Europe
Europe’s ‘illiberal democracies” issue
Andrzej Duda, president of Poland’s Law and Justice Party (PiS), made a very harsh statement on the long-debated issue of releasing funds for covid recovery. Duda said he would no longer respond to proposals from the European Commission, taking all the necessary steps for the relevant fund. The Polish leader went even further, claiming that a group of “left-wing liberal” politicians in Brussels wanted a government change in the country.
The recovery fund that Brussels had allocated to Poland was around 36 billion euros, but this money had not been in Warsaw’s hands for a long time on the grounds that it had not follow “supremacy of law”. Poland’s plan was finally approved; European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen again made the provision of money conditional on “reform”.
In November last year, the European Commission froze 100m euros in EU funding to Poland over Warsaw’s refusal to comply with a decision by the EU to end the activities of the Polish Disciplinary Service. On 15 July, the PİS government made amendments to the law on the Supreme Court and terminated the running of the disciplinary board. Established in 2017, the Disciplinary Chamber was presented by the government as a judicial reform. The chamber was viewed by the opposition and the EU as a way of intimidating independent judges that go against the government. The agency had no legal identity, which was approved by both the Polish Constitutional Court and the ECHR. The EU had even started fining Poland 1m euros per day for the chamber. Upon this, Duda decided to close the chamber and establish the “Professional Chamber of Responsibility”. According to the opponents, it was just a variation of the same thing.
Poland as leader of the ‘rebellion‘ against Brussels
Founded in the early 2000s, Poland’s ruling party, PİS, has become one of the most important representatives of the political position in Europe, now called “right-wing populist”, over the years. At first, it was thought that there would be a standard “Christian Democrat” party, and it was also on good terms with the Catholic Church. After the election victory in 2015, criticism rose both inside and outside: PİS was attacking Poland’s “democratic institutions”, acting against the rule of law, interfering with the Constitutional Court, restricting human rights and freedoms and increasing the country’s debt. In summary, the PİS administration was in contradiction with the “Round Table Talks” that emerged in the 1980s and that governments generally attuned with after the dissolution of socialism.
What was that consensus? We can summarize it under four headings: first, democratization and decentralization; second, the “inefficiency” of the socialist economy and, as a remedy, the process of transition to a fast free-market capitalist economy in which private ownership would be central; third, -related to the second one- the acceptance of the “bitter prescription” and austerity policies under IMF and World Bank supervision; and fourth, good relations with the US in foreign policy, integration into EU mechanisms, and NATO membership were the constant principles.
Pre-PİS governments had complied unquestioningly with a harsh privatisation programme and IMF-World Bank-based neoliberal offensive policies. The reform process, initiated in 1997 following the Shock Therapy in the early 1990s, placed the neoliberal agenda and led to a serious decline in the living standards of millions of Poles.
It was under these circumstances that the march of PİS, which started with the coalition in 2005 and ended with power alone in 2015, began. PİS, who was tougher on anti-communism and Russian hostility than its predecessors, appeared before voters in the 2015 elections with the promise of deviation from neoliberal testament under the name of “economic patriotism”. In this context, in addition to reducing the power of banks and multinational companies, a “social transfer” campaign, which had not been seen since 1989, was also put forward: lowering the retirement age, financial support for families with more than one child, tax regulation and hourly minimum wage. This was accompanied by cultural policies such as objection to the law that frees gay marriages, criticism of the EU’s migration and multiculturalism policy, strengthening the nation-state system and protection of Christian values. Not to mention changing the street names that are related to communism from the period of the People’s Republic of Poland, they were such hostile as to change street names from Poland’s socialist traditions.
Indeed, Warsaw’s flag of rebellion against Brussels is marked by an ideological slur that identify with fascism, communism and the LGBT, and underlines the opposition to all of this. At this point, it should be stated that in the overthrow of the first PİS power (2005-2007), the urban-educated professional layers had a significant role, who believed that harsh neoliberalism was still beneficial to them and that they would prosper. The group consisted of people who took out a loan and bought a house, took out private health insurance to get rid of Poland’s poor health system, went to private schools or sent their children there. The eurozone crisis has crashed the hopes of these segments as well. Poland, whose economy has been growing steadily since the fall of communism, reached its peak in the 2000s, was entering the 2010s with an economic slowdown. Those who sent PİS with a tin can tied to its tail were printing two seals on its “national capitalism” in 2015.
This is the source of the tension between the EU and Poland. This is the Poland’s motivation behind the demand of $1.26 trillion in compensation from Germany due to World War II. The Polish leadership is driven by the equation “Germany equals the EU”. This situation, combined with anti-Russianism, gives Warsaw an interesting field of action: the anti-Russian Anglo-American alliance, together with the Baltic countries, assigns a special role to Poland. Moreover, Britain, which has left the EU, wants to consolidate a non-EU Eastern European alliance system that includes Poland.[1] This being the case, Poland can raise its voice against both Russia and Germany.
Raising the voice might be a bit of an understatement: PİS leader Jarosław Kaczyński said last August that there was a German-Russian plan designed to rule Europe, and that Poland did not follow it. Kaczyński argued that the Polish opposition also acted in accordance with this plan and wanted to make the country “obedient to neighbouring powers”. Whereas last year, it was him last year who caused eyebrows to raise, saying that the EU had become the “Fourth German Reich”. Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro recently went further and argued that Germany wanted a “colonial government” in Poland.
Hungary seeks reconciliation
Another “illiberal” country that an issue for Brussels is Hungary. Following his 54.13% election victory last April, Fidesz leader Viktor Orban referred to the EU headquarters, saying his victories were visible from the Moon, even from Brussels. Orban also explained who they had won the victory against: the Leftists, the bureaucrats in Brussels, George Soros, the international mainstream media, and even the President of Ukraine.
In 2014, Orban said his goal was “to build an illiberal democracy based on national institutions”. According to Orban, the 2008 global economic crisis showed that liberal democratic states were not globally competitive. The Hungarian leader said he wants to transform “welfare societies” into “employment/working societies” and previously stated that central control should increase in order to cope with energy companies and banks. Orban was struggling to get rid of “debt slavery” and not to make Hungary a “colony of the EU”. What he meant was abandoning the liberal way of looking at the world in order to put society in order.
However, it seems that Orban, who riveted his power, wants to make a fresh start with Germany. Fidesz leader Olaf Scholz, who left for Berlin in October, met with Germany’s new chancellor last year. Afterwards, although Orban described the meeting as “productive”, it was noteworthy that a joint press conference was not held.
Although it is understandable that the traffic light coalition in Germany does not want to side with Orban, it seems that both countries are now sending the message of “unity”. Hungary, like Poland, faces the threat of halting the European Commission’s pandemic recovery funds. The release of funds, which will be decided on November 19th, is of vital importance for Budapest, and it is above all to get Berlin’s approval on this matter.
Orban hoped he could find support for his own anti-sanction position in the German business world, as German industry suffered greatly due to anti-Russian sanctions. Germany is still the largest foreign investor in Hungary and the country’s main trading partner. But Orban doesn’t seem to have found what he hoped for: German industrialists didn’t like Orban, who attended a business forum in Berlin. The German industry as a whole supports anti-Russian sanctions, said Philip Hausmann, president of the German Eastern Trade Association. Hausmann also warned that the German-Hungarian partnership was in danger. According to him, the increasing “illiberal” practices of the Hungarian government were disrupting this partnership. “Whoever cooperates with us wins,” Orban said.
The latest situation in Germany, France, Italy
In the past week, it may not have been felt around here how the tension between Germany and France got to the newspapers. But the hysteria in the French press reached such a point that the country’s oldest financial newspaper, Les Echos, made the headline, “The war between France and Germany has become possible again.”
What happened? The German-French joint cabinet meeting was cancelled, with Scholz and Macron avoiding the cameras. Current contradictions are evident: rising energy prices and Germany’s unilateral subsidy decision, objection to increasing joint debt. All this is causing Paris to raise eyebrows. Moreover, Olaf Scholz’s visit to China was not welcomed by Emmanuel Macron, who reportedly offered to “give the impression that Europe is united” and the German Chancellor declined. France argues that the two countries must develop a special relationship in order to make the EU a geopolitical centre and to create a weight against the US and China. On top of that, France seems to be far behind its oldest rival economically in the last few decades.
It seems that Germany is not very much involved. Germany, which has bowed to the United States militarily and economically, also seems to have paused on joint defence projects with France. From the French point of view, the Germans think: If a European-based defense industry is to be developed, it must be a German industry under American control. Otherwise, there should be no such defense industry at all. It is clear that the two countries have different interpretations of “strategic autonomy”of the EU.
In Italy, another powerful country, the new right-wing power that has aroused “fear” in Brussels, is not thought to be that frightening. Giorgia Meloni, who met Brussels bureaucrats for the first time after his election, described the dialogue as “very sincere and very positive”. Meloni reiterated his pro-EU position on joint fight against rising energy prices and support for Ukraine against Russia. Meloni presents himself to the EU as a pragmatic, moderate and mainstream politician.
[1]. According to an Italian newspaper, the United Kingdom has for some time been eager to establish a “Commonwealth of Europe” consisting of the Baltic countries, Poland and Ukraine. Even more interestingly, according to the newspaper, Turkey will be added to it soon after the community is formed. See the news.
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.”
-
Diplomacy1 week agoSecular dress code dispute exposes deeper Türkiye-Azerbaijan strains
-
Russia2 weeks agoUS and Russia weigh energy deals and corporate return in peace talks
-
Middle East2 weeks agoUS warns Gulf allies of possible Iran strikes after midterms
-
Opinion2 weeks agoGaza exposes the myth of the “most moral army in the world”
-
Europe5 days agoEU urges citizens to prepare 72-hour survival kits for crises
-
America2 weeks agoBolsonaro reportedly leaves Brazil on jet linked to scandal-hit firm
-
Asia1 week agoChina expands Africa arms sales, displacing France and Western rivals
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoSteinmeier seeks to de-escalate German-Chinese tensions on visit
