The New Federalist

The Iran War and the betrayal of Ukraine

Giorgi Tkabladze — 2026-05-13T14:25:47Z

At the start of the year, President Trump decided that - if he did not get to have the Nobel Peace Prize - the world did not deserve to have peace. Since the attacks on Venezuela and Iran, the world has become a more unsafe place, and it is Ukraine that has paid the greatest price, argues Europe in the World editor Giorgi Tkabladze.

It has been four months since the US, which on paper is an ally of Europe, attacked Iran unilaterally. Before that, we witnessed an attack on Venezuela, where President Nicolas Maduro was abducted like it was a random Tuesday, resulting in civilian casualties and reported use of experimental technology not seen in modern warfare for years. The total cost of the attack on Venezuela is estimated to be close to 3 billion dollars, all of which was funded by the American taxpayer, who barely has access to affordable healthcare or proper infrastructure and is now facing an economic crisis.

The US has a military budget close to 1 trillion dollars, which will soon turn to 1.5 trillion dollars if the new proposed bill takes place. Unfortunately, the War in Ukraine has been going on for four years now. Despite Ukraine's continued resistance, strong advances, and its exposure of vulnerabilities within Russian military infrastructure, as well as the incompetence of its leadership, tens of thousands of lives have been lost. Homes, hospitals, and roads have been bombed, and countless people have been forced to flee their homes, seeking refuge and migrating elsewhere simply to survive.

Unfortunately, the President and the Vice President of the US pay more attention to the dress code and whether “thank you” has been expressed sufficiently or not, rather than the lives being lost. The Iran War has been devastating and is already causing problems for the West. Despite the European authorities condemning the attacks and actively trying their best to calm the situation, one thing remains clear - this war was nothing but the US's betrayal of their core principles, of their allies, and of their sphere of influence.

The cost of American militarism on its allies

So far, close to 40 billion dollars has been spent on the Iran War. The Iran War has been prolonged for four months. The rate at which the US is spending its budget on the Iran War is estimated to be close to 1 billion dollars a day, which is much more than the US has spent in Ukraine. The technology that is being used in the Iran War, such as the newest AI targeting technology, is truly remarkable and one of a kind, yet the difference is clear: it is not provided to Ukraine nearly as much as it could, or should, be.

We must remember the start of 2025, when the Pentagon restricted arms delivery to Ukraine, which has greatly affected the state of the war. The concerns were that the US stockpiles were low, and the decision was made “to put America's interests first”. All of the weapons halt, as well as the attitude that we have seen from the US - not to mention Donald Trump's support towards Viktor Orbán and other pro-Russian forces - raises profound concerns for their allies as a whole.

The most important outcome that we have seen from the recent developments regarding Ukraine, Venezuela, and Iran is that Europe is more united than ever. Most of the EU is finally managing to stay on the same page and discuss its future safety, be it military, energy, or other forms of collective security. What is also important is that the UK is collaborating with the EU more often, sharing their messages, and aligning themselves with the status quo of the EU as a whole. With the recent shift towards a Breturn, it is increasingly likely that - if this sort of collaboration continues - it will come back to the European family.

America's values have long stood on spreading democracy across the globe, be it with their foreign affairs, their “soft power," or other mechanisms. With the Trump administration, this is still its goal - at least on paper - but we are going back to and far beyond even a Kissinger-style spread of democracy, which involves war crimes, the destabilisation of nations, and many more atrocities. Closing down USAID, cancelling internship programs, and pushing out isolationist politics, as well as detaching oneself from democratic values with the introduction of ICE – a modern-day Gestapo - really puts things into perspective.

The last stand of democracy in an age of realpolitik

With all of the aforementioned arguments taken into consideration, the American priorities, though unclear, show us that they are no longer interested in maintaining global peace through peacekeeping or humanitarian aid programs, but are slowly turning into the same kind of totalitarian, isolationist, and invasive country as Russia. Comparing Biden and Trump and seeing how the Biden administration supported an aspiring democratic nation, offering more troops and aid, we used to see far greater resistance against Russia. A crucial ally has been betrayed in the name of realpolitik.

Ukraine is a nation which holds the most nutritious soil on the planet, which is one of its biggest exports as a country - not to mention neon mines that are crucial to the tech industry. It is vital for the production of not only phones and computers, but everyday necessities such as fridges, cars and buses. All of this is relevant because that is all the US sees at the moment: not a fellow, democratic nation, but a piggybank. The trade deal is not being upheld by the US properly either, and this speaks volumes about the administration's intentions.

As a country that was once the beacon of democratic values, now treating its allies as transactional relationships - extracting resources while offering nothing but empty promises in return - we must call it what it is: exploitation dressed up in diplomatic language. What makes Ukraine's situation all the more tragic is the resilience of its people. Despite years of bombardment, displacement, and political abandonment, Ukrainians continue to fight - not just for their territory, but for the idea that democracy is worth defending. That conviction, that moral clarity, is something that Washington seems to have misplaced entirely.

Europe's awakening and the road to strategic autonomy

Meanwhile, the rest of the world watches. China takes notes, and Russia simply waits. Every day that Ukraine is left without proper support is a day of authoritarian regime growth, more confident than before. Regimes that can dismantle the international order piece by piece and can do so without any meaningful consequence. The message being sent is a dangerous one: borders are negotiable, sovereignty is optional, and democratic solidarity is nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan. The actions of the US are like taking pawns when they have a mate in three.

Europe, to its credit, has begun to understand this. The rearmament programs, the renewed discussions around European strategic autonomy, the quiet but steady shift away from dependence on American security guarantees - all of this points to a continent that is waking up to a new reality. A reality where Europe must be the guardian of its own values, because the partner it once relied upon has chosen a different path. The question that remains - the one that history will judge us by - is whether this awakening came in time.

Europe Day 2026: A day of celebrations or a protest in support of Ukraine?

Jean Givodan — 2026-05-12T18:02:31Z

Hundreds of people gathered in Prague on 9 May to celebrate Europe Day and reaffirm their attachment to European values. Torn between hope for a stronger and enlarged European Union and fears of democratic backsliding in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the event carried the atmosphere of both a celebration and a protest, writes European Politics editor Jean Givodan.

While Robert Fico, Prime Minister of Slovakia, was in Russia meeting Vladimir Putin for Russia's Victory Day celebrations, hundreds of people gathered in Prague to celebrate Europe Day at the Prague Metronome in Letná Park. The site is usually a meeting point for people admiring the panoramic view over the city or enjoying techno festivals during the summer season. Yet, on 9 May, it became the gathering place for Czechs, Slovaks, and others celebrating Europe Day.

Also known as Schuman Day, 9 May commemorates the 1950 Schuman Declaration and the foundation of the European Union. People of different ages, nationalities and backgrounds gathered beneath European and Ukrainian flags to celebrate this symbolic date. For Sarah and Daniel, it was their first time attending an event like this. The two teenagers came with their parents because it sounded like fun, but also, conscious of their political surroundings, because they are “proud to be Europeans”.

A shared sense of appreciation

Kateřina Demetrashvili, a member of the Czech Parliament from the Pirate Party, said that “it is wonderful that we have a Europe Day.” For her, the celebration “represents freedom - and a better future built on European democratic values”. Many of those attending were also present to express their support for a more integrated and enlarged Europe. Petra, who attended the event with her dog, told us she was “here to celebrate Europe Day, but also because she wants Ukraine to join the European Union”.

While many people like Kateřina and Petra remain deeply skeptical of the current government's approach, they still believe Europe can continue moving forward. Andreas Moser, President of the Young European Federalists in the Czech Republic, believes that Europe “must continue to integrate and enlarge itself.” He also referred to a recent speech delivered in Prague on May 6 by Alexander Stubb, the Finnish President, who warned that “we have a window of opportunity, and we do not know how long it will last.”

Andreas added: “Europe must respect candidate countries that have been waiting for a long time and should join the European Union as soon as possible, because they should be a part of our European family.” Like Andreas, many of those attending said they felt the need to publicly show their support for Europe at what they described as a difficult moment for the European Union. But the political situation is proving a barrier for a pro-European Czech Republic.

In Kateřina's view, Andrej Babiš is “following Viktor Orbán's playbook” and weakening Czech democratic institutions. The Czech member of parliament pointed to several developments that have raised concern in recent weeks and months, including government plans to abolish media licence fees and make public broadcasters dependent on state funding, their refusal to meet their NATO obligations on defence expenditure, and significant cuts to environmental protection.

But concern over backsliding persists

Kateřina also strongly criticised Babiš's position on Ukraine, describing him as an opportunist who “chooses his side when it suits his own interests”. Since returning to office, Babiš and his ANO party have adopted a cautious approach toward support for Ukraine, notably by scaling back the Czech Republic's involvement in the ammunition initiative. The Prime Minister confirmed that the programme would continue only “on the condition that it is financed by other countries,” insisting that Prague's role should be limited to “coordination.”

In a similar move, the Czech government joined Slovakia and Hungary in declining to participate in the €90 billion European support package for Ukraine proposed in December 2025. Bogdan, a 19 years old student, says that “I want to be optimistic, but sometimes it's hard when we know what's going on”. Concerns extend beyond the Czech Republic to neighbouring Slovakia, often regarded by Czechs as a brother nation. Kateřina said she found it “horrifying” that Robert Fico chose to travel to Moscow. Several people also expressed concern over what they see as democratic backsliding in Slovakia.

“May 9 should be a day for Europe, not for celebrating Russian victory”, said Bogdan. He, and others, welcomed recent action taken by the European Parliament, with the passing of a recent report on budgetary control that included an amendment calling for the activation of the rule-of-law conditionality mechanism against Slovakia, a move that could potentially lead to the suspension of billions of Euros allocated to the country. It was unclear whether this was a “celebration day” or a day of demonstration, but no one was missing the opportunity to wave the flag for Europe.

My God, help me to survive this deadly freedom

Wiktoria Wilk — 2026-05-07T15:04:20Z

When Viktor Orbán finally conceded, the cameras did what they always do around power: they fixed their gaze on the stage. They searched for the right facial expression, the headline soundbite, the choreography of defeat. Somewhere amidst the crowd on Kossuth tér, two boys kissed beneath the floodlit Parliament. A phone captured the moment: a blurred gay kiss in the foreground and the sharp silhouette of a building that had spent sixteen years insisting that this exact gesture did not belong to the nation.

It was a scene reminiscent of Dmitri Vrubel's famous mural on the Berlin Wall. Two men kissing, stone behind them, history turning. Vrubel painted Leonid Brezhnev and Erich Honecker locked in the socialist fraternal kiss, eyes clenched shut, mouths pressed together, with the desperate intensity of regimes clinging to each other as they went down. Underneath, in cramped Cyrillic, reads the caption: My God, help me to survive this deadly love. The official photo had been issued as propaganda, proof of unbreakable solidarity; the mural turned it inside out, branding the kiss as suffocation for the people trapped in their embrace.

Orbán's Hungary was built on a different kind of deadly love. For years, he told Hungarians that he loved them more fiercely than Brussels ever could - that only his “illiberal democracy” could protect the Hungarian nation, the “Christian” Europe, and “normal” families from moral decay. Love, in his story, justified everything: his captured media, his packed courts, his gerrymandered constituencies. The slow strangling of independent institutions and separated powers. To criticise him was not to argue to a politician, it was to betray the Hungarian family.

“Nobody else will ever care for you like I do”

It was governance rebranded as romance, and like all bad romances it hung on a single thread: “nobody else will ever care for you like I do”. Queer people were written into his Hungary as the ex-partner he needed everyone to hate. Over the past decade, his Government rewrote the constitution to narrow what the “family” meant, restricted legal recognition of gender, and fused anti‑LGBTQ+ rhetoric with “child protection”.

The culmination of this came in 2025, when the Hungarian Parliament amended the law on assembly so that any event deemed to “promote or display homosexuality or gender change” to children could be banned. In practice, it meant outlawing Pride marches and similar events, giving police the power to use facial recognition systems to identify participants and threatening organisers with up to a year in prison and fines that could wipe out over a month's wages.

The message for queer people was simple: merely existing in public had become a crime in Hungary. Budapest Pride, which was supposed to be celebrating its 30th anniversary, was formally banned, and Orbán warned of “legal consequences” for anyone who ignored this. Foreign ministries issued travel advisories; Hungary's own justice minister wrote to EU embassies to remind them that attending a Pride march would be “an infraction” of their laws.

In response, tens of thousands still took to the streets, deliberately breaking the ban in a march that looked less like a festival and more like an explosion of pain and anger from people who decided the threat of consequences was less important than the truth. That is the backstory of the kiss in front of Parliament: one year, the government threatens people with fines and jail for walking together under a rainbow banner; the next year, the square is packed to celebrate the man behind those threats losing his grip over the state.

“This space was ours all along”

Seen against that backdrop, the Budapest kiss is not a decorative flourish on a story about democracy. It is a direct insult to the narrative Orbán spent years building. His government used the mask of “child protection” to argue that Pride, queer visibility, and even a trans rights vigil, were dangers that must be kept out of the public square. The new law effectively said: the street is not for you, the square is not for you, and Parliament definitely is not for you. Two boys kissing under Parliament, in a crowd that was not meant to be there for them at all, declared: “this space was ours all along”.

The temptation - in Brussels, New York, or indeed Berlin - is to treat that image as a clean, tidy catharsis. The strongman falls, the gay men kiss, and Europe is cured. This is the Instagram version of regime change: swipeable before‑and‑after pictures in which history obligingly behaves like a makeover show. But queer Hungarians know better. “Freedom” in a concession speech is not freedom at a banned demonstration, a police checkpoint, or a court hearing. The 2025 law that banned Pride and enabled authorities to scan faces and issue fines remains on the books; police and prosecutors are still testing how far they can push it.

The people who have already been charged for organising or supporting LGBT events are still waiting on constitutional challenges, and there is no guarantee that justice will prevail. This is why queerness cannot just be a metaphor for democratic rebirth; it has to be the stress test. A democracy that declares itself “back” while leaving in place a legal architecture that criminalises a Pride march or bans a trans visibility rally is not back - it is simply repainting the bars on the same cage.

“You will have to come back for the people he taught you to fear”

If a queer couple can only kiss on Kossuth tér when tens of thousands of straight people and foreign journalists are around to give them cover, then the new Hungary still resembles the old one more than people wish to admit. The real measure will be whether, a year from now, a Pride organiser can apply for a permit without wondering what kind of facial recognition database they will end up in after submitting their application. Here, the twist on Vrubel's caption becomes useful: “My God, help me to survive this deadly freedom”.

Freedom, after a long and toxic relationship, is not a gentle glide into normalcy. It is a violent decompression. When you have been told for years that the man in charge is the only thing standing between your children and queer “propaganda,” discovering he has lost does not automatically switch off the fear he installed. People who learned to survive by shrinking themselves do not instantly unfold; institutions trained to please power do not wake up as neutral servants of the public.

Even the new leaders will inherit Orbán's laws, his personnel, and his habits along with his office furniture. For queer citizens, surviving freedom means something very specific: making sure the state never again has the power to declare their presence in public illegal, to fine them for existing together in the street, to scan their faces at a march and send them invoices for it. It means not being reduced to a picturesque symbol in other people's democracy porn. It means having the right to be ordinary, to hold hands in front of Parliament on a boring Wednesday, and to organise Pride without having to calculate fines into the budget.

The kiss in that photograph is not a happy ending, it is a dare. It throws down a challenge to the new government, to Hungarian society, and to a European Union that tolerated Orbán's deadly love for years - just as long as he signed off on their budgets and border agreements. The dare is a simple one: “if you want to call this place a democracy again, you will have to come back for the people he taught you to fear”.

The new Government of Péter Magyar will have to repeal the laws that criminalise queer people, dismantle the surveillance tools aimed at them, and stop pretending that “child protection” is a legitimate objective rather than a weapon of misinformation. Vrubel painted two leaders whose kiss was supposed to reassure everyone that nothing would change. The boys in Budapest kiss to insist that something must. Between those images lies the real question of this moment: not just whether Hungary can survive Orbán's deadly love, but whether it can build a freedom that queer people do not have to survive from.

Between Washington and Tehran: Europe's crisis of strategy

Ali Mohebi — 2026-04-19T08:53:13Z

Hell is truth seen too late.

Thomas Hobbes

The Russian invasion of Ukraine fundamentally reshaped Europe's geopolitical outlook, not only within its immediate neighbourhood but also across regions such as the Middle East. This transformation was further accelerated by the return of Donald Trump to the White House, which signalled a shift toward a more unilateral and less predictable US foreign policy.

In response, European states began recalibrating their external relations, seeking deeper engagement with the Global South and attempting to reduce their longstanding security and economic dependence on the US. However, in the absence of a coherent grand strategy - one capable of clearly defining allies, adversaries, and strategic priorities - Europe's external posture has become increasingly fragmented, reactive, and paradoxical.

This article examines Europe's policy toward the Middle East, identifies its structural weaknesses, and argues that without a shift toward a coherent, autonomous strategy grounded in raison d'état, Europe risks further marginalisation in regional and global affairs.

Europe's policy on the Middle East

Following the war in Ukraine, European states intensified their engagement with Middle Eastern energy producers to diversify away from Russian resources and enhance economic cooperation. While this shift reflected pragmatic adaptation, Europe's approach towards Iran remained strategically constrained. European policy toward Iran has been shaped less by independent strategic calculation and more by its alignment with US preferences and concerns over Iran's ties with Russia.

As a result, Europe has failed to articulate a consistent and constructive policy toward Tehran. This absence of strategic clarity has led to reactive and, at times, contradictory positions. Moreover, some European policymakers appear to underestimate the severe consequences of destabilisation in Iran - ranging from large-scale migration flows toward Europe to severe disruptions in global energy markets.

Such risks underscore the necessity of a more nuanced and forward-looking policy framework. The ongoing attacks of the US and Israel against Iran are rooted in a misperception of the so-called “resistance axis” as structurally weakened. This flawed assessment has fostered the belief that military pressure could compel compliance or even facilitate regime change.

However, recent developments suggest that such expectations were overly optimistic. The strategic ambitions of Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump have instead contributed to escalating instability, effectively opening a “pandora's box” whose long-term consequences remain uncertain.

The two structural deficiencies

Europe's diminishing influence in the Middle East can be traced to two structural deficiencies: dependence on the US and the absence of a coherent, unified strategic approach.

Firstly, Europe's reliance on the US for security and economic stability has significantly constrained its strategic autonomy. Even in critical cases such as Ukraine and Iran, European initiatives have often been subordinated to US policy preferences. This dependency has not only limited Europe's room for manoeuvre but has also exposed it to strategic vulnerabilities stemming from shifts in US policy.

Secondly, internal divisions among European states have produced a pattern of inconsistency and indecision. While Europe once played a central mediating role - most notably in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action - it is now widely perceived as a secondary actor, largely confined to issuing statements of concern. This dual weakness has resulted in a form of strategic passivity.

Europe has struggled to respond rapidly and decisively to crises, thereby undermining both its credibility and effectiveness. In the case of US-Israeli invasion, Europe's passive approach has translated into political marginalisation and economic costs, while simultaneously eroding trust from multiple actors.

The balance of power as a strategic imperative

A durable regional order cannot emerge in the absence of balance. While US and Israeli policymakers frequently invoke the notion of “peace through strength,” historical experience suggests that sustainable peace is more closely associated with a stable balance of power.

The lessons of the Thirty Years' War demonstrate that attempts to eliminate rival powers often prolong conflict rather than resolve it. Similarly, the contrast between the post-Napoleonic Wars settlement and the aftermath of World War 1 illustrates the importance of constructing not merely a balance, but a just balance.

Europe possesses the potential to act as a stabilising force in the Middle East. However, this requires the adoption of a coherent grand strategy grounded in realistic assessments of power and interest. Such a strategy should enable Europe to function as a credible and neutral mediator capable of facilitating equilibrium among regional actors.

At present, however, there exists a clear gap between rhetoric and action. While European institutions emphasise diplomacy as the only viable solution, their passive alignment with US-Israeli initiatives has, in practice, narrowed diplomatic space.

The choice facing Europe

Europe now faces a fundamental strategic choice: the first is to deepen dependence on the United States, aligning closely with its Middle East policies, even at the cost of strategic autonomy; the second is to pursue a more independent course, which may involve engagement with actors such as Iran despite normative and political challenges.

Neither option is without cost. However, maintaining the current ambiguous posture is no longer viable if Europe seeks to remain a meaningful actor in global politics. Crucially, any strategic shift must be based on consensus among major European states. Without internal cohesion, even the most well-designed strategy will fail in implementation.

In politics, having to choose between imperfect alternatives is inevitable. For Europe, the Middle East represents not merely a regional challenge but a test case for its broader role in an evolving international order.

The decline of unipolarity and the erosion of the liberal international order demand that Europe rethinks its strategic posture. This requires enhancing both hard and soft power capabilities, developing mechanisms for rapid decision-making, and fostering greater internal coordination. Without such reforms, Europe risks continued marginalisation. With them, it may yet re-emerge as a consequential and autonomous actor capable of shaping outcomes - rather than merely reacting to them.

For women, democracy has still not reached all of Europe

Tiberia Cercea — 2026-04-16T17:22:47Z

A democracy without women is no longer an imperfect democracy - it is not a democracy at all.

Elisabeth Sledziewski

Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania were consolidated after the First World War, all experiencing communist regimes following the Second World War, and, after 1989, embarking on a transition to democracy. These neighbouring states have been profoundly influenced by Orthodox traditions and share historical, cultural, and religious similarities, including traditional perceptions of gender roles.

The differences in the evolution of women's rights to vote and to be elected to decision-making bodies are all the more striking given these similarities. They highlight the crucial importance of institutional frameworks designed to effectively guarantee gender equality, ensuring it does not remain merely an abstract legislative principle.

The evolutionary stages undergone in the sphere of women's electoral rights here provide an appropriate framework for studying the relationship between the principle of equality enshrined in law, socio-political transformations, and the effective functioning of institutions.

Early electoral participation and a gradual inclusion

The first direct participation of women in the electoral process preceded the constitutional recognition of equal suffrage in all three Balkan states. In most cases, these early forms of participation resulted from exceptional circumstances or were limited to local elections. The end of the First World War marked a turning point, leading to territorial reconfigurations and a redefinition of citizenship.

In this context, women's political rights gained visibility, with legislative initiatives emerging across all three countries. However, electoral rights were granted gradually and often under restrictive conditions. During the Balkan Wars and the First World War, women expanded their roles beyond the domestic sphere, contributing both at the front lines and on the home front. Pre-war feminist movements, led by figures such as Draga Ljočić Milošević, Sofia Nădejde, and Dimitrana Ivanova, also played a significant role. Through their contributions, women demonstrated their entitlement to equal rights and obligations.

One of the earliest instances of female electoral participation occurred during the Great National Assembly in Novi Sad on 25 November 1918, where deputies elected at the municipal level, without gender distinction, voted on the union of Vojvodina with the Kingdom of Serbia. In Romania, the 1923 Constitution did not grant electoral rights to women, despite support from regional assemblies. Electoral Law no. 167/1929 later introduced limited suffrage, allowing women to vote and stand in local elections under stricter conditions than men.

In the 1930 elections, women were elected as mayors, deputy mayors, and councillors, although their representation remained low. Authoritarian developments in the late interwar period imposed further limitations. In Romania, King Carol II's regime restricted political life, while in Bulgaria, suffrage was introduced gradually, first for married mothers in local elections (1937), then extended to broader categories in parliamentary elections (1938).

From legal equality to the democratic transition

A fundamental shift occurred after the Second World War with the establishment of communist regimes. Constitutions adopted in Yugoslavia (1946), Bulgaria (1947), and Romania (1948) introduced universal and equal suffrage, explicitly guaranteeing gender equality. Women entered political institutions in greater numbers, and figures such as Mitra Mitrović, Tsola Dragoycheva, and Florica Bagdasar became pioneers in government roles.

Despite the formal guarantees introduced under communist regimes, the absence of political pluralism limited the full expression of democratic participation. However, the legal codification of gender equality marked a significant structural advancement. The transition to democracy after 1989 reopened the question of how to transform formal equality into effective representation. Serbia adopted an interventionist approach, introducing mandatory gender quotas, while Bulgaria implemented supportive policies. Romania, by contrast, relied largely on non-interventionist measures, leaving quota decisions to political parties.

All three countries enshrine gender equality in their constitutions. The Romanian Constitution (1991, revised 2003) guarantees equality and equal access to public office. The Bulgarian Constitution (1991, amended 2024) affirms non-discrimination and universal suffrage, complemented by Law no. 33/2016 on gender equality. Serbia's 2006 Constitution guarantees equality and equal voting rights, reinforced by Law no. 14/2022 requiring at least 40% representation of the underrepresented gender on electoral lists.

Representation, but with major disparities

Despite these legal frameworks, disparities in representation persist. Women account for only 14% of local officials in Romania, with just 7% of mayors being female. Bulgaria records approximately 20% female local representation, while Serbia reaches 38%. At the national level, women represent 22% of parliamentarians in Romania, compared to 27% in Bulgaria and 39% in Serbia. At the European level, Romania ranked last in the 9th European Parliament legislature, with only 15% women MEPs. Following the 2024 elections, Bulgaria reached 24%, while Romania stood at 18%.

The political sphere has historically been dominated by men, and the exclusion of women from decision-making weakens democratic principles. Women's participation is a sine qua non condition for achieving genuine gender equality and shaping inclusive public policies. This analysis highlights the decisive role of institutional frameworks. Voluntary measures often prove insufficient, while mandatory gender quotas, such as those implemented in Serbia, have demonstrably increased women's political representation.

Legal recognition alone does not guarantee equal opportunities; targeted measures are required to address persistent inequalities. From a feminist federalist perspective, the continued under-representation of women in European decision-making bodies reflects the structural limits of fragmented national approaches.

While national policies remain necessary, their effectiveness varies depending on political will, cultural factors, and institutional design. Within a European federation, a coherent constitutional framework could transform gender equality from a declarative principle into a binding rule, ensuring a uniform minimum standard of political representation.

Federalism is the future for women

Mechanisms such as gender quotas, zipper lists, and parity rules could be embedded at the supranational level, supported by oversight institutions capable of enforcing compliance. Such a model would reduce disparities caused by national resistance or inertia while promoting cooperation, policy exchange, and best practices among member states.

It would strengthen the legitimacy of the European project by treating women's representation as a fundamental democratic criterion rather than a secondary national issue. By promoting shared sovereignty, decentralisation, and participatory democracy, feminist federalist approaches aim to address historical exclusions and ensure meaningful inclusion.

A European federation would not erase local identities but would provide a framework in which equal political participation is guaranteed across all levels of governance. Ultimately, increasing women's representation in politics is not merely a policy objective but a democratic necessity. Ensuring that women's voices are present in decision-making bodies is essential for building a more inclusive, legitimate, and resilient political system.

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.