Europe
Berlusconi’s legacy: Christian Europe united by a free market spirit
Italy was the most important country where an ‘anti-fascist consensus’ was established after the Second World War, albeit at an official level. The adoption of universal suffrage, the creation of the Constituent Assembly and the drafting of the Constitution were participated in by all the forces involved in the antifascist liberation struggle. The anti-fascist struggle in Italy had also turned into a war of liberation with the occupying Nazi Germany and the establishment of the collaborationist ‘Salo Republic’.
“Albeit at the official level” we said. Although the Italian Communist Party (PCI), the main organization of the partisans who were the vanguard of the anti-fascist resistance, was included in this consensus, the regime in Italy was controlled by a party of order, with the Christian Democrats (DC) at its center, at the behest of the US and NATO. This party of order did not hesitate to use its striking power against the communists through Gladio and the mafia. The PCI, even though it did not seek power, was another country within the country, another society within Italian society. Its prestige was high due to its sacrifices in the resistance. It was organized within the working class. In the 1976 elections, it received 34.4 percent of the vote and caused considerable fear in the establishment.
This, roughly speaking, reflected the balance of forces in the Italian First Republic. In the 1980s, two important transformations began to take place: First, the Italian establishment shifted to a strategy of high interest rates and currency devaluation, with the plan of full integration into the European common market. This was a strategy with which we were very familiar: Under the guise of ‘competitiveness’, lowering labor costs, cutting consumption of working people, reducing access to credit for small producers, intensive financialization and a partial transfer of sovereignty to Brussels. The second and perhaps more surprising development was the rapid adaptation of the PCI to these austerity policies. Italian communism may have begun to poison itself earlier, but it meant that a critical threshold had been crossed. It is very telling that the PCI’s vote in the last elections in 1987, in which it participated as a party, fell to its lowest level in 20 years.
It meant that the balance of forces on which the First Republic had been based was overturned. With the end of the Cold War, the corruption, nepotism, state-mafioso collaboration of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI), which was one of the wings of the party of order along with the DC, was being exposed. This period, known in our country as the ‘Clean Hands’ operation, marked the end of the First Republic in Italy and ushered in the ‘magistrate’ rule.
It was around this time, as the magistrate administration was running out of steam, an unknown boss announced that he would take the field to ‘fight communism’.
But was there communism left?
The PCI refashioned and renamed itself the Party of the Democratic Left (PDS). Considering the PDS reformist, the revolutionaries formed the Communist Refoundation Party. The latter group was also appreciated decently by former PCI voters. The 1993 local elections resulted in a decisive defeat for the DC and a partial victory for the PDS.
So Silvio Berlusconi began his fight against communism with the local election victory of the men of order in ties who were in fact whipping a dead horse. He declared the end of ‘party politics’ for Italy and said that the country would be governed by ‘completely new people’ in the new era. There was no more ‘popolo’ (people), there was ‘gente comune’ (ordinary people). The fate of Italy would no longer be decided by the people, but by the ‘free association of the electorate’. Against the ‘cartel of leftist forces’, he called for a ‘pole of freedom’ that would combine free enterprise and love of work with the family values of Catholic Italy.
Berlusconi was waging a war against the ‘traditional elites’ (i.e. those entrenched in the balance of power of the First Republic) and demanding an end to the Clean Hands operations.
Berlusconi challenged politics and politicians, arguing that only with a business spirit could the state become functional again.
It should not be surprising that the Lega, one of the critics of this ‘cumbersome state-business spirit’, today forms a coalition with Berlusconi’s party. It should also come as no surprise that a large proportion of DC voters in the First Republic voted for Forza Italia. After the electoral law was changed in 1993, there was a shift towards American-style two-party rule. Here Berlusconi took his place on the Italian political scene as the main element that carried the old DC mass base into the new era. In the Second Republic, where the mass base was marginalized and organizational politics was declared redundant, personalities came to the fore, and the figure of the leader who came into contact with the ‘electorate’ took the place of the man of the organization. The late Berlusconi was also working to establish this order. His media empire was the most important tool in creating a ‘charismatic’ figure. He would recreate the Italian right in his own image.
Contrary to what those who referred to him after his death as a ‘lover of national sovereignty’ might think, like all Italian parties in the 1990s and 2000s, he saw the EU as an external element that would ‘normalize’ Italy, as a tool that would free the state from sluggishness by forming fiscal discipline.
Together with his alliances with the Brothers of Italy and the Lega, he worked hard to establish an ‘anti-political’ right-wing discourse, now called the ‘post-fascist consensus’. His aphorism “Mussolini was not that bad dictator” describes this consensus well. The anti-fascist insurgents, the main engine of the First Republic, are now portrayed as just as brutal, cruel and violent as the fascists. Fascist shock troops and anti-fascist partisans deserve to be referred to together as ‘children of this land’. It is such a farce that the President of the Senate, Ignazio La Russa of the Brothers of Italy, who said that there was no anti-fascism in the Italian Constitution, was able to attend the ‘Liberation Day’ ceremonies a few days later. Even worse, the same Russa still has a bust of Mussolini in his house, an heirloom of his father.
It was unthinkable that this consensus, which had been reinforced by the PDS’s shift to the ‘center’, would not be shaken by the 2008 crisis. The first solution to this crisis was the domination of technocratic governments, adherence to Brussels and the mania for privatization. The technocratic governments imposed on Italy a wave of marketization that even Berlusconi at times hesitated to undertake. This period saw the disintegration of parties on the left and the right: The Democratic Party and Berlusconi were losing. Meanwhile, the mafioso leader was being investigated for corruption (a commonplace in Italian politics) and sidelined. By the 2018 general elections, the combined vote of the Democratic Party and Forza Italia did not even reach 33 percent. Henceforth, the 5 Star Movement (M5S) of comedian Beppe Grillo, an internet phenomenon, and the Lega, which took an ‘Italian nationalist’ position by trying to disassociate itself from the north, were at opposite ends of the political theatre. The M5S leader at the time, Luigi Di Maio, was not afraid to state the obvious: The Second Republic dominated by Berlusconi and the ‘center-left’ was dying.
That he is the symbol of the Second Republic should not mislead anyone. He always had friends in the First Republic too. Although he was never a member, he had very good relations with the PSI, the party of order of the first republic. With the collapse of the Second Republic, the fact that he managed to reinvent himself and throw himself into the right-wing coalition should be considered a success.
From now on, it seems inevitable that Forza Italia will be swallowed up by the other coalition partners. If the matter is charisma, Meloni and Salvini seem to have it all. Moreover, he seemed to have overcome his occasional polemics with Brussels: At the party congress, which he attended from his sickbed, he emphasized European unity against ‘Chinese imperialism’, differentiated his party from the likes of Marine Le Pen, and secured his place in the ‘center-right’ European People’s Party (EPP) in the European Parliament. This is the ‘legacy’ of the Second Republic and Berlusconi’s death: Christian Europe and Italian values, united by a free market spirit.
Europe
Fico accuses Merz of blackmail over threat to veto EU budget
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has hit back after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz threatened to veto the EU budget unless funding for Ukraine is secured.
Merz said he would block the EU’s seven-year budget if no agreement is reached on financial assistance for Ukraine.
The chancellor’s intervention has angered Central European leaders who are net beneficiaries of EU funds but do not want to take part in the next round of funding to support Ukraine’s war effort.
“What the chancellor is doing is typical blackmail, and I will not bow to it,” Fico told reporters in Bratislava.
Fico spoke alongside his Czech counterpart, Andrej Babiš, whose government has refused to participate in a future loan to Ukraine.
“I do not know why he said this,” Babiš said, referring to Merz’s stance.
Merz wants EU leaders to discuss Ukraine’s financing needs at a summit in Dublin on Friday.
In a letter to European Council President António Costa, who will chair the meeting, obtained by The Guardian, Merz wrote:
“We must maintain our support for Ukraine in its struggle to defend itself. This is our shared vital interest. Yet bilateral aid provided to Ukraine is distributed unevenly, with the burden shouldered mostly by only a few member states.”
The EU agreed last year to provide a €90 billion loan to Ukraine, intended to cover two-thirds of its military and civilian spending for 2026 and 2027.
Since then, however, Russia’s relentless bombardment has placed a heavier financial burden on Kyiv, prompting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to ask for €70 billion to plug the budget deficit.
The EU has endorsed Zelenskyy’s figures and pledged to find €45 billion. Ukraine’s other allies, such as Britain and Canada, are expected to cover the rest.
Last year, Merz launched an initiative to tap €210 billion in frozen Russian state assets held in the EU, but the plan fell through due to opposition led by Belgium, which holds most of the funds in Brussels.
The €90 billion loan was the backup plan. Having opted out of that loan, Hungary, Slovakia, and Czechia indicated that they would not take part in the next round either.
Bulgaria joined these three member states following the election of Prime Minister Rumen Radev last April.
The question of funding for Ukraine is now spilling over into the fraught negotiations on the 2028-34 EU budget.
Germany, the largest net contributor, wants substantial cuts to the proposed budget and opposes the EU providing generous funding to member states that refuse to contribute to Ukraine’s financial needs.
Merz states in his letter that a “collective commitment without exceptions” is a “fundamental prerequisite” for closing Ukraine’s financing gap and for “discussing other matters, particularly those with financial implications.”
He also notes that, in the context of the EU’s next seven-year budget, known as the Multiannual Financial Framework, all member states must contribute to a “robust” financial perspective for Ukraine from 2028 onwards.
A German government official said:
“For the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) to be successfully concluded, it is vital that all EU member states provide financial support to Ukraine.”
Berlin is also aiming to shift decision-making on funding for Ukraine from unanimity to qualified majority voting, in an effort to prevent a single government from blocking EU decisions.
The letter reflects mounting frustration among the EU’s northern member states, Ukraine’s most generous backers, over lower contributions from other EU countries in Central and Southern Europe.
The task of brokering an agreement on the budget falls to Costa, the former Portuguese prime minister.
Costa wants a deal by the end of the year, ahead of elections in France, Poland, and Italy in 2027 that could complicate the process.
A spokesperson for Costa confirmed receipt of the letter without elaborating on details. “President Costa will dedicate time to the Ukraine issue at the informal European Council meeting in Dublin this week,” the spokesperson said, adding that funding for Ukraine would be addressed at a dedicated summit on the EU budget scheduled for 26-27 November.
Europe
EU expects next Israeli government to adopt less aggressive posture
The EU expects the next Israeli government to mend its “difficult relationship” with Brussels and adopt a more constructive approach toward Gaza and illegal settlements.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog tasked Gadi Eisenkot, the leader of the anti-Netanyahu bloc, on Sunday with forming a government.
Eisenkot stated that the country faces a “catastrophic diplomatic crisis” as traditional allies begin to reassess their relations with Israel.
Speaking to Rapporteur, several European diplomats stationed in Tel Aviv said they expect ties to get back on track.
“Whatever government comes in, we can try to revitalize relations because Israel is clearly a very important partner,” one European diplomat said, adding that Brussels expects the next administration to be “less aggressive”.
The diplomat noted that relations with Europe are currently “not very good”.
Israel cut off communication with Kaja Kallas, the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, after Rapporteur revealed in June that she had compared Israel to apartheid-era South Africa during a visit to Mexico.
The diplomat stated that this decision, taken ahead of elections, was political in nature. A second European diplomat based in Brussels explained that the announcement came only a few days before an official visit by Dubravka Šuica, the European commissioner for the Mediterranean.
“This could have been interpreted as a tactic to divide Europe, but Israel had asked Kallas to deny the report; she did not do so,” the second diplomat said.
Brussels has repeatedly voiced its frustration with Israel over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the expansion of West Bank settlements.
However, EU governments blocked almost all sanctions proposed by the European Commission.
A third diplomat said opposition parties would “almost certainly take the issue more seriously” when it comes to tackling violence by West Bank settlers:
“We see Palestinians being expelled from their homes and new illegal settlements being built in the West Bank. There is a reluctance on the part of the current government to address this issue, which causes problems in our relations.”
The new government is expected to ease pressure on Palestinians and halt construction of the E1 settlement project, a controversial plan to build settler housing in the West Bank east of Jerusalem.
“They will probably try to deal with the problem of extremist settlers in the West Bank,” the diplomat added.
On Gaza, the diplomat described the situation as “a complete nightmare”, with two million Palestinians crowded into an area that accounts for roughly 35% of the territory.
“There are not enough tents for the winter, and not enough vaccines are reaching the area despite an increase in diseases,” the diplomat said.
The European official argued that Donald Trump’s peace plan met all the conditions for Europe. Although the EU had much to offer, neither the US nor Israel appeared interested in EU involvement in the process.
“We are currently training Palestinian police in the West Bank, and if permitted, we could do the same in Gaza,” the diplomat said.
The diplomat disclosed that Israel had agreed with Šuica that Europe would finance two projects aimed at improving sewage and water infrastructure in Gaza, continuing:
“However, none of these projects has started yet because there is a serious problem with dual-use goods. Getting materials into Gaza is very difficult because the Israelis say they could be misused if they fall into the wrong hands of Hamas.”
Israel insists that Hamas must be disarmed before subsequent phases of Trump’s plan can proceed.
With disarmament unlikely to happen in the near term, the EU argues that certain measures can be carried out in parallel.
“We can begin rebuilding sanitation systems in Gaza. We can start building desalination plants. We can begin providing energy and water to Gaza,” one diplomat said.
While Brussels hopes for progress on Gaza and the West Bank, it maintains that expectations regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state need to be “managed”.
The EU continues to advocate a two-state solution, yet most leading Jewish parties oppose the creation of a Palestinian state.
The diplomat noted that the next Israeli government will likely have “a very slim majority and not much room for manoeuvre”.
There is also a “major misunderstanding” between the EU and Israel that must be addressed. According to the diplomat, Europeans fail to recognize the “psychological impact” of 7 October on Israelis.
“This event changed the country and made the two-state solution even more distant than before,” the diplomat said.
In return, some Israeli politicians believe Europe has betrayed Israel despite what they view as a fight against “Islamist terrorism”.
“Their argument is that European politicians are somewhat afraid of the Muslim population in Europe,” the European diplomat said.
Europe strongly opposes Iran and the possibility of Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons, imposing sanctions in response.
However, the diplomat argued that the EU would not participate in a war because it lacks a common army:
“We are a diplomatic and economic power, which is why we resort to sanctions and diplomacy. The expectation that we would take part in a military operation is unrealistic.”
Europe
Germany threatens EU budget veto over long-term Ukraine aid
Germany has threatened to veto the European Union’s joint budget for the 2028-2034 period, which is currently under negotiation, unless every member state commits to providing financial support to Ukraine in 2027 and subsequent years, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned.
According to a report by the Financial Times (FT), Chancellor Merz set out Berlin’s condition for the budget talks in a letter addressed to European Council President António Costa.
In his letter, Merz wrote: “A collective commitment that every single one of us, without exception, will make a fair contribution to closing Ukraine’s budget deficit is an indispensable prerequisite for resolving this budget issue and, in particular, for addressing subsequent matters that carry financial implications.”
The German Chancellor stressed that a formula backed by all member states must be established to provide Ukraine with a reliable, multi-year financial perspective starting from 2028.
Merz also insisted that any agreed solution must cover the interest payments on debts incurred to finance the assistance provided to Kyiv.
Conversely, several countries within the bloc have cut financial aid to Ukraine, and the number of capitals adopting this stance is projected to rise next year.
In December 2025, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic approved the EU’s 90 billion euro loan package for Kyiv only on the condition that they would not contribute to its costs themselves.
Alongside these three countries, Bulgaria has also stated that it does not plan to participate in subsequent financial assistance packages for Ukraine.
In France, far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who could potentially win the presidential election scheduled for spring 2027, recently told the FT that Paris has run out of funds.
Le Pen assessed: “The honest approach is to tell Mr Zelensky clearly, and even warn him: ‘Look, we cannot do more. We have already allocated the 90 billion euro EU loan, in which France’s share amounts to 18 billion euros. 18 billion euros is genuinely a huge amount of money.'”
The EU’s 90 billion euro loan, covering the 2026-2027 period, aims to meet two-thirds of Ukraine’s financing requirements.
Brussels expects the remaining 45 billion euros to be covered by other partners, including Canada, the UK, Norway, Japan, South Korea, and Australia.
Germany remains the largest net contributor to the EU budget.
In contrast, the four Eastern European countries seeking to avoid financing Ukraine rank among the largest net beneficiaries of the bloc’s budget.
Leveraging this balance, Chancellor Merz aims to use his influence in the EU budget negotiations to secure uninterrupted support for Kyiv in 2027 and the years beyond.
According to the FT, Berlin is also demanding that future aid packages be decided by qualified majority voting rather than unanimity, which is required under the current system.
A German government spokesperson told the newspaper:
“The issue of Ukraine’s financial needs must be resolved within the framework of the next EU budget. Financial support for Ukraine from all EU members is decisive for the successful conclusion of the budget talks.”
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoSecular dress code dispute exposes deeper Türkiye-Azerbaijan strains
-
Europe7 days agoEU urges citizens to prepare 72-hour survival kits for crises
-
Asia2 weeks agoChina expands Africa arms sales, displacing France and Western rivals
-
America2 weeks agoBolsonaro reportedly leaves Brazil on jet linked to scandal-hit firm
-
Diplomacy1 week agoProtesters storm Kyiv site holding soldiers over torture allegations
-
Russia2 weeks agoPutin proposes Arctic energy cooperation to US to ease gas sanctions
-
Europe1 week agoPro-Ukraine Republicans in US Congress dwindle after departures
-
Europe1 week agoLow EU gas stocks risk stoking global prices, IEA report warns
