Barricade from 1848 French Revolution

Episode 48 Revolutionary Legacies

Living the French Revolution and Age of Napoleon

Dr Suzanne M Desan

Film Review

In this final lecture, Desan summarizes how the French revolution helped destablizie numerous authoritarian governments around the world. For example, Napoleon’s occupation of Spain ultimately led to multiple rebellion in South America between 1810 and 1820. By 1825 all Spanish colonies on the mainland had broken with Spain.

Latin America

As early as 1793, Colombian activist Antonio Nariño printed out and distributed 100 illegal copies of the Declaration of the Right of man. Dozens of Latin American provinces had a republican constitution by 1820. The short lived Republic of New Grenada (consisting of modern day Colombia and Panama) used France’s 17995 constitution as its founding document. The 1814 Mexican constitution borrowed from all France’s revolutionary constitutions.

Francisco de Miranda, a Venezuela revolutionary who fought in the French revolution, brought the red liberty cap to South America. It used in flag of the free and independent state of Cundindamarca.*

Europe

In Europe the Congress of Vienna kept the peace for ten years by creating a series of buffer states (eg the 39 independent German-speaking states and Italy’s independent kingdoms) in lieu of large empires.

A severe economic downturn in 1848 would trigger a cascade of revolutions beginning in Palermo and eventually spreading to Vienna, Paris, Berlin, Milan, Krakow, Naples, Venice, Budapest, and Prague. In addition to demanding democratic constitutions, revolutionary leaders also fought to unify Germany, Italy and Hungary.

As the people of Paris threw up barricades and declared a republic, the king fled, and republicans and liberals surged into the street in city after city demanding equality, trial by jury, representative parliaments and freedom of speech, religion and the press.

The 1848 French Revolution

The French revolution of 1848 saw new demands (similar to the Jacobin’s demands for poor relief and taxes on the wealthy) for economic equality, inspired by a growing international socialist movement. In 1848, the main demand was for the right to work. By May 1848, Parisian revolutionaries had set up public workshops employing 150,000 workers.

By late May the French government, fearing of the rabble in the street, shuttered the workshops. In the final battles of the 1848 revolution, the army and national guard fought 50,000 Parisians in the streets. Ultimately 1500 workers and 900 guardsmen were killed and 500 revolutionaries arrested.

The Rise of Conservatism

The 19th century also saw a surge in conservative clubs around the world as conservatives learned to use broad based politics to achieve their goals.

To rein in French radicalism, the assembly adopted a new constitution with a strong executive (modeled on the American system) and elected Napoleon’s nephew as president. After restoring order and democracy, he abolished the republic and created a new empire.

Other European countries crushed their revolutions by 1849. The most decisive outcome was the abolition of serfdom in eastern and central Europe.

The Communist Manifesto and the 1871 French Revolution

Marx and Engels largely based their 1858 Communist Manifesto, which called for an end to private property and sharing goods in common, on their belief that the Jacobins didn’t go far enough.

In the 1871** French revolution, a coalition of republican and socialists built a new Paris Commune, which France’s third republic would crush in their new constitution.

Hitler’s invasion of France in 1940, the occupation Vichy government would end the third republic. The fourth republic lasted from 1945 until Charles De Gaulle ushered in the 5th republic with a stronger executive.

With the UN’s founding in 1945, it incorporated the Declaration of the Rights of Man into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

*The Free and Independent State of Cundinamarca was a rebel state in colonial Colombia and  included parts of New Grenada.

**Napoleon’s nephew had just been ousted as emperor and France had just been invaded by Austria.

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/149323/149419

Jesse Smith

The gauntlet has been cast by the media-censorship complex. Just prior to this year’s annual globalist confab in Davos, the World Economic Forum (WEF) announced that misinformation and disinformation are currently the greatest threats to humanity, with the release of its Global Risks Report 2024.

From a list of 34 risks, the WEF report identifies mis- and disinformation as the top threats to global stability over the next two years and the fifth most dangerous threats over the next 10 years. Of particular concern is false information that could affect elections, democratic processes, and social cohesion in various countries worldwide, as well as sentiment contradicting the “consensus” narrative about climate change.

Echoing these same concerns, the United Nations (UN), its strategic partner in advancing the climate-focused 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, has previously stated much of the same.

In Information Integrity on Digital Platforms, a June 2023 UN policy brief recommending a code of conduct for digital platforms, Secretary-General António Guterres stated:

The ability to dissem­inate large-scale disinformation to undermine scientifically established facts poses an exis­tential risk to humanity (A/75/982, para. 26) and endangers democratic institutions and funda­mental human rights. These risks have further in­tensified because of rapid advancements in tech­nology, such as generative artificial intelligence. Across the world, the United Nations is monitor­ing how mis- and disinformation and hate speech can threaten progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. It has become clear that business as usual is not an option.”

All the UN’s 2030 Agenda plans, activities, and expenditures are based on the belief that we face an existential climate crisis caused by human activity and dangerous greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide (CO₂). This conviction is clearly outlined in a fact sheet produced by Verified, a joint initiative of the United Nations and Purpose, launched in 2020 to respond to mis- and disinformation about “intersecting crises like COVID-19 and climate change.” The document states unequivocally that:

1. Climate change is happening.
2. Climate change is caused by human activity.
3. Scientists agree that humans are responsible for climate change.
4. Every fraction of a degree of warming matters.
5. The climate is changing faster than humans, plants, and animals can adapt.
6. Climate change is a major threat to people’s health.
7. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, not a clean source of energy.
8. Clean energy technologies produce far less carbon pollution than fossil fuels.
9. Entire countries already rely 100 percent on renewable electricity.
10. Renewable energy will soon be the world’s top source of electricity.
11. Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels.
12. Solar panels and wind turbines make good use of land.
13. The transition to clean energy will create millions of jobs.

By stating that disinformation is undermining these supposed scientific facts, Guterres rests his entire argument on the premise that each of the above statements is absolutely, indisputably, and undeniably true. Like Guterres, all who espouse this climate narrative have no tolerance for any opinion, theory, or evidence that runs contrary to this dogged notion.

Verified is backed by powerful globalist NGOs including the Rockefeller Foundation and Omidyar Network. It has an extensive list of major media collaborators such as Al Jazeera, Clear Channel, Facebook, Reddit, Spotify, TikTok, and Twitter. Melissa Fleming, Verified co-founder and current UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, has made it known that social media is a huge threat to climate science and other UN initiatives and is particularly bothered by Twitter/X for allowing rampant disinformation.

It is clear from these reports that any dissent from the established climate narrative threatens the advancement of the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Now, urgent calls to extinguish these threats have been issued so they can proceed with transforming the world unimpeded.

While many of the issues expressed in the Information Integrity report are legitimate and concerning, the UN via the World Health Organization (WHO) participates in disinformation by continuing to promote COVID-19 vaccines as safe and effective, when they have largely been proven to be ineffective and cause much harm. Their stance regarding climate change could also qualify as disinformation to the thousands of scientists who oppose this view but are being discredited as mere conspiracy theorists.

[…]

Globalists want conformity regarding climate change and will go to extreme lengths to marginalize, censor, and discredit dissenters. They talk a good game about enforcing universal freedom of expression, but on climate and other issues vital to their agenda, free speech is not tolerated. Though they readily acknowledge that controlling information may lead to greater levels of authoritarianism, surveillance, censorship, and the erosion of human rights, it seems they are willing to overlook these offenses to protect their precious climate agenda.

If they can successfully shut down debate about climate change, then soon any topic that threatens their aims will be off limits. The UN deems itself a protector of human rights but plays a major role in the media-censorship complex. Its attempts at crushing opposition to the climate narrative betrays their mission and reveals authoritarian tendencies.

Countering Digital Hate or Advocating Suppression?

A recently released report issued by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) claims that new forms of climate denial have emerged. These new arguments don’t deny that the climate is changing and is caused by human activity, but instead contend that:

• The impacts of global warming are beneficial or harmless.
• Climate solutions won’t work.
• Climate science and the climate movement are unreliable.

The basis for their report stems from use of “an AI based model called CARDS,” short for Computer-Assisted Recognition of Climate Change Denial and Skepticism. CARDS is designed to identify and categorize climate denialist claims in text. The researchers used CARDS to analyze YouTube video transcripts from 96 mostly right-wing, conservative leaning channels including prominent ones like BlazeTV, Jordan Peterson, and the Heartland Institute.

CCDH has a big gripe with social media companies they believe are not doing enough to stem the tide of rising climate denial. They want to eliminate the ability for any “climate denier” spreading “conspiracy theory statements” to financially benefit from their content . . .

[…]

The CCDH is a sketchy, UK-based, advocacy group that has produced various reports inciting censorship against those they disagree with. Their efforts against “anti-vaxxers” culminated in several reports that led to the deplatforming, demonetizing, and discrediting of many individuals and organizations exposing pandemic-related fraud and COVID-19 vaccine falsehoods.

CCDH’s The New Climate Denial report has been promoted through mainstream outlets like CNN, MSN, Yahoo, and USA Today. It could impact the cited individuals and organizations the same way it affected those targeted in its Disinformation Dozen reports a few years ago. Though their stated mission is to “protect human rights and civil liberties online,” they practice the opposite by advocating the revocation of these rights for climate and vaccine narrative challengers.

How The Media-Censorship Complex Plans to Tackle Climate Dissent

Two things are very clear from the recent reports issued by the WEF, UN, and CCDH. One, is that climate skepticism is on the rise. The second, is that they are threatened by the very existence of those who dare to refute their narrative. Many strategies to stem the tide of climate cynicism have already been employed with new ones currently being tested.

[…]

Each of these organizations are fueled and funded by many of the entities responsible for advancing the climate agenda, especially as it relates to the UN SDGs. This globalized amalgamation of media watchdogs, fact checkers, and disinformation regulators is powered by billion-dollar corporations, democratic and undemocratic governments, influential foundations, and powerful NGOs.

[…]

By treating climate change as a national security threat, the U.S. Department of Defense and intelligence agencies have also been enlisted in the fight against mis- and disinformation.

In addition, individuals within both the left and right wings of the two-party paradigm collude to curtail free speech. It is a grave mistake to believe that calls for censorship from either side of the political spectrum are beneficial. They are both integral to perpetuating the media-censorship complex.

Why Has Climate Science Become Nondebatable?

If it wasn’t apparent before, it should now be crystal clear that there is a vast empire united against those questioning the climate narrative. They are determined to perpetuate the myth that there is universal consensus on the facts.

The truth is there is no real consensus on climate science. The UN and its network of public-private partnerships (PPP) just make it seem that way. In this regard, the UN climate stance is akin to Anthony Fauci’s claim that questioning him was like questioning science itself. Honest and open debate on the issue should be continued by allowing opponents opportunities to present their case without fear of censorship, harassment, exclusion, or cancellation. Instead, there is constant reinforcement of a fictional consensus while divergent opinions are labeled as dangerous conspiracies.

Climate consensus figures as high as 97 and even 99.9 percent have been touted by former US Presidents, researchers, and media outlets in the past. But is this claim true? If it were, then why would there be so much effort to silence a mere one to three percent who deviate from the scientific echo chamber? Would all these battles be worth the time, energy, and money being spent on just a few dissidents, as they claim?

Past research has demonstrated claims of scientific consensus on climate change to be fraudulent. In a paper published in 2023, a team of researchers disproved the conclusions reached in a 2021 study claiming there was greater than 99% consensus on climate science in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

The claims were refuted by demonstrating that studies expressing neutral opinions were misclassified and papers communicating skepticism were ignored. This clear case of academic malfeasance is not the only example where scientists used falsified research and conspired to silence those contradicting the alleged consensus. Even if the 99% consensus assertions were valid, the notion of consensus-as-truth does not pass the test for authentic scientific validation. The majority can still be wrong.

A recent article posted by The Good Men Project, which “exposed” the climate deniers behind the recent farmer protests in Europe, proclaimed that “Scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is equivalent to that on evolution.” This statement came in response to a request from protest organizer James Melville for a national debate on climate and net zero policies. Never mind that evolution is not a proven fact. Equating climate change to evolution shows it is also unproven and can be argued against. Again, the majority can still be wrong!

Remember when Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson made claims that their COVID vaccines were all well over 90% effective in stopping transmission? As evidenced in the following video, those proclamations did not hold up very well, did they?

A massive army has been assembled to ensure that rival claims will not see the light of day for long. But why is it that the powers that be would rather falsify research, smear dissenters, and spend billions of dollars to silence critics rather than continuing to debate the issues?

[…]

Via https://off-guardian.org/2024/04/01/climate-con-and-the-media-censorship-complex-part-1/

Kit Klarenberg

Contrary to their mainstream portrayal, as inspired purely by religious fundamentalism, Daesh are primarily guns for hire.

Within just 24 hours of the horrific mass shooting in Moscow’s Crocus City Hall on March 22nd, which left at least 137 innocent people dead and 60 more critically wounded, US officials blamed the slaughter on ISIS-K, Daesh’s South-Central Asian branch. For many, the attribution’s celerity raised suspicions Washington was seeking to decisively shift Western public and Russian government focus away from the actual culprits – be that Ukraine, and/or Britain, Kiev’s foremost proxy sponsor.

Full details of how the four shooters were recruited, directed, armed, and financed, and who by, are yet to emerge. The savage interrogation methods to which they have been, and no doubt continue to be subjected are concerned with prising this and other vital information from them. The killers may end up making false confessions as a result. In any event, they themselves likely have no clue who or what truly sponsored their monstrous actions.

Contrary to their mainstream portrayal, as inspired purely by religious fundamentalism, Daesh are primarily guns for hire. At any given time, they act at the behest of an array of international donors, bound by common interests. Funding, weapons, and orders reach its fighters circuitously, and opaquely. There is almost invariably layer upon layer of cutouts between the perpetrators of an attack claimed by the group, and its ultimate orchestrators and financiers.

Given ISIS-K is currently arrayed against China, Iran, and Russia – in other words, the US Empire’s primary adversaries – it is incumbent to revisit Daesh’s origins. Emerging seemingly out of nowhere just over a decade ago, before dominating mainstream media headlines and Western public consciousness for several years before vanishing, at one stage the group occupied vast swaths of Iraqi and Syrian territory, declaring an “Islamic State”, which issued its own currency, passports, and vehicle registration plates.

Devastating military interventions independently launched by the US and Russia wiped out that demonic construct in 2017. The CIA and MI6 were no doubt immensely relieved. After all, extremely awkward questions about how Daesh were comprehensively extinguished. As we shall see, the terror group and its caliphate did not emerge in the manner of lightning on a dark night, but due to dedicated, determined policy hatched in London and Washington, implemented by their spying agencies.

‘Continuingly Hostile’

RAND is a highly influential, Washington DC-headquartered “think tank”. Bankrolled to the tune of almost $100 million annually by the Pentagon and other US government entities, it regularly disseminates recommendations on national security, foreign affairs, military strategy, and covert and overt actions overseas. These pronouncements are more often than not subsequently adopted as policy.

For example, a July 2016 RAND paper on the prospect of “war with China” forecast a need to fill Eastern Europe with US soldiers in advance of a “hot” conflict with Beijing, as Russia would undoubtedly side with its neighbour and ally in such a dispute. It was therefore necessary to tie down Moscow’s forces at its borders. Six months later, scores of NATO troops duly arrived in the region, ostensibly to counter “Russian aggression”.

Similarly, in April 2019 RAND published Extending Russia. It set out “a range of possible means” to “bait Russia into overextending itself,” so as to “undermine the regime’s stability.” These methods included; providing lethal aid to Ukraine; increasing US support for the Syrian rebels; promoting “regime change in Belarus”; exploiting “tensions” in the Caucasus; neutralising “Russian influence in Central Asia” and Moldova. Most of that came to pass thereafter.

In this context, RAND’s November 2008 Unfolding The Long War makes for disquieting reading. It explored ways the US Global War on Terror could be prosecuted once coalition forces formally left Iraq, under the terms of a withdrawal agreement inked by Baghdad and Washington that same month. This development by definition threatened Anglo dominion over Persian Gulf oil and gas resources, which would remain “a strategic priority” when the occupation was officially over.

“This priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war,” RAND declared. The think tank went on to propose a “divide and rule” strategy to maintain US hegemony in Iraq, despite the power vacuum created by withdrawal. Under its auspices, Washington would exploit “fault lines between [Iraq’s] various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts”, while “supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran”:

“This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces…The US and its local allies could use nationalist jihadists to launch proxy campaigns to discredit transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace…This would be an inexpensive way of buying time…until the US can return its full attention to the [region]. US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict…by taking the side of conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.”

[…]

Via https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/how-cia-and-mi6-created-isis

In theory, despite the CIA’s constitutional prohibition on domestic activities – which the Agency regularly breaches with impunity in any event – there is nothing necessarily suspicious about its covert presence in Washington DC on January 6th. As an official factsheet notes, Langley’s “K9 unit” has been routinely deployed to “external events” on US soil, including Super Bowls, Miss Universe Pageants, Major League Baseball Games, and the Olympics. Moreover, there were numerous pipebombs secreted in the US capital, requiring expert removal.

However, the factsheet reveals bomb disposal isn’t the CIA K9 Unit’s sole, or even prime responsibility. Its avowed “mission” is to: “protect the worldwide assets and personnel of the CIA [emphasis added]. K9 teams are trained to detect all types of explosives by searching delivery trucks, buildings, vehicles, packages, and assisting CIA police officers [emphasis added].” When one considers that whoever laid pipebombs in DC remains at large, suspicions about clandestine federal machinations on January 6th can only multiply.

Phantom Bomber

The FBI announced that it had difused “viable” pipebombs left at the Democratic and Republican National Committee buildings in DC mere hours after the Capitol’s breach on January 6th, and before the National Guard arrived on the scene. The Bureau subsequently published “images and video of the suspect, the suspect’s backpack, the suspect’s shoes, the explosive devices, and a map of the route the suspect walked the night the pipe bombs were placed.”

A $500,000 reward was offered for information leading to the suspect’s prosecution. Fast forward three years, and the sum remains unclaimed. A renewed call for witnesses issued by the FBI January 4th 2024 noted that in the intervening time, “a dedicated team of FBI agents, analysts, data scientists, and law enforcement partners has worked thousands of hours conducting interviews, reviewing physical and digital evidence, and assessing tips from the public.” These leads reportedly helped the Bureau “advance the investigation.”

It is unclear how, given the culprit hasn’t been caught. Why pipebombs were placed at the DNC and RNC is likewise uncertain. Then-Capitol police chief Steven Sund, and several US lawmakers, have speculated that the purpose was to divert law enforcement from the site of the looming “insurrection”. As it was, three separate police teams posted there were dispatched to the RNC, leaving just one squad at the Capitol building, right when Trump supporters were massing at barricades.

Curiously, the RNC pipebomb was, apparently, found via pure happenstance. A local US Department of Commerce employee working remotely decided to use her lunch hour to do laundry. Her apartment block’s laundry room was situated at the back of the building, accessible via an alleyway shared with the RNC. Having dropped her clothes off and returned home at noon, she went back to use a dryer at around 12:45pm, when she spotted the device, 20 minutes before its allegedly timed detonation.

Once alerted, police arrived almost immediately, a crew of ATF and FBI agents in tow. If the bomber’s objective truly was to divert law enforcement from the Capitol, this can only be considered miraculous timing, given at 12:54pm, heavily surveilled Proud Boys activist Ryan Samsel breached the barricades, leading to a deluge of Trump supporters following suit, and the subsequent “insurrection”. Were it not for a US government employee’s chance find minutes before, January 6th may have proceeded rather differently.

‘Proper Outcome’

The DNC pipebomb was discovered at roughly 13:15pm, authorities having had the foresight to check that building’s grounds too, on a whim. Given it didn’t explode in the intervening minutes, its timer was apparently set later. The FBI states the two devices were laid “between approximately 7:30pm and 8:30pm” on January 5th. This lack of clarity is peculiar, given extensive footage of the suspect planting the pipebombs, and the Bureau mapping their movements to and from the area with precision.

Washington DC is the second-most CCTV-saturated US city by some margin, which is remarkable given its small size. There are 35,082 local surveillance cameras in total, or 55.5 cameras per 1,000 citizens. Evidently, the feeds are not monitored in real-time, for the suspect made no attempt whatsoever to conceal their activities. A hooded and masked individual openly secreting something at two highly sensitive, well-protected political sites in succession would surely arouse some suspicion if so.

That the pipebomber placed highly destructive payloads at the DNC and RNC so brazenly on January 5th 2021 without incident, entirely unnoticed, before disappearing into the ether is extraordinary. With Trump’s “Save America” rally scheduled for the next day, DC was filling up with his supporters. That evening, they staged a demonstration in Freedom Plaza, which turned violent when Antifa and Black Lives Matter counter-protesters arrived, producing clashes, broken up by police. The city was already on high alert.

Over the prior week, the FBI and its field offices consistently warned of armed protests in every state, and plans by Trump supporters that included violence. On January 5th, the Bureau’s Norfolk, Virginia HQ emailed Capitol police an internal Situational Information Report, subject line: “potential criminal activities in the Washington DC area planned for tomorrow.” It contained multiple social media posts indicating some “Save America” attendees had unambiguously malign intentions. One boldly declared:

This FBI warning may account for why, according to mainstream media reports published in the immediate aftermath of January 6th, Capitol Hill staffers were urged by supervisors not to attend work that day, due to greatly heightened risk levels. But it does not explain DC authorities simultaneously failing to deploy basic precautions, such as frozen zones and hardened barriers, commonly used for major events in the area.

By contrast, it seems the outgoing administration was highly security conscious on January 6th. In January 2022, Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato told House Select Committee on the January 6th Attack investigators that his superior, Mark Meadows, pressured DC Mayor Muriel Bowser to request a sizeable National Guard presence on the day, in the event of violent clashes with counterprotesters erupting again. He claimed Trump suggested up to 10,000 peacekeepers would be necessary.

Ornato also revealed Trump administration frustration with Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller’s slow deployment of the National Guard on the afternoon of January 6th. Once the Capitol was breached, Meadows ordered Miller, “get them in here, get them in here to secure the Capitol now.” Ornato’s exculpatory testimony was concealed until March 8th this year. Two months earlier, Committee chair Liz Cheney falsely claimed there was “no evidence” Trump ordered the Capitol to be protected.

[…]

Via https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/secret-cia-presence-on-january-6th?r=83qir

By Pierre Duval – Continental Observer – 26.03.2024

The populations from immigration are not interested in the military uniform to lead the wars of the Occident, nor are the other young people of these countries. Most migrants support Russia. Calls by NATO leaders to recruit soldiers in a crusade against Russia are shunned by recruits who have begun to flee.

French Army Minister Sebastien Lecornu, unveiled his plan to end the increase in departures in the French army. «It is no longer a question of recruiting new soldiers so much as of persuading existing troops not to resign», states Politico. «These conversations now exist in all capitals, in all democracies that have professional armies without conscription», emphasizes the English-speaking media. Western armies can no longer recruit and lack soldiers.

Even Germany is affected. A recent annual report submitted to the German Parliament showed in 2023, some 1,537 soldiers left the Bundeswehr, reducing it to 181,514 troops. Europeans do not want to die for a war their elites want. This reflects the resistance of the populations in Europe against the WAR of the EU against Russia.

In France, according to official data, the military recruit remains in the armed forces for a year on average, less than before the outbreak of the military conflict in Ukraine. In the UK, the annual shortage of personnel is 1,100 men, equivalent to two infantry battalions. The British government signed a recruitment contract with a private company Capita, but this did not succeed.

“The problem is not in being recruited, but in the retention of soldiers, we must also preserve their families’, chief of naval operations of the US Navy,” admiral Lisa Franchetti announced at a conference in Paris. “It appears that the wives of military personnel have begun asking for divorce more often.”

“To train and retain the right people once they have been recruited has become the great challenge of an army without conscription,” stressed the Minister at a seminar of those responsible for all military services. In 2023, the French military finished with 3,000 unfilled posts.

The French plan provides assistance to military personnel in finding housing, access to health care and childcare services’. Married couples in which the husband and wife both work in the Defence Ministry, even if one of them is a civilian, will be able to change their position, i.e., by mutual consent.

One of the main measures of the French plan aims to increase the attractiveness of military service is to increase pensions and wages. «But the problem is that the conditions of employment are simply not so attractive, with chronic overtime, absences of several months from home and missed recovery periods», adds Politico.

The new Polish government recently announced a 20% increase in military salaries, seeking to maintain at least the current level of troops. The minimum monthly salary of the soldier will increase from 1,150 euros to 1,394 euros.

By the end of the year, the number of the Polish military is expected to increase to 220,000 people, as reported par Rzeczy Do in reference to the statement by Polish defence minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz. Thus, the overall objective is to increase the number of the Polish military to 300,000 people. But even the wage increase is not motivating the average Pole to shed his blood on the fields of Ukraine.

In Germany, the Scholz government wants to increase the number of its armed forces to 203,000 by the early 2030s, but recruitment is increasing very slowly, warns Politico. Eva Hogl, Bundestag Military Commissioner, stated that it was necessary to restore conscription to military service, and that it is better to attract more women to the military  Last year’s legislation aims to make military conditions more attractive for women, especially with regard to the increase in support for children.

In Denmark, the population is so adverse to serving in the army that the government has decided to extend compulsory military service to women and to increase its service from 4 to 11 months.

The UK has also recently admitted that it is having difficulty finding recruits. The UK Defense Journal reports that the British army has not met its recruitment targets every year since 2010. According to a recent YouGov survey, 38% of Britons under the age of 40 say that they will refuse to serve in the armed forces in the event of a new world war, and 30% say they will not serve even if their country is threatened with an imminent invasion.

“The problem is common to all European countries, including France, Italy and Spain,” stated Vincenzo Bove to Euronews, professor of political science at University of Warwick in the UK. “I do not think only one country is spared by this situation. ”

[…]

Bove referred to recent polls that show that the youth of the European Union is massively opposed to wars, against the increase in military spending and against military operations abroad’. They are also more individualistic and less patriotic than ten years ago. And the population in Europe is aging and shrinking. The armies of NATO have also decreased to adapt to these changes: the British, Italian and French armies are now almost half of what they were 10 or 20 years ago.

[…]

Via https://www.observateurcontinental.fr/