Russian invasion of Ukraine: Causes and consequences
In order to understand the conflict in Ukraine, we must first reflect on the history of the tug-of-war between Russia and the West
The fall of the ‘Iron Curtain’ meant significant territorial losses for Russia through the detachment of republics from the former USSR, loss of resources and markets and especially the abandonment (considered humiliating for the Russian establishment and a large part of the population) of world superpower status. The 1990s, which by Western standards should have led to Russia’s democratisation, the establishment of civil liberties and a market economy, has in fact led to institutional chaos and widespread corruption. The year 1999 marked the coming to power of Vladimir Putin and his loyal KGB team, with strong popular support for a change of state affairs.
The early years of this century were marked by attempts at rapprochement between Russia and the West, through EU association projects and treaties to reduce strategic weapons and ballistic missiles.
In 2008, Russia proposed a new European Security Treaty on the principle of ‘no dividing lines’ that sought to stop NATO membership for former Soviet republics.
In 2010, Russia proposed a joint defensive perimeter for ballistic missile management that would lead to a ‘de facto’ military alliance between Russia and NATO.
All these initiatives failed amid the second wave of NATO enlargement in Eastern Europe, that included Romania and Bulgaria joining, and especially after the Bucharest Summit in 2008 as the USA and NATO announced admission plans for Ukraine and Georgia, with Putin anticipating civil strife in Ukraine as a result. Their accession was then blocked by France and Germany, with Ukraine and Georgia receiving a promise to join on an unspecified date.
The West’s lack of reaction to Russia’s demands for respect for its political sphere of influence, as well as the West’s suspicions of Russia’s neo-imperialist ambitions, together with indirect military conflict in Syria, have led to irreparable relations and escalation of a new Cold War.
Since returning as president in 2012, Putin has made significant changes in terms of military doctrine and political rhetoric, as well as concrete preparations for future armed conflicts. These have included:
- Focusing domestic and foreign policy on the idea of gaining full sovereignty, eliminating foreign influences on Russia’s domestic policy and invigorating nationalist rhetoric. The launch of the ‘Russian World’ project marks the introduction of a new concept designed to promote Russia’s national interests globally and to occupy the position of exclusive leader in its ‘space of historical domination’. Thus the ‘Russian World’ is seen as a distinct civilisation, associated with traditional Russian values, including the Eastern Slavs of Ukraine and Belarus. Defining the ‘rossiiskiy’ state nationalism meant to transform the Russian Federation into a leader and centre of attraction for the whole of Eurasia and, for the first time in modern history, Russia rejected Europe both as a mentor and as a model.
- Contesting the unipolar global order personified by the USA, by raising barriers to the promotion of democratic concepts, norms and practices according to which Western societies operate, as well as established arbitration mechanisms.
- The transformation of Russia into the centre of a large geo-economic unit called the Eurasian Economic Union strengthened by political, cultural and security components. It would be built on the foundations of the former USSR in order to free Russia from the economic pressure coming from the EU and China and to become a viable competitor to them worldwide. Including Ukraine, this supranational project would include a population of over 200 million people.
- Massive priority investments in the armament industry in order to equip the army with the newest weapons, while investments were also seen as a locomotive for the reindustrialisation of Russia.
- Redefining the West as a strong competitor, a significant rival and the source of most military risks and threats.
- The inclusion of opposition protest movements in Russia’s internal intelligence area, associated with military dangers, and their inclusion in the sphere of ‘external threats’.
- Consecration of a new type of war, called ‘hybrid war’ by perpetuating the state of war on territory of confrontation between different combatants, participation in military actions of irregular armed troops and private military companies, and indirect and asymmetric intervention in conflict regions. This new type of war has been successfully implemented by Moscow in Crimea and Donbas.
- The inclusion of the legitimacy of a military response to a “military aggression on its territory, either of an aggression against its allies, or to Russian citizens living outside the Russian Federation”.
Once this ideological, doctrinal and military package was created, the opportunities for its implementation were not long in coming.
In 2009, the EU launched the Eastern Partnership project with six countries in the former Soviet bloc: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.
The year 2013 marked the competition between the EU and Russia to lure the Ukraine into one of two major projects: the European Union or the Eurasian Economic Union promoted by Moscow. Under pressure from Moscow, the then Ukrainian president suspended negotiations with the EU, but what the Russian media claimed was a major victory for Russia’s grand Eurasian plan was called into question by the Kyiv revolution known as the Euromaidan. Under the spectre of the return to power of the representatives of the pro-Western Orange Revolution, the centrifugal movement of the former Soviet republics and thus the collapse of all his revisionist and expansionist plans, Putin made the decision to annex Crimea in March 2014.
Taken by surprise, Western countries have had a very pale reaction. Sanctions have been unconvincing, especially because of the significant economic interests of some European countries towards Russia. However, these sanctions have led to an increase in popular support in Russia for Putin, with sanctions being interpreted as a Western attack on the Russians. This extremely easy victory validated Putin’s strategies and assessments as well as the theory of the new hybrid war.
However, Ukraine’s long-awaited destabilisation plan failed and the Russian-speaking population of eastern Ukraine did not react to Putin’s plans to challenge power in Kyiv and to federalise the country.As can be seen, this overestimation was repeated in February 2022, with major consequences to the detriment of the invaders.
Instead, the Crimean ‘victory’ brought to the fore a new Putin project called Novorossiya (New Russia). This new Russia would include the eastern and southern provinces of Ukraine from Kharkov to Odessa, areas supposedly populated mostly by ethnic Russians favourable to Moscow’s plans. At the same time, it revealed to the whole world the mechanism by which Russia intends to impose a New World Order, namely through territorial conquests and the reconfiguration of borders.
The invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 is therefore a clear consequence of Russia’s new military doctrine and Putin’s imperialist plans. Although all these plans were public, the West did not react and did not prepare a coherent response until the annexation of Crimea. However, it is difficult to take seriously the ambitions of a country whose GDP is almost as much as Spain’s, crushed by corruption, with a poorly equipped army and an economy dependent almost exclusively on the West and the export of raw materials, but still the owner of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
Zelensky delivers insult to Greek and Cypriot parliaments – A statement by MeRA25 in Greece
Zelensky insulted Greece and Cyprus by giving a platform to neo-Nazis in front of parliament while refusing to condemn Turkey’s 1974 invasion of the Mediterranean island
[Διαβάστε αυτή τη δήλωση στα ελληνικά εδώ]Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky dealt a huge blow to his attempts of getting the support of the Greek and Cypriot governments on Thursday, first by broadcasting messages from the neo-Nazi Azov battalion and then by refusing to condemn the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
Unfortunately, his attitude proved that he is not only no friend of the Greek and Cypriot people, but that he undermines the heroic resistance of the Ukrainian people.
By bringing Nazis into the video call in front of the Greek parliament to speak on behalf of his government and by failing to make any comment on the Cyprus issue, he insulted the parliaments and the peoples of our countries.
When the House Speaker brought up the issue of the Turkish invasion and continued occupation of Cyprus, his connection supposedly cut off due to ‘technical reasons’.
With his performance on Thursday, Zelensky handed a gift to Vladimir Putin by playing the role of one of his “useful idiots”, lending credence to the Russian president’s claim to need to “denazify” Ukraine. The Ukrainian president, in his address to the Greek Parliament, provided a platform to two neo-Nazis who supposedly represent the resistance of the Ukrainian people and indeed of the Greek homogeneity, thus undermining his country’s noble battle against Russia’s invasion.
In the land of martyred villages such as Kalavryta, Distomo and Kandanos at the hands of Nazis, Zelensky delivered a massive insult the Greek parliament and its people by broadcasting speeches from members of a neo-Nazi battalion.
DiEM25 Coordinating Collective’s position on French presidential election first round
As France gets set for the first round of its presidential election, the DiEM25 Coordinating Collective explains why it is compelled to back Jean-Luc Mélenchon despite his flaws
[Lisez ce communiqué en français ici]French voters will head to the polls this Sunday for the first round of the country’s presidential election, with no less than seven of the candidates representing various factions of the Left. Meanwhile, Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen maintain a firm hold on the political scene, just as they did five years ago. This election is a perfect example of the current state of the Left across Europe: fragmented and struggling to challenge both the Establishment and an emerging far-right.
In this bleak scenario, many progressives in France may feel dismayed enough not to support any candidate. But given that polls indicate Jean-Luc Mélenchon has a low yet significant chance of finishing ahead of Le Pen – defeating the far-right and providing a Left alternative to Macron in the runoff round – DiEM25’s Coordinating Collective feels compelled to offer its critical support for Mélenchon this Sunday.
There are many points in Mélenchon’s programme that go against what DiEM25 stands for, and he has done much to sow divisions on the Left and turn voters away from progressive politics – mistakes that hurt his own chances, as well as those of other candidates. But in such moments, we must be able to overcome our differences and unite against the Establishment and the far-right that feeds off of it.
Whatever the result of this election, the Left in France and in Europe cannot remain in its current state. Only through a renewed, progressive, forward-facing Left that can reignite people’s belief in our values and our ability to implement them through policies can we reinvigorate our chances of achieving real power. Building that alternative is what DiEM25 set out to do, and that work needs to be picked up again in France. In the coming weeks and months, as we assess the fallout of this election, our movement will get to work.
Photo credit: Getty Images
Same tactics, same outcome: Orbán’s latest victory should raise alarm for EU
From sweetening voters with cash to amplifying anti-EU rhetoric, Orbán used a familiar strategy to reaffirm power, but the EU needs to respond to its latest wake up call.
The Fidesz party picked up a convincing victory in the Hungarian parliamentary elections on April 3, handing its leader and prime minister, Viktor Orbán, a fourth consecutive term in office.
Even though there was pre-election optimism of the opposition alliance overcoming Fidesz, the ruling party ended up winning with 53 percent of the vote in what was its biggest victory since 2010, and hands Orbán 135 of the 199 seats in parliament.
However, this victory for Fidesz has not gone without raising alarm and, for some, reinforces the notion that Hungarian elections are decided ahead of election day.
There have been claims of electoral fraud carried out in regard to mail-in votes due to a suspicious 90 percent of such ballots going in favour of Fidesz, but the major cause for concern is the gerrymandering that has been happening for over ten years in Hungary.
Bar a significant change, Fidesz will continue to come out victorious in Hungary, given the disproportionate power it reaps. After all, the 53 percent of the vote that Fidesz won has given them 68 percent of the seats in parliament.
Orbán’s sweeteners
Certain practices in the build-up to the election have been questionable. Within one month of the vote, the Fidesz party issued cash payments to households totalling around three percent of the GDP.
On top of that, tax refunds were handed to 1.9 million workers, an extra month of benefits was given to 2.5 million pensioners and large bonuses awarded to 70,000 members of the police and armed forces.
Feeding off Brussels
“We won a victory so big that you can see it from the moon, and you can certainly see it from Brussels,” Orbán said during his victory speech.
This type of anti-European Union rhetoric has been a cornerstone of Orbán and Fidesz’s success for numerous years, but that doesn’t mean the EU has no responsibility in this, as it continues to ignore the genuine needs and concerns of the Hungarians who have to resort to voting for the ruling party.
Opposing Orbán cannot be as simple as taking the opposite stance, but rather opposition needs to critically engage with the talking points that lead voters to Fidesz in the first place.
Nothing helps super-boost a leader more than having Brussels oppose them and while Orbán continues to feed off the European boogieman concept, the EU resorts to its usual smear tactics, incapable of creating an identity and presence in everyday people’s lives.
Mainstream political engagement is doomed to fail, as Orbán has created a perfectly rigged pseudo-democracy which will perpetuate his rule.
Great Firewall of Europe forming under Russia pretext
The Ukraine war is being used as a pretext for EU governments to block political content, which is certain to be exploited for wider reaching censorship.
It is time. We must talk about censorship. Some readers might groan as, for the past decade, cries of “they are censoring me” have usually come from right-wing millionaires with huge audiences, taking offense at the few platforms that don’t want them.
For them, being given a stage feels like a birth right and, by invoking “censorship”, millionaires are trying to present themselves as the underdogs while the real underdogs, including many anti-capitalist, indigenous and feminist voices, will never be offered such a stage in the first place. The same goes for other finite resources like space in newspapers, magazines, TV or radio slots.
In some ways, the internet has appeared as a great equaliser. Compared to getting invited to speak at an event, or to write an article for a big newspaper, or to appear on TV, the entry requirements for publishing a blog article, a podcast or a video are extremely low and don’t depend on knowing someone who knows someone. Moreover, unlike theatres, newspapers or TV, the internet has infinite space; it is not a zero-sum game, nobody’s contribution needs to be rejected in order to make space for others’ contributions. And this content is more universally accessible than pre-internet content.
That makes it all the more worrisome when somebody somewhere decides that another person’s online political content has to go. In China, there is a Great Firewall that prevents its people from encountering websites that might educate them about events like the Tian’anmen Square massacre or other political content that the government doesn’t want people to see. When a Chinese person opens this kind of link, they see a “this site cannot be reached” message, as if there was something wrong with the site, rather than something wrong with their internet.
I strongly fear that this is another case of national governments meeting too much resistance to their laws on the national level and implementing them via the backdoor of European rules.
In Europe, the situation varies from country to country, but many countries force their internet providers to block either access to file-sharing/illegal streaming sites, child pornography sites, or both. As far as I know, no Western European country blocks access to political websites. This goes even for content that is very unpopular with governments, such as Wikileaks. The Establishment hates that Julian Assange exposed their crimes. They are trying to torture him to death as we speak. But they have not dared to restrict the content. Anyone can go to Wikileaks.org and read the material there. There has been no Great Firewall.
Until the war in Ukraine. This war was used as a pretext for EU governments to see if they can get away with blocking political content. They legislated that, just like in China, European internet providers simply must not serve certain political websites. Did they succeed? Just try to access the websites of Russia Today or Sputnik. If you’re in, let’s say, South America, these pages will load without a hitch. In the EU, you’ll hit a void.
I strongly fear that this is another case of national governments meeting too much resistance to their laws on the national level and implementing them via the backdoor of European rules. Political censorship of the web at the European level – even if it‘s just affecting a few fake news-riddled websites for now – means that we have entered a new era and free press is no longer a given in Europe (if anyone had any doubt after how they treated Assange). This is the time for everyone to learn about uncensored DNS servers, learn how to use a VPN, and teach their parents and friends how to do so.
Apart from the threat of a Great Firewall, another danger to free press and free speech are the internet monopolies. Unlike blogs, which can easily be transferred, there is no real replacement for having one’s content on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Google or Spotify. Nothing that comes close to offering the same broad audience. So when these sites use their monopoly power in order to take down political content they don’t like, it is corporate censorship and usually devastating for the people affected. Many Western governments have good connections to these sites and have tried to legislate what kind of content is permissible and what isn’t. In some cases, courts have upheld people’s right to publish critical messages on these sites, but of course most take-downs of political content never wind up in court. Fighting internet monopolies is also a crucial step in ensuring that we will be able to speak our mind tomorrow.
This war was used as a pretext for EU governments to see if they can get away with blocking political content.
Finally, we have seen something even more worrying in Germany: a few days ago, the German Ministry of the Interior announced that anyone who speaks approvingly about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (on the pretext of protecting minorities there) may be liable to prosecution in Germany. This rule does not apply to those who speak approvingly of the United States‘ invasion of Iraq, or NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia, or any other recent conflict for that matter, most of which used the pretext of protecting minorities. And maybe it is stupid to ever believe this pretext, no matter who uses it, but if it was illegal to say anything stupid, we’d all spend our entire lives in prison. This is simply censorship of a minority political view.
The era where woke activism was the greatest ‘censor’ in the West has come to an end. We are seeing the beginnings of a harsh, old-style state censorship now, facilitating the division of the world not into different camps but into different realities. The internet must resist.
Hungarian parliamentary election: A possible end to the Orbán era?
There is a lot at stake in the upcoming Hungarian parliamentary election, both for the nation itself and the European Union as a whole. Csenge Schőnviszky and Máté Turi-Mészáros break down the main talking points.
Given the election campaign narratives and questions, one could easily assume that Hungary has gone back in time to the 1950s.
Peace or war? East or West? The EU or Russia? A few days before the parliamentary elections, these campaign questions can be found across the country – in political debates, on billboards and in the media.
Hungary faces parliamentary elections on April 3 but it is not just the election of the national assembly people have to decide on. The election also happens to coincide with a national referendum concerning LGBTQ rights and “child protection issues”.
There are two major forces that could take the lead; the other parties only add up to a fraction of the votes (5-6 percent according to most polls.
On one side stands the Fidesz-KDNP coalition – the ruling conservative party in Hungary since 2010, led by Viktor Orbán. It has two-thirds of the parliament on its side, which means that, according to the constitution, Fidesz-KDNP is able to vote and pass a bill without the voting support of the opposition parties. Nevertheless, the abuse of this legislative power by the leading party members became so visible and severe that, according to (Transparency International, 2022) Hungary is the second most corrupt country in the EU.
Something that is new compared to the previous Hungarian elections is that, on the other side, stands a united opposition looking to challenge Fidesz’s majority. The opposition coalition includes six parties (LMP, MSZP-P, DK, Jobbik and Momentum) and one movement (MMM) led by Péter Márki-Zay, who is the prime minister candidate supported by the coalition.
The united opposition gives the impression of a ragtag team; many of its member parties have drastically different political values and views. It is defined mainly by a multitude of compromises. Also notable is that the candidate these mostly left-leaning, liberal parties stand behind is the semi-conservative mayor of Hódmezővásárhely, who has won his office as a quasi-independent runner.
After the failure of the national elections in 2018, it was unequivocal for the opposition parties that they could not defeat the ruling party without a coalition. Thus in 2018, at the municipal elections, opposition parties nominated a common candidate in most areas and as a result, the new mayor of Budapest, Gergely Karácsony, is an oppositionist. Riding on this success, the united opposition seeks to repeat this feat.
Most polls lean towards Fidesz, with a 2-3 percent lead against the opposition coalition. The opposition argues that such polls are either not to be trusted or just not relevant because there will be a significant number of new young voters among whom the opposition is much more popular than Fidesz-KDNP. Also, the opposition candidate Márki-Zay often refers to the fact that he has never won an election in which he was the favoured one by the polls.
What is essential here regarding the outcome is whether the opposition wins, or at least stops, Fidesz from gaining a 2/3 lead in the assembly with constitutional power again.
The opposition’s pre-election in which they chose their common candidate is considered a success; all the parties united behind Péter Márki-Zay, who ran as an outsider from the political sphere. The race was close between the final three candidates, Klára Dobrev, Gergely Karácsony and Márki-Zay, but Karácsony resigned in favour of Márki-Zay. The main reason for this is that Márki-Zay, as a more conservative and in essence independent candidate, would be more favourable for disenchanted ex-Fidesz voters and the undecided voters.
Each party had their own campaign until then, but it was hard to clearly communicate the shared goals in the joint opposition campaign. Due to this, much of the opposition’s campaign didn’t really get through to the public the way they intended. The complexity of the program declined into a smear campaign somewhat similar to Fideszs’.
Fidesz’s grasp on ruling and keeping voters at bay is characterised by making up grand narratives and electing public enemies, thus forcing and shaping a central discourse by which they can prevail and do most of their governmental acting. After the migration crisis in 2015, Fidesz used populist tools to strengthen the illiberal state by using dichotomous discourse that divided the society – ‘us’ the Hungarian nation and ‘the other’ – refugees, György Soros and the EU.
Using the advantages of the government’s dominance in the media, the anti-immigration campaign raised fear and xenophobia among Hungarian citizens. They reached their goal when they won the election in 2018 with a parliamentary majority. The same narrative can be observed in 2022, with a slight change – ‘us’ became their voters and ‘the other’ are the left-wing voters and their leader Ferenc Gyurcsány, who was the prime minister of Hungary between 2004-2009 (who resigned after a great scandal).
However, when Russia attacked Ukraine at the end of February, the campaign narrative changed on both sides. It is a well-known fact that the Orbán-government has a good foreign and economic relationship with Russia. Thus the ruling party had to decide where to stand – support the sanctions against Russia by the EU or stand up for the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin.
Orbán had chosen to do both; although he approved the economic sanctions, he stated that no NATO weapons to support Ukraine could cross Hungary, as the country’s most important goal is to stay out of the war and have peace. Even though Orbán stands up for peace now, since 2015 governmental communication has praised “war against Brussels and the EU” as the main message. Ever since the start of the conflict, Fidesz has tried to downplay the good Russian relations they have been proud of until now. Orbán carries on with awkward swing politics between Russia and the West.
The referendum has been called by Fidesz primarily due to pressure from the EU over discriminatory national legislation regarding LGBTQ rights. Furthermore, it has grown to serve as a new tool and focus for the current narrative that Fidesz is building to tighten its grip on a significant voter base that is opposed to the ‘Western’ wave of thought on equality, liberalisation of rights, and persuadable by denouncing narratives based on fear and uncertainty.
Several questions start with the following: “There are those who think (…), do you agree with them?” or “Do you agree with the Hungarian government (…)?”
The way the questions were asked was directional and tried to play on emotions. Unquestionably, the referendum aims to manipulate the population and allow the government to transmit the legislation as the people desire.
The referendum’s theme has provoked widespread resentment among citizens, NGOs, and even celebrities who are unregistered Fidesz voters, prompting a campaign to get people to vote invalidly.
For most young voters, the choice comes down to voting either strategically with compromise on the united opposition to overthrow Fidesz or to vote based on principles for an unlikely candidate. Either supporting a mixed opposition with which many of us have ambivalent feelings or voting on MKKP.
This small party that started as a joke, a satirical critic of contemporary Hungarian politics, has now become a reliable party with many activists and a relevant voter base, a choice for the voters dissatisfied with other options and current national politics. Whenever they happen to win a position, their practice is to put an objective professional in place to fulfil their duties.
At stake is democracy in Hungary, democratic politics in central Europe, and Hungary’s drifting relations with the EU. This is one of the most consequential elections in Europe, mainly because Orbán has been consistently undermining the rule of law, freedom of the media, and fundamental EU values and rights. The success of such tendencies – populist, anti-democratic right-winger ideologies – could pose an existential crisis for the entire EU down the road.
Fidesz has been keen on using eurosceptic rhetoric while utilising funds from EU sources for their projects, successes and interests. Even though more and more people start to question the inconsistencies of the Fidesz narrative, that doesn’t change the fact that the damage has already been done; much of the distrust towards Europe has been cemented into a major part of public opinion.
The radical polarisation of Hungarians makes it unlikely that a significant number of Fidesz voters would turn to the opposition side and vice versa for the opposition. Hence, the main question is how the undecided voters will act. Can Márki-Zay shift the tide?
Whatever the outcome may be, the next four years of governing won’t be easy for the winner; the country faces stiff challenges regarding the COVID or post-COVID situation, the Ukrainian conflict, a possible recession and the already significant inflation and debt.
Resistance against fascist rhetoric begins at home – A speech by Gabrielle Fradin
DiEM25 activist Gabrielle Fradin gave an impassioned speech about the normalisation of far-right rhetoric that can be witnessed in seemingly innocent everyday situations and conversations, before sharing her views on what can be done to turn the tide.
Gabrielle’s speech:
Dear comrades, friends and fellow activists. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share with you some reflections of mine about the political times we are navigating right now.
Let me begin with a personal anecdote on the normalisation of far-right rhetoric. This story is about someone – let’s call him John.
John is lovely to be around. He’s also, despite his rather privileged position in society, quite reflective and very aware of racism, sexism and the overall harms of neoliberalism.
For example, he’s shown great support to all the housing protests happening across the country. In sum, he is what we could call a ‘left-wing progressive’. Last month, I had dinner with him and we started to talk about migration – I obviously told him I was in favour of open borders and free movement for all because, let’s be clear: f*** their borders.
To this he replied that this is a completely utopian position and that if Western Europe was to open all its borders, we would be swamped in waves of refugees arriving from the Global South.
I was speechless. I could not believe it. How could he repeat such right-wing propaganda? How could he repeat this xenophobic and racist lie straight out of the far right whose only goal is to instil fear among the people? The fact that John repeats it is scary.
Fascist rhetoric is infiltrating society at a dangerous rate. We need to realise that such rhetoric is not just perpetrated by a fringe neo-Nazi group, it has become a normal and acceptable position to have. This is dangerous and we need to actively go against this trend.
Now our society has allowed racism to reach a hegemonic position. It is a normal part of our institutions. When I talk about this, I, of course, think of the Toeslaggenaffaire. Tens of thousands people of colour were unjustly harmed because of who they were, and yet, to this day, there have been NO prosecutions, NO accountability, NO truth.
To top it off, the obviously racist minister in charge of the Belastingdienst at the time of the scandal is now the minister of foreign affairs.
This is an extremely dangerous precedent to set – although, let’s be real, the Dutch state has a long history of casually carrying out racist policies.
So no, racism and fascism are not a thing of the past, they are real, grounded in the very essence of our current society and their poisonous tentacles are growing every day. Now we all know what happens next – you’ve instilled fear into society, the fear of the other – then you exploit it for your own political ends.
Organising for change
To this, we need to answer by showing and living the alternative.
Our resistance begins at home. Our resistance begins by unconditionally opening our doors, hearts and minds to all who suffer no matter who they are or where they come from. We need to strive for mutual aid. We need to create interdependence over their competition. We need to organise to increase our power and influence. The ills that we see, the impunity that we witness are all reflective of our level of influence. We need to reverse the power dynamics.
To achieve this we need to get involved in the political arena that is available to us – be it on the streets during demonstrations, at the ballot box during elections or as part of community centres and political assemblies. But we also need to create our own political alternatives based on radically democratic and just institutions. We have to embody this change to show others the alternative we carry. Because change is possible.
Actually, change is already happening – from the Rojava revolution to the Zapatistas in Chiapas, these people are already paving the way. They are pushing their population to be politicised, and involved in decision-making, away from neoliberal alienation. They help build and sustain a vibrant and politically fierce civil society, the most robust bastion against the rise of fascism.
Inspired by such examples, this is exactly what we’re trying to achieve in our movement, DiEM25, where people have extensive oversight on the movements work and electoral parties.
Now, what do all these examples have in common? People decided to unite. Simply. Despite their ideological differences, they came together.
Conclusion
In fact, when I wrote these words, it reminded me of a French folk song about freedom (Le Pieu, by Marc Robine). The song is based on an allegory. We, the people, are all tied to this pole by a rope that prevents us from being free. It goes on to say that if I, alone, pull on the rope, the pole will stand still, not moving one inch. Only if you come by my side and pull with me can we make the pole fall and free ourselves.
We all need to come together and pull as much as we came on this metaphorical rope to liberate ourselves as a united front. To free ourselves, we need to collaborate, to grow our power and resistance together towards the liberation of all. Our differences should not stop us from showing a united front against hate, discrimination, racism and fascism. Thank you.
Gabrielle’s speech was co-written by DiEM25 policy coordinator Amir Kiyaei.
Gas is not green
The inclusion of gas in the EU sustainable investment taxonomy is incompatible with its own goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.
The European Union’s labelling of fossil gas as ‘sustainable’ undermines its own goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, goes against the advice from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and exposes households to energy shortages, rising costs of living and economic instability.
Any inclusion of fossil gas in the sustainable investment taxonomy will only serve to embed the status quo, rather than deliver the radical action that is needed to truly transform our economies, and the energy systems upon which they depend, and reach the critical goal of keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees.
Around 25 times more dangerous than carbon dioxide
Natural gas used for energy and heating is mostly methane, one of the most dangerous greenhouse gases that cause global warming – approximately 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide when it comes to trapping heat in the atmosphere. While fossil gas emits less than coal in terms of the emissions caused per kilowatt hour of energy generated, it’s still one of the big three fossil fuels driving climate change that we need to stop using in order to cut emissions.
And that’s in a theoretical ‘best-case’ scenario. What these figures don’t take into account is the huge problem of ‘fugitive emissions’, which is the methane that escapes during the drilling, extraction and transportation process and is released into the atmosphere in its unrefined and most dangerous form. Even leakage of fugitive gas emissions at low levels has a huge impact on overall greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing the supply of fossil gas raises the risk of these unaccounted methane leaks, negating any possible justification for including gas as a sustainable investment.
The EU’s labelling of this dangerous greenhouse gas as ‘sustainable’ also goes against the advice from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has determined that methane emissions must be reduced by 35 percent between 2010 and 2050 in order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement goals. The inclusion of gas in the EU sustainable investment taxonomy therefore cannot be compatible with its own goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.
Greenwashing and red flags
Fossil gas has been listed in the taxonomy, along with nuclear, as a ‘transitional’ energy. Supposedly, while we’re waiting for technological advances and increases to scale before we can power the economy totally on wind and solar, we need more gas and nuclear to fill the gaps and help us to move away from coal.
While we do urgently need to replace the 13 percent of energy in Europe still produced by burning coal, more than 20 percent of the EU’s electricity is already produced from gas. Rather than directing financial flows towards renewables and energy efficiency that could result in deep emissions cuts, the inclusion of gas in the taxonomy will funnel more investments into fossil fuels. Considering these power plants operate for decades, this will perpetuate the status quo and result in a lock-in of emissions-intensive assets.
And the gas industry is celebrating. An oil and gas lobby group in Australia, which exports about 80 million tonnes of liquid natural gas each year, has already positioned this EU taxonomy as an opportunity to open up new gas exploration in order to contribute to ‘international decarbonisation.’ When the oil and gas lobby is excited about a new ‘sustainable investment’ criteria, this is a giant red flag that greenwashing is underway.
Political interests, security risks and higher prices
The taxonomy decision is not surprising considering the interests and politics of the EU’s power players. France runs almost 60 percent of its national energy grid on nuclear energy. Germany on the other hand has spent recent decades decommissioning plants to remove nuclear power from its energy mix, and was until recently looking forward to new imports of Russian gas via the controversial Nord Stream-2 pipeline to keep powering its energy-hungry industry. If France gets nuclear, then Germany gets gas, despite protest from less powerful European countries.
Increasing investments in gas poses a major risk to Europe’s energy security. The recent invasion of Ukraine and the associated sanctions demonstrate the danger of Europe relying so heavily on gas as an energy source. Despite its stance on the new Nord-Stream 2 project, the EU has not suspended the import of gas from existing Russian pipelines – which in 2019 accounted for 41 percent of all natural gas imported into the EU. So, even now as Russia wages war in the Ukraine and the EU makes strongly-worded statements and implements economic sanctions, Russian gas is still powering German factories.
As the conflict with Russia continues in Europe, EU countries dependent on gas may face energy shortages, which will push up the cost of heating and powering homes, and of everyday goods, the impact of which will ultimately fall on households. This inflation caused by increases in energy prices may risk pushing EU national economies back into recession, increasing unemployment and potentially unleashing a new wave of austerity measures that will further hit everyday people.
Powering a truly sustainable future
The EU needs to take a bolder approach to the sustainable investment taxonomy, making polluting and emitting businesses unprofitable while driving investment into renewables and energy efficiency. The EU must also reclaim ecological transition as the responsibility of the government, rather than the private sector, and release the funds that are needed to drive the transformation to a low-carbon and low-polluting economy via green bonds and green public works, as outlined in DiEM25’s Green New Deal for Europe.
Finally, we must question the paradigm of endless and exponential economic expansion upon which the sustainable investment and ‘green growth’ narrative is based. Despite decades of rhetoric around circularity, energy efficiency and dematerialisation, global carbon emissions continue to rise. We have simply not seen the evidence that we can ‘decouple’ GDP growth from carbon emissions, natural resource use, pollution and biodiversity loss.
Without systemic and structural economic change, even the best advancements in energy efficiency and renewable energy can only do so much to prevent catastrophic global warming. If global GDP were to grow year on year at three per cent indefinitely, the amount of energy needed to power the economy would also rise exponentially, keeping us perpetually on the hamster wheel of trying to increase energy supply while keeping emissions down.
The internal logic of the capitalist system means the economy must grow for the sake of growing, or else collapse. So we are compelled to produce and consume more and more products and services, without consideration of their value or purpose, nor of their impact on people and the planet. Whether powered by gas, nuclear or renewables, endless GDP growth has a negligible benefit on actually improving the lives of people, instead flowing to the already wealthy and increasing inequality.
Reconceptualising energy as a public good and a fundamental right, and bringing sustainable finance and investment under democratic control, would ensure that economic activity is actually being undertaken for the long-term benefit of people, and not for the short-term profits of private investors.
We must take this opportunity not only to reject the labelling of gas as a ‘sustainable’ investment, but to rethink entirely our economic metrics and reorient our economic systems towards low-emitting, socially-valuable activity that provides decent jobs and real development outcomes, rather than adding more zeros to the bank accounts of the extremely wealthy.
Add your name to the petition calling on European Members of Parliament to vote down the inclusion of gas as ‘sustainable’ and demand that they Don’t Paint it Green!
The real answer to our sustainable energy needs
Whether wind, solar, gas or nuclear, incentivising private finance is not going to solve climate change. The latest furore over EU sustainability labels misses the point. We need more sustainable public investment and less harmful private investments in order to cut emissions and build a truly sustainable future.
The European Union aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 percent by 2030 and become climate neutral by 2050. It’s going to take a huge amount of investment in green projects and renewable energy if these targets are to be achieved.
The ‘EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Investments’ is supposed to contribute to this. The idea is that clear labels showing which projects and activities are ‘sustainable,’ along with regulatory incentives to send private finance in this direction, will ‘unleash a green investment wave’ across Europe. Investors will pour money into renewable energy and sustainable projects, greenhouse gas emissions will plummet, and Europe will have done its part to avoid climate catastrophe.
Which is why a recent decision by the European Commission to include nuclear energy and fossil gas in its new list of sustainable investments is causing consternation amongst environmental groups and investors alike, who fear that this ‘greenwashed’ label is going to redirect money away from renewable energies like solar and wind and create confusion in financial markets.
Letting the market lead us to sustainability
While there are important debates to be had on the merits and drawbacks of the different potential energy sources necessary to keep global warming well below two degrees, the focus on which companies get a green tick from the EU is a distraction from more important questions.
The real problem with the EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Investments is that it’s part of a broader EU strategy and prevailing worldview that sees solving climate change as dependent on getting private finance to do the right thing, through a series of signals, subsidies, incentives and nudges.
In a capitalist economy, money follows the path of least resistance and finance flows towards where the greatest profits can be made the most easily. Regardless of what benefit this may bring to society, and without concern for the harm it may do.
This is why we are facing climate change and environmental degradation in the first place. Under extractive capitalism, our shared natural resources are privatised for personal gain. While profits from the capitalist exploitation of these resources flow to individuals, the costs from the resulting pollution, biodiversity loss and global warming are borne by communities and the state.
The fact that ‘sustainable investment’ is distinct from all other financial activity is an admission that free market capitalism and the pursuit of individual profit does not result in beneficial outcomes for society.
This taxonomy is therefore founded in a contradiction. Its existence is proof that capitalist financial markets do not serve to benefit society and frequently do the opposite. Yet it is embedded in an ideology and dependent on a belief that we should defer to capitalist financial markets to build the sustainable future we need and save us from climate change.
Green growth: Climate change as a ‘business opportunity’
The idea that capitalist free markets could save us from environmental degradation took off in the 1990s, and has since solidified around oft-repeated slogans of ‘green growth.’ Not only would protecting the environment not be bad for business, it presented a new opportunity for profit generation.
The widespread acceptance of this approach across governments was driven by the revolving door politics that blurs lines between politicians and the private sector; the influence of industry lobbyists and corporate political donations; as well as the dogmatic pursuit of GDP growth as the ultimate economic goal.
Within the ‘green growth’ narrative there is a subtext that, if capitalism can solve climate change through new sustainable business opportunities, then the role of governments should be limited to facilitating this with as little interference as possible, and a preference always for carrot over stick.
The EU Sustainable Taxonomy is one of these carrots. If companies can demonstrate that their activities fall under one of the green labels, then they can access the growing pool of funds earmarked for ‘sustainable investment’ to finance their projects, as well as get the reputational brownie points for being officially ‘sustainable’ according to the EU.
Shades of brown to green
Despite the noise around sustainable investments, it’s still dirty investments that prevail. In 2018, out of the $1.8 trillion invested globally in all aspects of the energy sector, only around $300 billion went into renewables, and the bulk of the rest went to fossil fuels where there are still greater profits to be made.
While the EU Taxonomy may have an influence on part of the private sector that is working towards making their operations more sustainable, there are still huge amounts of economic activity that is not sustainable, has no intention of becoming more sustainable and in many cases is actively damaging the environment and contributing to global warming.
To have a real impact on cutting carbon pollution and driving investment in sustainable activities, the taxonomy needs to not only identify which activities are green, but categorise all activity from most sustainable to most harmful. DiEM25’s blueprint for Europe’s just transition, the Green New Deal for Europe, puts forward an alternative proposal for what such a taxonomy would entail:
Firstly, the taxonomy must identify environmentally-destructive activities, ensuring that companies engaged in such activities face direct impacts on their finances.
Secondly, the taxonomy must look more holistically at the climate and environmental impacts of business activities; those that contribute to the transition to a low-carbon economy should not be viewed favourably if they exacerbate climate or environmental breakdown in other ways.
Thirdly, it must move away from a binary model in which the taxonomy either does or does not apply to a given activity, and instead identify degrees of greenness and brownness.
The Green New Deal for Europe paper explains that: “this will ensure that the risks and externalities of investments in non-renewables are accounted for more accurately, which can also support the accurate long-term pricing of fossil fuel assets — dramatically lowering their market value and paving the way for the orderly winding-down of fossil fuel companies.”
What DiEM25’s Green New Deal for Europe incorporates that the EU Taxonomy misses is that, until the true cost of harming the environment is internalised and starts having an impact on profitability, no amount of incentives or signals is going to stop corporations from polluting the atmosphere.
Public investment and public ownership
The huge levels of investment necessary to bring renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies to scale, and to transform our economies and bring about sustainable development, will not come from incentivising corporations.
It is public, not private, finance that is best placed to invest in research and development and long-term sustainable infrastructure, as well as to ensure these investments are directed towards a just transition that generates social returns, not just profit.
Energy must be also reconceptualised as a public good and a fundamental right. Energy and electricity infrastructure needs to be taken away from monopoly ownership for private profit, and new nationalised and democratic models of ownership developed.
DiEM25’s policy platform outlines a plan for such a Green Public Works program, financed by bonds issued by Europe’s public banks and led by the European Investment Bank.
The Green New Deal for Europe emphasises that: “by massively expanding the role of public finance, it challenges the risky, short-termist, speculative activities of global finance — while reorienting the debate towards the pursuit of public purpose, environmental sustainability and economic justice.”
We must not rely on the same system of financialised capitalism that created the environmental crisis to get us out of it.
And we must demand more from the European Union than green labels and nudges.
Don’t Paint It Green
DiEM25 has just launched its ‘Don’t Paint It Green’ campaign which fights against the greenwashing tactic of labelling nuclear energy and gas as ‘sustainable’.
Please, help us build this campaign by taking part in our actions, and donate if you can.