u/feanpoli — franpoli

Thank you for clarifying the rules. I apologize for the oversight. My intention was not to circumvent guidelines but to share what I believed was important information with the community. I made edits to focus on the factual content (Borrell’s statement) and included article links for verification, as I recognized the video might not comply. Moving forward, I’ll ensure all posts adhere strictly to the news-article requirement.

I first read about this news on Anadolu Ajansı’s website:

Half of bombs falling on Gaza supplied by us': Former EU foreign policy chief

Initially skeptical, I sought further verification and found the recorded session of Josep Borrell’s statement on RTVE’s YouTube channel (linked in my post). I extracted the original Spanish subtitles (VTT file) from the video and have included the relevant excerpt.

The Guardian also covered this revelation:

Israel committing genocide in Gaza, says EU’s former top diplomat

RTVE’s website offers live streams and archived news content through RTVE Play, which includes Canal 24 Horas, the channel likely responsible for this broadcast but I may not have access to it.

Let’s hold the UK government to its own words.

Official UK statement (13 Oct 2023):

**Prime Minister deploys UK military to Eastern Mediterranean to support Israel** (gov.uk, archiveve.today, archive.org)

The UK government claims its military deployment, including surveillance flights from Cyprus, is for "supporting civilians to leave Gaza." However, this aligns with Israel’s efforts to forcibly relocate Palestinians from Gaza, which many legal experts argue could constitute a war crime or even ethnic cleansing under international law.

Defense lawyers are ethically obligated to plead for their clients; just as Otto Stahmer denied overwhelming evidence to argue for Hermann Göring's acquittal, despite his documented role as a chief architect of the Holocaust. Meanwhile, England acts as a co-belligerent in Palestine, supplying arms to Israel, vetoing ceasefire efforts, and challenging the ICC's jurisdiction over crimes against humanity. Its refusal to recognize genocide follows a familiar pattern: admission would compel accountability for its own complicity.

And Putin isn't a U.S. asset? While both countries are geopolitical adversaries, their military and strategic moves have ironically helped sustain each other's defense industries; just not in a cooperative way.

Well, as much as I'd love a dramatic spy backstory, I’m afraid I’m neither an FSB nor an FBI agent. Just a regular person thinking out loud. I don’t have a definitive answer, just some suppositions. I share them so we can all explore the topic with arguments and counterarguments; no secret dossiers required! Open to hearing different perspectives.

I wasn’t claiming this was the only reason, just that it’s one possible factor. Here are some sources that highlight Russia’s role in supplying critical materials like palladium, titanium (via Kazakhstan), and nuclear fuel. While alternative sources exist, replacing Russian supplies isn’t immediate or simple.

>Import Sources (2019–22): Palladium: Russia, 32%; South Africa, 31%; Italy, 8%; Canada, 7%; and other, 22%.

Source: https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2024/mcs2024-platinum-group.pdf

>Palladium is critical to the U.S. economy and national security. Russia is the largest supplier of the metal to the United States.

Source: https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/ebot_russia_palladium_and_semiconductors.pdf

Apparently there was no titanium sponge import directly from Russia since 2022 sanctions. However 9% of imports come from Kazakhstan (VSMPO-AVISMA subsidiaries)

Source: https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2024/mcs2024-titanium.pdf

US scrambles to break reliance on Russian nuclear fuel

Russia had a monopoly on HALEU until recently. Despite U.S. effort to remedy tis issue for them their nuclear industry still faces challenges in meeting its HALEU needs domestically.

Source: https://www.ft.com/content/7ead1252-70a5-4258-8d0c-b01a65bd61f1

Russia remains a key supplier of resources critical to U.S. industry (titanium, palladium, uranium). While technically replaceable, developing alternative sources would take years. This makes the current moment less than ideal for imposing higher tariffs on Russia, particularly when the priority is to reindustrialize the U.S.

Four years? The trumpism can survive Donald Trump, if it is what you are referring to.

I try hard to avoid this biased and proprietary tool. Meanwhile I can admit that I sometime experiment with open source language models that I can run locally on my machine. That being said, thank you for your valuable input on this topic.

Emmanuel Macron is erasing any semblance of strategic ambiguity. France's so-called "adversaries", as depicted by the president, now have clear confirmation that the EU lacks the capacity to confront them effectively. Bound by its reliance on American technology, there is little doubt that the United States will ensure the EU remains dependent on its logistical support. At the same time, the EU's dependence on Chinese industry and Russian resources leaves it vulnerable, as these powers will undoubtedly seek to weaken its position relative to theirs. In this climate of strategic weakness, pushing for escalation risks widening the gap between the EU and its opponents, further destabilizing both France and the EU on the global stage.

Moreover, Macron’s neoliberal approach reveals a troubling pattern - the burden of this effort falls disproportionately on the already struggling population, while oligarchs and the ultra-wealthy are exempt from meaningful contribution. By failing to demand shared sacrifice from all French citizens, the government undermines its own narrative of urgency. This unequal distribution of responsibility not only deepens existing inequalities but also erodes the social unity needed to confront challenges of such magnitude.

In theory, yes, Putin might be immune from arrest in France as long as he is a sitting head of state, due to customary international law on immunities. However, France's position reveals a potential double standard. While it highlights the immunities of Israeli officials in its communication regarding the ICC, it has not explicitly clarified whether similar protections would apply to Putin or other officials from non-party states accused of crimes by the ICC. This lack of consistency leaves France’s intentions ambiguous and raises questions about whether political or strategic considerations outweigh its commitment to international justice.