#BreakingNews# | Delhi University reconstitutes women’s safety panel, includes student union representatives @SimranBabbar_05 get you details with @harshdatt1 | #DelhiUniversity# #DU# #WomensSafety# #StudentUnion# #CampusSafety#

During a public debate at a student union forum, a participant questioned Charlie Kirk on his stance regarding foreign aid and territorial concessions in Ukraine, asking whether expecting Ukraine to yield 20% of its territory to Russia is justified. In response, Kirk provided an alternative viewpoint by pointing out historical realities regarding Crimea's control and questioning the democratic legitimacy of Ukrainian leadership, while emphasizing that continued U.S. financial aid should be critically re-examined. This perspective highlights an analytical viewpoint common among conservative commentators who favor diplomatic negotiation and domestic fiscal prioritization over indefinite international military commitments.

They stormed the Bastille again—this time waving communist flags and chanting for 1917. On October 8, 2026, what French authorities described as student strikes turned violent at Place de la Bastille in Paris. Demonstrators attacked riot police with stones and fireworks; officers answered with tear gas and water cannons. By evening the square was cleared, its walls and the July Column scrawled with calls to overthrow the government, pro-Palestinian slogans, and a large graffiti urging the beheading of President Macron. Interior Ministry figures put nationwide turnout at 71,500, with 504 arrests and 48 officers injured. Numbers had already fallen sharply from 266,000 two days earlier. The political signature was unmistakable. Communist and Palestinian flags filled the square. Protesters invoked the Bolshevik October Revolution, shouted “We took the Bastille,” and displayed signs reading “1789–2026, let’s retake the Bastille.” Many faces looked far older than high-school or university age. French intelligence, according to Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s office, has identified Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s far-left La France Insoumise and its “far-left proxies” as playing a role in stoking the actions. Mélenchon himself posted that the Bastille had been “reoccupied” and urged supporters back on the 13th. Rubens Strachan of the right-leaning student union UNI told The Epoch Times the far left did not infiltrate the movement—it launched it. Blockades at the historically quiet Catholic Institute of Paris and the conservative-leaning Assas law faculty were dominated by black-clad antifa activists who were not enrolled students; the same faces appeared at multiple sites. Slogans jumped from Gaza to New Caledonia with no coherent campus demand left. The pattern is familiar: radical organizations, some long sympathetic to Cuba, Venezuela, and Beijing, treat classrooms as recruitment grounds and foreign causes as force multipliers. Government subsidies to far-left campus groups, Strachan noted, have helped buy the equipment later used against the state that funds them. A silent majority of students simply wants to study. The louder minority is being handed a ready-made revolutionary script.

Here we go again with bad geopolitics headlines. Yes, the US “ideological loyalty test” below is impolitic, impolite, and will ruffle feathers to put it mildly. I’m not advocating for it here. As Bloomberg puts it, “Linking America’s long-standing security commitments to such fealty would upend the post-World War II transatlantic relationship, which was built on US military guarantees that superseded many political disagreements.” Yes - and no. NATO is not a book club, student union, or gym: its preamble in 1949 states it is “determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage, and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.” Would NATO use that language again if recreated today? It was also specifically created as an *ideological alliance*, which its own website states was to: 1) “Deter Soviet expansionism” - i.e., anti-communism. You couldn’t join NATO and lean Soviet or trade much with them. (But, yes, France and Italy had strong communist parties that their security services and the U.S. kept eyes on; and Europe tried for USSR trade regularly despite US naysaying.) 2) “Forbid the revival of nationalist militarism”- i.e., anti-Nazi. 3) “Encourage European political integration” - i.e., again ideological. One can argue that NATO now needs to find a new ideology for itself at a time when the West is widely seen to be threatened far more broadly than by Russia. We’ve seen vociferous disagreements in the past over other wars/actions, such as Vietnam and Iraq, but they were at a time that both U.S. and Western hegemony looked unrivalled: do they today? Clearly, the U.S. can’t carry the same burden as before alone - yet its allies are making it abundantly clear that if they get the muscles to act independently, that’s what they want to then do. How does that build trust any more than what the U.S. is doing? Those new muscles will also require the whole *West* to integrate to scale up vs a Chinese giant with a Leninist neomercantilist model that crushes industrial opposition. (That’s now an emerging Establishment view, years late to the party.) Isn’t the U.S. then perhaps pushing for Europe (and Canada) to: - look at threats *globally* while acting locally; - forbid the return of “international pacifism” or defence “Build Back Better”; and - integrate with it (on its terms)? That doesn’t mean this U.S. approach is nice; or easy to swallow for the others; or that it will achieve its goals. You can make the argument it is nasty, and people will choke on it, and so it will do the exact opposite to what the White House wants. Even so, distorting the past to mis-explain the present to avoid a future some don’t want is also not nice, hard to swallow, and unlikely to achieve any security goals in the long run.