www.thenewfederalist.eu

Latvia's nascent democracy is under threat by voter apathy

Liene Jermacāne — 2026-04-02T12:48:11Z

Latvian politics is often considered relatively stable and well-organised compared to other countries, but recent developments suggest rising tensions. The Prime Minister, Evika Siliņa, represents the largest faction in the Saeima: New Unity. A pro-European party and a member of the centre-right European People's Party, they govern alongside the centrist Union of Greens and Farmers and the centre-left Progressives, covering a wide range of the political spectrum.

However, democracy has not always been Latvia's political system - the first Saeima was elected in 1922 and existed until 1934, when Kārlis Ulmanis carried out a coup d'état. From then until the Soviet occupation in 1940, Latvia was governed under an authoritarian regime. Ulmanis effectively ruled as a dictator under the slogan “Leadership, Unity, Nationalism” and in this period elections and referendums ceased to exist. Nonetheless, some still praise him as a leader who avoided violence and focussed on building Latvian identity.

Latvia was incorporated into the Soviet Union following occupation, meaning that free and fair elections were not held for a further fifty years. Latvia's democracy has been in a process of rebuilding and strengthening for three and a half decades and it joined the EU alongside the other Baltic states in 2004. But there is a growing sentiment in the opposition that European integration has not benefitted ordinary Latvians and that Russia under Vladimir Putin may be a more natural friend of the country - despite the recent history of occupation and control.

To be (European) or not to be?

The next elections are due to take place later this year and campaigning has already started earlier than expected. Tensions began rising significantly with debates in recent months over the possible withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention, which Latvia ratified in 2023 after years of campaigning from women's rights groups. Supporters viewed ratification as a long-awaited step toward stronger protection for victims of domestic violence; critics raised concerns about its interpretation and potential impact on sovereignty.

The issue has once again drawn international attention to Latvia, largely in a negative context. Human rights organisations have warned that withdrawing from the Convention could weaken protections for vulnerable groups and damage Latvia's reputation as a country committed to democratic values. Public reaction has been strong and in the capital, Riga, around 10,000 people participated in two major protests, with additional demonstrations taking place in other cities and among Latvian diaspora communities abroad

These debates have exposed the deep divisions that exist within Latvian society and politics. Some argue that national laws are sufficient to address domestic violence without reliance on international agreements, while others emphasise that the Convention provides essential standards, accountability, and international cooperation. Further controversies have intensified the political climate to an even greater extent. In January, significant public attention was drawn to reports that the Speaker, Daiga Mieriņa, had signed a letter supporting Donald Trump's nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize without consulting other officials.

A progressive spring or a false dawn?

The scandal raised concerns about transparency and consistency in Latvia's foreign policy decision-making and was met with public criticism. But public opinion remains split on most of the major issues and, while many citizens continue to support established political parties, there is also a growing trend of youth political engagement through NGOs and activist groups. A lot of young adults are seen to be very supportive of the Progressives, but it is unknown if this will result in a significant increase in seats.

Another key question remains: will young people actually vote and take part in the public debate, or will they ignore it outside of Instagram stories and friendship circles? Often, whether it is on the left or the right, the biggest critics of the political system refuse to actively take part in it. This is not helped by the fact that Latvian politics is seen as confusing and too difficult to research by many. Only 47.09% of eligible voters participated in the 2025 municipal elections and just 33.82% participated in the 2024 European Parliament elections.

Although detailed data on youth participation in parliamentary elections is limited, available research indicates that turnout among young voters is significantly lower than the overall average. Studies tend to point to two main issues: gaps in civic education and the inability of political parties to effectively engage younger audiences. Long-term trends suggest persistent challenges in youth engagement. In a country where voting on those who govern has not historically been the norm, this is deeply concerning to any democracy supporter.

Latvian democracy is endangered but not extinct

So, is Latvian democracy under threat? That much appears clear by the shift away from support for Europe and the lack of engagement from young people, often the most supportive of a pro-European stance. But the situation is far from irreversible - it just requires greater attention and to be taken more seriously. Democracy cannot function without active participation. Citizens must engage, express their views, and vote and they must be genuinely engaged in the process rather than reluctantly pushed into it.

Democracy is more valuable in a country like Latvia than most, but it is something that must be continuously worked on and not taken for granted. The trends in Latvia's politics demonstrate that democracy can die not through a concerted campaign but the inaction of those who benefit from it. Latvia's future will be determined solely by its citizens and not the political class. The question is no longer whether the system functions, but whether people choose to come together and make it function. It is only by exercising the right to vote that Latvia can be saved from the false promises and illusions of the opposition.

European foreign policy has failed ordinary Belarusians

Alyaxandar Stukanov — 2026-04-01T14:57:23Z

On the 19th March, 250 political prisoners were released by the Lukashenka regime - although 15 were instead forced into the EU's member states as refugees. This comes as a new development in the ongoing negotiations between the Trump administration and Lukashenka's representatives. So far, it has resulted in the release of almost 500 people, including some of the most high-profile prisoners like Viktar Babaryka, Maria Kalesnikava, and Nobel Prize winner Ales Bialiatski.

The negotiations began at a time when Lukashenka and Trump were actively looking for success stories on the international stage. For Trump, the release of political prisoners is another achievement to boast about on Truth Social, while shifting the focus away from his diplomatic failures in Ukraine, the Middle East, and elsewhere. For Lukashenka, this was a long-awaited opportunity to regain some of his international legitimacy, ultimately in a hope that sanctions would be relieved and he could be seen as a strategic partner.

From the very beginning, the narrative around the talks was stripped of any ethical evaluations or normativity. Trump and his representatives called hostage-taker Lukashenka “a strong and respected leader”, while Lukashenka did not even hide his view of the political prisoners as a valuable and replaceable stock that he could sell in bulk. Despite this, or perhaps because of this, the talks achieved the release of people who were unlawfully jailed for their democratic views.

The EU's absence from the playing field

Yet, the EU has so far played no role in this process, despite it having a direct interest in both the regional security and the safety of pro-democracy activists. This is in spite of calls for action from both European actors and the Belarusian opposition. This lack of engagement undermines the traditional view of Europe as a bastion of democracy and human rights upholding in the region. Of course, it is a sign of a larger problem in the EU's foreign affairs, especially when it comes to Russia and its sphere of influence.

The Belarus case highlights the main flaws of the EU's foreign policy: it is slow, it is burdened by bureaucracy, it is poisoned by vetoes, and above all it is largely irrelevant, leaving the heavy lifting to member states, who on their own lack the required resources and leverage. The EU failed to do its “homework” before the 2020 elections, either in pressuring the authorities to ensure fair elections or in reinforcing civil society. Hence, the EU's response to the subsequent political crisis was largely reactive.

Most of the crisis-related sanctions were introduced by the EU in 2021, supposedly as a result of divisions between member states, when the protest had already been largely squashed. After Lukashenka's complicity in Russian aggression in 2022, the EU's foreign affairs structures ended remaining attempts to structurally engage with Belarus and influence it in the long-term through channels like mobility, industry, and education. Now seen as a “lost cause”, Belarus was largely left to be dealt with by neighbouring member states.

The void that has given Trump influence

From structural engagement to isolation and securitisation, the EU decided on self-detachment from the issue and it is in this void that the Trump administration has found an opportunity to gain influence of its own. Six years into the political crisis in Belarus and four years into the war in Ukraine, we can see that the isolationist position has not yielded any feasible results. The regime stands, its economy is largely intact, while the level of repression remains consistently high.

Targeted at the regime, this approach has backfired on regular people, antagonising many previously pro-European Belarusians inside the country. The toxicity of the regime has also accelerated: border tension incidents are on the rise, contraband flows to Lithuania and Poland, while Belarus is preparing its infrastructure to receive nuclear weapons and long-range rockets from Russia. With the individual foreign offices in Warsaw and Vilnius unable to deal with the issue on their own, is there still a way for the EU to re-stabilise the region and re-establish itself as a powerful player?

The relaunching of the EU's efforts in the region should start from the realisation that the complexity of the issue does not allow for engagement to be executed by individual member states - the only long-term solution can come from a synchronised EU policy. This long-term solution should once again be based on structural engagement, not securitised isolation. This time, however, such engagement should operate in a different frame - targeted not at the authorities, but at the people.

It's not too late for Europe to reassert itself

Of course, while the war continues, the EU's room for manoeuvre is quite limited, but this does not mean that the EU should refrain from attempting a re-engagement with Belarusians. Negotiations on the release of political prisoners could serve as a proving ground for this approach. As a positive signal to both the exiled opposition and regular Belarusians inside the country, EU engagement could yield tangible results that reinforce its internal and external image as the main human rights protector.

Furthermore, this could be achieved with no real loss of leverage, through largely symbolic means such as senior official visits or the re-establishment of embassies. Without strengthening Lukashenka's regime in any practical manner, this would be a positive development for the civil society that remains in the country. If the initial results are positive, this people-focused structural approach could be expanded to counter the glueing of Belarusians to Russia. Europe could once again become a real alternative to the Ruski Mir (Russian World) project.

At the same time, the EU's most potent levers, such as sanctions and border transit, should be “traded” only for the most substantial concessions from the regime. The long-term objectives of EU strategy must remain a full stop to political repression, the demilitarisation of Belarusian territory from the Russian military, and a “round table” scenario for a transition of power to the democratic opposition. The EU's foreign policy should act upon one very simple truth: unlike Trump or Putin, only Europe is sincerely invested in a prosperous, democratic, and independent Belarus.

In Moldova, every vote cast for democracy counts

Thea Jürgensen — 2026-03-29T12:45:32Z

Nestled in-between Romania and war-torn Ukraine lies Moldova - a small country facing big challenges. It is not only known for the 2003 one-hit wonder “Dragostea Din Tei”, but also because it unfortunately holds the title of being the poorest country in Europe. With a population of 2.5 million citizens, it gained its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, but Russia's influence persists.

Russian propaganda has hindered Moldova's path towards democracy and freedom. Nonetheless, the Moldovan population has shown great strength in its continued resistance towards the Putin regime. It is clear among its people that there is an overwhelming wish to work towards a pro-European, liberal democratic future. Yet, in the Freedom of the World Index, a report on civil liberties and political rights by the non-governmental organisation Freedom House, Moldova scores just 60.

Moldova is deemed a “partly free” country, but on the ground this feels like a stretch. For instance, on the question: “does the government operate with openness and transparency?” Moldova scored just a point. High-ranking politicians with corruption cases put the country's democracy under continued pressure, but the Presidency of Maia Sandu has marked a turning point.

The power of every single vote

Sandu founded the pro-European Party of Action and Solidarity in 2015, becoming President five years later and achieving re-election last year. The party supports a pro-European approach and aims to strengthen Moldova's democracy from the malign influence of Russia. However, not everyone agrees: the last election was won with 50.2% of the vote and the second-largest party is the Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova, which is known for its pro-Russian stance.

The opposition is led by former President Igor Dodon, who in 2022 was arrested for corruption and taking bribes from oligarchs. Sandu, in contrast, has indicated that the integration with the European Union is one of her top priorities. Moldova has been an official candidate for EU membership since 2022 and is an observer member of the centre-right European People's Party.

Sandu has received praise by some for this bold stance in favour of integration, but it is one of the most divisive policies in Moldova. The 20th of October 2024 was a historic day for Moldova, when the country held a constitutional referendum on “amending the constitution with a view to Moldova's accession to the EU”. The results were, as usual in Moldova, extremely close. 50.2% of voters voted in favor, the exact same margin Sandu was elected by the following year.

Judicial independence means that courts and judges are free from influence and pressure from other branches of the government. One of the questions in the Freedom of the World Index is: “Is there an independent judiciary?” Again, Moldova scores one point. In 2025, only 30% of the population indicated they trust the law and justice system - one of the few things most agree on. Judicial independence ensures fair trials, protection of citizen rights, and upholding of the law. Yet, corruption and a lack of transparency still linger around the country.

Corruption scandals and transparency issues

Moldova ranks in 80th place in the Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International. Decisions are often made based on connections and who possesses wealth. Vitali Pirlog, the former Justice Minister of Moldova, was arrested in July 2025 for allegedly lifting arrest warrants in exchange for bribes. He is also accused of giving criminals asylum status in Moldova to lift their arrest warrant.

Prilog is an example of a high-ranking person in Moldovan politics who misused his power for his own benefit, but there are many more people just like him. Like many other post-Soviet countries, Moldova lies in the shadows of Russia, with a constant fear of Russian interference. Moscow already has one foot inside the small country, threatening its path towards democracy. Through spreading disinformation and buying votes, Russia tried as hard as they could to leave a mark on the recent elections.

Russian propaganda is everywhere

On TikTok, 1,347 propaganda accounts shared disinformation and pro-Russian content. The Russian Martryoshka Operation is a coordinated campaign that aims to spread content of this nature online. Through the use of AI, it impersonates public figures and online media platforms such as BBC and The Economist in order to spread fake news. The goal is to sway voters into voting for parties other than PAS and their pro-European approach.

Their content is often in English, since their target group is the Moldovan diaspora, a strong point for the governing party up to now. It even went as far as setting up a party in 2024, Victory Bloc, through the oligarch-turned-politician Ilan Shor. Victory Bloc is not just a traditional pro-Russian party, but it aims at incorporating Moldova into the Russian Federation. Shor has previously stated that there is no point in Moldova being an independent country.

Shor currently lives in Russia, due to being convicted in Moldova for embezzling nearly one billion dollars from Moldovan banks. However, this was less successful than other attempts from the Kremlin and won no seats. In order to combat Russian influence, the Moldovan Government founded the Centre for Strategic Communication and Countering Disinformation. Their aim is to battle disinformation and false political narratives.

Moldovans are fighting back

Government institutions have to train their staff in rapidly identifying and analysing false information. Since it achieved its independence, Moldova has been through a lot. Russian propaganda is everywhere and it is one of the greatest obstacles the country is facing. Moldova may not be on the verge of being reintegrated into the Russian Federation, but its democracy is just as fragile and threatened as Ukraine and Georgia's.

Nonetheless, the Moldova people have shown that they are ready to take up the fight for a strong, democratic and pro-European future. Election results are close and the scales are balanced against the pro-democracy side, but the people of Moldova continue to maintain their hope. A day will come when their democracy is no longer under pressure.

The call from Prague: “we will not let our future be stolen!”

Jean Givodan — 2026-03-25T18:33:45Z

Last Saturday, over 250,000 people gathered where pro-democracy protestors stood in Letná Park at the close of the Soviet Union to demonstrate against the Czech government. Organisers described a real and immediate “danger of democratic erosion in the Czech Republic”, with a rise in oligarchy promoted by the government's policies. Planned by the cross-party association A Million Moments for Democracy, they marched on one slogan above all else: “we will not let our future be stolen!”.

Protests have been intensifying in recent years, led by citizens from a range of social and political backgrounds that share deep concern about the direction of Czech society. The country is led by Andrej Babiš, the Prime Minister and leader of ANO, alongside the SPD and Motoristé, two ultra-nationalist parties, who have overseen an increasingly Eurosceptic and pro-Russian stance in the government.

From start to finish, families and people of all ages gathered and fixed their attention on the stage as if they were at a concert. A range of speakers from civil society including academics, actors, and representatives from NGOs addressed the crowd. With a mix of seriousness and a characteristic Czech sense of humor, a wide range of concerns were raised. These included the independence of the media; accusations against Babiš and Tomio Okamura, leader of the SDP; and reduced support for education, defence and environment protections.

“We are here to defend our democracy”

For many in attendance, the protest was not about a single issue, but rather many issues and a broader sense of democratic decline. Eliška and Nikolai, both 21, said they felt compelled to attend in response to what they see as mounting threats to democracy. “We are here to defend our democracy because we feel threatened by the current coalition", Nikolai explained.

Their concerns echo a common unease over a series of policy proposals introduced in February. Among the most contentious measures is a proposal to abolish the licence fee that finances Czechia's public media. Before it was officially proposed, the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom warned against it in an open letter. They argued that the initiative, spearheaded by the Ministry of Culture, could “undermine the independence of public media organisations and weaken the trust placed in them by audiences".

Another controversial proposal involves the introduction of the label “political non-profit organisations", a move looking to delegitimise civil society advocacy (which is mainly opposed to the government's agenda). The European Civic Forum has cautioned that such measures “resemble foreign agent laws in authoritarian countries, such as Russia, Hungary, and Georgia". 147 organisations warned that the proposal could stigmatise funding sources seen as legitimate by the EU and potentially breach international standards on freedom of expression.

“This is not normal”

Klara, a Charles University student present in the protest, explained that these reforms are not only dangerous but unfair on their own terms. She pointed out that the SPD and Motoristé, the smaller parties within the coalition, are “pushing above their electoral weight”. While acknowledging that ANO won the parliamentary elections in October 2025, their partners have the support of just 7% and 6% of voters respectively.

Organisers wanted to raise awareness that ANO is trading Czech democracy as a bargaining chip with its coalition partners, having previously been a member of the predecessor to the centrist Renew group in the European Parliament but switched to the radical right Patriots for Europe. Eliška agreed that the most controversial decisions were being driven by these smaller actors, who also hold key ministerial positions. “This is not normal” or healthy for Czech politics, she argued.

Alongside Czech flags, the flags of the EU and Ukraine were visible throughout the crowd. Nikolai expressed concern over what he sees as a shift in foreign policy in favor of Russia, pointing out the insufficient support for Ukraine and warning against what he described as a dangerous “eastward drift by the government”. This can particularly be seen in recent weeks with the government's reluctance to continue the ammunition initiative launched under former Prime Minister Petr Fiala.

“The same things as Robert Fico”

The government also decided not to participate in the €90 billion European loan approved in December 2025, alongside Hungary and Slovakia. For Eliška, also Slovak, the situation was particularly concerning due to the regional context. She drew parallels between the current Czech government and developments in the wider region, arguing that the government is “doing the same things as Robert Fico in Slovakia".

She emphasised that this protest should be understood in the broader regional context, noting that upcoming elections in Hungary will also be crucial for the future direction of both Czechia and Slovakia. According to her, political shifts in one Visegrád country can influence others and highlighted that Slovak participants' guests were also present on the stage, reflecting these shared, intertwined concerns within Czech-Slovak civil society.

Despite the level of concern over the future of Czech democracy and that of the wider region, all of the people we interviewed agreed, above all else, on one thing. The only way to get through these challenging times is to remain optimistic and to participate in these protests. Eliška emphasised the strength of civil society in Prague and across Czechia despite these challenges. People are increasingly aware of the need to organise and defend democratic values. “It is not too late”, she says.

Orange is the new brown: America is not the country we knew

Drakoulis Goudis — 2026-03-25T13:05:19Z

Millions of words were published across Europe in 2025 about the next phase of its relationship with the US ever since the second inauguration of Donald Trump - and most of them are wrong. Europe's media still largely refuses to describe the situation as it is and to say what we can all see with our own eyes. The reality is, as we all know, very simple: the US is now governed by a MAGA regime guided by fascist ideology, hiding in plain sight as mere idiocracy.

This is not a matter of tone or a provocation: it is a factual description of how power is exercised and justified in the US. But many commentators still insist on treating the MAGA regime as if it is just a slightly out-of-the-ordinary government that “has a point” on certain issues. Whether this is in an attempt to posture as objective or an attempt at flattering those here who would gladly import elements of this model, it prevents Europeans from coming to the obvious conclusion that we do not need or require America any longer.

Speaking truth in a post-truth world

One could fill volumes explaining why the MAGA regime that now governs the US and captures its institutions on a day-by-day basis merits this characterisation. Yet, you need to look no further than the weaponisation and mobilisation of ICE as a modern-day Gestapo. While asserting its right to kill bystanders who “get in the way,” Republican legislators openly declare that obedience to the state is the price of staying alive. Disobey and obstruct their war against a supposed “foreign invasion” and you too will be treated as an enemy combatant.

While the MAGA regime deports anyone who looks too brown to have European origin and lacks documentation far beyond what a white citizen would be asked to provide at home, “America First” has been replaced with “Might Is Right”. It now openly proclaims a naked imperialism, stripped of all of the restraints and limitations of past administrations. It asserts an inherent entitlement to seize land, steal resources, impose protectorates, styling itself as a so-called “dominant predator.”

Greenland is not a joke, a gaffe, or a bargaining chip - it is a declaration of the MAGA regime's intentions towards Europe. We are not an ally under their worldview, we are simply terrain that serves their interests. We must stop legitimising this doctrine just because it is wrapped up in Trump's infantile branding. The substance is clear enough and this behavior does not exist in isolation. It is the endpoint of a long process to normalise racism, nativism, patriarchy and a range of fascistic ideas that should have been buried in the rubble of WWII.

Fighting against the mainstreaming of idiocy

The element of idiocracy in this MAGA regime is not a by-product of our times or Trump's repulsive person, it is a strategy intended to legitimise fascism by dumbing down the population. Science, mathematics, medicine, economics – none of it matters anymore. Fact is treated as mere “opinion”; the views of academics and experts in their field are weighed equally to those of flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, and Christian nationalists. The US is now governed by these people for these people.

The Democrats, like the opponents of fascism in the 1920s and the 1930s, have internalised Trumpian claims as a reality they need to live with. They increasingly avoid appeals to law, ethics, and truth and revert to a transactional, pocketbook messaging. “Trump promised cheaper goods, but he didn't deliver them!” They think the section of the electorate that no longer care about the rule of law will respond to this. Perhaps this is true, perhaps it is not, but it does not really matter. They have given up and conceded America to a managed moral decline.

Europe's media is not ignorant of any of this. They report the chaos, the cruelty, the daily absurdities. They publish pieces about European sovereignty and the need to reduce dependence on Washington. But almost all of it is wrapped in cotton wool. America is described as a troubled partner who has temporarily lost its path, an erratic but ultimately familiar actor. The MAGA regime is framed as eccentric, volatile, or excessive – anything to avoid calling it the morally repugnant monstrosity it so blatantly has become.

Realising our media will not save us

Whenever our own politicians avoid blunt language, one can still construct a charitable interpretation that they are quietly planning disengagement, but the media have no such excuse. What explains this persistent self-censorship? Fear of US retaliation? Dependence on American platforms? The pursuit of clicks from outrage tourists? Europe's own far-right ecosystem? Whatever the motive, the effect is to normalise their rhetoric and mainstream it in Europe.

Calling Trump a “disruptor” or a “controversial figure” is not neutral language, but propaganda by omission of the truth. It convinces readers that he is closer to Silvio Berlusconi than Benito Mussolini, closer to bad taste than to a historical catastrophe. Trump's “deal-making” is not an eccentric but pragmatic strategy, it is gangster politics that teaches audiences brute force and extortion are acceptable forms of behaviour from the very top.

Europe's media, where it continues to defend its cowardice and capitulation, reverts to the justification of being the Fourth Estate. Yet, that role is not fulfilled by describing the collapse of reality in polite terms. It is fulfilled by naming threats, drawing moral lines, and refusing to collaborate in a collective form of denial. Avoiding the label of “partisanship” is no excuse, opposing authoritarianism and the rise of idiocy is the minimum requirement of a responsible journalist.

Public spaces, in the meantime, are being flooded with disinformation and alternate realities, much of it amplified by US-based platforms. Twitter, hollowed out and rebranded as X by Elon Musk, functions as a propaganda accelerant, not the town square he claims. The result is a fatalism where citizens watch their leaders humiliate themselves before Trump and think they had no choice. The Nazi regime required smuggled leaflets and underground radio broadcasts. The MAGA regime's broadcasting is welcomed with open arms.

Resistance is becoming a daily task

This resignation is cultivated and it can be resisted, but resistance requires pressure - and pressure requires clarity. Without sustained, unambiguous messaging that MAGA represents everything Europe claims to reject, politicians will continue to default to cowardice and accommodation. And responsibility does not stop with institutions: it extends to everyday life. When friends, colleagues, or family insist on viewing the US through Hollywood nostalgia, it is necessary to push back.

What we are witnessing from our political-media ecosystem is not “realpolitik” or “business-minded pragmatism.” It is complicity dressed up as sophistication. The US increasingly resembles the darkest regimes of the twentieth century, crudely repainted in the orange of Trump's odious fake tan to disguise the brown of the fascism that lies underneath. The real debate is no longer whether Europe can remain allied with such a state, but why we would want it to remain so.

Poland's democracy looks different from a hospital corridor

Wiktoria Wilk — 2026-03-23T18:11:09Z

If you want to know how Polish democracy is doing in 2026, do not look at another index: look at a woman's phone. Between lecture schedules and grocery lists sit the real indicators: a Czech clinic's address; a fund for abortion pills; the name of the only police officer in town who is said to believe women. That is where “rule of law” is fact-checked in real time. For a decade, the official story of Polish democracy has been transition, accession, and backsliding, while women have been pushed into the “culture war” drawer.

But seen from the ground, the order is reversed. The near‑total abortion ban, the threatened exit from the Istanbul Convention, the crusades against “gender ideology”, and rainbow‑free zones. These are not side conflicts, they are the main experiment in how far governments can capture courts, conventions and institutions before someone utters the word “authoritarianism”. The state of Polish democracy is perceived clearest in the places where the law legislates against the lives of women.

Hospitals: where institutions meet the flesh of women

Abortion is not the only thing that matters to women, but it is the point where their fears, pain and reality collides most directly with captured institutions. When the Constitutional Tribunal, staffed with party loyalists, tightened an already restrictive law, they claimed to be defending “human dignity”. The aftershocks arrived when women were made to carry unviable pregnancies to term, told that “we have to wait until the foetus dies on its own”.

For those women, the question is not an abstract: “where do you stand on abortion?”. It is a question of who is allowed to say “no” when her body is on the line. A court that has lost its independence is not just a constitutional problem; it is the reason a doctor hesitates with a pen over a file. A healthcare system under political and moral pressure turns into a hierarchy of risk that women have to learn by heart. “This hospital will stall; this doctor will quietly help; this one will quote the conscience clause and send you home.”

Women adapt faster than the law does. They build parallel routes through encrypted chats, feminist hotlines, and informal lists of names. They learn who will pick up the phone, who will look away, who will help you find pills when the pharmacy will not. In human rights speak, all of this flattens into paragraphs about “access” and “obligations”. At three in the morning in a gynaecology ward, it feels much starker.

This is the moment where a woman realises that her chances of surviving or staying sane depend less on what is written in the law than on which individual she happens to meet on duty. A democracy that asks women to carry that uncertainty in their bodies has already told them something essential about their place in it. Their lives are conditional and the grand conversations about the constitution are happening several floors above their heads.

Homes: where men define “family values” for women

If hospitals are where women learn what captured courtrooms mean for their healthcare, homes are where they learn what the “family values” they enforce really protect in their relationships. Poland loves to introduce itself as a country of strong, traditional families. That slogan is code for a very narrow picture of everyday life: heterosexual parents, multiple children, a self‑sacrificing mother, and a providing father.

In that frame, violence against women becomes background noise. It is simply renamed “marital problems” or “conflict” as opposed to being a breach of public safety. The fight over the Istanbul Convention made the trade‑off explicit. A treaty about preventing and prosecuting violence against women was rebranded as an attack on “our culture” and “our families”. Even floating withdrawal told women something very simple: their safety is negotiable. It can be swapped for a coalition agreement or bishops's approval.

Women hear this long before it shows up in any report. They hear it when a police officer asks what they did to provoke a man. They hear it when relatives urge them not to “destroy the family” by pressing charges. They hear it when the one shelter in the region has a waiting list because funding is always a favour and not a guarantee. So, they start doing what they already do with abortion. They build parallel systems, asking which station has a decent officer, which city has a NGO that speaks up, and which friend of a friend knows how to get a restraining order enforced and not just filed and forgotten.

From the outside, arguments about conventions and “traditional values” can sound like abstract identity politics. From inside a flat at midnight, with children asleep and a bruised woman weighing whether to dial 112, they sound like this: the state has decided that some women's pain is an acceptable price for a particular idea of the nation. A democracy that expects women to absorb that price quietly has already told them how conditional their citizenship is.

Workplaces: where women are kept out of civil society

The third place to observe the state of Polish democracy better than a courtroom is in the workplace. On the surface, the story is promising, with women out-performing men at university and high female employment. In reality, women are still the shock absorbers of the system, fitting in unpaid care alongside their job or taking on extra hours or a second job to afford childcare. Democracy does not just require a passport and a ballot, but hours you can spend taking part in civil society as opposed to just surviving.

In a society that is geared so heavily towards men, leaving a bad job or a bad partner is not a mere choice, but a catastrophe that would shatter one's life into pieces. When women are preoccupied with their home lives and stuck in precarious employment, their formal political rights are technically equal but practically weaker. On election day, everyone is the same in the voting booth. On every other day, some people can afford to be citizens while others are just keeping their lives from exploding.

The institutions that are designed to help women like equality bodies and anti‑discrimination offices have been defunded and turned into punchlines in campaigns against “gender ideology”. The signal is clear: the country survives on women's labour, but the moment women ask for childcare, pay rises, or protection from harassment, it becomes “ideological” and therefore optional. A democracy that treats the people holding it together as a lobby group is not only unfair; it is playing Jenga with its own foundations.

Women are already quietly answering this message from successive governments. They emigrate, delay or refuse motherhood, withdrawing the endless hours of free care that keep families and services afloat. What is called a “demographic crisis” and a “labour shortage” by European institutions and media is exposed as what it really is: women taking back their time and their bodies from a democracy that never really believed it was their own.

The Bombing of Dubai

Paul Brachet — 2026-03-17T17:30:49Z

The world has been shocked twice. First, when the US and Israel launched open war on 28th February by striking infrastructure across Iran. And, then, when Iran responded, targeting American military installations and those of its allies across the Middle East. Not limited to Iran and its neighbours, it has affected countries traditionally regarded as regional havens of stability such as Oman and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Even the world-renowned icons of Dubai, its International Airport, and the Burj Al Arab were not spared. As dawn broke, they stood as smoking, grim monuments to a spreading regional conflict. Dubai, long presented as an oasis of calm in West Asia, has finally been caught up in the turbulence surrounding it. Responding to a war it did not choose, the UAE has asked its allies for defensive support, foremost among them France.

The question is now how they will choose to respond. For the Quai d'Orsay, the smoke over the Jumeirah coast is not a distant tragedy; it is a direct blow to a cornerstone of French global strategy. France's position in the Indo-Pacific is unique among European powers. It is a resident power, responsible not only for its strategic interests, but also for protecting 1.6 million citizens across overseas territories such as La Réunion and Mayotte.

Paris and the Gulf: A Strategic Relationship

The UAE serves as the northern anchor of this Indo-Pacific posture. To maintain its status as a regional power, France has built a strategy based on deterrence, capable military forces, and a network of strong allies including Australia, India, and the UAE. Without a stable partner in the Gulf, France's ability to project influence from the Mediterranean to the shores of New Caledonia would be severely weakened.

At the centre of this relationship stand the French Forces in the UEA. Established in 2009 at the “Camp de la Paix” in Abu Dhabi, the base functions as France's primary strategic pivot in the region. The BA 104 air base at Al Dhafra, where French Rafale aircraft were scrambled on 28 February to intercept Iranian drones, and the naval installation at Port Zayed, tie French security interests directly to those of the Emirates.

The 2026 strikes have activated the mutual defence clauses of the bilateral partnership, transforming France's role from that of a “strategic partner” into that of an active security guarantor. The nature of the relationship between Paris and Abu Dhabi has also evolved. What once resembled a primarily transactional “arms-buyer” dynamic has gradually developed into a shared geopolitical outlook. Both countries view the international system through a multipolar lens and remain wary of a world dominated by a simple US-China rivalry.

By defending Dubai and, by extension, other Gulf partners such as Kuwait and Bahrain, which are also linked to France through defence agreements, Paris seeks to preserve the possibility of a “third way”. This would allow middle powers to maintain stability without becoming dependent on the strategic choices of Washington, Beijing, or Tehran. Recent diplomatic statements from partners such as India and the UAE suggest that this approach resonates beyond Europe.

The Rafale Axis and the Indo-Pacific Balance

The bombing of Dubai has accelerated the transformation of what some observers call the “Rafale Axis” into a more concrete security arrangement. This emerging trilateral partnership between France, the UAE, and India is no longer limited to defence cooperation or arms agreements. For Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the stability of the Emirates is also a domestic concern. More than 3.5 million Indian citizens live and work in the UAE, and the Gulf remains crucial to India's energy supply and remittance flows.

A destabilised Dubai would therefore have direct consequences for the Indian economy. The February 2026 India-France Joint Statement signed in Mumbai elevated the relationship to a “Special Global Strategic Partnership”, envisaging deeper maritime and air coordination to safeguard stability in the Indian Ocean, a scenario that has suddenly become highly relevant. This crisis also reflects a broader transformation of the regional strategic landscape.

The Abraham Accords once promised a new era of cooperation between Israel and several Arab states. Yet, the February escalation has shattered that fragile equilibrium. As the US and Israel engage in a war of attrition with Iran, France and India find themselves acting as reluctant “firefighters,” attempting to contain the conflict. If the Strait of Hormuz remains a combat zone, as Iran's actions now suggest, the vision of a stable corridor linking the Indo-Pacific and Europe could collapse entirely.

While France has taken the role of military first responder, the EU faces a deeper question about its relevance as a geopolitical actor. Only weeks earlier, the so-called “Mother of All Deals” announced in New Delhi had promised a new era of EU-Indian economic cooperation. Central to this vision was the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, designed to bypass vulnerabilities in traditional shipping routes through the Red Sea. The bombing of Dubai has effectively broken that corridor and shaken confidence in its viability.

Europe's Strategic Dilemma

The EU, often described as a regulatory superpower, is discovering that trade rules and environmental regulations provide little protection against ballistic missiles targeting key logistical hubs. The immediate consequence is the return of Europe's energy dilemma. After reducing dependence on Russian gas through the REPowerEU programme, the EU increasingly relied on Gulf liquefied natural gas. With the region now destabilised, the spectre of renewed dependence on Russian energy looms again.

At the same time, Russia's so-called “shadow fleet”, hundreds of ageing tankers operating outside regulatory frameworks, continues to supply crude oil to Asian markets, generating revenues that support Moscow's war in Ukraine. India has found itself balancing between competing pressures, accepting a temporary sanctions waiver from Washington to purchase Russian oil while simultaneously hosting European leaders for its Republic Day celebrations. The European response to the crisis has exposed significant internal divisions.

In Madrid, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has taken a firm stance, condemning the strikes as violations of international law and refusing the United States access to Spanish military bases. His “No to War” position echoes debates from the Iraq War era and presents Spain as a defender of a more cautious European foreign policy. In contrast, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has signalled a “return to realism,” offering political support for the US-Israeli campaign and arguing that this is “not the moment to lecture our partners.”

A similarly Atlanticist stance has been adopted in the United Kingdom, where Prime Minister Keir Starmer has authorised the use of British bases for defensive operations. France finds itself attempting to balance these positions. While President Emmanuel Macron continues to emphasise European unity in response to global economic pressures, Paris has expressed frustration with Spain's refusal to facilitate allied logistical operations.

A Choice for Europe

This tension became visible when Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, responding to former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin's praise of Spain's stance, remarked pointedly that “Spain does not save Europe's honour”. Nevertheless, cooperation has not entirely broken down. European leaders have agreed on two joint initiatives: a mission to repatriate European citizens stranded in the region and a naval operation involving France, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Cyprus to ensure maritime security following missile attacks in the eastern Mediterranean.

The “Mother of All Deals” was intended to inaugurate a new era of economic cooperation between Europe and Asia. Instead, it has forced the European Union to confront a fundamental strategic question. The EU must decide whether it can tolerate a multi-speed security policy, where some members take responsibility for protecting trade routes and strategic interests while others retreat into neutrality or whether it intends to act as a unified geopolitical actor.

In an era increasingly defined by hard power, Europe cannot indefinitely rely on economic influence alone. If it fails to reconcile its internal divisions, its geopolitical ambitions may disappear as quickly as the symbols of stability that once defined Dubai. To navigate this new reality, the EU must decide whether it is truly a political union or simply a collection of states with diverging historical instincts.

The Georgian Dream That Poisoned Its People

Nino Mamalashvili — 2026-03-16T13:00:00Z

There are moments when politics ceases to be abstract. In Georgia, that moment did not arrive through parliamentary debate or official statements, but through burning eyes, poisoned air, chemically washed streets, and the screams of citizens. In late 2024 and early 2025, thousands of Georgians took to the streets to protest.

Protestors believed that decisions made by the Government endangered the country's democratic development and its long-declared European path. These demonstrations were civic and overwhelmingly peaceful. People protested because they felt excluded from decisions shaping their future. The government's response was not dialogue, the natural reflex of any government confident in its democratic legitimacy.

Police forces repeatedly deployed tear gas, pepper spray, and water cannons to disperse crowds. These measures did not affect protesters alone; journalists, volunteer medics, and ordinary residents were also exposed. What should have been a conversation between society and power became a display of force. Participation in public life began to feel like a personal risk.

The Investigation That Changed the Narrative

Then came the investigation by the BBC. The BBC examined what chemicals were used during the 2024–25 protests. Journalists interviewed protesters, medics, chemical experts, and whistleblowers from within the police. Their reporting suggested that bromobenzyl cyanide, also known as camite, a World War I era chemical irritant long phased out, was used - mixed into water cannons.

Camite is significantly stronger than modern tear gas and can be toxic. Historically used in warfare, it was abandoned due to its severe and lasting health effects. Protesters described intense burning sensations, violent coughing, and breathing difficulties, symptoms far exceeding those typically associated with standard riot-control agents.

The BBC documentary, When Water Burns, raised the possibility that chemical irritants were added directly to water cannon systems, increasing their potency and risk. Such allegations raised profound questions about compliance with international norms. Konstantine Gagnidze, former president of the Young European Federalists in Georgia, stated that the effects experienced by protesters were far stronger than those caused by conventional tear gas.

Denial, Deflection, and Democratic Responsibility

Many reported symptoms that persisted well beyond the protests themselves. Observers on the ground noted that what was sprayed from the cannons did not appear to be ordinary water. The Government's reaction followed a familiar pattern. Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze dismissed the BBC investigation as absurd and false, describing it as politically motivated.

Kobakhidze insisted that the Interior Ministry had never purchased or deployed camite and rejected allegations that such substances were used against protesters. At the same time, he acknowledged that an additive had been mixed into water cannons but declined to specify its nature, stating that clarification would come only after an internal investigation by the State Security Service.

Rather than focusing solely on clarifying the chemical evidence, authorities opened investigations into individuals who contributed to the BBC report, including journalists, medics, and civil society representatives, on charges such as “exceeding official powers” or “assisting foreign entities.” A government that claims to represent stability and democratic values responded to scrutiny by treating it as a threat.

A Moment That Will Not Be Forgotten

This is a moment Georgia cannot forget. Democracy is not measured by how firmly a government controls the streets, but by how it responds when citizens fill them. People remember who faced them with courage and who confronted them with fear. History will remember as well, not the speeches or denials, but the pain endured, the bravery shown, and the choices made by those in power.

The Georgian people were tested in these streets. They were found wounded, but not broken. If anything, they emerged more determined, even as Europe was found missing. And perhaps this is the lesson to be repeated, again and again, like Cato the Elder concluding every speech in ancient Rome with his warning about Carthage: “Furthermore, I think that the European Union must be federalised.”

Debate: Has the United Nations Become Outdated?

Benedikte Svendsen, Konstantin Petry — 2026-03-10T14:42:51Z

This article is a part of our debate series, where we bring together two writers with differing opinions on a contentious subject to argue their case in a short-form essay. You can vote on who won the debate by visiting our Instagram page @thenewfederalist and answering the question in the description of its post.

The UN Is Outdated by Konstantin Petry

At the very beginning of its charter, the UN declared that its goal is to prevent wars from happening. Objectively speaking, it fails miserably at this goal - and it has failed at it for a long time. In 1994, the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda happened directly under the eyes of 5,500 of its peacekeeping soldiers. Why did this happen? Because the UN failed to reach any kind of consensus. Exactly the same can be said about the reactions of the UN to the wars of the present day.

The roots of this evil are located in the structure of the UN itself, which gives the permanent members of its Security Council a veto. These members owe this privilege to no more than the fact that they owned nuclear weapons when it was created. The veto prevents the General Assembly and its other bodies, despite its claim to represent the people of the world and not its super powers, to take a clear stance against unjust wars and genocides.

To make matters worse, among the members of this illustrious club of states with permanent membership in the Security Council, more are currently engaging in active war efforts than recognise the UN's own court in The Hague. The idea of the UN is a good one, but in its current form, it only functions as a final storage facility for failed career politicians, such as Portuguese ex-Prime Minister António Guterres and former German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock.

Besides the advantage its charter gives the existing super powers and its mediocre politicians, it is currently mainly occupied with being deeply concerned and monitoring the situation very carefully. We already have the EU to do that for us. So, the UN is at a point where its predecessor, the League of Nations, once was: the formerly living representation of a good idea. A reestablishment is necessary, but preserving the UN in its current form would be like living with a corpse.

The UN Is Not Outdated by Benedikte Svendsen

Declaring the UN as “outdated” has become fashionable. The argument usually assumes the UN was supposed to eliminate war entirely on its own. It was not. Critics expect the UN to behave like a world government while refusing to create one. Yet, it was designed as something far more realistic: a permanent, diplomatic arena where nearly every sovereign state can talk, negotiate, and manage conflicts. The UN was never meant to replace power politics. It is a forum for coordination between sovereign states, not a global police force.

International politics did not magically become peaceful in 1945. Power rivalries still exist and always will. What the UN created was a structure that makes large-scale conflict more diplomatically and politically complicated. In other words, it forces states to argue in conference rooms before they escalate on battlefields. The alternative to imperfect multilateralism is not perfect cooperation – it is unmanaged power politics. If the UN disappeared tomorrow, conflict would remain.

The veto in the UN Security Council is often treated as proof of its dysfunction. In reality, it is the price of participation. Without it, major powers like the US, China, or Russia would never accept binding decisions against themselves. The UN does not fail because powerful states exist; it exists precisely because powerful states do. A powerless but inclusive forum is still more useful than a perfectly designed institution that powerful states simply ignore.

Imperfect institutions are not useless institutions. Through peacekeeping, humanitarian coordination, and global norm-setting, the UN quietly structures cooperation every day. That may not look dramatic, but diplomacy rarely does. The real question is a very simple one: if the UN disappeared tomorrow, would geopolitics suddenly become cooperative? Of course not. The same conflicts would still exist. Calling the UN pointless is easy. Designing a better system that 193 countries would actually join is harder.

The Winter Olympics Showcased the Beautiful and the Ugly

Liene Jermacāne — 2026-03-09T15:54:11Z

One of the most anticipated global sporting events of the decade, the Winter Olympics in Milan and Cortina d'Ampezzo, have officially come to an end. After the Winter Olympics in Beijing, an edition still remembered for the figure skating doping scandal that shook the sporting world, many were left wondering whether these Games would restore full confidence in the Olympic movement. Would Milan-Cortina be remembered purely for athletic excellence, or would controversy once again overshadow competition?

Now that the Olympic flame has been extinguished, it is possible to reflect on both the triumphs and the challenges that defined these Games. From a sporting perspective, Milan–Cortina delivered excitement, drama, and deep human stories. One of the most inspiring narratives belonged to American figure skater Alysa Liu. Unlike many athletes who enter the Olympics focused on medal counts and external expectations, Liu approached the Games with a remarkably grounded mindset.

Having previously stepped away from elite skating due to burnout, her return was not about proving critics wrong or chasing titles - it was about rediscovering joy. In interviews, she repeatedly emphasized that she wanted to skate her best and remain present in each moment, without obsessing over placement. This mentality was clearly visible on the ice. Liu performed with calmness, authenticity, and visible enjoyment, even under the immense global spotlight.

When small imperfections occurred, she recovered smoothly rather than letting pressure dictate her performance. Commentators praised her emotional maturity, noting that she appeared freer than many of her competitors. For countless young viewers, her approach became a powerful lesson: success is not defined solely by medals, but by the courage to compete wholeheartedly without fear of the outcome. In many ways, Liu embodied the essence of the Olympic spirit - participation with passion and integrity.

Sports at the Forefront, Mostly

Figure skating also featured some of the sport's most recognizable names. Japan's legendary Yuzuru Hanyu once again drew massive global attention. While he was no longer at the absolute peak of his competitive dominance, his artistry and technical consistency reminded audiences why he remains one of the most influential skaters in history.

Meanwhile, American prodigy Ilia Malinin entered the Games as the overwhelming favorite, having been nearly unbeatable since late 2023. However, the enormous expectations proved difficult to manage. Several costly errors in his free skate resulted in an eighth-place finish overall, one of the most surprising outcomes of the competition and a stark example of the psychological pressure unique to the Olympic stage.

Alpine skiing provided both brilliance and heartbreak. American icon Lindsey Vonn aimed to cap her remarkable career with another Olympic highlight. Instead, her campaign ended prematurely after a serious knee injury sustained during competition, requiring immediate surgery. The emotional reaction from fans and fellow athletes underscored her lasting impact on the sport. In contrast, Swiss star Marco Odermatt demonstrated technical excellence and composure, reinforcing his status as one of the sport's dominant figures.

Beyond individual performances, the medal standings reflected traditional winter sport powerhouses. Norway once again topped the table with 41 medals, excelling particularly in cross-country skiing and biathlon, where Johannes Thingnes Bø delivered confident performances. The US followed with 33 medals, while the Netherlands secured 20 (largely through its speed skating dominance). A historic milestone came from the Czech Republic, which sent its largest Winter Olympic delegation ever - 114 athletes - five of whom reached the podium, marking significant progress for Czech winter sports development.

The Forgotten Places That Make the Games Possible

However, despite these positive highlights, the Games were not without serious challenges and controversies. The preparation phase was widely reported as complicated and, at times, troubling. Italian media outlets published investigations into alleged corruption and financial irregularities related to infrastructure projects. Concerns were raised about inflated budgets, particularly regarding alpine skiing facilities, ski jumping hills, curling arenas, and sliding track renovations.

Some reports suggested possible links between construction contracts and organized crime networks, reigniting long-standing concerns about transparency in major sporting events. Financial strain was also felt by residents in Milan and surrounding regions. Public spending on Olympic infrastructure sparked debates about long-term benefits versus short-term costs. Critics questioned whether certain venues would remain sustainable after the Games concluded, raising fears of “white elephant” facilities - expensive structures with limited post-Olympic use.

Security concerns further complicated organization. Given ongoing geopolitical tensions in Europe, authorities implemented extensive security measures, increasing police presence and surveillance around venues. While these precautions ensured overall safety, they also contributed to logistical challenges, including transportation delays and restricted movement zones for locals.

Yet More Concerns About the IOC

And the competition period itself was marked by several dramatic incidents. In bobsleigh, teams from Austria, France, and Jamaica experienced heavy crashes during high-speed runs, prompting renewed discussions about track safety standards. Polish short track skater Kamila Sellier suffered a severe facial injury after a fall. Perhaps, the most politically sensitive incident involved Ukrainian skeleton athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych.

After being warned to replace a helmet displaying images honoring 24 Ukrainian athletes who had died since 2022, he refused and was subsequently disqualified. His appeal to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) was rejected, as they chose to maintain what they saw as their strict neutrality regulations. The decision sparked international debate over the balance between political neutrality and personal expression.

Upon returning to Ukraine, Heraskevych received recognition from Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who awarded him the Order of Freedom, and he was granted financial support comparable to that given to Olympic gold medalists. Despite the setback, Heraskevych publicly declared that he intends to return in four years, continuing to honour his message.

Milan-Cortina will be remembered as a multifaceted chapter in Olympic history. Ultimately, the Games reflected both the beauty and the challenges of international sport. As attention now turns to the Paralympic Games, one truth remains clear: sport continues to unite people across borders, offering hope, inspiration, and moments of shared humanity in an imperfect world.