For more on this, I suppose we have to wait for part 3 of this three-part series articles

Yes, you are right. In Oct 2023 they said they won’t do military business with Israel. But in 2025:

However, on April 17 as Spaniards geared up for the Easter holiday weekend, the government filed paperwork confirming the deal on the government tenders website. The purchase, worth 6.6 million euros ($7.53 million), includes the acquisition of more than 15 million 9-mm rounds from Israel’s IMI Systems, owned by Elbit Systems (ESLT.TA), opens new tab and represented in Spain by Guardian LTD Israel.

It’s only only after pressure threats that the government decided to do as they had pledged in 2023:

The decision drew a sharp rebuke on Wednesday from coalition partner Sumar, with one of the groups within Sumar, Izquierda Unida, threatening to withdraw from the minority coalition government.

This is not exactly what you asked for, but it’s the closest thing I can think of. The Forensic Architecture site has some accurate info for Gaza, Palestine but they date back to 2024. Still, I think it’s worth keeping an eye out for any new investigation they might do.

A Cartography of a Genocide

And a relevant article about frontex:

20 years of Frontex: Human rights abuses getting worse

Not too sure how effective this is tho, as a solution.

It seems to me like a diplomatic escalation in the sense that banning the Russian ambassador from attending this commemoration event gives Putin something to instrumentalise anyways, at least for internal consumption. In the same time this move does not apply any kind of actual pressure on Russia. So I honestly don’t know what good can come out of this move.

Well, the extreme weather events are already taking place. The point for me is that we should stop them before they do more damage. And they should pay to mitigate the damage they already caused.

What you said reminded me of an argument that I recently heard and found quite interesting, as well as accurate.

It was saying that the developing countries are actually the colonising ones because they got prosperous from ferociously extracting the resources from the places they colonised. In the so-called “post colonial era”, theses western countries kept their development through economic exploitation of the same areas and people.

Edit: So the developed countries, should actually be called developing instead. And what we call now developing countries should be called exploited, abused or something similar.

I believe your comment was clearly about the outlet. I just took the opportunity to say where I stand on this topic, as well.

I think I just understood our main point of difference. Maybe.

For me, the problems in the middle-east / West Asia for example, have been created due to colonialism. More specifically, because eurpean colonisers carved up the area when the Ottoman Empire started to crumble. In a way, I look further back in time to find the root cause, which is not that long ago, if you think about it. Btw, I also consider the US power-house as a problem that derived from european colonialism. Similarly, Australia and Canada even if they don’t seem to have the US power ambitions on global geopolitics.

This is why I also see migration as such a difficult issue, but as you might have noticed I didn’t talk about solutions. The prosperity of western societies was created and is maintained due to the exhaustive exploitation of other parts of the world. I believe before the west addresses that, there can be no solutions, and and-aid legislation (best case scenario that is) cannot help the healing of such deep wounds.

That is because you are describing the EU as an union of colonizers,

Not at all. Yes they started with their neighbors. You mentioned a couple of examples, another would be Ireland and the UK. Still, some common things tho between european colonisers was their sense of superiority and their brutal practices towards indigenous peoples and their environment.

On the one hand, the current refugees are not coming to Europe from old European colonies, but from Russian ones.

This is not my understanding, for 2 main reasons

• Practically such a huge amount of the world has been colonised by europeans. Btw check out the maps in the wiki page of the colonial empire.
• About the Russia thing, I don’t think so. I found these stats that present a different picture about the countries of origin. See our world in data (sort by Refugee by country of origin). If you have some info that changes significantly this picture, please share.

Edit: I moved around some sentences to make it more coherent. Hopefully.

I also believe that migration, refuge status and asylum are very difficult topics but I don’t agree with the framing you make because it seems to me you present the issue as something that came out of the blue.

For me, the context mainly derives from European colonialism, since this is how global inequalities have been established in the first place. European countries have exhausted the resources from formerly colonised places for their benefit. We also need to examine if this so-called “post-colonial era” has really shifted towards decolonisation or to a neo-colonialism in practice.

Without using taking into consideration these aspects, I don’t think we can have a meaningful conversation on the topic.

I just read the following article and since it’s on the topic that we were talking about, I thought you might want to take a look at it.

“There is No Democracy Without Direct Democracy”

Of course, and I should have specified that the military occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal according to international standards, as well as the longest one in modern history.

For Lebanon and Syria, I believe you are right.

For Gaza, not so sure because it is part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory by Israel, for many decades now.

I found the following article from 2019 that contradicts several claims in this article (archive link). I am not familiar with this tech, so if anyone of you is, could you share your thoughts?

Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

I don’t like the Washington Post neither. After reading a few articles on this topic from other outlets that are compatible with this community’s rule about MBFC, I chose to post this one because it’s content was relatively ok imo.

Maybe I missed a better article? Sure.

At the same time, kinda tragic of the state that western mainstream media are? I would argue, totally.

I found a site called Committee to Protect Journalists and I though of sharing some relevant info:

As of April 16:

• 175 journalists and media workers were confirmed killed: 167 Palestinian, two Israeli, and six Lebanese.
• 93 journalists were reported injured.
• 2 journalists were reported missing.
• 84 journalists were reported arrested.
• Multiple assaults, threats, cyberattacks, censorship, and killings of family members.

Capitalism works this way, unfortunately.

Here is one more article based on a 2025 report saying something similar.

Only 9.5% of plastic materials produced globally in 2022 were manufactured from recycled materials. The findings, reported in Communications Earth & Environment, are part of a comprehensive analysis of the global plastics sector, which also reveals a large increase in the amount of plastic being disposed of by incineration and substantial regional differences in plastic consumption.

Plastic production has increased from 2 million tons per year in 1950 to 400 million tons per year in 2022 and is projected to reach 800 million tons per year by 2050. As a result, plastic pollution is a pressing and growing global issue, posing major challenges for the environment, economy, and public health.

I understand your frustration because we live in the same world, but I see things a bit differently.

Representative democracy is when people vote every few years for politicians to represent them in a parliament and create a government. As long as this takes place, the system is working fine. That said, representative democracy does not protect a society from politicians being bought from corporations, nor from a 2-party system. Apart from that, it’s through representative democracies that fascists get elected, historically and currently.

So I would argue that representative democracy is democracy in name only.

Personally, I am not so much against voting in general, because some forms of direct democracy work imo.

Representative democracy seems to me that it is not working as “advertised”. Having the “choice” of voting between 2 terrible options which are both sold out to corporate interest, doesn’t seem like a great societal model to me. Nowadays, one of these two options is often a fascist, an extreme nationalist or something along those lines. So even, if people vote for the one that is not fascist, the argument still stands (rephrasing it a bit): we cannot not vote our way out of a system in which the politicians work for those who funded their campaigns, instead of the people who voted for them.