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
Hungary’s new PM Magyar vows absolute ban on illegal migration, challenging Brussels over fines
Hungary’s newly elected Prime Minister Péter Magyar has pledged to block all illegal migration, reject European Union quotas, and challenge Brussels’ punitive fines, signaling a highly restrictive border policy even as he vows to restore ties with European partners.
In his first interview with the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung since taking office, Magyar outlined his administration’s strategic roadmap. He addressed the smear campaigns directed against him by the former government of Viktor Orbán, relations with the EU, migration policy, and the economic necessity of maintaining energy ties with Russia.
Reflecting on his transition to power, Magyar noted that the Orbán administration targeted him, his family, and his colleagues during a highly polarized campaign.
“I have known Viktor Orbán for a long time. What happened during the election campaign was no surprise to me, even if it might be difficult to imagine in other countries,” Magyar said. “The mudslinging campaign was not just directed at me personally, but also against my family, my colleagues, and my friends. However, those who faced each other were not Hungarians against Hungarians; it was Viktor Orbán and his vassals standing against the Hungarian nation. One of our most important campaign promises is that we will do everything we can to reunite the Hungarian nation.”
Despite running a pro-European campaign to secure victory, Magyar acknowledged fundamental disagreements with Brussels, particularly on migration. He argued that former Prime Minister Orbán’s hardline stance during the 2015 European migrant crisis was correct.
“My government will pursue an extremely strict and decisive policy regarding illegal migration,” Magyar said. “You can be as angry with Viktor Orbán as you want—and no one has criticized him more than I have—but when the migration crisis began in 2015, he was right. Many member states have now admitted they made wrong decisions at the time. In any case, we will protect our homeland, our country’s borders, and the external borders of Europe.”
“Hungary will not accept any illegal migrants”
Responding to whether Hungary would comply with newly implemented EU asylum rules, which mandate member states to conduct processing procedures at external borders, Magyar delivered a firm refusal regarding quotas and penalties.
“I can only say this: Hungary will not accept any illegal migrants. We will not pay any penalties for this either,” Magyar said. “However, we will help protect Europe’s external borders, whether in Greece, Malta, or Italy. The 2015 migration crisis must be a lesson for Europe. The most important duty of European politicians is to protect the safety of the people. I believe there are many ways to stop illegal migration without violating European Union rules. It is simply a matter of being able to negotiate.”
Magyar also dismissed the current relevance of a European Court of Justice ruling imposing a daily fine of 1 million euros on Hungary for failing to implement EU asylum procedures, arguing the decision is outdated.
“The court’s decision was made at a very different time and under a different legal framework,” Magyar said. “Today, we are in a completely different situation. This decision no longer reflects today’s reality. Today, there are many countries acting just like Hungary, yet this European Court of Justice decision does not apply to them. I find this incredibly unfair. In order to protect our borders and avoid having to pay the daily fine of 1 million euros, we will hold talks with our European partners and find a common solution.”
While acknowledging that the judicial ruling is final and cannot be appealed, Magyar described the financial burden on Hungarian citizens as unjust.
“The decision cannot be appealed. We are looking for new rules and opportunities to avoid paying the fine,” he said. “It is unfair and disproportionate that the people of Hungary must pay a fine of 1 million euros every day. Similarly, it is a great injustice that while other member states receive these funds, Hungary has been provided with no financial resources for the wire fence it constructed to protect the external border of the European Union.”
“Exclusion only makes the far-right stronger”
Magyar strongly opposed pushback from member states—particularly pressure from Germany—to transition EU foreign policy decision-making from unanimity to qualified majority voting, defending the preservation of national sovereignty.
While rejecting the confrontational rhetoric favored by Orbán toward Brussels, Magyar emphasized the importance of compromise among sovereign states.
“I served as a diplomat within the European Union for a long time, and I know very well how difficult it is to reach a consensus among 27 countries. Yet, most of the time, this is achieved,” Magyar said. “Orbán always said, ‘We must defeat Brussels.’ I do not think that is the point. The point is to understand each other, to persuade, and not to try to defeat one another. People do not want a United States of Europe; they want a European Union based on strong member states. For this reason, I do not support transitioning to a majority voting system in many areas instead of the unanimity rule at this stage. We will negotiate and find a middle ground.”
Addressing the political rise of far-right parties across Europe, particularly in France and Germany, Magyar criticized traditional political elites for being disconnected from public anxieties and relying on political moralizing.
He warned that isolating these populist movements is counterproductive.
“I do not like labels like far-right or far-left. I do not like ideological wars,” Magyar said. “People deserve more than politically correct speeches where ideological labels are slapped on one another. I have no intention of interfering in the internal affairs of other member states, and I will not do so; on this point, I differ from Orbán. However, I observe that some countries make mistakes in combating extremist parties. In many countries, politicians do not act honestly. They do not understand people’s fears and expectations, and they do not dare to talk openly about problems and face them. They use the language of political correctness and, at the end of the day, fail to grasp reality itself. These are precisely the mistakes that certain groups exploit. Excluding these people and these parties, building a wall of isolation around them, is not a solution on its own. Exclusion only makes these forces stronger. In many countries, these mistakes have been recognized, but not yet everywhere.”
Asked if this critique applied to Germany, Magyar maintained his criticism of governing establishments.
“In many countries, the political, media, and economic elites protect their own positions and do not always address the real fears and problems of the people. But the public does not forget this. That is why what we need is honesty, honesty, and once again, honesty,” he said.
On the debate over whether conservative factions in the European Parliament should cooperate with the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, Magyar shared his perspective on the future strategy of the European People’s Party (EPP), which includes his own party, Tisza.
“In the European Parliament, political forces must always seek a majority, and grand coalitions between the center-left and center-right can function. Germany and Austria are good examples of this,” Magyar said. “However, this does not always work, and that is why the CDU/CSU and the European People’s Party, which includes my party Tisza, may have to make a decision one day. In my view, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) are the natural allies of the European People’s Party. Whether they want to cooperate with the AfD is not my decision to make. However, I believe that talking to one another and listening to the other’s arguments never causes harm. What we accept from each other’s proposals is an entirely separate matter.”
“Europe will partially return to Russian energy after the war”
Defending Hungary’s decision to continue importing crude oil and natural gas from Russia despite the war in Ukraine, Magyar emphasized the country’s landlocked geography and economic constraints.
“The Hungarian people elected me as the Prime Minister of Hungary. My government’s duties include ensuring energy security, security of supply, and the lowest possible energy prices,” Magyar said. “In recent years, Hungary has become one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in the European Union. Three million people live below the poverty line. Our neighbors in the European Union must understand that Hungary is a landlocked country. We are still dependent on Russian oil, and we cannot change this overnight. We have not seen economic growth for years, and we need cheap energy to grow. Of course, we are doing everything we can to diversify our energy resources, but we cannot afford to see our companies’ competitiveness decrease further and Hungarian families’ energy poverty increase. I think Europe will partially turn back to Russian energy resources and lift sanctions when the war ends, because the competitiveness of all of Europe is at stake here. In a future state of peace, no one has an interest in maintaining a new economic and political Cold War. For this, of course, the war must first end.”
While Orbán maintained close ties with American conservative movements and received explicit support from Donald Trump, Magyar indicated that the change in leadership in Budapest would not damage relations with Washington.
“The US is Hungary’s natural ally in NATO and a highly important economic partner. What happened during the election campaign will not change this. We will maintain good relations with every American administration,” Magyar said.
Magyar criticized Orbán’s personal relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, arguing instead for a pragmatic, non-ideological approach to Moscow in the post-war era.
“I know the role of Russia in Hungarian history very well. I have not forgotten the years 1849 and 1956. In both periods, Russian troops bloodily suppressed the Hungarian freedom movement,” Magyar said. “But on the other hand, the reality is that geography does not change. We must accept this as it is. Therefore, we must develop pragmatic relations with Russia once the war against Ukraine ends. Nonetheless, it is extremely clear that Russia currently poses a security risk to all of Europe. It is unacceptable that people in Europe must live in fear of Russian sabotage or a Russian attack. That is why this war must end, and we must provide international security guarantees to Ukraine. However, Europe can only develop when normalcy returns, and Russia cannot have an interest in a new Cold War becoming permanent on the continent.”
“We can turn a new page with Ukraine”
Magyar pledged to end the hostile state-sponsored propaganda directed at Ukraine by the previous administration, emphasizing his respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and his personal involvement in humanitarian efforts.
“We want to build good relations with all our neighbors, not least because a Hungarian minority lives in each of them. This also applies to Ukraine,” Magyar said. “We have always stated that Ukraine is the victim in the Russia-Ukraine war and that Ukraine has the right to its territorial integrity. When the Russians bombed the largest children’s hospital in Kyiv in the summer of 2024, I immediately went to Kyiv with our volunteers and personally delivered the humanitarian aid of the Hungarian people. Right after the attack, we set off in a 30-year-old Ford Transit and reached Kyiv within 20 hours under air raids and missile bombardments. I did not see any other European politician at that bombed hospital. We are currently holding talks with Ukraine at a technical level, and we are working to reach an agreement within a few days to restore and guarantee the language, education, and cultural rights of the 100,000 Hungarians living in Ukraine. Today, we need to clarify certain matters with Ukraine regarding our minority in that country, and I hope we will achieve this in the coming days. Ethnic Hungarians there currently do not have the opportunity to use their mother tongue in their relations with official authorities. However, if we resolve these issues on the basis of mutual interest, we can turn a new page.”
Magyar cautioned that future security guarantees for Ukraine must be concrete and enforceable, unlike previous international agreements.
“In 1994, the famous Budapest Memorandum was signed, in which the US and other major powers guaranteed Ukraine’s independence and integrity. However, these promises were not kept, because empty slogans are of little use,” Magyar said. “Right now, everything is at stake in Ukraine. A large number of people are dying, and it is possible that this country will lose part of its territory. Therefore, Ukraine needs real, enforceable international guarantees.”
However, the Prime Minister reiterated that Hungary would remain militarily uninvolved in the conflict, stating that arms shipments do not constitute a genuine security guarantee.
“I do not believe that weapons are a security guarantee. Security guarantees can only be provided by the international community,” the Hungarian leader concluded. “Hungary cannot play a decisive role here; this is the work of the major powers. We can provide diplomatic and humanitarian aid, and Hungary can also provide a suitable ground for negotiations.”
Europe
EU agrees new deportation rules allowing migrant return centers outside the bloc
European Union lawmakers and member states have reached agreement on new legislation overhauling rules governing the deportation of asylum seekers.
According to Politico, the agreed text allows asylum applicants whose claims have been rejected to be sent to dedicated return centers established outside the EU.
As a key condition of the deal, measures to establish the return centers are set to be implemented immediately.
The move is said to be of particular importance to the Netherlands and Germany. Other provisions of the legislation are expected to take effect one year later.
The agreement must still receive final approval from both the EU Council and the European Parliament before it can formally enter into force.
European Commissioner for Migration Magnus Brunner said the agreement would help the EU regain control over both those arriving in the bloc and those required to leave it.
According to data from Eurostat, the proportion of migrants denied asylum in the European Union who ultimately leave the bloc remains at around 27%.
“We must give people the feeling again that we have everything under control,” Brunner said.
The new framework grants member states the authority to transfer individuals ordered to leave EU territory to return centers located outside the bloc.
Several member states are already examining the option, while human rights organizations have warned of risks of rights violations and abuse during the process.
The legislation also introduces stricter measures, including home searches, extended detention periods, entry bans, and penalties for individuals deemed security threats or those who refuse to cooperate.
French Member of the European Parliament François-Xavier Bellamy told the publication: “For years, Europe sent the worst possible message: even if you had no right to stay, there was a high likelihood that nothing would happen. That era is ending. If you do not have the right to remain in Europe, you must leave.”
The initiative, however, has faced opposition from lawmakers affiliated with liberal and left-wing groups.
Melissa Camara, a representative of the Greens group, described the agreement as “a legal arsenal serving a xenophobic ideology” and criticized both offshore centers and the detention of minors.
Marta Welander, head of the International Refugee Committee, said the new measures signaled “a troubling new era.”
Welander argued that the rules would normalize migrant raids and increase the risk of people being deported to countries where they could face persecution or torture.
According to available data, the number of migrants living within the European Union reached 64.2 million in 2025. During the same period, the foreign-born population arriving from outside the bloc increased by 2.1 million people annually.
In 2010, the European Union was home to approximately 40 million migrants.
As a result, the migrant population has increased by more than 60% over the past 15 years, while migrants’ share of the EU population has risen to 14.2%.
In December last year, US President Donald Trump said Europe faced the risk of destruction because of the migration policies pursued by European countries.
Trump had previously argued that the continent was facing a wave of migration and that, as a result, Europe was “no longer the Europe it once was.”
Europe
Anthropic invites EU cybersecurity agency to access Mythos AI hacking model
Anthropic has invited the European Union to access Mythos, its powerful AI-powered hacking tool, by sending an invitation to the bloc’s cybersecurity agency.
A European Commission official said the AI company issued the formal invitation following a meeting with the Commission in San Francisco last Thursday, adding that the EU must now establish a mechanism that would allow access to the model under appropriate security safeguards.
Bloomberg reported on Monday that ENISA, the EU’s cybersecurity agency based in Athens, would be granted access to Mythos.
European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier said the Commission had held “several productive meetings with Anthropic” and “welcomes the latest developments regarding potential future access.”
Anthropic unveiled Mythos in early April and warned that the model outperformed most humans in identifying and exploiting cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
The disclosure raised concerns that the model could be used to carry out large-scale attacks against critical and sensitive systems if it fell into the hands of cyber adversaries.
European officials were unable to access the cutting-edge cybersecurity AI technology for weeks, prompting urgent calls from European lawmakers and government officials to secure access.
Cybersecurity officials also urged Europe to develop its own version of the technology.
“This latest development is extremely important in helping us gain a clear understanding of the potential risks. We should not forget that Mythos is not an isolated case and that a new wave of powerful models is entering the market,” Regnier said.
An ENISA official said the agency does not currently have active access to the model but is working to make it operational.
The Commission is developing a formal action plan to respond to powerful AI hacking tools.
According to an industry official, the Commission has indicated that it wants to publish the plan before the summer break.
-
Asia2 weeks agoIran conflict accelerates yuan adoption and record CIPS volumes in global oil trade
-
Asia2 weeks agoXi and Putin deepen partnership with call for ‘multipolar world’
-
Europe2 weeks agoFive EU states push gradual single market access for Western Balkans
-
Europe1 week agoFrench justice minister calls for three-year halt to legal immigration
-
Middle East1 week agoLeaked documents show IRGC routed Chinese military equipment through UAE
-
Middle East1 week agoIran says Hormuz transit will remain free but ships must cover operational costs
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoNATO weighs Hormuz security mission if Iran blockade remains in place by July
-
Europe2 weeks agoGermany initiates diplomatic contact with France’s National Rally ahead of presidential election
