Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

An end to chaos in the White House? General Kelly takes over

General Kelly forces out Anthony Scaramucci as the President’s new chief of staff looks to impose order on a chaotic White House.

Alexander Mercouris

Published

on

3,676 Views

Just six days ago I wrote an article for The Duran in which I said that if President Trump is to avoid seeing his administration unravel he has to stop destabilising it himself, with bad decisions negating good decisions and with President Trump himself prosecuting public feuds against top people in his administration like Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The decision to force out the newly appointed Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci – who was supposed to start his job on 15th August 2017, meaning that he been effectively sacked from his job before it technically even started – is a sign of the chaos at the heart of the administration.  However potentially it could also be a sign that things are finally being brought under control.

Turning first to Scaramucci, in my article of six days ago I referred to him on the strengths of things I had heard and read about him as an “accomplished communications director”.

Few things I have written about someone have turned out to be so wrong so quickly.  Far from being “accomplished” Scaramucci – “the Mooch” – in the brief time he was in post did more damage to the administration than any other single official President Trump has appointed.

Not only has Scaramucci behaved in a way totally inappropriate for a person in his position – for example through his uninhibited use of bad language – but he has acted in a way that went far beyond his remit, publicly intriguing against other members of the administration – such as the President’s chief strategist Steve Bannon – and generally acting as if he was the person who was ultimately in charge of the White House and by extension of the whole US government.

That this was a megalomaniac stance for someone who is simply a communications director to take ought to have been obvious, and made it only a matter of time before the President fired him.  Having said this, though Scaramucci’s sacking – talk of him having “voluntarily resigned” should not be taken seriously – was undoubtedly correct and appropriate, the President can be justly criticised for appointing such an obviously unfit person to a senior post.  The best that can be said about this sorry affair is that at least Scaramucci was sacked quickly before he did even more damage.

As for Scaramucci himself, the one good thing that does seem to have come from his appointment is that it seems to have precipitated the removal of two other senior White House officials who were frankly not up to their jobs: chief of staff Reince Priebus and White House spokesman Sean Spicer.

Neither of these officials – both of whom appeared to be closer to the Congressional leadership of the Republican Party than to the President himself – seemed to have the President’s trust, and in the case of Priebus he seems to have been little more than a rather ineffective administrator and not the tough manager and enforcer of the President’s decisions that the President’s chief of staff needs to be.

For the President the whole point of retaining Priebus – whom he inherited from the Republican National Committee when he became the Republican Party’s candidate for the Presidency – was Priebus’s established links to the Congressional leadership of the Republican Party (amongst whom the President is disastrously short of friends) which was expected to help pilot the President’s legislation through the Congress.

In the event Priebus failed even in that.  Not only have the President’s repeated attempts to repeal Obamacare – something which the Republican Party is in theory in full agreement about – so far failed because of the failure of the Republican Party in Congress to unite on key votes, but the President must be privately furious that the Republican Party in Congress chose instead to unite with the Democrats to force on him a sanctions law that is obviously designed to torpedo his policy of seeking better relations with Russia.

The President’s tweets – always a reliable indicator of his state of mind – have made clear in recent days his growing frustration at the logjam in Congress, which is also holding up the confirmation process for his remaining appointments.

Given that Priebus was failing to manage the White House effectively, and was unable to get the Republican Party to unite behind the President’s legislation, it is no surprise the President finally gave up on him.  According to the London Times – unusually well informed because its proprietor Rupert Murdoch is close to the President – as long ago as May the President was looking to replace him, and had approached General Kelly as far back as then to take over as chief of staff.

That appointment has finally been made, and it seems that two of the conditions Kelly set for accepting the job were firstly that all White House officials – including Jared Kushner and Steven Bannon – should be subordinated to him and report to the President solely through him, and secondly that Scaramucci should go.

Scaramucci’s sacking was therefore the result of General Kelly’s appointment as the President’s new chief of staff, just as Scaramucci’s appointment appears to have been the event which precipitated Priebus’s removal, and which caused Sean Spicer’s departure.

If General Kelly is able to take effective control of the White House and make of it a properly functioning political operation then the chaos of the last two weeks will have been worth it.  He does come to the job with some reasons for thinking that he might succeed in doing that.

Firstly, as might be expected of a Marine General who has commanded troops in the field and who has run large departments like Homeland Security, Kelly appears to be a capable administrator.  His insistence on a proper chain of command in the White House is a sign of that.

Secondly, Trump – like many civilians – is in awe of the military, and has surrounded himself with them.

It is striking that the top officials with whom Trump appears to get on with best are either successful businessmen or generals.  The senior official he is said to be most at ease with, and who has his fullest confidence, is General Mattis who is his Defense Secretary, with whom Trump regularly has private dinners.  Trump is also said to have got on well with General Kelly whilst Kelly was head of Homeland Security.  Undoubtedly he will have appreciated Kelly’s loyal and effective support to him during the battle over his ‘travel ban’ Executive Orders.

However against these factors which point to General Kelly’s possible future success, there are other factors which point towards possible failure.

Firstly, for General Kelly to succeed the President has to give him his loyal and unstinting support.

That means first and foremost the President reining in his own impulses.  He must stop conducting public feuds against members of his own administration like Attorney General Jeff Sessions and railing publicly at his officials when things go wrong, which in politics they often do.  Should he ever turn on Kelly in the same public way that he has recently turned on Sessions the damage will be disastrous.  Unfortunately the President’s impulsive personality means that there is no guarantee he will not do so.

Secondly, the President must learn to communicate with his staff and with the members of his administration – including with people like Jared Kushner and Steven Bannon, and with others like Attorney General Sessions and the new head of the FBI – through Kelly, observing the chain of command which his new chief of staff is setting up, and whose existence is essential for the successful management of any large organisation like the White House.  The damage done to the President by his decision to have personal contacts with former FBI Director James Comey – who it is now clear was throughout his contacts with the President in fact intriguing against him – ought to teach the President of the danger of acting in any other way.

Unfortunately personal contact with officials is very much the President’s style.  It is the style he has become accustomed to in his business dealings, and which he has tried disastrously to bring with him into the White House.  Will the President now put it aside and listen to General Kelly, respecting the chain of command his chief of staff is creating?

Thirdly, it will require other senior officials in the White House – which means people like Kushner and Bannon – who have become accustomed to having direct access to the President being prepared to work with Kelly and to accept their subordination to him.  That will be a new experience for them, and given that some of them – Steve Bannon for example – are strong personalities, it is an open question to what extent they will accept it.

Fourthly and lastly, managing this proud, inexperienced and impulsive President and his fractious team will also require a difficult mix of both forthrightness and tact on General Kelly’s part.  The forthrightness is known to be there in abundance.  Is the tact?

Whether Kelly will succeed in bringing order to the White House and to the administration remains to be seen.

His appointment does however further signal the unprecedented influence of the military in this administration.  Kelly now joins two other generals – Generals Mattis and McMaster – at the heart of the US government.  Not only is the President’s most trusted senior minister – Defense Secretary Mattis – a general, but both his chief of staff and his National Security Adviser are now generals as well.

Compare that with Vladimir Putin’s government in Russia, where none of the top officials who are permanent members of Russia’s Security Council, are military officers.  That by the way includes General Shoigu, Russia’s Defence Minister, who despite holding a military rank is by training a civil engineer not a soldier.

Whether this rise of the generals to the top of the US government is a good thing remains to be seen.  Peter Lavelle once said on a Crosstalk programme I attended that generals historically have been better at executing policy than at making it.  Not only is that true but generals’ history of political effectiveness tends to be poor.

Others might point out – sourly but also correctly – that given the generals indifferent performance in recent wars – in none of which have they managed to win a “victory” – their current rise to prominence looks hardly deserved.

The fact however remains that things cannot continue to go on inside the Trump White House in the way that they have been doing for much longer without irreparable damage being done.  To be clear, the erratic and chaotic state of things in the White House is far more politically dangerous to the President than the synthetic and overblown Russiagate scandal, which is now clearly falling apart.

The coming of General Kelly is probably this administration’s best – and last – chance to put things right.  Certainly the President seems to think so

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Nigel Farage lashes out at Angela Merkel, as Chancellor attends EU Parliament debate (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 17.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris take a quick look at Nigel Farage’s blistering speech, aimed squarely at Angela Merkel, calling out the German Chancellor’s disastrous migrant policy, wish to build an EU army, and Brussels’ Cold War rhetoric with Russia to the East and now the United States to the West.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The Ukrainian President Signs a Pact With Constantinople – Against the Ukrainian Church

There is still a chance to prevent the schism from occurring.

Dmitry Babich

Published

on

Authored by Dmitry Babich via Strategic Culture:


Increasingly tragic and violent events are taking their toll on the plight of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Ukraine . After several fights over control of the church’s property, prohibitions and blacklists are starting to spread, affecting respected church figures coming from Russia to Ukraine. The latest news is that the head of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archbishop Amvrosyi Yermakov, was deported from Ukraine back to Russia. Amvrosyi’s name popped up on the black list of Russian citizens who are not deemed “eligible to visit” Ukraine. Obviously, this happened right before his plane landed in Zhulyany, Kiev’s international airport. After a brief arrest, Amvrosyi was put on a plane and sent back to Moscow. This is not the first such humiliation of the Orthodox Church and its priests that has taken place since the new pro-Western regime came to power in Kiev in 2014. Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church has been declared persona non grata throughout Ukraine since 2014. That decision was made by humiliatingly low-level officials. A department within the Ukrainian ministry of culture published a ruling stating that Kirill’s visit to Ukraine’s capital of Kiev “would not be desirable.”

Since the ancestors of modern Russians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians were first baptized in 988 in Kiev, the Patriarchs of the Russian Church have never had problems visiting Kiev, the birthplace of their church. Not even under the Bolsheviks did such prohibitions exist. So, for Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church to be denied permission to visit Kiev can only be compared to a possible prohibition against the pope visiting Rome. Since 2014, there have also been several criminal cases filed against the priests of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC MP) because they have called the hostilities in eastern Ukraine a “civil war” and have discouraged the faithful from supporting that war. This has been interpreted by the Ukrainian state authorities as a call for soldiers to desert the army.

Why Poroshenko’s meeting with Bartholomew is ominous

Despite the fact that the UOC MP has become used to all sorts of trouble since 2014, things have been looking even worse for the canonical church lately, as 2018 draws to a close. In early November 2018, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko broke the wall of separation between church and state in the most overt manner possible — he signed “an agreement on cooperation and joint action” between Ukraine and the so called Constantinople Patriarchate, the oldest institution of Orthodox Christianity, which is now based in Turkish Istanbul.

Rostislav Pavlenko, an aide to Poroshenko, wrote on his Facebook page that the agreement (not yet published) is premised on the creation of a new “autocephalous” Orthodox Church of Ukraine — a development that the official, existing Orthodox Churches in Russia and Ukraine view with foreboding as a “schism” that they have done all they can to prevent. Why? Because Poroshenko’s regime, which came to power via a violent coup in Kiev in 2014 on a wave of public anti-Russian sentiment, may try to force the canonical Orthodox Church of Ukraine to merge with other, non-canonical institutions and to surrender to them church buildings, including the famous monasteries in Kiev and Pochai, as well as other property.

President Poroshenko was visibly happy to sign the document — the contents of which have not yet been made public — on cooperation between the Ukrainian state and the Constantinople Patriarchate, in the office of Bartholomew, the head of the Constantinople Patriarchate. Poroshenko smiled and laughed, obviously rejoicing over the fact that the Constantinople Patriarchate is already embroiled in a scandalous rift with the Russian Orthodox Church and its Ukrainian sister church over several of Bartholomew’s recent moves. Bartholomew’s decision to “lift” the excommunication from two of Ukraine’s most prominent schismatic “priests,” in addition to Bartholomew’s declaration that the new church of Ukraine will be under Constantinople’s direct command — these moves were just not acceptable for the canonical Orthodox believers in Russia and Ukraine. Kirill, the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), as well as Onufriy, the Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine, are protesting loudly, viewing this situation as a breach of two basic principles. First of all, the Ukrainian state has interfered in the church’s affairs, asking Constantinople to give the Ukrainian church “autocephaly,” which that church never requested. Second, Constantinople itself has interfered in the affairs of two autonomous national churches, the Russian and the Ukrainian. In the eyes of Ukrainian and Russian clergy, Bartholomew is behaving like the Roman pope and not as a true Orthodox leader who respects the autonomy and self-rule of the separate, national Orthodox Churches.

The Russian President sympathizes with the believers’ pain

Two days before Poroshenko made his trip to Istanbul, Russian president Vladimir Putin broke with his usual reserve when commenting on faith issues to bitterly complain about the pain which believers in Russia and Ukraine have experienced from the recent divisions within the triangle of Orthodoxy’s three historic capitals — Constantinople, Kiev, and Moscow.

“Politicking in such a sensitive area as religion has always had grave consequences, first and foremost for the people who engaged in this politicking,” Putin said, addressing the World Congress of Russian Compatriots, an international organization that unites millions of ethnic and cultural Russians from various countries, including Ukraine. Himself a practicing Orthodox believer, Putin lauded Islam and Judaism, while at the same time complaining about the plight of Orthodox believers in Ukraine, where people of Orthodox heritage make up more than 80% of the population and where the church has traditionally acted as a powerful “spiritual link” with Russia.

Despite his complaints about “politicking,” Putin was careful not to go into the details of why exactly the state of affairs in Ukraine is so painful for Orthodox believers. That situation was explained by Patriarch Kirill. After many months of tense silence and an unsuccessful visit to Barthlomew’s office in Istanbul on August 31, Kirill has been literally crying for help in the last few weeks, saying he was “ready to go anywhere and talk to anyone” in order to prevent the destruction of the canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

Politics with a “mystical dimension”

Kirill said the attack against the Orthodox Church in Ukraine “had not only a political, but also a mystical dimension.” Speaking in more earthly terms, there is a danger that the 1,000-year-old historical Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) — which now owns 11,392 church buildings, 12,328 parishes, and two world-famous monasteries in Ukraine — will be dissolved. The roots of the UOC MP go back to the pre-Soviet Russian Empire and even further back to the era of Kievan Rus, the proto-state of the Eastern Slavs in the tenth-twelfth centuries AD, when the people who would later become Russians, Ukrainians, and Byelorussians were adopting Orthodox Christianity from the Byzantine Empire. It is by far the biggest church in Ukraine, as Mikhail Denisenko’s non-canonical “alternative” church has only 3,700 parishes that include church buildings (fewer than a third of what is owned by the UOC-MP, despite the fact that Denisenko enjoys official support from the Ukrainian state).

What many Russian and Ukrainian believers fear is that the Istanbul-based Patriarch Bartholomew will eventually grant Kiev what is being called autocephaly. In that event, the UOC-MP may be forced to merge with two other, non-canonical churches in Ukraine that have no apostolic liaison. The apostolic succession of the UOC-MP consists in the historical fact that its first bishops were ordained by medieval bishops from Constantinople, who had in turn been ordained by Christ’s disciples from ancient Israel. Apostolic succession is crucial for the Orthodox Church, where only bishops can ordain new priests and where the church’s connection to the first Christians is reflected in many ways, including in the clergy’s attire.

Metropolitan Hilarion (his secular name is Grigory Alfeyev), the Russian church’s chief spokesman on questions of schism and unity, accused the patriarch of contributing to the schism by officially “lifting” the excommunication from Ukraine’s most prominent schismatic church leader — the defrocked former bishop Mikhail Denisenko. That clergyman stands to gain most from the “autocephaly” promised to Poroshenko by Patriarch Bartholomew. A hierarchical Orthodox Church is considered to have autocephalous status, as its highest bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has stated that for Ukraine to be granted autocephaly from Istanbul, this would mean a complete “reformatting” of the country’s religious status quo and the severing of all links to Orthodox Russia and its “demons.”. Most likely, the new “united” church won’t be headed by the UOC MP’s Metropolitan, but by Mikhail Denisenko, who was excommunicated by both the UOC MP and the Russian church back in 1997 and with whom real Orthodox priests can only serve against their will and against the church’s internal rules.

Constantinople’s first dangerous moves

On October 11, 2018, the Constantinople Patriarchate made its first step towards granting autocephaly by repealing its own decision of 1686 that gave the Moscow Patriarch primacy over the Kiev-based Metropolitan. This 17th-century decision reflected the political reality of the merger between the states of Russia and Ukraine and established some order in the matters of church administration. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Moscow gave the Ukrainian church complete independence in financial and administrative matters, but the two churches retained their cherished “spiritual unity.” “Constantinople’s decision is aimed at destroying that unity,” the ROC’s Patriarch Kirill explained. “We can’t accept it. That is why our Holy Synod made the decision to end eucharistic communication with the Constantinople Patriarchate.”

How Moscow “excommunicated” Bartholomew

The end of eucharistic communication means that the priests of the two patriarchates (based in Moscow and Istanbul) won’t be able to hold church services together. It will be maintained as long as the threat of autocephaly continues. The Western mainstream media, however, interpreted this decision by the Russian church as a unilateral aggressive act. The NYT and the British tabloid press wrote that it simply reveals Putin’s “desperation” at not being able to keep Ukraine’s religious life under control.

However, Patriarch Bartholomew seems undeterred by the protests from the Russian faithful and the majority of Ukraine’s believers. Bartholomew said in a recent statement that Russia should just follow the example of Constantinople, which once granted autocephaly to the churches of the Balkan nations. Bartholomew’s ambassadors in Kiev do not shy away from communicating with the self-declared “Patriarch” Filaret (Mikhail Denisenko’s adopted religious name from back when he was the UOC MP’s Metropolitan prior to his excommunication in 1997). For true Orthodox believers, any communication with Denisenko has been forbidden since 1992, the year when he founded his own so-called Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate (UOC-KP). Unfortunately, Denisenko enjoys the full support of Ukrainian President Poroshenko, and recently the US State Department began encouraging Denisenko, by giving its full support to Ukraine’s autocephaly.

The lifting of Denisenko’s excommunication by Patriarch Bartholomew in Istanbul both upset and embittered the Orthodox believers in both Ukraine and Moscow, since Denisenko was excommunicated by a joint decision of the Russian church and the UOC MP in 1997, after a five-year wait for his return to the fold of the mother church. So, by undoing that decision, Constantinople has interfered in the canonical territory of both the Ukrainian and the Russian churches.

The UOC-MP protested, accusing not only Patriarch Bartholomew, but also the Ukrainian state of interfering in the church’s affairs. “We are being forced to get involved in politics. The politicians do not want Christ to run our church; they want to do it themselves,” said Metropolitan Onufriy (Onuphrius), the head of the UOC-MP, in an interview with PravMir, an Orthodox website. “Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate has been independent. Our church did not ask for autocephaly, because we already have independence. We have our own Synod (church council) and our own church court. Decisions are made by a congress of bishops and priests from all over Ukraine. We have financial and administrative independence, so autocephaly for us will be a limitation, not an expansion of our rights.”

Poroshenko’s premature jubilation

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Poroshenko did not conceal his jubilation about Constantinople’s moves. “This is a victory of good over evil, light over darkness,” Poroshenko said when the news about the lifting of Denisenko’s excomnmunication came from Istanbul in early October.

Poroshenko said he wanted a “united Orthodox Church” for his country, and he openly pressured Patriarch Bartholomew to provide autocephaly to Kiev during his visits to Istanbul in the spring of 2018 and in November of the same year. Meanwhile, Denisenko said that the provision of autocephaly would mean the immediate dispossession of the UOC MP. “This Russian church (UOC MP) will have to cede control of its church buildings and famous monasteries to the new Ukrainian church, which will be ours,” Denisenko was quoted by Ukrainian media as saying. “These monasteries have been owned by the state since Soviet times, and the state gave them to the Russian church for temporary use. Now the state will appoint our communities of believers as the new guardians of this heritage.” Denisenko also made a visit to the US, where he met Undersecretary of State Wess Mitchell, obtaining from him America’s active support for the creation of a “unified” Ukrainian church.

There is still a chance to prevent the schism from occurring. Poroshenko’s presidential aide, Rostislav Pavlenko, made it clear on Tuesday that the actual “tomos” (a letter from the Constantinople Patriarchate allowing the creation of an autocephalous church) will be delivered only IN RESPONSE to a request from a “unifying convention” that represents all of Ukraine’s Orthodox believers in at least some sort of formal manner. This new convention will have to declare the creation of a new church and elect this church’s official head. Only then will Constantinople be able to give that person the cherished “tomos.”

Since the UOC-MP has made it very clear that it won’t participate in any such convention, the chances of the smooth transition and easy victory over the “Muscovite believers” that Poroshenko wants so badly are quite slim. There are big scandals, big fights, and big disappointments ahead.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Trump DEMOLISHES Macron; Tweets ‘Make France Great Again’ (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 16.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris take a quick look at US President Trump’s tweetstorm aimed at French President Macron, who just days ago used the WW1 ceremony in Paris to ridicule and talk down to the US President in front of world leaders.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Zerohedge

Macron’s office has refused to comment on Trump’s claims.

OFFICE OF FRENCH PRESIDENT MACRON SAYS IT REFUSES TO MAKE ANY COMMENT REGARDING TRUMP’S TWEETS CRITICISING FRANCE AND MACRON

* * *

Without directly referencing the rumors, Trump has branded reports that he refused to appear at a cemetery for American soldiers because he didn’t want to get his hair wet as “fake news.” In the tweet, Trump insisted that he wanted the Secret Service to drive him to the speech instead of taking a helicopter, but they refused because of security concerns. He added that he gave a speech at the cemetery the next day in the pouring rain – something that was “little reported”.

Trump’s rampage against Macron continues. The president slammed his French counterpart for his low approval rating, as well as France’s high unemployment. Furthermore, in response to Macron’s “nationalist” snub, Trump pointed out that “there is no more nationalist country” than France..

…before adding a spin on his classic slogan.

Trump’s rage against Macron continues, but this time, the topic is slightly more serious. What could be more serious than questioning the foundation of Post-WWII military alliances, you might ask? The answer is simple – trade!

Trump conceded that while France makes “very good wine” (an interesting claim from Trump, who doesn’t drink), the country “makes it hard for the US to sell its wine into France, and charges very big tariffs”. Meanwhile “The US makes it easy for French wines and charges small tariffs.”

“Not Fair, must change!”

We now await Trump’s order of an investigation into the national security implications of imported French wine.

* * *

President Trump isn’t ready to forgive the “French diss” served up over the weekend by President Emmanuel Macron.

During a ceremony honoring the 100th anniversary of World War I at the Arc de Triomphe on Sunday, French President Emmanuel Macron insulted Trump to his face by launching into a screed about the dangers of toxic “nationalism” and subtly accusing the US of abandoning its “moral values”.

This did not sit well with the US president, who was already facing criticism over his decision to show up late to a ceremony honoring the war dead (the administration blamed it on security concerns though it’s widely suspected that Trump didn’t want to get his hair wet), and Trump has let his displeasure be known in a series of tweets ridiculing Macron’s suggestion that Europe build its own army, saying that France and other European members of NATO would be better served by paying their fair share for NATO while daring them to leave and pay for their own protection.

And in his most abrasive tweet yet mocking the increasingly unpopular Macron’s imperial ambitions (no, really), Trump pointed out that, historically speaking, Europe has been its own worst enemy, and that while Macron wants to defend the Continent from the US, China and Russia, “it was Germany in WWI & WWII,” adding that “they were starting to learn German in Paris before the US came along. Pay for NATO or not!”

Of course, Macron isn’t the only French official calling for the creation of a “European army”. The country’s finance minister advocated for the creation of a Continental army during an interview with Germany’s Handelsblatt – a comment that was derided by the paper’s editors, who pointed out that Germans “weren’t very supportive” of the idea. One wonders why…

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending