A missile can be launched before a major formation completes its deployment. Allies may arrive to find that the conflict has already widened.

In such a situation, Estonia and the other Baltic states could serve not only as defensive positions but also as staging grounds for attacks on Russian territory. For Moscow, the issue is no longer simply the size of Estonian units, but the depth of the strikes they envisage. Tallinn, in turn, faces the question of who will sustain its forward forces if the first battles fail to decide the outcome. Sustaining such a war would require support from beyond Estonia. One national budget and a handful of batteries cannot carry that burden.

Germany: An Industrial Base Behind the Garrison

On October 5, Martin Jäger, head of Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, told the Bundestag: “The point of no return has been passed in the war with Ukraine, and NATO is considering a scenario involving a limited Russian military clash with the Baltic states.” He linked the more immediate danger to limited Russian action in the Baltics that could test the allies’ response. He said intelligence had seen no signs of preparations for a major attack on NATO. The discussion therefore concerns not only a major war after rearmament is complete, but a smaller confrontation capable of triggering an allied response.

In the Baltic scenario, Berlin is publicly discussing the risk of a clash while its forward force is still taking shape. The brigade’s readiness date is not the date on which the threat begins.

In Lithuania, Germany is building a permanent heavy brigade as one element of that support. Full readiness is scheduled for the end of 2027, with 4,800 military personnel and 200 civilian employees. Its core consists of the 122nd Panzergrenadier Battalion, the 203rd Tank Battalion, and a multinational battle group. Until the formation is complete, the Germany-based 37th Brigade is to provide support.

The forward formation is thus tied to forces farther inside Europe. Civilian infrastructure underscores the permanence of the deployment. A school for the children of Bundeswehr personnel opened in Vilnius in September 2025. Units are not simply moving in – families are settling down. A political commitment acquires a permanent address, and the safety of German personnel becomes part of any future crisis in the host country.

Münster, October 1, 2026. Rutte describes a headquarters capable of commanding 50,000 troops and responsible for NATO forces in Estonia and Latvia. Behind the talk of forward battalions lies corps-level command capacity

---

But a permanent garrison needs a steady supply of ammunition. Rheinmetall’s new plant in Unterlüß is scheduled to reach an annual output of 350,000 artillery shells in that same year, 2027. The nearly €500 million facility was built in 15 months. Across its entire production network, including overseas sites, the company is targeting roughly 1.5 million shells a year from 2027.

The brigade answers the question of who will enter the fight. The factories answer how to keep fighting once stockpiles run down. The 2027 target is for strengthening this system, not creating it from scratch. Reaching the factory’s planned capacity determines future supply volumes, but it does not set a date before which a clash is impossible. Initial stocks sustain the opening phase of combat. Regular deliveries determine whether its intensity can be maintained.

Between the factory and the front lies the transport network. Europe’s military mobility proposal calls for cross-border transport permits to be processed within three working days, with an emergency procedure taking no more than six hours. A proposed €17 billion would fund the relevant infrastructure under the 2028–2034 budget. For Germany, a transit country, that means bridges, railways, and the capacity of routes leading east.

On October 7, European Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius called for this work to accelerate, saying Europe was not yet able to deter Russia. Unlike an exercise, infrastructure upgrades remain after the columns return to barracks. A stronger bridge and a faster permit procedure create a lasting ability to concentrate forces.

A border battle thus gains industrial and logistical depth. But sustaining one’s own forward forces is only half the military equation. The other half is disrupting opposing forces’ supply and command systems. That requires more than additional railcars loaded with shells. It requires weapons with much greater reach.

Britain: A European Deep-Strike Arsenal

London is driving precisely this part of Europe’s preparations. On July 8, 2026, it announced an initiative bringing together roughly a dozen partners to invest more than $50 billion in long-range strike capabilities over ten years. The stated range bracket runs from 300 to more than 2,000 kilometers. Britain’s own commitment within the initiative is £3 billion by 2030.

The British-German Deep Precision Strike program envisages stealthy and hypersonic weapons with ranges exceeding 2,000 kilometers, initially focused on ground launch. Britain is investing £770 million over four years, with entry into service expected in the 2030s. Another £1.4 billion over four years is earmarked for Stratus, a program with France and Italy covering strikes against high-value targets and ships, as well as the suppression of air defenses.

Britain’s participation in PrSM (Precision Strike Missile), a precision-guided ballistic missile program with a stated range of up to 500 kilometers, adds another layer. The emerging capabilities span several range bands, from around 300 kilometers for the Estonian systems through 500 for PrSM to more than 2,000 for the British-German development. Although the programs are at different stages, they share a clear direction. Weapons for fighting at the border are being supplemented with weapons for striking deep behind it.

The missiles of the next decade show how far these strike capabilities are intended to expand. But the next crisis will unfold with whatever weapons are available when it begins. A 2,000-kilometer range is not a prerequisite for a clash in the Baltics. It changes the potential scale of the war, not the earliest date on which it can break out.

Turning national purchases into a combined capability requires a common framework for employing them. In July 2025, General Christopher Donahue outlined elements of eastern-flank planning built around compatible launchers, fire control, and data sharing. He cited Kaliningrad as an example of military capabilities that could be neutralized by ground-based means in an exceptionally short time: “We have already planned this. We have already developed this.”

The discussion also included cloud-based data sharing and Palantir’s Maven Smart System, purchased by NATO to analyze information and support command decisions. The aim is to turn disparate reports into a common picture more quickly. When several armies use compatible command systems, their arsenals gain additional value. Range puts the target within reach, while data sharing allows missions to be coordinated.

But the deeper the planned strikes, the harder it becomes to separate support for a border battle from an expansion of the war. To the attacking side, a target may be part of the other side’s military supply system. To the other side, hitting it may signal that the conflict has crossed a new threshold. The use of conventional weapons thus leaves unresolved how to deter a response that would overturn the assumption of a limited clash.

France: The Nuclear Limit of Europe’s Calculations

This is where France’s nuclear deterrent enters the European picture. On October 6, Le Vigilant conducted an acceptance firing of an M51.3 ballistic missile following its refit. The missile carried no nuclear warhead. In service since October 2025, the variant carries new TNO-2 warheads. The French Defense Ministry cites improvements in range, accuracy, and the ability to penetrate missile defenses.

Brittany, October 6, 2026. Le Vigilant launches an M51.3 without a nuclear warhead

---

Macron stated the political message bluntly: “To be free, you must be feared. And to be feared, you must be strong.” France’s modernization adds a nuclear dimension to Europe’s conventional military buildup.

That European dimension is taking a more concrete form. On March 2, 2026, Macron outlined an “advanced deterrence” framework allowing partners to participate in French nuclear exercises and opening the possibility of temporary deployments of strategic forces on allied territory. Germany, Poland and Sweden were among the countries joining the dialogue. But the authority to use nuclear weapons – and to define the vital interests they protect – remains exclusively French. In the Baltic scenario, closer cooperation does not establish an automatic French nuclear response to a border clash. It leaves the decisive threshold in Paris, deliberately undefined.

After the First Clash

Taken together, these national programs suggest that the West is preparing not merely to deter Russia, but to build the capacity for offensive operations against it. In this reading, forward deployments, industrial expansion and deep-strike weapons are interconnected preparations for a war that could extend into Russian territory. They do not, by themselves, establish a single operational plan or prove a decision to initiate hostilities. Conventional forces are meant to make an opposing military operation prohibitively costly, while nuclear forces are meant to deter the most extreme escalation. The weakness is that neither side gets to decide how much damage the other will tolerate.

That problem is especially acute around Kaliningrad, where plans to suppress military infrastructure sit alongside the question of the region’s links to the rest of Russia. If actions during a crisis are perceived as an attempt to cut the region off by force, the argument will no longer be about intentions announced at a press conference. It will be about consequences the other side believes it must stop immediately.

The danger in the coming months lies in the gap between limited intent and an unrestricted response. Berlin is discussing localized action in the Baltics. Tallinn is preparing for deep strikes from day one, while foreign garrisons tie a border battle to allied involvement. Each side may consider its own move limited. Neither can count on the other side accepting its definition of what is permissible.

European capitals therefore need to define where military action would stop after the first clash, whether at the border or after strikes on depots, airfields or targets in Kaliningrad. The programs examined here spell out how to build military power, but offer no mechanism for ending the fighting. Missile range is not strategic foresight. Confidence that escalation can be controlled could turn a system of deterrence into a mechanism for widening the war well before 2030.

---

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• Trump Turns to Russian Diesel. Can Britain Keep Zelensky Afloat?
• U.S. Escalates In Hormuz With Strike On Iranian Ship (Video)
• Chasing a Victory That Can’t Be Won, Washington Eyes Attack On Iran Before Elections

The post The Baltic Fuse: How Europe Is Building the Infrastructure for War With Russia appeared first on South Front.

par Jules  SEYES

Si l’Allemagne désirait interrompre les aéroports français, elle pourrait équiper ses Typhoon de missiles et créer une bulle de supériorité aérienne au-dessus du sol français. L’affirmation sonne-t-elle ridicule ? C’est exact, elle est pourtant l’exact miroir de l’alerte qu’El Mundo prête à la CIA selon laquelle les Russes pourraient équiper un navire de drones pour désactiver des aéroports occidentaux¹. Comprendre pourquoi l’une sonne comme folle alors que l’autre paraît terrifiante suppose de saisir les méthodes d’analyse sur lesquelles elles reposent, avant d’analyser justement les présupposés des intentions.

Celles-ci étant un peu complexes, commençons par la doctrine, qui aura le mérite de clarifier le brouillard mental actuel. Un peu comme le brouillard de guerre auquel les militaires sont confrontés. Deux méthodes offrent un moyen de le briser : la méthode des moyens et celle des intentions.

La première repose sur un inventaire des ressources connues de l’adversaire pour évaluer l’ensemble des points qu’il peut toucher. C’est aujourd’hui l’exercice de la CIA : les Russes disposent de drones, ceux-ci peuvent être basés sur un navire, donc les Russes peuvent équiper un navire. L’exercice en début d’article relève de la même logique : prendre le nombre de chasseurs de la Bundeswehr, le nombre de Taurus en stock, puisque contrairement à nos SCALP ces armes n’ont pas été envoyées en Ukraine, et établir que cette combinaison a la capacité de mener une attaque surprise au-dessus de la France.

Le problème de cette méthode est de livrer un arc de menace souvent inutilisable, car il existe trop d’axes de vulnérabilité pouvant être exploités. L’automne 1944 en offre l’illustration². Les Allemands retirent alors plusieurs divisions du front. La reconnaissance aérienne alliée photographie, à partir de la mi-novembre, un trafic ferroviaire intense autour de Cologne, de Coblence et dans l’Eifel : gares de triage saturées, locomotives sous pression, une vingtaine de wagons plats chargés de chars Tigre sur la ligne d’Euskirchen. Début décembre, cent soixante-dix wagons plats chargés de blindés et de véhicules roulent entre Cologne et Limbourg. La nuit, les chasseurs de nuit repèrent des convois aux phares masqués. Des dépôts de ravitaillement apparaissent à Rheinbach et à Schleiden, des piles de bois propres à jeter des ponts près d’Echternach, des trains sanitaires à l’ouest du Rhin. Les écoutes radio identifient une armée blindée nouvelle, la 6e Panzerarmee. À la mi-décembre, face aux Ardennes, le VIIIe corps américain signale une activité d’artillerie inhabituelle, aucun mouvement visible et presque plus de prisonniers. Cette force, dont la valeur combative était connue, pouvait être engagée de bien des manières.

Une seconde méthode doit alors entrer en jeu : celle des intentions. En fonction des moyens connus, on établit ce que l’ennemi voudra toucher. Plus précise, celle-ci possède l’inconvénient de reposer sur des déterminants bien moins solides, puisque liés à la compréhension de la psychologie de l’adversaire.

Ces indices remontent à tous les états-majors alliés, et chacun les interprète selon le tempérament de son chef. Au quartier général d’Eisenhower, commandant suprême des forces alliées, homme de coalition et de logistique, domine une conviction : les Allemands sont trop fatigués pour attaquer. Les divisions retirées sont donc évaluées comme des rotations de repos et une reconstitution de réserve. Le 15 décembre encore, son bureau des opérations n’a rien à signaler dans les Ardennes. Patton, chef de la Troisième Armée, passe pour le plus offensif des généraux américains : il ne conçoit la guerre qu’en mouvement et à l’attaque. Son état-major projette cette volonté offensive sur l’ennemi allemand. Elle reflète en réalité la psychologie des analystes, elle-même dérivée de la psychologie des chefs. Son chef du renseignement, le colonel Oscar Koch, lit les mêmes indices comme la préparation d’un coup et présente à Patton, le 9 décembre, sa conclusion : une contre-offensive allemande est possible dans les Ardennes. Patton fait aussitôt préparer les plans qui permettront à la Troisième Armée de pivoter vers le nord. Le lendemain du rapport rassurant d’Eisenhower, l’offensive allemande éclate. Autrement dit, la méthode des intentions en dit souvent plus sur la manière de penser des analystes que sur leur compréhension fine de l’adversaire. Bien conscients de ces défauts, les militaires appliquent les méthodes classiques d’analyse stratégique pour filtrer l’ensemble. La première d’entre elles est le rapport coût-avantage : qu’est-ce que l’adversaire a à gagner ? Pour quel coût ?

Ici, vous constatez par exemple la différence de pensée entre Eisenhower et Patton. Pour le premier, le coût est en carburant ; le second pense en termes d’avantage moral de l’offensive. D’où la divergence d’analyse. Si nous prenons notre exemple d’avions allemands équipés de Taurus, le coût est une guerre franco-allemande, voire OTAN-Allemagne si l’article 5 venait à jouer. Aucune attaque, même couronnée de succès, ne pourrait provoquer des dégâts suffisants pour compenser les coûts d’un conflit avec une puissance nucléaire. En pratique, l’Allemagne aurait beaucoup à perdre et peu à gagner, puisque son influence dans l’appareil d’État et l’UE lui permet d’obtenir satisfaction dans des domaines cruciaux, telle la fermeture de Fessenheim.

Alors, la Russie ?

La CIA vient de nous gratifier d’un de ces mémos qui relèvent à la fois de la plus pure vérité et du plus pur mépris du public destiné à recevoir la fuite. Voici la menace : «Le point faible de l’Europe» : la menace d’une attaque russe contre la France et l’Espagne est réelle, selon la CIA.

Le scénario de l’attaque impliquerait des drones Gerbera³, de petits appareils à la charge explosive réduite dont l’intérêt est perturbateur et non de faire des victimes : fermer un aéroport, par exemple. Ils seraient lancés depuis des navires marchands déguisés en trafic commercial ordinaire et postés en Méditerranée.

Je vous avouerai qu’en ouvrant ce mémo, je m’étais attendu à un scénario sérieux, pas à cela. À la découverte du propos, son outrance m’a fait passer à la limite de l’insulte. Voilà une proposition d’attaque étatique dont le but serait de «perturber» ? Se rend-on compte du terme ? Une attaque pour perturber ? Schlieffen se retourne dans sa tombe, Napoléon s’étrangle avec sa bataille décisive, Manstein est fort heureusement mort. Car, hélas, un État ne gaspille pas la surprise en lançant un tapotage gentil. S’il faut recourir à la violence, alors il faut d’emblée prendre un avantage définitif pour maintenir au plus court la durée de la campagne. Sun Tzu le notait déjà : aucun pays n’a jamais tiré profit d’une guerre prolongée.

Le projet proposé contredit tous ces principes et, dès lors, il ne pose qu’une seule question : le code militaire russe a-t-il supprimé la peine de mort pour les traîtres ? Eh oui, désolé de décevoir ces intervenants de plateaux qui se prétendent experts malgré leurs abus propagandistes, mais ce que la CIA nous propose est de lancer une attaque inefficace pour ruiner la réputation que les Russes ont acquise auprès du reste du monde. Nous parlons bien sûr des pays sérieux, hors de l’Occident malade où les journalistes reprennent ce scénario comme un sujet sérieux.

En clair, une balance coût-bénéfice où il n’y aurait que des coûts pour la Russie et aucun bénéfice. Eh oui, car fermer un aéroport fait peut-être perdre quelques millions à des entreprises, mais cela n’a AUCUN impact stratégique. Pire, il est inutile de mobiliser un drone Gerbera, un navire ou tout autre moyen militaire : un coup de fil d’un gamin pour annoncer une bombe suffit. Ou bien une voiture piégée.

Bref, l’aventure proposée n’apporte aucun bénéfice stratégique et se fait avec des moyens disproportionnés qui coûteraient énormément à la Russie. Seul un traître à la Russie peut avoir cette idée. Je sais, en Occident, nous sommes habitués avec les relais US, mais plus en Russie : les réseaux qui ont soutenu V. Poutine après son arrivée au pouvoir s’en sont assurés. Ou en tout cas, ils ont fait monter le prix de la passe. Un officier russe réclamerait une méga-malle de billets pour seulement proposer cela à ses chefs, vu qu’il sait que ce serait (si ses chefs sont gentils) la fin de sa carrière. Quant à le mettre en œuvre sans validation politique, il aurait intérêt à avoir le bon billet d’avion pour s’éclipser au plus vite.

Car là est le point qui permet aux individus tarés que l’Occident nomme journalistes de procéder à cette propagande goebbelsienne (enfin, je m’excuse auprès du docteur Goebbels pour cet amalgame insultant) : les moyens existent. Exact, la Russie possède les drones, les navires. Elle aligne même un porte-avions et surtout un arsenal de missiles de toute première qualité. Depuis les années cinquante, l’URSS dispose de bombardiers stratégiques et de missiles capables de frapper le territoire français. La menace n’a donc rien de nouveau, puisque la Russie peut transformer la France en parking si elle le désire.

L’alerte de la CIA ajoute-t-elle de nouvelles capacités ? La réponse est non, une fois, deux fois, mille fois NON !

Héritière, État successeur de l’URSS, la Russie dispose depuis sa naissance des moyens de nous mettre à terre si elle accepte les millions de morts qu’exigera l’absorption de la salve nucléaire française. Une poignée de drones n’y ajoute rien, n’y retranche rien. D’autant plus que la Russie dispose de missiles hypersoniques Orechnik en mesure d’infliger de douloureux dégâts à notre territoire. Par exemple, mais je ne voudrais pas exciter LCI, par une frappe d’Orechnik contre des centrales nucléaires ou, en non nucléaire, contre nos barrages. Nous n’aurions aucun moyen de riposte non nucléaire.

Dès lors, oui, les Russes peuvent monter des drones sur un navire, ils peuvent monter des Grad aussi, ou toute autre arme à plus ou moins grande portée. Dans un tel scénario, l’élément coûteux est le navire sacrifié, pas les munitions embarquées. L’alerte donnée, qui n’est que l’une des alertes autour desquelles on nous a fait résonner tambours et trompettes, n’apporte rien de structurellement nouveau. Un bricolage de drones pour frapper notre territoire n’a rien de complexe. Après tout, le gouvernement de Kiev a bien réussi à introduire des drones sur le territoire russe pour frapper des bombardiers stratégiques.

Seulement, à ce jeu, tout le monde peut jouer ou presque. Il faut le restreindre : l’équipe Le Maire, Breton ne peut pas jouer, mais c’est lié à l’incompétence des joueurs. La France, par exemple, possède encore quelques officiers de valeur capables d’organiser l’affaire. (Non, pas le colonel monté hors de propos en lui accrochant des étoiles comme des guirlandes de Noël, et qui fait aujourd’hui comme s’il dirigeait l’armée française.)

Le problème est que ces gens refuseraient de monter une telle opération. Frapper la Russie, comme frapper la France pour la Russie, exige que la première balle soit mortelle. On tire au cœur ou on ne tire pas, et dans ce cas, entre puissances nucléaires, la question n’est pas celle des moyens, mais celle de la volonté. Même si nous avons TOUT fait, par une politique irresponsable, pour irriter les Russes, ils n’ont nullement annoncé leur intention de répondre à la hauteur de notre bêtise.

Reste l’intention : les Russes peuvent nous frapper, c’est acquis, ils peuvent le faire depuis des décennies pour un coût fixé. Resterait le gain d’une frappe : faire cesser l’appui français à l’Ukraine. Dans ce domaine, hélas, hormis l’agacement entre les oreilles d’entendre les rodomontades et pseudo-discours d’Emmanuel Macron, qui justifient toute envie de retourner une paire de claques justement méritée, la vérité commande de constater l’épuisement de nos moyens : la macronie a déjà envoyé à peu près tout ce qu’elle pouvait racler dans les fonds de tiroirs ; quant à l’argent, l’Allemagne ou la Grande-Bretagne peuvent le fournir. Les véritables acteurs sont les Anglais, par l’usage des moyens de leurs services secrets très actifs dans la guerre des drones, et les Allemands pour la livraison de munitions. Pour peser sur les opérations en Ukraine, une frappe russe devrait cibler en priorité ces deux pays.

Sauf à vouloir faire de l’éducation prioritaire, mais dans ce cas, l’ambassade de Russie peut se contenter d’engager un professeur de SEGPA pour l’envoyer à l’Élysée. Pour la fessée, il serait même inutile d’engager : Montjoie Saint-Denis a fait des petits.

Prise sous un angle militaire, l’information n’apportait rien, et si les journalistes en avaient fait une lecture correcte, ils l’auraient classée verticalement.

Ce n’était bien évidemment pas le but, mais au contraire d’avoir un thème pour parler de menace russe afin de poursuivre la propagande par martèlement, qui vise à abrutir les téléspectateurs de menaces pour leur faire admettre le concept sans esprit critique. Ça marche avec les résidents de maison de retraite au stade pré-Rivotril.

Tel est le problème de nos gouvernants. Faute d’agression russe, il faut créer le sentiment d’une agression, ce qui est le but de ces annonces : entretenir l’hystérie et donner un prétexte pour prononcer les mots agression, guerre, menaces, puissants générateurs d’un sentiment d’insécurité dans la population soumise à ce discours anxiogène.

Ça n’a qu’un défaut : messieurs les journalistes, vous avez repris en connaissance de cause une publication des services américains pour engager notre pays sur une trajectoire fausse et dangereuse pour sa sécurité.

Soit vous êtes des idiots congénitaux, ce que la CIA n’exclut peut-être pas, et je vais m’offrir de partager le soupçon. Soit vous le faites délibérément. Même en tenant compte de votre bêtise, tous les journalistes français ne peuvent pas être aussi désavantagés par la nature ; il aurait donc dû en rester assez pour faire échouer la manipulation.

Cela fait de vous, en tant que catégorie, des traîtres à votre nation, susceptibles de subir les foudres judiciaires au moment où le pouvoir changera de main et cessera de couvrir vos abus. Il ne s’agit pas de menaces, mais d’une évaluation juridique. VOUS mettez objectivement notre nation en danger !

La méthode marcherait si, justement, conscients de la menace sur leur esprit, beaucoup de citoyens ne s’étaient pas dirigés vers internet.

___

1. L’alerte a été rendue publique par le quotidien espagnol El Mundo le 24 septembre 2026 (article de Xavier Colás), reprise notamment par Euronews : «La CIA alerte sur des drones russes visant l’Espagne, la France ou l’Italie», https://fr.euronews.com/2026/09/24/la-cia-alerte-sur-des-drones-russes-visant-lespagne-la-france-ou-litalie ;
   i24news : «Les États-Unis alertent l’Europe sur une possible attaque de drones russes depuis la Méditerranée», https://www.i24news.tv/fr/actu/international/artc-les-etats-unis-alertent-l-europe-sur-une-possible-attaque-de-drones-russes-depuis-la-mediterranee ;
   Meduza, sur le démenti italien : https://meduza.io/en/feature/2026/09/24/no-one-needs-more-fuel-on-the-fire-italy-pushes-back-on-report-that-cia-warned-of-possible-russian-sea-launched-drone-attacks
2. Sur le renseignement allié avant l’offensive des Ardennes : U.S. Army, «Third Army G2 predicts Battle of the Bulge, 9 December 1944», https://www.army.mil/article/116038/third_army_g2_predicts_battle_of_the_bulge_9_december_1944 ;
   Carlo D’Este, «December 16, 1944 : Ardennes Offensive Begins, An “Abysmal Failure of Allied Intelligence”», https://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/december-16-1944-ardennes-offensive-begins-abysmal-failure-allied-intelligence/
   DVIDS, «First Army in the Battle of the Bulge», https://www.dvidshub.net/news/printable/385060 ;
   David T. Zabecki, «Patton at Bastogne», The Intelligencer (AFIO), vol. 29, n° 2, 2024, https://afio.com/publications/eprints_2024/ZABECKI_Patton_at_Bastogne_AFIO_INTELLIGENCER_Vol29_No2_SummerFall_2024.pdf ;
   Oscar W. Koch, G-2 : Intelligence for Patton, 1971.
   The Army Air Forces in World War II, vol. III, chap. 19, Third Army G2 Predicts Battle of the Bulge, First Army in the Battle of the Bulge, D’Este, The History Reader.
3. «Gerbera (drone)», Wikipédia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerbera_(drone)

Publiéà l’origine par  Reseau International

Europe keeps buying record amounts of Russian gas even as it plans to punish its war machine against Ukraine. The EU ports took in a record 12.18 million tons of Russian liquefied natural gas from January to September, 9.5% more than in the same period of 2025, according to a study by the German group Urgewald based on Kpler tracking data.

Europe spent about 7.88 billion euros on that Russian gas in nine months, revenue that helps fund a war Russia wages with daily missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian cities. The flow continues even as the EU prepares its largest-ever package of sanctions against Russia’s military industry.

The gas comes from Russia’s Yamal project, which sent 167 cargoes to EU ports over the nine months, roughly one every 1.6 days. Europe took 85% of the project’s recorded deliveries by volume, remaining by far its biggest market, Urgewald reports.

Europe’s share grew even as Yamal’s worldwide deliveries fell 1.3%, so the EU absorbed a larger slice of Russia’s Arctic output. In September alone, EU ports received 792,440 tons worth an estimated 818 million euros, nearly three-quarters of it going to France.

Washington could pull the plug by 18 October

The imports run up against a looming US decision. The Trump administration has until 18 October to complete its first review under the Lindsey Graham sanctions act, signed into law on 18 September, which allows Washington to sanction this gas trade at any time, the group notes.

However, after the US allowed Russian diesel to enter the US and global market, the decision will likely remain stalled.

Originally, the law covered Yamal’s leadership, foreign vessels that knowingly carried Russian LNG, and foreign ports that serviced US-sanctioned ships. Yamal depends on specialized Arc7 ice-class tankers and on nearby European ports where they can unload and quickly return, so closing that route would make the Arctic trade far harder to sustain.

Europe’s own ban is still months away

The EU’s measures so far have barely dented the trade. A ban on short-term LNG contracts took effect in April and has had no visible effect, while the full import ban under long-term contracts only starts on 1 January 2027, Urgewald says.

Every month of largely uninterrupted trade means more revenue for Russia while Ukraine suffers daily attacks, sanction campaigner Sebastian Rötters says. The next EU package should close the remaining loopholes, above all those keeping the Arc7 tanker fleet running.

Strategic Culture Foundation | October 9, 2026

The European Union is witnessing a full-blown social revolt. Governing political parties and their economic policies are held in open contempt as public protests and strikes escalate across multiple countries.

Protests, mass marches, and industrial strikes are spreading across the EU in France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, and other countries. The grievances are various, from students and teachers over woeful education services, to healthcare professionals and transportation workers denouncing crumby wages and pension cuts.

But at the core is a warmongering, dehumanizing system of capitalist inequality.

Unbearable living costs for basic needs, from food to housing, are driving millions onto the streets in desperation and anger at the lack of adequate political response to their concerns. As one French student said: “Too young to be listened to, old enough to be tear-gassed.”

The entire political system is being brought into disrepute for its dysfunction and indifference towards meeting rudimentary human needs. Then, infuriating all the more, are lies from the elite rulers and their propaganda media about “national defense and threat of war from Russia.”

In Spain this week, an 87-year-old frail woman known as Maricarmen died in hospital after she was evicted from her Madrid home because she could not pay the extortionate rent increase. Her plight has come to galvanize a nationwide protest against Spain’s housing crisis, a crisis that is repeated across every European country. Protesters shouted furiously that the pitiful old woman was “murdered by the state and corporations.”

In France, the brutality of police against student protests has shocked the nation and the world. Nearly 7,000 young people have been arrested, as riot police tear gas and shoot at largely peaceful rallies. Students gathering at the Place de la Bastille in Paris and other cities vow that they will not back down. One student had his hand blown off by a police stun grenade while another teenager lost an eye from a rubber bullet fired at close range.

The Place de la Bastille is where the French Revolution manifested in 1798 against a hated aristocracy amid abject misery. Today, the tensions are boiling towards another momentous rebellion, this time inspiring again similar movements across Europe.

These protests and the inhumane suffering that underlie them are channeling uprisings all over the EU.

There is a palpable sense that populations en masse have had enough of decades of inequality and chronic deprivation inflicted by capitalist policies that enrich a few and are enforced by governments slavishly serving the interests of capital over the needs of the citizen majority.

Western media reports talk about “cash-strapped” governments under pressure from bond markets to reduce record debt levels while workers, students and pensioners demand more public investment and relief from economic hardship.

That is a misleading partial portrayal of the problem. Omitted is the crucial backdrop that European governments are directing vast economic resources towards militarism and the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. That is what is causing the “cash-strapped governments.” In other words, their declared fiscal straits are a policy choice, not some mysterious dilemma.

The social crisis sweeping across Europe is also seen in the United States and other Western-aligned nations. The background is a failed economic system that no longer provides a modicum of acceptable living conditions. The problem has been decades in the making from growing inequality and diminishing political representation. Today it is even questionable if Western states are democracies, controlled as they are by corporate oligarchies.

Nevertheless, the social crisis that is unfolding across Europe has been intensified and amplified by European political rulers operating in a relentless war mode against Russia.

The European Union has pumped hundreds of billions of euros into Ukraine over the past four years to prop up a NeoNazi regime run by a corrupt dictatorship – all for the objective of defeating Russia. The EU leaders – many of them unelected, like Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas and António Costa – are driven by an obsessive Russophobia. But that is only part of the explanation.

Other elected leaders and parties like France’s Macron and Germany’s Merz are also despised for their elitism and delusions of grandeur. Merz declares that he wants to make Germany the strongest military in Europe, in total tin-ear deafness to his nation’s economic and social problems and the sinister historical connotations of resurrecting Nazi Germany. Meanwhile, as his government suffers electoral defeat after defeat, European elites deprecate German voters as being blind because they dare to choose parties that are opposed to war with Russia.

There are many grounds for the Europe-wide contempt of ruling parties. Inequality, poverty, unemployment, soaring living costs, declining wages, deteriorating public services. Uncontrolled immigration amid the pressure on inadequate public resources is another cause for grievance. Europe’s complicity in the Israeli genocidal war on Palestinians, and Europe’s complicity in Trump’s aggression towards Iran, Yemen, Cuba, and so on, are other factors.

However, the bogus narrative that governments are “cash-strapped” is a cause for immense public disgust. There are plenty of economic resources to meet public needs. It’s a question of those resources not being permitted to create just and humane societies under the prevailing capitalist system with its priority of enriching a tiny elite class.

The conditions of “tight budgets” and “austerity for the masses” are created by deliberate policies of militarism and fuelling a proxy war in Ukraine.

European “leaders” and their NATO lobbyists like Mark Rutte demand hundreds of billions of euros to boost military industries while at the same time calling for draconian cuts in public spending and social welfare in order to pay for this reckless militarism. The EU is “lending” an additional €90 billion over the next two years alone just to prop up the corrupt regime in Kiev so that it can keep fighting a futile war with Russia. The perverse priority is driven by the military-industrial complex and its corporate investors. It is also driven by an ideological, propagandized mindset that demonizes Russia as an enemy. President Putin and other Russian voices have repeatedly stated that they do not want war with Europe. They say the conflict in Ukraine has root causes that can be resolved through diplomatic engagement. Why are European politicians implacably opposed to peace?

A major factor is covering for internal political and economic failure of the European system. The EU’s economies, as with those in the U.S. and other Western states, are bankrupt dystopias in terms of delivering on social and democratic needs. The failure has been compounded by the costs of war in Ukraine.

That failure is criminal and fatal for the politicians and governments who have overseen the policies. Thus, the political class, including the propaganda news media, cannot admit their criminal policies.

In the face of their own internal contradictions, the European political elites are seeking a solution by externalizing Russia as an enemy. This is the same modus operandi that European rulers have used for the past century and more, unleashing two world wars as a result.

These criminal politicians and their dysfunctional economic system are again pushing war as their escape plan for survival at the expense of millions of lives and at the risk of starting a third world war, one that this time around could involve catastrophic nuclear nemesis.

It is damning of virtually every European government, including primarily the British, that there are no calls for diplomacy and political settlement with Russia. They are committed to waging war on Russia to absolve themselves from the social devastation they are responsible for.

One positive thing, though, is that increasing numbers of people can see through the chicanery and lies. A German student placard summed it up: “We won’t fight your wars… Education not bombs!”

A day of reckoning is imminent. Criminal political leaders and their warmongering system are exposed like never before and in a way that demands total revolt as a proper solution. The consequences are not to be externalized this time. Chickens are coming home to roost, as Malcom X once said.

Student riots plaguing France have spread to Belgium, where hundreds of hooded thugs have clashed with police, sparking "total chaos" in Brussels.

The post Student Riots Spread to Belgium as Hundreds of Hooded Protesters Clash With Police Sparking “Total Chaos” in Brussels appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Student protests in France are an expression of the country’s deep political and economic crisis, says Jan Rovný, a Czech professor at Paris’s Sciences Po.

Students from elite schools and universities have joined secondary-school pupils from deprived suburbs in protesting for education reforms. Rovný explains how these young people protest in solidarity with less fortunate peers, invoking ideals of equality embedded in French minds.

He explained how traditionally violent protests in the republic are often met by disproportionately heavy-handed policing.

The French government has tried to hide students’ dissatisfaction by blaming far-left groups.

What do the protests say about French society? Are they a revolt by young people against poor conditions or part of broader woes?

It is important to realise that the situation in France does not concern only young people and education, it goes deeper than that. The era of French president Emmanuel Macron is coming to an end. For several years now, the country has been run by unstable minority governments, which all face one key problem: how to draft a budget, unveiled on October 1, and push it through parliament.

It is clear that the country is in a very difficult economic situation, because its debt stands at around 117 percent of GDP. The interest rate is rising and approaching five percent. Every day, newspapers write that France cannot bear this burden.

French society is realising that it is at an impasse both politically and economically, that the current elite has no answer, and that savings must be made in various areas. People from many sectors are now speaking out to say they do not want cuts. Or that they have problems that are not being addressed. And young people have a clear view of this, and that is why they are mobilising.

The protest began with specific demands from secondary-school pupils, who clearly identified shortcomings in education — notably missing teachers, overcrowded classrooms and schools in poor condition, some with rats running around and no running water. Yet the protest quickly grew into a nationwide movement. Why have these particular issues proved so powerful?

Partly because they underscore this whole situation, and partly because this is a young generation that represents France’s future. Young people are protesting to say: look at the future we are facing. And parents and teachers largely agree with them.

The protests began in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis and did not arise as a result of a new government reform, but from the everyday experiences of students. What does this tell us about how young French people view the state and its ability to provide public education?

France generally has relatively low trust in political institutions. Young people tend to feel this even more strongly, because they are generally less politically engaged and therefore feel they are, in some way, discriminated against. They see the state as failing to care sufficiently for them and unable to cope.

This is compounded by the approaching elections. We know that the current government is fragile, and we also know that society, as well as the political establishment as a whole, is deeply polarised, with the extremist camps in particular set to enter the elections strengthened.

Staying with the protests, it is interesting that private secondary schools have joined state schools. On Tuesday, the French daily Le Monde showed protests outisde Paris Lycée Henri-IV attended by children from elite families – and where Macron studied. How do you explain the involvement of private schools unlikely to experience the same problems as public ones?

Exactly. That is my situation as well. I teach at a very prestigious university with a beautiful campus a short distance from the Louvre.

Yet our students are protesting. They are protesting because they recognise that French society has major inequalities affecting young people in suburbs like Saint-Denis or Val-de-Marne where conditions are worse.

Better off students are mobilising in solidarity – the concept of equality has been part of France’s political consciousness since the French Revolution. Those privately educated pupil therefore see it as their duty to join protests even though they enjoy far better conditions.

France is described as a strong state where education is regarded as a public service and a fundamental pillar of the French Republic. Could frustration over lack of basic conditions in schools be a reason for current anger?

Of course, and it has several dimensions. The French Third Republic was based on the idea that public education was the means through which modern citizens are created. State schools, established by law at the time, were seen as a fundamental pillar of the new, young democracy.

When you walk around Paris or anywhere else in France, you notice that every school has both the French and European flags above its entrance, along with the words “liberty, equality, fraternity” — the motto of the republicand revolution. Historically, schools drew children out of traditional families, which at that time were highly Catholic, and turned them into modern citizens. That is the country’s foundation.

Another factor is that the French state is very powerful: public spending accounts for more than 50% of GDP. The state is hierarchical, yet it seeks to show that it can do everything, including providing schooling for all. That position is increasingly hard to defend, particularly when money is short and public spending must be cut.

France has a long history of street protests. Is the current situation different in any way from previous social conflicts?

It is difficult to say. What is interesting is that secondary-school students are mobilising. That is relatively unusual, though not entirely unprecedented. It has happened in the past too, but was less visible. Teachers’ unions are now joining these students, as are broader trade unions and public-sector employees generally. University students are also already on strike. There is talk that farmers could join them. It may gather momentum and, as with the yellow vest protests, everyone who criticises the government may take to the streets. That is essentially the majority.

What is interesting about the current protests is that they are led by underage young people who are not yet able to vote, yet can still place the government under enormous pressure. How do you explain this?

They are young and have the time and ability to mobilise. They are able to sustain it and have their own internal organisation. Certain political forces, primarily from the far left, are helping or supporting them, but only to a limited extent. I think the protest is genuinely organic, rather than being directed by a political party or political agitators.

Young people feel they have something to say, and they can mobilise with the support of some teachers, some parents and now also broader sections of society — both university students and some trade union organisations. It may last for some time.

The French government may fear protesting young people more than other protest groups. Why do protesting young people carry such particular political weight in France?

It is probably a memory of 1968 when student mobilisation shifted the entire country to open up certain issues. Sudents are able to mobilise and persevere because they do not lose income when they strike, whereas workers who go on strike do not receive pay for those days, which can be a serious problem for some.

There is also a significance of young people being the future, who say: no, we simply want this country to be different, because it will be ours and we will be responsible for it when you are no longer here.

On Monday, a 15-year-old boy lost his hand after a police grenade exploded, with several other injuries caused by police being investigated. Could this fundamentally change the public mood?

Protests in France tend to be more violent than others are used to. I think it works both ways. I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of protesting students are peaceful, but some people with somewhat different intentions join them. They are called ‘casseurs’ (wreckers)who simply exploit the situation to throw stones at police or set bins on fire.

On the other side are the police, who can become highly aggressive quickly. There is now a major debate over whether the police response is proportionate. These responses divide the left and the right quite clearly with the government and the right wing supporting police, while the left argues that police brutality is pervasive.

It is quite shocking to see footage of armed police officers beating children in the street.

Exactly. And the police will have to be careful not to lose control of the situation. The response of the education minister, who has told students that he will listen to them, is also interesting. The interior minister and the prime minister have instead responded that the police are doing their job and that the interventions are proportionate.

The government is blaming radical left-wing groups for the violence, accusing the far-left party La France Insoumise (France Unbowed) of inciting riots. Do you find this political explanation convincing, or does it take attention away from students’ genuine demands?

It is difficult to say. I would not be at all surprised if extremist groups of any kind joined the protests, although left-wing groups are probably more likely. It is difficult to speculate on the extent to which this is directed from the leadership of France Unbowed. However, I do not think it is to any great extent.

Representatives of this left-wing party, including its MPs and local politicians, joined student, thereby legitimising these protests. But I very much doubt that the party would seek to organise greater violence in order to draw attention to the situation. That suggestion seems somewhat extreme to me.

France is only a few months away from presidential elections. Could this discontent become one of the issues in the election campaign?

Everyone is trying to gain political advantage from it in some way. It is quite clear that the typical Jean-Luc Mélenchon voter supports the students and government criticism more generally.

Ordinary citizens do not want to see violence or rubbish being set on fire, and this sentiment is probably much stronger on the right, which automatically sees Mélenchon as an instigator of unrest.

Mélenchon needs to be careful. To win a larger number of voters, he must also appear as someone who is trying to prevent violence. That is what he attempted to do. A few days ago, he addressed students, saying: mobilise, but your actions must be non-violent. He specifically added that they must be disciplined.

In your view, what could be the boiling point at which governments will no longer be able to calm the situation through promises or concessions?

That is a difficult question. These protests cannot go on forever, since many students realise what they want is better teaching conditions, so that they can prepare better for the baccalaureate examinations, which are approaching in the spring for those in their final year. So they may want to sit down and study.

If the government manages to offer at least some concrete solutions to the fundamental problems — above all, on timetables and teacher allocation on lycées — it may calm the situation. If it does not, I do not know.

Can we therefore understand the current protests as an expression of a crisis in French society, or as evidence that some form of civic mobilisation and the belief that protest can change something still function in France?

It is both. From young people’s perspective, the positive aspect is that they are able to mobilise, take their future into their own hands and say: this is a problem. We told you this, you did not listen to us, so now we are changing tactics and will protest visibly. I think that is fundamentally positive — without the violence.

On the other hand, French society is in deep crisis, and overcoming it will require an explicit change in the narrative – a change in the system. There will need to be some recognition that France is no longer what it used to be; while it remains one of the larger countries of the EU, it is now more or less an ordinary country and it must behave accordingly and see itself in that way.

Understanding this is quite difficult, and it will certainly require political courage and a political figure capable of turning frustrations into something positive.

Press TV | October 9, 2026

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei says France does not want peace for all but seeks to preserve its monopoly on military power and the ability to intimidate others.

Baghaei made the remarks in a post on his X account on Friday, responding to French President Emmanuel Macron’s earlier statement during a test of a ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, during which Macron said, “To be free, therefore, one must be feared, and to be feared, one must be powerful.”

Baghaei contrasted those remarks with Macron’s position on Iran, which has never sought to acquire nuclear weapons, quoting the French president as saying, “Iran must never possess nuclear weapons. Neither today, nor in five years, nor in ten years. Never.”

He said the question is not why France possesses a nuclear deterrent force, but why Paris regards its own nuclear deterrent as essential to guaranteeing its security and freedom while portraying Iran’s nuclear activities as a “threat,” even though Tehran’s nuclear program is peaceful and subject to international oversight.

“The harsh reality is this: they do not want peace for all. They want to maintain the monopoly on the kind of power that inspires fear and the monopoly on the legitimacy to intimidate,” the Iranian spokesperson wrote.

Baghaei emphasized that France seeks to remain powerful, armed with nuclear weapons and capable of inspiring fear, while imposing restrictions on countries that seek to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the pretext of an alleged “nuclear threat.”

“A peace in which nuclear powers regard their own weapons as the guarantors of their freedom and security, but label the same logic a threat when invoked by others, is not true peace. It is a monopoly on power founded on a sense of superiority,” he said.

He added that an international order that fails to recognize every country’s right to security and peace serves the dominance of a small circle of powers rather than protecting peace itself.

Iran has maintained a consistent position regarding its peaceful nuclear program, citing a religious decree by martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, who forbade the acquisition of nukes.

Iran, as a signatory to the NPT, maintains that its nuclear program is exclusively peaceful and that there has been no diversion of nuclear material following more than two decades of inspections.

Despite this and the extensive inspections by the UN nuclear watchdog on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Israeli regime has long been trying to portray Iran’s nuclear program as a threat.

The regime persuaded the administration of US President Donald Trump to launch two rounds of aggression against Iran in June 2025 and early 2026 on the false pretext of divergence from a civilian nuclear program.

In both wars, the aggressors targeted Iran’s civilian infrastructure, including nuclear facilities, in flagrant violation of international law and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The European Union is witnessing a full-blown social revolt. Governing political parties and their economic policies are held in open contempt as public protests and strikes escalate across multiple countries.

Protests, mass marches, and industrial strikes are spreading across the EU in France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, and other countries. The grievances are various, from students and teachers over woeful education services, to healthcare professionals and transportation workers denouncing crumby wages and pension cuts.

But at the core is a warmongering, dehumanizing system of capitalist inequality.

Unbearable living costs for basic needs, from food to housing, are driving millions onto the streets in desperation and anger at the lack of adequate political response to their concerns. As one French student said: “Too young to be listened to, old enough to be tear-gassed.”

The entire political system is being brought into disrepute for its dysfunction and indifference towards meeting rudimentary human needs. Then, infuriating all the more, are lies from the elite rulers and their propaganda media about “national defense and threat of war from Russia.”

In Spain this week, an 87-year-old frail woman known as Maricarmen died in hospital after she was evicted from her Madrid home because she could not pay the extortionate rent increase. Her plight has come to galvanize a nationwide protest against Spain’s housing crisis, a crisis that is repeated across every European country. Protesters shouted furiously that the pitiful old woman was “murdered by the state and corporations.”

In France, the brutality of police against student protests has shocked the nation and the world. Nearly 7,000 young people have been arrested, as riot police tear gas and shoot at largely peaceful rallies. Students gathering at the Place de la Bastille in Paris and other cities vow that they will not back down. One student had his hand blown off by a police stun grenade while another teenager lost an eye from a rubber bullet fired at close range.

The Place de la Bastille is where the French Revolution manifested in 1798 against a hated aristocracy amid abject misery. Today, the tensions are boiling towards another momentous rebellion, this time inspiring again similar movements across Europe.

These protests and the inhumane suffering that underlie them are channeling uprisings all over the EU.

There is a palpable sense that populations en masse have had enough of decades of inequality and chronic deprivation inflicted by capitalist policies that enrich a few and are enforced by governments slavishly serving the interests of capital over the needs of the citizen majority.

Western media reports talk about “cash-strapped” governments under pressure from bond markets to reduce record debt levels while workers, students and pensioners demand more public investment and relief from economic hardship.

That is a misleading partial portrayal of the problem. Omitted is the crucial backdrop that European governments are directing vast economic resources towards militarism and the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. That is what is causing the “cash-strapped governments.” In other words, their declared fiscal straits are a policy choice, not some mysterious dilemma.

The social crisis sweeping across Europe is also seen in the United States and other Western-aligned nations. The background is a failed economic system that no longer provides a modicum of acceptable living conditions. The problem has been decades in the making from growing inequality and diminishing political representation. Today it is even questionable if Western states are democracies, controlled as they are by corporate oligarchies.

Nevertheless, the social crisis that is unfolding across Europe has been intensified and amplified by European political rulers operating in a relentless war mode against Russia.

The European Union has pumped hundreds of billions of euros into Ukraine over the past four years to prop up a NeoNazi regime run by a corrupt dictatorship – all for the objective of defeating Russia. The EU leaders – many of them unelected, like Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas and António Costa – are driven by an obsessive Russophobia. But that is only part of the explanation.

Other elected leaders and parties like France’s Macron and Germany’s Merz are also despised for their elitism and delusions of grandeur. Merz declares that he wants to make Germany the strongest military in Europe, in total tin-ear deafness to his nation’s economic and social problems and the sinister historical connotations of resurrecting Nazi Germany. Meanwhile, as his government suffers electoral defeat after defeat, European elites deprecate German voters as being blind because they dare to choose parties that are opposed to war with Russia.

There are many grounds for the Europe-wide contempt of ruling parties. Inequality, poverty, unemployment, soaring living costs, declining wages, deteriorating public services. Uncontrolled immigration amid the pressure on inadequate public resources is another cause for grievance. Europe’s complicity in the Israeli genocidal war on Palestinians, and Europe’s complicity in Trump’s aggression towards Iran, Yemen, Cuba, and so on, are other factors.

However, the bogus narrative that governments are “cash-strapped” is a cause for immense public disgust. There are plenty of economic resources to meet public needs. It’s a question of those resources not being permitted to create just and humane societies under the prevailing capitalist system with its priority of enriching a tiny elite class.

The conditions of “tight budgets” and “austerity for the masses” are created by deliberate policies of militarism and fuelling a proxy war in Ukraine.

European “leaders” and their NATO lobbyists like Mark Rutte demand hundreds of billions of euros to boost military industries while at the same time calling for draconian cuts in public spending and social welfare in order to pay for this reckless militarism. The EU is “lending” an additional €90 billion over the next two years alone just to prop up the corrupt regime in Kiev so that it can keep fighting a futile war with Russia. The perverse priority is driven by the military-industrial complex and its corporate investors. It is also driven by an ideological, propagandized mindset that demonizes Russia as an enemy. President Putin and other Russian voices have repeatedly stated that they do not want war with Europe. They say the conflict in Ukraine has root causes that can be resolved through diplomatic engagement. Why are European politicians implacably opposed to peace?

A major factor is covering for internal political and economic failure of the European system. The EU’s economies, as with those in the U.S. and other Western states, are bankrupt dystopias in terms of delivering on social and democratic needs. The failure has been compounded by the costs of war in Ukraine.

That failure is criminal and fatal for the politicians and governments who have overseen the policies. Thus, the political class, including the propaganda news media, cannot admit their criminal policies.

In the face of their own internal contradictions, the European political elites are seeking a solution by externalizing Russia as an enemy. This is the same modus operandi that European rulers have used for the past century and more, unleashing two world wars as a result.

These criminal politicians and their dysfunctional economic system are again pushing war as their escape plan for survival at the expense of millions of lives and at the risk of starting a third world war, one that this time around could involve catastrophic nuclear nemesis.

It is damning of virtually every European government, including primarily the British, that there are no calls for diplomacy and political settlement with Russia. They are committed to waging war on Russia to absolve themselves from the social devastation they are responsible for.

One positive thing, though, is that increasing numbers of people can see through the chicanery and lies. A German student placard summed it up: “We won’t fight your wars… Education not bombs!”

A day of reckoning is imminent. Criminal political leaders and their warmongering system are exposed like never before and in a way that demands total revolt as a proper solution. The consequences are not to be externalized this time. Chickens are coming home to roost, as Malcom X once said.

A French member of the European Parliament and former police commissioner called for attempted-murder charges Thursday after masked protesters set fire to the entrance of a Bordeaux police station, blocking officers inside as smoke filled the building.

Matthieu Valet, now affiliated with the National Rally, said the attackers blocked the main door of the Capucins station and ignited trash bins piled against it while officers were still inside.

“It’s a criminal act of extreme gravity; we could have had a massacre,” MEP Valet wrote on X. “The perpetrators must be found and prosecuted for attempted murder. Ten years after the Viry-Châtillon attack, where police officers were burned alive while trapped in their patrol car, nothing has changed.”

BREAKING: Rioters attempted to murder police officers in Bordeaux, says French MEP.

Criminal rioters blocked the entrance to the Capucins police station and then set the station on fire.

They were actively trying to prevent the police from exiting the building, reported French MEP @mvalet_officiel.

Smoke filled the entire police station while the crowd cheered from outside. Officers tried to put out the flames but suffered from smoke inhalation and needed to evacuate.

French MEP Valet: “It’s a criminal act of extreme gravity; we could have had a massacre! The perpetrators must be found and prosecuted for attempted murder. Ten years after the Viry-Châtillon attack, where police officers were burned alive while trapped in their patrol car, nothing has changed!”

Follow: @RMXnews

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) October 8, 2026

Bordeaux prosecutor Renaud Gaudeul said a group of about 10 hooded individuals deliberately stacked bins at the station’s entrance around 4 p.m. and set them alight during a high-school demonstration. The fire spread quickly along part of the facade. Three national police officers inside escaped through a rear emergency exit. No injuries were reported but the officers reportedly suffered from smoke inhalation.

Prosecutors opened an investigation for destruction of property by a means dangerous to people, committed because of the victims’ status as public officials, and for joining a group formed to prepare violence or property damage during a public demonstration. Those offenses can carry up to 20 years in prison. Authorities have not so far filed attempted-murder charges.

This is not the first time that protesters have been accused of setting buildings on fire and blocking exits. Earlier this week, rioters set fire to the entrance of Vauquelin High School in Paris and blocked the exit with 100 students and staff inside. A harrowing video from BFMTV captured the moment.

BREAKING: Rioters set fire to the entrance of Vauquelin High School in Paris and blocked the exits when staff tried to put the fire out. A film crew recorded the terrifying attempted murder. “The school staff was unable to put out the fire. The rioters blocked them just as the extinguisher nozzle came out; they blocked the exit.” “The fire continues. You see all the silhouettes moving behind it; they continue to feed this fire, making it stronger and stronger. The school staff is not even going to try to put it out anymore; they can’t manage it. We can hear the principal here asking the hundred confined students to step back and move up to the first floor.” The building was full of staff, students, and journalists, but these rioters appear ready to kill anyone still inside the vocational chemistry school. Follow: @RMXnews

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) October 5, 2026

Graffiti reading “Vengeance for Eden” was sprayed on the station wall, referring to a student seriously injured by a police grenade launcher earlier in the protests in the Paris region.

The attack came on the margins of nationwide student blockades and marches over teacher shortages and school conditions, now in their third week. A high school in nearby Lormont was vandalized the same morning. Across France, the protests have produced thousands of arrests since late September, along with repeated use of fireworks mortars, stones and burning barricades.

BREAKING: France in a state of chaos. Police charge protesters on Place de la Bastille in Paris after students slam them with projectiles. After the charge, students continue to hurl paving stones. Follow: @RMXnews https://t.co/HITGmat3zQ

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) October 8, 2026

The 2016 Viry-Châtillon case, in which officers were burned to death inside their vehicle during unrest outside Paris, remains a frequent reference point in French debates over attacks on police. Interior Ministry officials have defended recent tactics while announcing a temporary suspension of certain stun grenades after some minors picked them up and blew off their hands.

There have been horrific scenes throughout the country in recent weeks, including women being attacked with homemade flame throwers, teachers beaten in the streets, arson attacks on schools, teachers and staff doused in gasoline, and officers beaten unconscious.

"It’s no longer a firework. It’s a homemade bomb." Protesting "students" in France, some draped in Algerian flags, craft firework mortars into weapons to target police in Aix-en-Provence. Follow: @RMXnews https://t.co/B7SwOutQmo

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) October 9, 2026

In nearly every video, racial and ethnic minorities, mostly Blacks and Arabs, are seen driving much of the unrest and physical violence.

The latest figures from the interior ministry indicate that 761 police officers have been injured in the ongoing unrest, according to Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez in an Oct. 7 hearing before the National Assembly’s law committee.

The count covers injuries since Sept. 28.

On Thursday, Oct. 8 alone, the Interior Ministry reported 48 additional officers and gendarmes injured. Nuñez said arrests and detentions stood at 6,629 as of the evening of Oct. 6.

According to Education Minister Édouard Geffray, about 65 teachers and education staff have been injured in the riots.

The post ‘We could have had a massacre’ – French MEP demands attempted murder charge after protesters burn police station and block exit appeared first on Remix News.

RT | October 8, 2026

Brussels is steering Europe toward totalitarianism and a “Euro-Gestapo” while lecturing Russia on democracy, Slovak MEP Lubos Blaha has warned.

Blaha made the remarks during a European Parliament debate on Tuesday, responding to EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, who denounced Russia’s recent parliamentary elections as undemocratic.

The politician questioned why Brussels was focusing on Russia while cracking down on dissent within the bloc.

He cited arrests of pro-Palestinian protesters in Germany and the imprisonment of Estonian opposition figures, who he claimed were jailed for opposing war with Russia.

“Are you going to set up the Euro-Gestapo here, Mrs. Kallas, and lock up everyone who wants peace?” he asked.

The Slovak lawmaker also questioned why Brussels was debating Russia’s elections while Europe faced mounting unrest.

“You may not have noticed, but Spain is in the streets, France is in the streets, and you are here dealing with Russian elections. You must be joking,” he said.

Blaha went on to accuse Brussels of double standards over Ukraine’s suspended presidential elections.

“You blame the Russians for having elections, but you don’t mind that [Ukraine’s Vladimir] Zelensky has been governing for three years without any elections, without a mandate,” he said. “You are hypocrites!”

Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May 2024, but elections have remained suspended under martial law.

Blaha also cited the annulment of Romania’s 2024 presidential election, claiming the vote was canceled because “the wrong candidate won.” Romania’s Constitutional Court scrapped the result over alleged irregularities and accusations of Russian interference after EU- and NATO-skeptic Calin Georgescu won the first round. Pro-EU candidate Nicusor Dan won the rerun in May 2025.

The MEP argued that Russia had held elections despite the ongoing conflict and daily Ukrainian missile and drone attacks on its territory.

The September poll saw the ruling United Russia party win nearly 58% of the party-list vote.

Blaha also defended Russian President Vladimir Putin, contrasting his popularity with that of Western European leaders.

“You have nothing to criticize Putin for, Mrs. Kallas,” he declared. “Unlike you and your Merzes and Macrons, he has the support of his own population.”

Recent polls have put German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s approval rating at a record low of 10% in October, while French President Emmanuel Macron’s support fell to 17% in September. Neither Kallas nor European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was directly elected to her current position by voters, having assumed office through the EU’s institutional appointment process.

Blaha belongs to Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico’s Smer-SD party, which opposes EU sanctions on Russia and has criticized Western military assistance to Ukraine.

French students shut down 1,800 schools and brought more than 450,000 people to the streets Tuesday, as the nationwide youth revolt grows against Macron austerity. Danièle Obono, La France Insoumise MP in the French National Assembly, joins Zoe Alexandra and Rania Khalek to unpack how one protest in Saint-Denis over teacher shortages and overcrowded classrooms has transformed into a movement that’s shaking Paris to its core.

Obono lays out a decade of neoliberal attacks on public education under Macron’s austerity agenda, and explains why the viral video of Saint-Denis Mayor Bally Bagayoko shielding students from riot police has transformed him into a symbol of solidarity for young and working-class people across France. And she responds to Trump’s claims that immigrants and Islam are behind the rebellion; Obono argues that a growing movement of working-class youth from diverse neighborhoods singing “La Marseillaise” and demanding their rights is the only answer to the far right:

“We tell Donald Trump to mind his own business. We have absolutely no lessons to learn from him.”

Watch full episodes of BT Live, join breakthroughnews.org as a member today!

******

Rough transcript follows:
[Speaker 1:] Massive student protests have been taking place across France, where students are mobilizing for the right to education and against austerity measures undermining it. Roughly 1,800 high schools shut down on Tuesday, October 7, as students, supported by trade unions, families, and progressive politicians, took to the streets. According to trade unions, over 450,000 people participated in protests across the country. Students at 90% of French universities also organized actions that same day, adding even more weight to this historic mobilization.

The students’ main demands include urgent measures to address the critical situation in French schools: staffing, class sizes, and the condition of school buildings. They are basic demands to make education dignified and high-quality. These protests made international headlines, and even Donald Trump commented on them, which we’ll get to in this interview. The protests are expected to continue.

To talk about the significance of these protests and what they mean for the progressive camp in France, we’re very lucky to be joined by Danielle Obono, a deputy in the French National Assembly with La France Insoumise. Danielle, welcome to the show.

[Speaker 2:] Hi, thank you for having me.

[Speaker 1:] We’re so excited you’re with us. A lot of people in the United States have seen videos of the protests, but perhaps aren’t fully aware of why people have been taking to the streets. Can you tell us about the underlying causes and motivations for these protests? What is the situation of public education in France? And how did almost 2,000 high schools organize to shut down on Tuesday?

[Speaker 2:] The situation is very difficult for students. This historic nationwide movement actually started in a small high school near Paris. At first, teachers—and then teachers and students—decided to mobilize to protest the lack of staff, the condition of the buildings, the overcrowded classrooms, and, overall, the inequalities between schools and teachers. They went on strike, and then the students decided to join in and help their teachers. They blocked the whole school.

That’s how it started. Through social media, they shared videos, and students in other places recognized the same situation. This is also something that has been happening over the past two or three years. You could see videos on social media of teachers showing the appalling state of their classrooms, and students showing the very bad food they had at school, and things like that.

That’s really what sparked the movement. The root cause is ten years of Macron attacking public schools and public education in France, which used to be of a very high standard and accessible to every segment of society. In France, schools are really a symbol of the French Republic and of equality, and a way to access citizenship. It means a lot to people, and people really love public schools.

Over the past ten years, neoliberal policies have attacked this public school system. Macron, an overzealous neoliberal, has been hell-bent on privatizing it and turning it into a market. I think that’s why this movement sparked and happened: because of this decade-long rule by Macron and his attack on social services, especially public education.

[Speaker 1:] There’s a video circulating of the mayor of Saint-Denis, Bally Bagayoko, in the middle of Tuesday’s protest, protecting students from riot police. I’m sure you’ve seen it. Why did Bally’s actions—and the fact that he, along with other left-wing politicians and trade unionists, was on the streets with young people—have such a big impact?

[Speaker 2:] I think there are two reasons. The first is Bally Bagayoko himself, who is the new mayor of Saint-Denis. Saint-Denis is the second-largest city in the Paris region, next to Paris. It was a huge win for us that he won the election. He was immediately attacked because he is a Black Muslim mayor from La France Insoumise. That also created a lot of solidarity among young people, working-class people, and many others in France.

But beyond Bally himself, La France Insoumise members, especially elected officials, have supported the movement from the very start. Two of our MPs went to the first high school that sparked the whole movement. That’s also how it spread in videos: the students welcomed them and started asking us to come support the movement. Then, when the police started attacking the students, we went there to protect them.

Unfortunately, we’ve become used to police brutality and the police attacking social movements. That’s how Macron has dealt with social unrest in the country. We’ve always been part of the movement and supported it. As elected public officials, we go to demonstrations to protect protesters. When they’re arrested or detained, we go to the police stations and make sure everything is all right.

That’s why you could see many of us at the protests. We believe we have to be there to protect the protesters, especially because they’re very young high school students. There’s been a lot of police brutality targeting those young students.

That’s the context of this moment you see, and I think it’s very symbolic of what’s been happening in France: the brutality of the Macron regime, and who is standing beside the people and the students. We are side by side, and now we’re joined by elected officials who have been doing the same thing we’ve been doing.

[Speaker 1:] It’s a really powerful image. As you said, it encapsulates this feeling of the people versus this neoliberal regime. We know that, in addition to protracted social unrest, there have been numerous protests against Macron’s austerity measures. This is happening at a time when his government is facing pressure on the streets and a crisis of institutional legitimacy.

We know that in 2024, when the left-progressive alliance led by La France Insoumise, the New Popular Front, emerged as the largest group in Parliament, Macron blocked it from appointing a prime minister. That seems completely against democracy and the will of the people. Given this institutional crisis, how do you see the high school students’ protests connecting to the broader societal rejection of Macron’s government? And what do you see as an institutional path forward?

[Speaker 2:] The student protests have already spread. On October 6, the call to action was supported by trade unions. That’s one reason so many people came out: parents are taking to the streets with their kids, and grandparents, too. There are lots of videos of elderly people supporting the youth.

It’s already a mass movement, supported by a majority of people in France. It shows how young people are expressing all their anger and opposition to the Macron government. On the demonstrations, you can see posters saying “Macron out,” and another very important slogan is against the far right.

As you pointed out, back in 2024, when we won the election, Macron betrayed the results of the democratic process. The reason he did that was that they wanted the far right to win. Macron himself had decided to call a snap election after the European election, where the far right came first. He said, “Okay, let’s have a snap election and give them power,” but it didn’t happen because the people said, “No way.” We actually won.

This has been going on for years. Young people, especially, have been witnessing everything happening. They’ve also been witnessing what’s going on all over the world, especially the genocide in Gaza. You can see a lot of Palestinian flags and posters at the demonstrations, with people saying, “Give money to the schools, not to fund genocide.” There’s a mass politicization process among young people that is already shaking power.

We are at the end of ten years of Macron in power. Next year will be the presidential election, and a lot of young people—those who are on the streets now—will be voters. They’re calling for an end to Macron, opposing the far right, and many are supporting our movement. At the start of the movement, a lot of media said we were manipulating students, which was very condescending. They thought the students couldn’t have started the movement on their own.

There are two institutional fights we’re going to take on now as members of Parliament. The first is the budget. We’re starting to debate it, and the Macron government had planned to reduce the education budget even further. I think it will be very difficult for them to do that, since the movement is still going on and there will be a lot of pressure. The combination of people in the streets, young people striking, and us battling in the National Assembly will be very interesting to build on over the next month or so, as we head toward the presidential campaign.

The campaign is about the themes being discussed now. I also think it’s interesting that this began with the far right and a lot of xenophobic and racist media discourse. We’ve been countering that with issues like the cost of living, and we’ve been quite successful. This counter-narrative is becoming stronger because of the students’ demands. That’s what we’re talking about, and that’s what the media have to ask the government and everyone about.

I think it’s also very important ideologically that the discourse and narratives center working-class, anti-racist, and solidarity messages.

[Speaker 1:] U.S. President Donald Trump and other cabinet members have made very disparaging comments about the protests, saying that France is enveloped in chaos because there are so many, quote-unquote, illegal immigrants, and that Islam is taking over the country. What do you make of this narrative, and what is your response to Donald Trump?

[Speaker 2:] We would say to Donald Trump that he should mind his own business. We have absolutely no lessons to take from him.

But I think it’s interesting to see how racist, racialized narratives are something the right wing and the far right have been trying to promote here, too. That’s especially because the people who started this movement are from poor, working-class neighborhoods, where there are a lot of people from immigrant backgrounds.

I think it’s all the more powerful because those young people are saying, “We demand equality. We demand to be treated as citizens, not second-class citizens.” When we came to the protest, they started chanting “La Marseillaise,” which is very powerful because they were reclaiming this revolutionary history, but also this French identity, which is very revolutionary—the revolutionary side of laïcité. It was the best answer to people like Donald Trump and the far right and right-wing people: those leading the movement are very diverse, and there’s a lot of solidarity.

It was also interesting that more well-off students—young people studying in high schools in central Paris that are a little wealthier—started protesting in solidarity with students in poorer neighborhoods. You see this coalition of young people reclaiming their rights and demanding equality. I think that’s the best answer to the far right and to the racist and xenophobic discourse against them.

Among the demands of university students, they’re also opposing some of the xenophobic measures implemented against foreign students, especially those from Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere. So, yes, I think that’s the best thing young people can do right now to answer Mr. Trump.

[Speaker 1:] An extremely powerful response. Of course, he doesn’t speak for the people of the United States. We’ve seen young people across the United States consistently taking to the streets for the past two years, since he took office. I know they’ve also taken great inspiration from French youth. It’s a beautiful outpouring from young people across the world. I love to see it and hear it. Donald Trump is clearly frightened by the example the French people are setting for young people in his own country.

[Speaker 2:] If I may, I think those young students have also been very impacted by the protests they watched on U.S. campuses against the genocide. You can see it in the posts. There’s also been a youth movement in Nepal over the past couple of years, and now, in Germany, students are opposing the war. They’re also leading mass movements.

I think it’s very inspiring because you see young people connecting the dots between their situation at home and a sense of internationalism and solidarity with people all around the world. It’s very inspiring, and it’s a powerful movement. It’s great to be part of it here, and also to feel this sense of an international anti-austerity, anti-imperialist movement led by young people.

[Speaker 1:] Amazing. Incredible. Danielle, thank you so much for joining us here on BT Live. We’re very excited to have you back on soon and see how Macron’s government weathers this youth-led storm.

[Speaker 2:] Thank you.

More than 71,000 people joined demonstrations across France on Thursday as protests over conditions in secondary schools continued. Clashes in Paris and attacks on educational establishments in several cities have increased pressure on Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu, who has promised measures before the end of October.

French police arrested 504 people and reported 48 officers injured during nationwide student demonstrations on Thursday, 8 October, as violent confrontations broke out in central Paris and incidents were reported at schools and police facilities elsewhere in the country.

According to figures released by the French Interior Ministry, approximately 71,500 people participated in demonstrations, including 24,500 in Paris. Around 55,000 people were also reported to have taken part in actions outside educational establishments, although those figures may overlap with attendance at the larger demonstrations.

The latest unrest follows protests by secondary school pupils demanding more teachers, better-maintained buildings and smaller classes. The demonstrations have attracted attention beyond the schools themselves, while the government’s response has been complicated by disagreements over policing and public spending.

Violence at Place de la Bastille

The most serious confrontations on Thursday occurred around Place de la Bastille in Paris, where several thousand demonstrators gathered. Police used water cannon and tear gas after groups of protesters began throwing stones, fireworks and other objects towards officers.

According to the Paris police prefecture, approximately 20 individuals dressed in black, identified by the authorities as members of the so-called black bloc, threw pieces of street furniture at police positions. Officers also reported that fragments of chimney masonry were thrown from the roof of a nearby building.

Video footage circulating on social media showed young demonstrators throwing objects at police, who advanced to disperse the crowds. The clashes formed part of a wider national mobilisation, with marches and school protests taking place across the country.

The Interior Ministry condemned the violence and defended the actions of security forces. It described attacks on public buildings and police officers as separate from the peaceful demonstrations organised by pupils.

Schools and Police Facilities Attacked

Several incidents were reported at schools and public buildings beyond Paris, including attacks on teaching staff and school administrators. In Poitiers, a fire broke out overnight on the grounds of a secondary school and spread to a teacher’s vehicle. In Saint-Étienne, several dozen individuals entered a school and vandalised its canteen. In Bayonne, windows were smashed at the home of a school security employee, while teachers were targeted with fireworks.

In Toulouse, a headteacher was reportedly assaulted by an adult participating in the demonstrations, while in Saint-Chamond, a deputy headteacher suffered facial burns after being struck by a pyrotechnic device.

Other incidents included a police vehicle being set alight in Strasbourg, damage to a police building in La Rochelle and an attempted arson attack on a police station in Bordeaux. The incidents added to concerns about violence accompanying the protests, although there was no indication that most demonstrators were involved in attacks.

Repeated Arrests as Protests Continue

Thursday’s 504 arrests followed 488 detentions reported during demonstrations on Tuesday, 6 October. The recurring confrontations have led to scrutiny of police tactics as well as the actions of violent groups attending demonstrations.

Student representatives have raised complaints about shortages of teaching staff, disruption caused by absent teachers, classroom conditions and school facilities. Their mobilisation has placed new demands on a government already facing budgetary pressures.

Lecornu Promises Action Before End of October

Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu attempted to ease tensions on Wednesday, 7 October, promising that the government would present measures responding to the complaints raised by secondary school pupils before the end of the month.

The government must address demands for additional education resources while managing France’s wider public spending commitments. Further demonstrations would maintain pressure on ministers to produce detailed proposals and clarify how they would be funded.

Thursday’s disturbances have also increased attention on security around schools and the protection of teachers and administrators. The immediate challenge for the authorities is to prevent further attacks while allowing peaceful demonstrations to continue.

Two-weeks long protests by French high-school students demanding better education conditions risk getting more heated due to the French government’s lack of response.

For his part, French prime minister Sébastien Lecornu told parliament on Wednesday (7 October) the first proposals on education reform would be published at the end of the month.

He spoke after 250,000 demonstrators took to the streets across the country on Tuesday (6 October), according to interior ministry fiigures.

But the High School Student Union (Union Syndicaire Lycéenne, USL) said the number was as high as 450,000, including solidarity protests in most universities.

Pupils, joined by parents, teachers, and labour unions, want an end to teacher shortages and urgent renovations of run-down school buildings.

“Today, the balance of power is in our favour,” said Marius Mesnil, the USL’s co-general secretary, on Monday. 

The secondary school teachers’ union (Syndicat National des Enseignements de Secondaire, SNES) also called Lecornu’s inaction “unacceptable.”

Some 715 police officers, 215 students and 85 school staff members have been injured during the protests, with 18 internal probes were launched to investigate police brutality since 21 September, when the movement first erupted, after being sparked by a teachers’ protest.

A school in Nantes, in the west of the country, was set on fire, and protesters regularly light trash bins and make barricades in city centres.

The minister of interior has suspended the use of stun grenades after a 15-year-old’s hand was blown off in a violent confrontation with police on Monday.

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership