A peaceful protest over education spending cuts turned to chaos
A demonstration in the Belgian capital against controversial cuts to education spending has descended into violence. It comes against the backdrop of mounting opposition to the government’s efforts to balance the budget.
What began as a largely peaceful protest by thousands of students and teachers in central Brussels on Thursday later turned violent, with hooded individuals reportedly setting fires, damaging property and clashing with police. Some social media users posting videos on X claimed the unrest had been fueled by groups of migrant youths who infiltrated the demonstration.
Protestors were opposed to a package of austerity measures put forward by Belgium’s French Community government, which oversees French-language education. The reforms would raise annual university tuition fees for most students from €835 ($964) to around €1,194 and require some secondary-school teachers to take on additional classroom hours without extra pay.
Officials say the measures would save €300 million and help address a budget deficit projected to reach €1.9 billion. The roughly 35% increase would bring fees more closely into line with those at Flemish universities, according to the government.
🇧🇪 Absolute chaos today in Brussels…
Scooters on fire, bus stops wrecked, fireworks being launched at police, thick smoke covering parts of the city center.
It was a student protest. 84-88% of Brussels’ youth are of foreign origin. Go figure.pic.twitter.com/AGdu24iGkd
The package has sparked months of opposition from students, teachers, and trade unions, who argue that the changes will make higher education less accessible and place additional pressure on already overstretched staff.
Despite the protests, the Parliament of the French Community approved the bill on Friday after more than 14 hours of debate, paving the way for the reforms to take effect. French Community government leader Elisabeth Degryse defended the measures as necessary to address the region’s financial challenges.
Calls for new demonstrations circulated on social media ahead of the vote, while local media reported that police had been deployed to several locations across the Belgian capital.
The latest unrest follows months of anti-government protests in Brussels against austerity measures, as Belgium tries to rein in public spending while increasing military expenditure in line with NATO commitments.
The budget squeeze also comes amid an EU-wide energy crisis following the bloc’s reduction of Russian oil and gas imports, which has contributed to higher costs for consumers. Supply chain disruptions linked to the Middle East conflict have further exacerbated the situation.
Politicians promise immigration control while the economic and demographic forces driving migration remain firmly in place
The European Union’s new migration rules, agreed upon in principle by lawmakers and state representatives, will allow EU countries to transfer rejected asylum seekers to third countries if they cannot be returned to their countries of origin. They also introduce stricter rules for dealing with illegal migrants, especially those considered a security risk.
The media has called it “historic,”“hardline,” and the “strictest-ever migration law” as politicians behind their lecterns spoke of control and the defense of borders. Yet in truth, the EU has once again promised to become tougher while preserving the structures that produced the migration crisis in the first place. New procedures, databases, and regulations have appeared, but the underlying incentives have remained largely intact. The result resembles many political spectacles of recent years: a performance designed to reassure anxious voters while preserving the economic and ideological foundations of the existing system. The gap between rhetoric and reality has become one of the defining characteristics of contemporary Western politics.
The same pattern can be observed across the Atlantic. Donald Trump returned to office promising the strongest immigration enforcement campaign in American history. His supporters anticipated deportation operations on a scale never previously attempted. Yet the reality has proved considerably more modest. Immigration enforcement agencies continue to conduct highly publicized arrests that generate dramatic footage for television and social media. A worker removed from a restaurant kitchen, a raid on a warehouse or construction site – all good for cameras and for political supporters to receive confirmation that action is taking place. Yet the larger economic machinery that attracts millions of migrants continues operating. Businesses that employ illegal labor rarely face penalties severe enough to transform their calculations. The availability of employment remains the primary magnet drawing people across borders. A government genuinely committed to ending illegal immigration would focus relentlessly on employers, labor contractors, and industries dependent on cheap foreign labor. However, such measures would provoke opposition from powerful economic interests. Consequently, symbolic enforcement often proves more attractive than structural reform.
Politicians frequently present immigration as a humanitarian question, a cultural question, or a question of border security. The economic dimension often receives less scrutiny. Modern capitalism and mass immigration have become deeply intertwined. Employers gain access to larger labor pools, which increases competition among workers and places downward pressure on wages in many sectors. Agricultural businesses, logistics firms, construction companies, restaurants, delivery services, and countless other industries derive substantial advantages from a continuous supply of foreign labor. The benefits remain concentrated while many of the costs become dispersed throughout society. Housing demand rises, infrastructure faces greater pressure, schools require expansion, healthcare systems absorb additional burdens.
Welfare programs support those who struggle to establish themselves economically. These expenses rarely appear on corporate balance sheets – instead, they get distributed across the broader population through taxation and public expenditure. This contradiction led the French thinker Alain de Benoist to formulate one of the most incisive observations in the entire debate: “One who criticizes capitalism while approving of immigration, of which the working class is its first victim, would do better to remain silent. One who criticizes immigration while remaining silent regarding capitalism should do the same.” The statement captures a reality that many ideological camps prefer to avoid. Immigration and capitalism frequently function as partners within the same economic system, and any serious analysis of one eventually encounters the other.
Back in Western Europe, governments routinely announce crackdowns on illegal immigration while simultaneously preserving the economic and demographic model that depends on continuous inflows of foreign labor. Public discussion frequently centers on boats crossing the Mediterranean or migrants entering through other irregular routes – images that dominate news coverage because they are visually dramatic. Yet illegal immigration represents only one component of a much larger phenomenon. The overwhelming transformation of Western Europe has occurred through legal channels. Work permits, family reunification programs, student visas, humanitarian admissions, labor recruitment schemes, and various residency pathways have altered the demographic composition of entire societies. A politician can reduce small boat arrivals while expanding legal immigration quotas. Statistical reports may then suggest success even as overall migration continues at historic levels.
Italy provides an instructive example. Giorgia Meloni rose to power promising a fundamental break with previous migration policies. Her electoral success depended heavily on public dissatisfaction with mass immigration. Yet her government subsequently approved hundreds of thousands of additional work permits for non-European migrants in response to labor shortages. Nearly half a million new non-EU work visas were authorized over a multi-year period even while the government continued presenting itself as a champion of immigration control. Supporters emphasized efforts against illegal arrivals, while employers welcomed access to additional labor, and the demographic trajectory remained largely unchanged.
This recurring pattern has created a phenomenon increasingly described by critics as the “Melonization effect,” where leaders campaign as insurgents against mass immigration and then govern as managers of the existing system. Similar tendencies have appeared across numerous Western countries.
In Germany, for instance, the debate often focuses on deportations, especially concerning Syrian refugees. Political leaders have discussed large-scale returns now that Syria’s civil war has ended. Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated that hundreds of thousands of Syrians could eventually return and suggested that most Syrian refugees would participate in rebuilding their homeland. Yet such declarations immediately encounter practical realities. Successful deportation requires cooperation from the receiving country, transportation infrastructure, administrative capacity, diplomatic agreements, legal proceedings, and substantial financial resources.
Likewise with the EU’s new migration agreement, statistics reveal the scale of the challenge. European authorities acknowledge that only a fraction of individuals ordered to leave actually depart. New regulations attempt to improve this rate, but the administrative burden of removing vast populations would dwarf almost any peacetime governmental undertaking in modern European history. Still, many advocates of remigration speak as though a future government could simply issue an order and reverse decades of demographic change.
The deeper issue extends beyond migration policy altogether. Mass immigration functions primarily as a symptom rather than a cause. Civilizations with strong confidence, coherent identities, stable institutions, and clear collective purposes rarely experience sustained demographic transformation against the wishes of their populations. Migration becomes politically decisive when governing elites lose faith in cultural continuity and begin treating populations primarily as economic units. Labor shortages, declining birthrates, fiscal pressures, aging societies, and ideological universalism combine to create a system that continuously demands replacement populations. The immigrant arrives after the transformation has already begun, and serves as visible evidence of deeper processes unfolding beneath the surface.
Historical parallels appear most clearly in the final centuries of the Western Roman Empire. Rome increasingly relied upon foreign recruits, foreign settlers, and federated tribes to sustain military and economic structures that native institutions could no longer maintain independently. Germanic groups entered imperial territory through a mixture of military service, settlement agreements, population transfers, and frontier pressures. Some arrived peacefully, others entered during periods of crisis. Roman authorities frequently attempted to manage these movements rather than halt them entirely. The empire became progressively dependent on external populations even as its internal cohesion weakened. Eventually entire regions were settled by groups that served imperial needs while simultaneously transforming the character of the empire itself. Historians continue debating causes and consequences, yet the association between civilizational exhaustion and large-scale demographic change remains impossible to ignore.
Modern Europe differs profoundly from ancient Rome, yet it has developed certain key structural similarities. Economic systems require workers and welfare states need contributors, but birthrates remain low across much of the continent. Political elites emphasize economic growth and labor supply, while business organizations lobby for additional workers. Governments, in turn, expand legal migration channels, which then leads to public opposition. To quell that opposition, governments announce new enforcement measures without addressing the root causes of migration. Economic demand repeatedly overwhelms political promises, and systems adapt to maintain flows that leaders publicly criticize, but privately accommodate.
However, the legislation’s sponsors admit it faces near-certain defeat in the Senate and a likely Trump veto
The US House of Representatives has passed a bill on imposing new sanctions on Russia and expanding Ukraine aid, with the move being largely driven by Democrats and 18 Republicans breaking party ranks. However, even the bill’s supporters conceded that the legislation was more of a symbolic gesture as it is facing an uphill battle in the Senate and a likely veto from US President Donald Trump.
The so-called Ukraine Support Act, introduced by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) in April 2025, passed Thursday with 226 votes for and 195 against.
If agreed by Congress, it would authorize over $1 billion in emergency security and reconstruction funding and $8 billion in direct loans to Ukraine, impose mandatory escalating sanctions on Russian financial institutions and energy companies, levy a 500% tariff on Russian imports, and establish a Ukraine Reconstruction Trust Fund.
The bill made its way to a vote after its supporters pulled a rare legislative maneuver called a discharge petition, which allowed them to bypass the Republican leadership – including the speaker and committee chairs – who were opposed to the move.
While the bill’s sponsors painted it as a “historic” measure that would support Ukraine’s “fighting for its sovereignty and survival,” its opponents were not convinced, suggesting that it would dim any hopes for a peaceful Russia-Ukraine settlement.
“If you support this bill, then clearly you are not interested in peace because the consequences would tie the hands of this president and could lead to future hostilities that would bleed over into Europe,” Republican congressman Keith Self said.
Rep. Brian Mast, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was equally dismissive, calling it “a cudgel to fight against President Trump” and “an unserious bill that was crafted basically a year-and-a-half ago.”
According to CNN, Speaker Mike Johnson privately urged members to vote against the bill, asking them to give Trump more time and space to negotiate with Russia.
While the bill has cleared the House, its further prospects are dim. Republican congressman Brian Fitzpatrick, one of the legislation’s supporters, admitted that “it’s probably not going to get 60 votes in the Senate, but it’s going to hopefully force the Senate to address the issue.”
Even if it were to pass the Senate, Trump would likely veto it, as the president has repeatedly resisted legislation that constrains his ability to negotiate on foreign policy.
Trump has been opposed to providing unconditional support to Ukraine, with most of the US military aid currently being paid for by Kiev’s backers in the West through the PURL mechanism.
Moscow has dismissed all Western sanctions as “illegal,” noting that the US restrictions “are harmful for building ties.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has also noted that Moscow has seen no progress toward a Ukraine settlement nearly a year after the Putin-Trump summit in Alaska.
“The Russian leadership accepted [American] proposals [on Ukraine]. And since then, we have not seen any progress, no desire to convince Ukraine to accept these American proposals,” he added.
DNA testing has confirmed Lyhanna’s identity, but forensic experts have yet to determine the cause of death, prosecutors have said
DNA testing has confirmed that a body found in southwestern France is that of Lyhanna, an 11-year-old girl who disappeared last week, prosecutors said. The case sparked a nationwide search and a growing political row over failures in the justice system.
The confirmation came a day after search teams discovered the body in an abandoned grain silo near Fleurance in the Gers region, where Lyhanna was last seen on May 29. Police were led to the site by a tip that the suspect in custody previously worked there, Gers region prosecutor Olivier Naboulet said in a statement on Friday, as cited by AP. More autopsy work is needed to determine the cause of death, he added.
The suspect, Jerome B., 41, whose daughter went to the same school as Lyhanna, was arrested.
He acknowledged that he gave the girl a ride but claimed he dropped her off near a local swimming pool – a version of events prosecutors described as inconsistent.
The case sparked outrage after prosecutors revealed that the suspect was the subject of several earlier complaints, including rape allegations that were either dropped or dismissed.
Prosecutor Clemence Meyer said one case involving a teenager was dropped in 2018 after the girl said the relationship was consensual. Another complaint alleging the rape of a child under 15 was dismissed in 2024 due to lack of evidence. A separate complaint filed in August 2025 alleged the rape of a young girl in 2024-2025.
President Emmanuel Macron said on Friday that he was shocked, acknowledging “a dysfunction” in the system. He said he asked the government to investigate what went wrong.
Justice Minister Gerald Darmanin is expected to convene all public prosecutors in Paris on Monday to review the handling of these cases.
Anne-Cecile Mailfert of the Women’s Foundation said the case exposes deep failures in France’s response to sexual violence.
“The system doesn’t work,” she said, calling for comprehensive reform.
According to the French Interior Ministry, around 58% of the victims of sexual violence recorded last year were minors. The UN Committee Against Torture, in a report on France from May 2025, highlighted the low number of reports, prosecutions, and convictions regarding child sexual abuse.
The Pentagon believes that Moscow would interpret the deployment of long-range missiles as an escalation, the outlet says
The Pentagon is set to cancel a Biden-era agreement to deploy Tomahawk cruise missiles to Germany due to fears that it would provoke a Russian retaliation and concerns over depleted weapons stockpiles, Politico reported on Thursday, citing sources.
According to two European officials and one US official interviewed by the outlet, the US believes that Russia would view plans to send the missiles, with a range of up to 1,600 km, as an escalation. Politico added that the cancellation could be interpreted as part of a broader trend of the US withdrawing from NATO defense commitments.
Another reason cited by the outlet is dwindling supplies of Tomahawk and other high-tech missiles, which were used up by the hundreds during the Iran war. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth told Congress last month that it will take “months and years” to replace them.
The original plan was announced in July 2024 by then-US President Joe Biden and then-German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and envisaged “episodic deployments” of long-range SM-6 missiles, Tomahawks, and developmental hypersonic weapons from 2026 onward.
At the time, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov called the planned deployment “just a link in the chain of escalation” and “an intimidation tactic, which is pretty much the bedrock of the policy that NATO and the US pursue towards Russia these days.” He also warned that Moscow would respond accordingly, while not ruling out deploying nuclear missiles to Russia’s westernmost exclave of Kaliningrad.
The decision to shelve the Tomahawk deployment plans was confirmed in early May by Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who said at the time that “the Americans themselves don’t currently have enough.” He also insisted that it was not linked to his feud with Trump over the Iran war.
Merz called the US-Israeli strikes on Iran “completely unnecessary” and said the US was being “humiliated” by Tehran’s negotiating tactics. Trump fired back, saying the chancellor “doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” Following the war of words, the Pentagon announced plans to withdraw around 5,000 troops stationed in Germany within several months.
The $1.6 billion high-end development has sparked anger over the planned location near a protected coastal area
Thousands of Albanians took to the streets of the capital, Tirana on Thursday for the fourth consecutive day of protests against a controversial luxury resort project linked to Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump.
The €1.4 billion ($1.6 billion) development is being spearheaded by Kushner’s investment firm, Affinity Partners, and includes projects on Sazan Island and an undeveloped stretch of coastline near the Vjosa-Narta protected area in the south of the country. The wetland is home to flamingos, seals, and sea turtle nesting sites.
The Albanian government has defended the investment as a way to attract high-end tourism, support the economy, and achieve its long-standing goal of joining the EU. Environmental groups warn that the project threatens the fragile ecosystem and exposes broader governance issues.
Speaking to RT, political analyst Nikola Vujinovic said the controversy goes beyond environmental concerns and reflects wider political tensions in Albania. He argued that the project has become tangled up in debates over Prime Minister Edi Rama’s ties to Washington and support for the Trump administration.
According to Vujinovic, the protests also stem from broader allegations against Rama’s government, including claims of corruption and authoritarianism.
Efforts should instead focus on rebuilding relations through dialogue and practical cooperation, American Chamber of Commerce head Robert Agee has said
Imposing additional sanctions on Russia will not help resolve the Ukraine conflict, American Chamber of Commerce in Russia (AmCham Russia) President and CEO Robert Agee has said.
Speaking on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum 2026 (SPIEF 2026) on Thursday, he argued that sanctions have failed to produce results in the four years since the conflict escalated in February 2022, suggesting further sanctions would be equally ineffective.
The remarks came after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio signaled that Washington could impose new sanctions on Russia and scrap waivers on its oil that were extended last month amid supply disruptions linked to tensions in the Middle East.
At a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing earlier this week, Rubio was pressed on why the Trump administration granted the waivers and has yet to back the Graham-Blumenthal bill. Championed by Russia hawk Lindsey Graham, the legislation would allow President Donald Trump to impose tariffs of up to 500% on imports from countries that buy Russian oil, gas, or uranium. Rubio insisted that the waivers are “time limited,” adding that the sanctions on Russia will remain in place and that the White House is working closely with Graham’s office on new sanctions.
Agee said he had not heard Rubio’s latest remarks, but stressed that AmCham is “not in favor of sanctions.”
“I don’t think sanctions are effective if the objective of the administration is to create a peaceful outcome to the current conflict,” he told reporters. “It hasn’t worked for four years, it is not going to work in five years… Throwing more sanctions at the situation is not going to help.”
Agee argued that efforts should instead focus on rebuilding relations through dialogue and practical cooperation rather than “piling more sanctions on top of sanctions.” He also revealed that a number of US-Russia business and investment projects are being discussed, with strong interest from companies on both sides. However, he stressed that major economic cooperation depends on both a peaceful settlement of the Ukraine conflict and the easing of sanctions.
Moscow has called the Western sanctions illegal and harmful to global economic stability. Russian officials also argue that ending the Ukraine conflict is merely the publicly stated justification for the sanctions, while the actual objective is to weaken Russia economically, technologically, and geopolitically – a goal that has been openly articulated by numerous Western politicians and officials over the years.
The Kremlin maintains that the sanctions have failed to achieve these aims, pointing to Russia’s trade reorientation toward Asia, expanding ties with non-Western partners, and the country’s growing “immunity” to external pressure.
The US, Russia, and Ukraine have held three rounds of trilateral peace talks this year without a breakthrough. A fourth round scheduled for March was postponed after the US shifted its focus to the Iran war. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov recently said the negotiations are in a “situational pause” until US diplomats can refocus on Ukraine.
Speaking to the heads of international news agencies at SPIEF on Thursday, President Vladimir Putin said Russia is committed to a peaceful settlement, provided it is based on compromises reached with Trump in Alaska last year. He argued that the main obstacle is persuading Kiev to accept the terms, including withdrawing from the Donbass regions – which voted to join Russia in 2022 – not joining NATO, and agreeing to demilitarization and denazification.
Login
