Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte called out France and Germany in a hard-hitting interview Friday, fired up over the countries’ efforts to land Berlin a seat on the UN Security Council.
“Did Germany lose or win WWII?” Conte asked rhetorically, emphasizing, in his typical no holds barred style, that the seat had been intended for the EU as a whole.
The populist PM made the comments in an interview with local media after he was asked to comment on French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s recently signed “friendship treaty.” The so-called Treaty of Aachen includes a provision highlighting Paris and Berlin’s stated priority of securing a permanent seat on the powerful UN body. The UN General Assembly gave Germany temporary UNSC membership in June, alongside four other countries.
Also on rt.com
Italy’s Salvini suggests ‘European Spring’ to bring end to ‘German-French axis’ on continent
Conte suggested that the two are “only thinking of their national interests,” despite their “empty European rhetoric.”
The truth is that we have caught France and Germany with their hands in the cookie jar
Conte also made it clear that the new government in Rome would no longer let the long-time de-facto leaders of the EU treat Italy like a “poor relation,” boasting of his administration’s widespread popularity.
Also on rt.com
Italian deputy PM calls on EU to sanction France for its ‘continued colonization’ of Africa
The non-party-affiliated former academic leads Italy’s anti-establishment coalition government which was elected this summer on a platform of tightening immigration controls, Euroscepticism and opposition to austerity. Such positions have naturally put the coalition at odds with other European nations. Relations between Italy and France have been particularly turbid as a result of disagreements over European immigration policy.
Also on rt.com
France and Germany pledge to defend each other in new treaty
Subscribe to RT newsletter to get stories the mainstream media won’t tell you.
» Lees verder
Rolling into Kiev is the easy part, but what then?
There are some people that accuse Putin of abandoning a unique chance in 2014 to stop the “Banderovites” that took over Kiev…
I heard similar stuff from Russian nationalists recently at Sputnik & Pogrom podcast with Aleksandr Zhuchkovsky, a militia man in Donbass, and then I saw this Sovok post. Unlike Russian nationalists, some out there even believe that Russia should have helped Yanukovych back to Bankova.
Criticism of Putin’s handling of the Ukrainian crisis finds a home both on the right and on the left of Russia’s political spectrum, among opponents of Putin. One can definitely find flaws in the handling of the Donbass crisis. Russia’s current position is that the republics are “self-declared”, this is what the Russian media refer to them as, that they are part of Ukraine, and that they should be reintegrated into Ukraine in some form of a federative arrangement. The kremlins’ view recognition of the Donbass republics as a step in the extreme, perhaps after Ukraine attempts to take the republics over by force.
On the other side in Kiev, Donbass republics are viewed as a part of Ukraine, forcibly torn away by Russian aggression. According to Ukrainian constitution, Ukraine is a unitary state, and without a change to the constitution, federalism is impossible. The Ukrainian parliament eagerly changed the constitution recently to include aims to join NATO and the EU. However, I do not see the same enthusiasm about federalism. This disparity in views between Kiev and Moscow, the resultant lack of recognition for the Donbass republics, high levels of criminality, and poor handling of the republics by Russian curators as Anatoly Karlin notes, don’t add to Russia’s good image.
But was reinstating Yanukovych, or creating Novorossiya ever a good idea? I have recently read a compelling case against this that mentions reasons other than just the threat of sanctions. Sergey Belov on Alternativa imagines in five points what would happen if the Kremlin did not limit itself to Crimea:
First of his arguments is that Russia would be forced to support the odious persona of Viktor Yanukovych as the legitimate president.
» Lees verder