There is nothing beautiful about the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” It’s brutal, reckless, and dangerously short-sighted. Let’s call it what it is: an assault on the poor, a handout to billionaires, and a blueprint for social and economic unraveling.

Calling this bill dangerous isn’t alarmism, it’s vigilance. Democracy depends on seeing the long game. It’s not unpatriotic to criticize this bill, it’s unpatriotic to stay silent when fellow citizens are being thrown overboard.

This isn’t just policy, it’s destabilizing by design. History has shown us that when governments ignore growing desperation, it’s often the first step toward deeper unrest. Civil wars don’t start overnight. They begin with policies like these, which corrode trust and widen the chasm between classes.

First, let’s look at the facts, and then, let’s analyze the consequences.

The facts

1. Permanent Tax Cuts Deepen Long-Term U.S. Debt Crisis.

The bill locks in 2017-era tax cuts without funding them, adding nearly $3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. This creates long-term risks for America’s fiscal stability and future public services.

2. Social Safety Net Slashed for Millions of Low-Income Americans

New work and eligibility rules for Medicaid and food assistance will remove 17 million people from coverage. Unlike European universal models, this move sharply reduces access to health and food security.

3. Massive Expansion of Border Wall and Immigration Crackdown

Over $100 billion is allocated to border infrastructure, deportations, and detention centers. The bill also imposes punitive fees on migrants and excludes some U.S.-born children from federal benefits, deepening social divides.

4. U.S. Abandons Green Energy Incentives Amid Global Climate Emergency

The bill repeals most clean-energy tax credits, reversing gains made under the previous administration. This step weakens the U.S. position in global climate leadership at a critical time.

5. National Debt Ceiling Raised to Finance Tax Cuts and Enforcement

The debt ceiling is lifted by $5 trillion to accommodate unfunded tax cuts and enforcement spending. This reflects a growing disconnect between tax policy and fiscal responsibility in U.S. governance.

6. New Tax on Foreign Investors Marks Break from U.S. Capital Openness

The bill introduces a 20% surtax on capital gains, dividends and interests realized by foreign investors in U.S. markets, previously largely tax-exempt under longstanding international norms. This represents a major shift away from America’s traditional open-door stance toward global capital, and could deter foreign investment over time, especially in U.S. real estate and equities.

7. Targeted Tax Breaks Offer Short-Term Relief, Long-Term Uncertainty

Temporary deductions for seniors, parents, and low-wage workers may provide short-term gains, but they add to the deficit and are politically fragile. These benefits may be reversed in future administrations.

8. Reproductive Health Access Curtailed Through Funding Restrictions

Medicaid funding is blocked for clinics offering abortion-related counseling, restricting healthcare access without direct legislation. This move intensifies the national divide on reproductive rights.

9. Legal Immigrants and Their Children Excluded from Key Benefits

Even U.S.-born children of undocumented parents lose access to tax credits, while asylum seekers are denied healthcare and food support. These policies risk creating a marginalized underclass within the population.

The consequences

This bill is a direct attack on the poor, driving them toward unrest

In the United States, this bill is a declaration of war against the most vulnerable. It delivers trillions in tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy, funded by stripping away healthcare, food, and housing support for millions of low-income Americans.

Social Security and Medicare are now on the fast track to insolvency. It’s not just immoral. It’s a powder keg. According to recent estimates, over 17 million Americans, or roughly 1 in 20 citizens, stand to lose Medicaid coverage under this bill. That’s not speculation. That’s government data. These are veterans, children, and working families who will be thrown off a medical safety net many have relied on for years. These programs aren’t about creating dependency. They’re about giving people a fighting chance to stay healthy, housed, and fed, so they can participate in the economy in the first place. You don’t lift people out of poverty by kicking them off a ledge and calling it freedom.

History has shown us, again and again, that when governments abandon their poor, society breaks. From 18th century France to 20th century Russia, economic inequality and mass desperation were the spark for bloody revolutions. Sure, America isn’t 18th-century France or Tsarist Russia. But the pattern is disturbingly familiar: extreme inequality, political disenfranchisement, and a collapsing social safety net. These are not just echoes of the past, they are universal warning signs. When desperation outpaces hope, history shows us what comes next. Trump’s bill doesn’t just ignore that lesson, it walks directly into the flames. He embodies a system that rewards spectacle over substance and personal gain over public good, but unlike past leaders, he actively weaponizes these forces to consolidate power and punish opposition. He didn’t invent the fire, but he’s the one pouring gasoline on it.

Even if you’re heartless, food stamps are cheaper than soldiers guarding supermarkets. Cutting aid isn’t just cruel; it’s inefficient. The social safety net is not charity. It’s a pressure valve. Remove it, and pressure builds. Starvation, eviction, and bankruptcy aren’t abstract policy outcomes, they’re catalysts for mass unrest.

It threatens both the U.S. and global economy

The economic logic is nonexistent. The deficit will explode. US credit ratings will plunge. Borrowing will become more expensive. Inflation will rise, and sooner than people think, the government will resort to printing more money, sacrificing the dollar’s value, punishing savers, destabilizing global markets. It’s chopping the mast of your own boat to use it for firewood. For context, Moody’s already downgraded the U.S. credit outlook in 2023 citing rising deficits and political dysfunction. This bill would intensify those trends, raising the cost of government borrowing and squeezing out future public investment. It’s suicidal policy dressed in patriotic rhetoric.

While Trump grabs the spotlight, let’s be clear: this crisis didn’t begin with him. For decades, both major U.S. parties contributed to a drift toward deregulation and corporate favoritism. But what Trump has done is not simply continue the trend, it’s to tear off the brakes, rip up the road signs, and accelerate the vehicle toward a cliff. This is not just neoliberalism. It’s radical economic sabotage disguised as patriotism.

Supporters claim these tax cuts will “unleash growth” and “create jobs.” We’ve heard that before. It’s the same theory pushed by supply-side economists since the 1980s, that tax breaks for the rich eventually benefit everyone else. But the data tells a different story. After Reagan’s cuts, the richest soared ahead while wages stagnated and national debt ballooned. The 2017 Trump tax cuts followed the same script and delivered the same results: short-term boosts for corporate buybacks, not long-term gains for workers. If trickle-down worked, the working class would be drowning in prosperity by now. They’re not. Instead, most Americans are working longer hours for less, with fewer safety nets than ever. Eventually, that translates into less iPhones sold, and less profit for corporates. Utimately, that hurts bilionaires, when the boomerang flies back, hence the counter-productive aspect of such bill.

Now, Trump is doubling down, without even pretending to care.

And let’s not forget the 20% capital gains tax on foreign investors. It’s a direct economic attack on allies. This alone risks triggering a new transatlantic trade war. Nearly 40% of the US stock market is foreign-owned. By punishing non-American investors, Trump is actively undermining US corporate valuations, threatening to destabilize 45% of the global stock market. Granted, foreigners won’t flee overnight, but capital is fluid. Even a moderate withdrawal of confidence can ripple through the markets, depress valuations, and raise borrowing costs. When 40% of your stock market is foreign-owned, you don’t get to punish investors without punishing yourself.

That’s not America First. That’s America Against The World. And it drags everyone down with it.

But this isn’t just about foreign firms. American workers are tied into global supply chains, American retirement funds are invested in global markets, and American farmers and manufacturers depend on stable trade relationships. When the U.S. punishes its allies economically, it ends up punishing its own people, through job losses, shrinking 401(k)s, and rising costs at home.

It accelerates environmental and geopolitical collapse

But it’s not just domestic chaos. It’s global sabotage. The damage spills beyond US borders. Clean energy cooperation is being dismantled. European companies like Vestas, Ørsted, and Nordex, already navigating difficult markets, are losing a vital partner for the future. American retreat from climate leadership means more CO₂ in the atmosphere, more extreme weather, more global displacement. But america doesn’t live in a vacuum. Climate breakdown, economic slowdown, and energy instability don’t respect borders. The whole planet will pay the price of America’s reckless fossil-fuel relapse, backed not by science or necessity, but by lobbying dollars and short-term political gain. Trump doesn’t just gamble US future, he gambles mankind’s future.

The bill also allocates ten times more funding to immigration repression, ballooning from $10 billion to $100 billion, and pushes the Pentagon’s budget over $1 trillion for the first time in history. This isn’t about national security. It’s about building a dictator’s toolkit: surveillance, militarization, and fear. History warns us, loudly, what comes next when governments choose militarism over welfare.

Conclusion

This bill is not governance. It’s vandalism at a national scale:

• Economically, it sacrifices long-term stability for short-term greed, setting the stage for violent backlash.
• Geopolitically, it isolates the United States, attack allies, rewards enemies and destabilizes markets.
• Environmentally, it dooms the next generation for the benefit of oil barons and billionaire shareholders.

Calling this bill beautiful is either a lie or the smug smirk of someone cashing in on the collapse.

Let’s be clear: Trump is hijacking the US. He’s weaponizing policy against his own people, pushing fragile systems closer to breaking point. History tells us what happens when leaders gamble with desperation and armageddon economics.

If this continues unchecked, the US will not just face discontent, it will face disintegration. And the world will pay the price.

This is not fatalism. It’s a call to vigilance. Collapse is not inevitable, but it becomes more likely when we treat warning signs as overreactions. This bill is not just a policy error. It’s a flashing red light. And the most patriotic response is not silence. It’s action.

In an age where truth is under siege and democracy teeters under the weight of manipulated narratives, one of the greatest threats to freedom isn’t found in a government building or foreign battlefield, but inside the algorithms of Meta.

Earlier this month, Meta, the parent company of Facebook, quietly notified users of a sweeping policy: it will now use your public posts, photos, captions, and comments to train its generative AI systems, including Meta AI and their powerful new LLaMA 4 model. Most users likely skimmed past the notification, unaware that their online lives were about to become training fuel for artificial intelligence models capable of spreading misinformation faster and more persuasively than any propaganda machine in history.

This isn’t a tech story. It’s a democracy story. And it should terrify every citizen who values truth, agency, and freedom.

The Weaponization of Personal Expression

Meta’s policy effectively allows it to turn your everyday expressions, like your humor, grief, joy, anger, political opinions, and cultural references, into data points for machines that can simulate human language with chilling accuracy. The company assures us that only “public” information will be used, but in an age of digital permanence, what is truly private anymore?

Worse still, Meta continues this data extraction even if you object. If someone else mentions you, tags you, or shares an image of you, you’re still swept into the training set. This isn’t consent. It’s coercion by design.

But the deeper problem is what these models are being trained to do.

AI as a Megaphone for Authoritarian Propaganda

In my research paper on LLMs and their suceptibility to disinformation, Meta’s LLaMA 4 ranked worst among leading AI models at identifying and removing Russian propaganda. In testing, the model repeatedly accepted falsehoods pushed by Kremlin disinformation campaigns as fact, from lies about Ukraine’s sovereignty to conspiracy theories about Western governments.

This isn’t a bug. It’s a crisis.

AI systems trained on massive pools of unfiltered public data, riddled with falsehoods, conspiracies, and extremist rhetoric, begin to mirror the digital noise of our information landscape. And when those systems become tools in the hands of powerful actors, whether rogue states, political operatives, or attention-hungry influencers, they don’t correct the record. They amplify the chaos.

The implications for liberal democracies are existential. Propaganda no longer needs to be broadcast in broken English from fringe websites. It can now emerge in perfect, empathetic, believable language, crafted by AI, shaped by your data, and targeted to your vulnerabilities.

Psychological Profiling at Scale

Perhaps most disturbing is the emergence of psychological profiling as an engine of AI training. Every comment, like, and caption is a thread in the tapestry of your digital identity. These threads are now being harvested to train systems that understand not just what people say, but how they think.

What makes you angry. What scares you. What keeps you scrolling.

This data, your data, is shaping models that can craft emotionally charged narratives, simulate convincing personalities, and deliver tailored content engineered to trigger emotional reactions and override critical thinking.

The same tools used to sell you sneakers or streaming services can now be used to erode your belief in elections, institutions, and each other. In the wrong hands, this isn’t marketing. It’s psy-ops.

The Collapse of Consent and Accountability

Meta claims you have the right to object. But this “opt-out” system is a façade. It assumes users have the time, awareness, and understanding to navigate an intentionally opaque process. Most won’t. And even if they do, the protection is weak.

If you appear in a public photo? Still used. Mentioned in a friend’s post? Still used. Tagged in a meme? Still used.

This is surveillance capitalism at its most extractive: a system where your life is mined for value but you have no meaningful control over the results. And unlike traditional surveillance, which is hidden, this is sold as a feature.

Freedom Eroded by a Thousand Data Points

Let us be crystal clear: this is not a debate about convenience or innovation. This is a battle over whether democratic societies can survive the unchecked power of unaccountable tech giants who harvest human experience and hand the resulting weapon to anyone who can wield it.

Meta is not a neutral player. By refusing to take responsibility for the behavior of its AI, and by building systems that absorb rather than resist manipulation, it is functionally enabling the enemies of democracy, foreign and domestic.

If LLaMA 4 cannot reliably distinguish between fact and authoritarian fiction, it is not just flawed. It is dangerous.

What We Demand

1. A full moratorium on using public data for AI training without explicit opt-in consent.
2. Transparent auditing of AI outputs for susceptibility to propaganda and misinformation.
3. A public accountability framework for companies whose AI systems influence political discourse.
4. Independent oversight, not self-regulation, of how tech companies interact with democratic institutions.
5. Immediate safeguards to prevent authoritarian regimes from exploiting these tools.

That’s why we previously wrote two related articles, Critical Thinking Is Not Enough, We Need Verified Facts and We Need An Information Authority to Defend Truth.

Final Word: This Is About Survival

If this seems alarmist, good. Alarm is appropriate.

We are witnessing the construction of a psychological weapon aimed inward, built with our own words, emotions, and identities. And it is being handed to the highest bidder, whether that’s an advertiser, an algorithm, or an autocrat.

Our freedoms depend not only on what we can do, but what others can do to us. In the age of AI, that equation is changing faster than we can respond. We cannot afford to wait.

The battle for democracy will not be fought in parliaments or polling places alone. It will be fought in code, data, and algorithms. Right now, Meta is building the battlefield, and it’s doing so with your help. Whether you know it or not.

This article presents the results of my first formal research paper, crafted with great intellectual rigor and methodological discipline. While not yet peer reviewed, this work moves beyond the ordinary blog or thinkpiece; it delivers comprehensive analysis and strong evidence on a topic that goes to the heart of today’s information wars.

---

AI Is Now a Weapon and We’re Not Ready

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is not only a military assault against a sovereign democracy. It’s also a full-spectrum attack on truth itself, and every tool of technology is being dragged onto the battlefield. Artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, and especially Meta’s LLaMA 4 now stand at the front lines. These systems influence what millions believe with consequences that go far beyond the keyboard.

My research set out to answer a simple but loaded question: “Who is responsible for the war in Ukraine?” What I found: Even the most advanced AI platforms are frequently echoing dangerous narratives, distorting facts, and, most alarmingly, multiplying Russian state propaganda for a mass audience.

Stop Pretending Facebook LLaMA 4 Is Harmless

Let’s cut to the chase. One of the most disturbing findings in my study is about LLaMA 4, Meta’s open-source language model. LLaMA 4 isn’t some obscure tool, it’s everywhere, embedded in products, apps, and services, trusted by developers who think open source equals “neutral” and “safe.” This is a huge, and naïve assumption.

My analysis revealed LLaMA 4 to be the single most misleading mainstream model on the Ukraine war. It systematically deflects Russian responsibility, spreads false equivalence, and recycles Kremlin disinformation. Its bias is not some fringe quirk; it’s hardwired and, given the model’s influence, it is a disaster for anyone who cares about democracy and factual integrity.

What’s worse, this is a radical step backwards. Previous LLaMA generations didn’t display such pro-Kremlin bias. So the problem is not only here and now, it is growing and multiplying with every download. The era of “open source” as a synonym for “trustworthy” is officially over.

A Method Built for Truth

To get this data, I didn’t just eyeball a few chatbot answers. I used a five-factor framework that draws from communication science, propaganda studies, and psychological research on how blame and confusion are engineered. Each model was scored for whether it:

1. Parroted false Russian claims, like “NATO provoked the war” or “denazification.”
2. Deflected responsibility from Russia.
3. Buried facts in confusion.
4. Distracted with irrelevant background.
5. Minimized the crime with tepid language like “tension” instead of “invasion.”

With two independent raters, including a Ukrainian expert in propaganda, we scored leading models blind and without bias.

Winners, Losers, and Geopolitical Surprises

Let’s not sugarcoat the scoreboard.

ChatGPT-4o leads the pack, clearly and directly stating Russia’s responsibility with zero hedging. Good for OpenAI. Next comes Claude 3.7, along with Microsoft Phi 4. They’re not perfect, sometimes too careful, sometimes softening the moral clarity, but they get the essentials mostly right.

Now to the real problem children:

• Meta LLaMA 4: As already hammered home, it topped the chart for misleading answers, making it a digital super-spreader of Russian talking points.
• Mistral: Here is a French-made model. One would expect higher standards from a democracy. Yet, Mistral is neck-and-neck with LLaMA 4 for distorting narratives. This is not just disappointing, it’s reckless.
• DeepSeek: No surprises here. Made by a Chinese company, DeepSeek finishes dead last for truthfulness. Under China’s draconian censorship laws, its training is forced to align with the Chinese Communist Party line. Dishonest framing and blame-shifting are baked into the model by law.
• Grok: Here’s a twist. Given Elon Musk’s own public reputation for broadcasting conspiracy theories and retweeting pro-Kremlin content, one might expect Grok (xAI) to be another disaster. Yet, surprisingly, Grok is not the worst, though still far from good. It drifts into confusion and distraction, but doesn’t parrot the most egregious Russian lines as its open-source rivals do.

The Real Risk: AI Makes Propaganda Impossible to Escape

Why does any of this matter? Because we now live in an era where LLMs don’t just answer questions, they shape the worldviews of entire populations. If those answers are “balanced” to the point of false equivalence, if blame is blurred and moral clarity erased, then disinformation becomes routine. All it takes is an automated answer in a time of crisis, at scale.

This isn’t just some theoretical danger, it’s happening every day. The normalization of Kremlin narratives in these AI engines gives autocrats a direct line into democratic societies’ collective understanding. It makes democratic consensus impossible, weakens support for Ukraine, and sows distrust in both media and leadership.

What Must Be Done Now

Here are my demands for every AI developer, regulator, and user:

• Don’t just avoid factual errors. Call out propaganda when you see it.
• Stop hiding behind “complexity.” Name aggression and blame with moral and legal clarity, fast.
• Cut the irrelevant history. If context drowns the truth, you’re helping the aggressor.
• Don’t treat aggressors and victims as morally equal. If your model does, it is broken.

If you’re plugging in LLaMA 4, Mistral, DeepSeek, or any open-source model without checking for these failures, you’re volunteering your platform for the next information warfare campaign. This is not a small bug or a neutral technicality, it is an existential flaw, with consequences for truth and freedom everywhere.

Closing the Gap for Democracy

This work is my first official research paper, not just another article. It’s the result of months of rigorous study, deep comparison, and real intellectual honesty. I invite everyone who cares about defending liberal democracies, not just Ukraine, but the very idea of open society, to read it in full on Zenodo or OSF.

The bottom line is clear. If we believe in truth, responsibility, and democracy, we cannot afford to let artificial intelligence become another tool of the world’s worst regimes. The fight for narrative clarity is the fight for our future. And with every question asked, every model trained, that future is being rewritten.

The European Union’s recent decision to lift economic sanctions on Syria, under the pretense of “giving a chance” to Ahmed al-Sharaa, is not just naive, it’s a dangerous, historically illiterate betrayal of our values. Let us be clear: Ahmed al-Sharaa is not a reformer. He is not a peace-bringer. He is not our friend.

He is a former commander in al-Qaeda and ISIS, and the architect of massacres, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity in Syria and Iraq. To reward him with normalization and oil contracts is to whitewash blood with euros, and to repeat the exact same mistakes we made with Vladimir Putin.

We cannot afford to forget: bad morals lead to bad leaders. And the cost of such compromises isn’t abstract. It’s war. It’s oppression. It’s body bags coming home decades later from crises we funded today with cheap oil.

Ahmed al-Sharaa: From Jihadist to “President”, The Rebrand No One Should Believe

Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani, spent the last two decades climbing the ranks of the world’s most violent jihadist movements. He joined al-Qaeda in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, a group responsible for suicide bombings, executions, and torture. He later became the founder and military commander of the al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, and a key figure in Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a rebranded jihadist coalition that controls parts of northern Syria today.

Let’s be clear about what his “leadership” has looked like:

• In Qalb Loze, his fighters executed more than 20 Druze villagers in cold blood, a massacre justified by sectarian ideology.
• In Hatla, dozens of Shia civilians were slaughtered as part of a broader campaign of ethnic and religious cleansing.
• Under his command, suicide bombings targeted schools, markets, and civilian neighborhoods.
• His group funded itself with kidnappings, ransom, and extortion.

Now, this same man stands at the head of a new “transitional government” after toppling Assad, a dictator, yes, but one tyrant does not absolve another. Criminals killing each other doesn’t make either of them heroes.

The Putin Parallel: How the West Keeps Making the Same Mistake

History should have taught us this lesson already. In the year 2000, Vladimir Putin was welcomed by the West as a “strong leader” who could bring stability to post-Soviet Russia. But even then, he was deeply entrenched in the mafia, in war crimes, and in the brutal suppression of Chechnya. The warning signs were all there. We ignored them, and the consequences have spanned decades: repression, assassinations, disinformation, the invasion of Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine.

Today, we are watching the same movie, and pretending we don’t know the ending.

• Just like we propped up Putin with oil deals and political legitimacy,
• We are now shaking hands with Ahmed al-Sharaa because he’s selling us cheap gas.
• Just like we became dependent on Russian energy,
• We are now about to build the same dependency with Syria, under the rule of a man who once fought under the same flag as bin Laden.

Let us not pretend this is “realpolitik.” It’s moral cowardice dressed as strategy.

Oil: The Root of Compromise, The Fuel of Tyranny

Why do we keep cozying up to war criminals? Why do we keep sacrificing our values for deals with dictators? There is a simple answer: oil.

Our dependence on fossil fuels creates demand for corrupt regimes to survive and thrive. They have something we think we need, and we are willing to betray human rights, dignity, and the memory of genocide to keep the pumps running.

Every time we fill our cars with gasoline, we empower regimes like Putin’s Russia, like the Gulf monarchies, like Syria under al-Sharaa.

If we want to break this cycle, we must do the only thing that really ends tyranny’s cash flow: end our addiction to oil.

A Call to Action: The Moral and Strategic Imperative of Energy Transition

The solution is as clear as it is urgent: accelerate the transition to clean, renewable energy.

• Ban the sale of new gas and diesel vehicles. The faster we move to electric, the faster our geopolitical leverage returns.
• Invest in wind, solar, and storage technologies. Not just for climate, but for peace.
• End subsidies for fossil fuels and redirect them toward sustainable infrastructure.
• Build energy independence, not through deals with tyrants, but through innovation, resilience, and courage.

We cannot be held hostage by oil cartels and warlords. We cannot keep selling our morality for a barrel of crude. The stakes are too high. The parallels are too clear. And the excuses are gone.

No Deals With Devils

To the EU, the US, and every Western leader considering normalization with Ahmed al-Sharaa: you are legitimizing a terrorist warlord. You are repeating the Putin mistake. You are funding the next wave of oppression.

And to every citizen in the West: Vote for clean energy. Call out cowardice disguised as diplomacy.

Because the real path to peace does not lie through Damascus, Moscow, or Riyadh. It lies in breaking the chains of fossil fuel dependency, and in refusing to ever again trade lives for oil.

The enemy of our enemy is still our enemy. Let’s finally learn that.

India and Pakistan are once again locked in a familiar cycle of tension, marked by cross-border strikes, sharp rhetoric, and rising public anxiety. Yet despite the heated atmosphere, the conflict is widely expected to remain limited in scope and eventually de-escalate. Behind the scenes, both governments appear more interested in scoring political points at home than pursuing a full-scale war. Their actions, measured military responses and carefully crafted messaging, suggest a strategy aimed at domestic audiences rather than battlefield escalation. In this article, we explore why this crisis, while serious, is unlikely to spiral out of control, and what signals from both sides reveal about their true intentions.

The initial terrorist attack was caused by Pakistan

There are strong suspicions that the group behind the recent deadly attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, identified as the Islamic Resistance Front (IRF), operates with either the support or tacit tolerance of elements within the Pakistani state. These suspicions are not based solely on Indian claims; they reflect a broader consensus among Western intelligence analysts and international observers. The IRF is widely believed to be a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based militant group that has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and others. LeT was responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which killed over 170 people, including foreign nationals. U.S. intelligence has consistently identified LeT as maintaining ties with Pakistan’s military and its intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Although Pakistan officially bans LeT and similar groups, analysts from think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations and government assessments, such as those from the U.S. State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism, have long noted that these organizations often continue to operate under different names. Western intelligence agencies have frequently expressed concern that Pakistan uses such groups to pursue strategic interests in the disputed Kashmir region while maintaining plausible deniability. This aligns with a pattern where militant groups are not necessarily under direct government control but are allowed to function within Pakistan with minimal interference. While there is currently no public, direct evidence linking the Pakistani government to the April 2025 attack, the continued presence and activity of these groups, despite international sanctions and pressure, provides a strong basis for suspicion. In this context, many observers believe Pakistan bears at least indirect responsibility, either by failing to dismantle these networks or by quietly enabling their operations for geopolitical leverage.

The strategy of allowing militant groups to operate unofficially, while maintaining formal deniability, closely mirrors Russia’s use of hybrid warfare tactics, particularly in Ukraine and other post-Soviet states. Just as Russia has employed proxies, mercenaries, and unmarked forces to obscure direct involvement, Pakistan’s apparent tolerance of jihadist groups allows it to exert pressure on India without triggering full-scale retaliation or international condemnation.

Low risk of escalation

Despite the sharp rise in tensions following the recent terrorist attack and subsequent military responses, the likelihood of a full-scale war between India and Pakistan remains low, largely because Pakistan is in no position to sustain one. Economically, Pakistan is facing a severe crisis: inflation is high, its foreign currency reserves are dangerously low, and it remains heavily dependent on international loans, especially from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The country is already struggling to maintain essential public services, and a war would risk total economic collapse. Politically, the government is fragile, grappling with internal unrest, power struggles between civilian leaders and the military, and a deeply divided society. While a limited conflict might be used to stir nationalist unity, escalating into a broader war would be a high-risk move that Pakistan is ill-equipped to handle.

India, on the other hand, is in a stronger position both economically and militarily. Its economy is far larger and more stable, and its military has superior conventional strength, especially in air and naval power. Yet even for India, war is not a cost-free option. Open conflict would disrupt economic growth, deter foreign investment, and damage India’s image as a rising global power. That’s why, in recent years, India has favored limited, targeted strikes against militant infrastructure rather than full-scale military operations. Both nations also possess nuclear weapons, creating a powerful deterrent against all-out war. In this context, experts believe that while skirmishes and proxy violence may continue, neither country is in a position, economically or strategically, where launching a full-scale war would serve its long-term interests.

Actions on both sides suggest limited intentions

Although tensions between India and Pakistan have spiked following the recent attack in Kashmir and India’s retaliatory strikes, the actions of both countries suggest that neither side is truly seeking a full-scale war. So far, both have limited their military responses to drone strikes, cross-border shelling, and long-range attacks on selected targets, without sending troops into each other’s territory. India used kamikaze drones and air-launched weapons without crossing its soldiers over the border, while Pakistan responded in kind with aerial interceptions and artillery fire, not ground invasions. This restraint is a strong signal: when nations want war, they tend to cross red lines with more aggressive moves. The current behavior indicates both are trying to project strength without triggering uncontrolled escalation.

This pattern fits with past India-Pakistan conflicts. In 2019, after a deadly suicide bombing in Pulwama, India carried out airstrikes in Balakot (inside Pakistan) but stopped short of a ground assault. Pakistan responded with its own air strikes, and while both sides traded fire, they deliberately avoided expanding the conflict. Even during the Kargil War in 1999, the fighting was confined to a specific region along the Line of Control, and neither side invaded deeper into the other’s territory. Globally, countries that do intend to escalate, like Russia before its 2022 invasion of Ukraine or Germany before WWII, often use aggressive rhetoric or stage massive buildups with little effort to hide their intentions. In contrast, both India and Pakistan are publicly stating they do not want war, which, in diplomacy, is usually a real signal of restraint. Taken together, their cautious military actions and calming public messages suggest this crisis, while serious, is still being managed to avoid all-out war.

The Indian’s threat on water will probably not follow through

India has recently threatened to cut off water access to Pakistan by utilizing its control over the eastern tributaries of the Indus River system, specifically the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej rivers. This move would represent a significant escalation, as the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960, governs the shared use of the river system, with India responsible for the eastern rivers and Pakistan for the western ones. For Pakistan, the Indus River is vital for its agriculture, providing around 90% of the country’s irrigation water. Cutting off or diverting this water would have devastating economic and social consequences, threatening Pakistan’s food security and political stability. While India has used the threat of water disruption as leverage in past conflicts, historical patterns suggest it is unlikely to follow through with such extreme measures. The Indus Waters Treaty has long acted as a stabilizing force, and India’s previous actions, such as limited strikes and covert operations rather than full-scale warfare, show a tendency to avoid actions that could escalate uncontrollably. Disrupting water access could provoke not only severe international backlash but also destabilize the entire region, something India has historically sought to avoid. Therefore, despite the rhetoric, it is more likely that India will pursue diplomatic or limited military options instead of taking the drastic step of cutting Pakistan’s water supply.

A rhetorical battle for their domestic audiences

In the coming weeks, we can expect both India and Pakistan to engage in increasingly assertive and nationalistic rhetoric. From India’s perspective, the main points of focus will likely include framing its actions as defensive in response to Pakistan’s support of cross-border terrorism and the need to protect national security. India will emphasize its right to sovereignty, particularly regarding the Kashmir issue, and may highlight its growing military strength as evidence of its capacity to confront any threats. The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty will be presented as a necessary measure in response to Pakistan’s alleged provocative actions, and India is likely to position itself as willing to engage diplomatically, but only if Pakistan addresses its role in supporting militants. Expect strong appeals to domestic nationalism, with India portraying itself as a global power unwilling to tolerate external aggression.

On the other hand, Pakistan will frame its rhetoric around self-defense and the preservation of its sovereignty. It will likely accuse India of violating the Indus Waters Treaty and international law, positioning India’s actions as a provocative and destabilizing move that threatens the livelihoods and security of millions of Pakistanis. The water issue will be central to Pakistan’s arguments, with appeals to the humanitarian impact of any disruptions to the Indus River’s water supply, which is critical to Pakistan’s agricultural base. Pakistan will also emphasize the need for peace, presenting itself as willing to engage in dialogue while asserting its right to resist Indian actions. In terms of global alliances, Pakistan will likely appeal to Islamic solidarity and seek international mediation to highlight its plight, portraying itself as the aggrieved party in a struggle for justice and survival. Both countries will likely invoke nuclear deterrence in their rhetoric, signaling their ability to escalate matters but stopping short of full-scale war, as neither side truly wants to provoke such a scenario.

Conclusion

While the situation remains highly volatile, the most probable outcomes seem to point toward limited military engagement and diplomatic negotiations rather than all-out war. Both countries have strong incentives to avoid a full-scale conflict, especially given the nuclear deterrent and the global consequences of escalating hostilities. The water issue is significant but will likely remain a tool of diplomatic pressure, rather than leading to full-blown military action. Ultimately, international mediation and strategic restraint will play key roles in preventing this conflict from spiraling out of control.

The European Union finds itself at a historic crossroads. The continent has spent nearly €5 trillion recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic (€2T from EU, €3T at national level), is in the process of committing over €800 billion to rearmament, and has already absorbed at least €850 billion in direct and indirect costs related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as spending €111 billion on fossil fuels each year. Yet, the EU still struggles to mobilize just €400 billion to achieve a complete transition to solar energy that would permanently liberate it from fossil fuel dependency.

This isn’t just an environmental imperative. It’s an economic no-brainer.

The biggest misconception is that most analysts overestimate the cost of change by excluding nuclear energy from the equation and underestimating the long-term efficiency gains from repairable solar panels. Many ecologists struggle to reach such low-cost projections due to their counterproductive anti-nuclear stance, while many proponents of the status quo grossly inflate cost estimates because of the perceived need for batteries in the absence of nuclear energy.

But we don’t have to fall into these fallacies.

The Cost of a Full Solar Transition: Just €400 Billion

To power the EU entirely on solar energy, as an example, while maintaining existing nuclear infrastructure for grid stability and avoid the storage problem, we would need to replace both electricity generation and fossil fuel consumption across all sectors — transport, heating, and industry.

Here’s how it breaks down:

1. Energy Demand and Solar Capacity Needs

• Total EU final energy consumption: ~13,000 TWh/year
• Average solar PV output in Europe (capacity factor): ~11%
• Annual output per GW of solar: ~960 GWh/year

Required solar capacity: 13,000 TWh / 0.96 TWh per GW = ~13,500 GW

However, thanks to electrification efficiencies (e.g., electric vehicles being 3x more efficient than combustion engines, and heat pumps being 3-4x more efficient than gas boilers), we estimate a 30-40% reduction in final energy demand, bringing the total required capacity down to about 8,500 GW.

To meet that target over 30 years: 8,500 GW / 30 years = ~283 GW/year, rounded up to 307 GW/year to account for grid losses, redundancy, and seasonal storage needs.

2. Timeline and Build-Out Plan

307 GW/year must be installed, requiring a massive scale-up in manufacturing capacity.

3. Cost Breakdown

• Capital cost per GW factory (mass production): €400 million
  • This estimate is based on reported figures from recent large-scale solar manufacturing facilities in Europe and India, which include vertical integration of wafer, cell, and module production.
• Number of factories needed: 307
• Initial capital investment: €122.8 billion

Annual operating costs per factory:

• Estimated at ~€30.5 million/factory/year based on input materials (silicon, glass, aluminum), energy, labor, and maintenance. This figure draws from industrial-scale benchmarks published by Fraunhofer ISE and IEA.

307 factories x €30.5M = €9.36 billion/year

Total 30-year cost: €122.8B (setup) + €280.8B (operation) = €403.6 billion

Importantly, this does not rely on short-lifespan, mass-produced Chinese panels.

Why We Need Repairable, Long-Life Solar Panels

Today’s dominant solar panels, mostly produced in China, are optimized for low upfront cost and 25-year performance. But this short-term thinking locks us into a cycle of replacement and waste.

Repairable solar panels, with modular designs and easily replaceable components, cost roughly 2x more upfront but:

• Last 4x longer (up to 100 years with maintenance)
• Require fewer raw materials over the lifecycle
• Offer 2x better return on investment over a century

This change in approach would also end our dependency on China, which currently produces over 95% of global solar panels. Building a European solar manufacturing ecosystem would:

• Keep investment within the EU
• Strengthen industrial resilience
• Prevent China from leveraging solar dependence as an economic weapon
• Divide by 10 the quantity of wastes difficult to recycle at the end of life

The Benefits: Strategic, Economic, and Environmental

1. Energy Independence

No more dependence on Russian gas, Middle Eastern oil, or volatile fossil fuel markets.

• Consumer impact: Stabilized electricity bills, unaffected by geopolitics or fossil fuel speculation.
• National impact: Improved trade balance by slashing energy imports.

2. Permanent Low-Cost Energy

Once installed, solar panels have minimal operating costs and can last nearly a century.

• Consumer impact: Homeowners and renters enjoy ultra-low energy costs after payback.
• Business impact: Industries gain a global edge from predictable, affordable energy.

3. 1.5 million Jobs Creation

Solar value chains support a wide variety of jobs: mining, manufacturing, engineering, logistics, installation, maintenance.

• Ballpark estimate: Around 1.5 million jobs could be created or supported EU-wide, based on IRENA’s data that show about 25 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs created per MW of solar during build-out phases.
• Consumer impact: Boost in regional employment and income security, particularly in rural and post-industrial areas.

4. Industrial Leadership

Europe could become a clean-tech manufacturing superpower.

• Economic impact: Export potential in solar modules, storage, and grid technologies.
• Consumer impact: Reindustrialization brings supply chains closer to home, shortening delays and reducing costs.

5. Climate Security

The fastest, most scalable way to reach net-zero.

• Health impact: Cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses, and lower healthcare costs.
• Environmental impact: Mitigates climate disasters, preserving agriculture and water.

Why It’s Not Happening Yet

Despite the clear return on investment, the transition is blocked by:

• Short-Term Political Thinking: Politicians focus on 5-year terms, not 50-year gains.
• Fossil Lobby Pressure: Legacy industries resist disruption.
• Regulatory Bottlenecks: Grid connection, land use, and permitting delays.
• Lack of Unified Strategy: Energy policy is fragmented across member states.

What We Can Do

1. Finance the Solar Transition with a Joint EU Investment Program

The first step is to finance the transition. The EU has already demonstrated its ability to act collectively in times of crisis, as seen with the NextGenerationEU recovery fund, a joint borrowing effort that raised hundreds of billions to address the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, a similar approach could be used to fund Europe’s clean energy future. By issuing joint EU bonds, Europe could tap into substantial public financing, which would, in turn, unlock private capital and drive investment into solar energy projects, grid modernization, and clean tech manufacturing.

Such an initiative would not only bring Europe closer to its climate goals, but also foster innovation, create millions of jobs, and reduce dependency on energy imports, especially fossil fuels. The key challenge here is the resistance from fiscally conservative member states, who might oppose shared debt issuance. However, the success of the COVID fund has already laid the groundwork for this type of cooperation, proving that when the stakes are high, Europe can rally together. The return on investment from solar and clean tech is far more than just economic, it is about securing energy sovereignty and creating a greener, more competitive Europe.

2. Cut Red Tape and Modernize Europe’s Grids

The second critical move is to address one of the biggest bottlenecks in solar deployment: permitting and grid modernization. At present, solar projects often face frustrating delays due to bureaucratic red tape, with permitting processes that stretch for months or even years. At the same time, many of Europe’s energy grids are outdated, ill-equipped to handle the decentralized nature of renewable energy. Streamlining these processes and modernizing the grid is not just an administrative necessity. It is an urgent priority. The EU can step in here by setting binding guidelines for faster permitting, creating designated zones for renewable energy projects, and investing heavily in the digital infrastructure needed for a smart, flexible grid.

In practical terms, this could mean that a solar panel installation, which currently takes weeks or months to approve, could instead be completed in days. A smarter, more efficient grid would allow solar power to flow seamlessly across borders and from rooftop to power station, strengthening both energy security and economic resilience. Overcoming the challenges will require strong political will, but the EU is already well-versed in harmonizing regulations to create a single market. A single market for renewables is the next logical step, and it could be as transformative as the common market for goods and services was in the 1990s.

3. Redirect Fossil Fuel Subsidies to Clean Energy

Finally, the EU must take bold action to redirect fossil fuel subsidies towards clean energy. The EU spends over €100 billion a year on subsidies for fossil fuels, money that could be better spent on the transition to renewable energy. Despite the rapid decline in the cost of solar, many member states continue to support fossil fuel industries with subsidies that drive up both emissions and public spending. A fraction of this amount, just 25%, could go a long way toward funding solar installation in low-income households, community projects, and small businesses. Redirecting these subsidies would not only save money but would also send a clear signal that the era of fossil fuels is over and that the future belongs to renewable energy.

Naturally, redirecting fossil subsidies is politically tricky. Many sectors rely on these subsidies, from transport to agriculture. The solution, however, is not to simply cut the subsidies overnight, but to carefully redirect them to support a just transition. This means helping vulnerable populations with direct energy aid while using the savings to build solar infrastructure. There is precedent for this kind of reform: the EU Common Agricultural Policy was once resistant to change, but transparency and strategic redirection eventually made it more sustainable and fair. A similar approach could make fossil fuel subsidy reform politically feasible while benefiting the environment and the economy.

Taken together, these three moves — a coordinated investment plan, streamlined permitting and grid upgrades, and the redirection of fossil subsidies — offer a vision for Europe’s energy future that is bold yet realistic. The path is clear. These are not speculative, far-fetched ideas. They are achievable goals that can create a greener, more resilient Europe. And the costs of inaction are far greater than the efforts required to make these changes. With political will, European unity, and a commitment to the common good, Europe can seize this moment to lead the world in the clean energy revolution. The benefits for our economy, our planet, and our security are within reach, if we act now.

Conclusion

We are not short on money. We are short on prioritization. With less than 10% of what we spent on COVID, and a fraction of the cost of the war in Ukraine, or food/energy inflation, the EU could permanently secure its energy future.

We prefer to pay €35 trillion on fossil fuels over the next 30 years than a one time €400b for low cost renewable energy investment, safe from foreign influence.

The absurdity lies in our inaction. But the opportunity lies right in front of us.

It’s time to invest not in reaction, but in resilience.

When Russian forces crossed into Ukraine in February 2022, the geopolitical shockwaves were immediate. Beyond the battlefield, the European Union has borne a wide array of economic consequences: direct financial support to Ukraine, soaring energy and food prices, disrupted trade, and the need to ramp up defense spending. While these costs are spread across different sectors and budgets, it’s now possible to assemble a grounded, prudent estimate of the total economic burden faced by the EU from 2022 to 2025.

1. Direct Assistance to Ukraine

Between 2022 and 2025, the EU and its member states have committed unprecedented levels of aid to Ukraine. According to the European External Action Service (EEAS), as of early 2025, the total assistance includes:

• Financial and humanitarian aid: Approximately $73 billion, including macro-financial assistance, emergency funds, and reconstruction support.
• Military aid: Around $53 billion from both the EU budget and bilateral contributions from member states.
• Support for Ukrainian refugees: Estimated at $18 billion, based on refugee integration programs, housing, healthcare, and education.
• Ukraine Facility (2024–2027): A financial package worth $54 billion, of which we conservatively allocate half ($27 billion) to the 2022–2025 period.

Total Estimate for Assistance to Ukraine: $171 billion

2. Inflationary Pressures: Energy and Food

The EU’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels made the continent particularly vulnerable to energy shocks following sanctions and the disruption of gas flows.

• Energy Costs: According to data from Eurostat and Bruegel, wholesale gas prices spiked nearly 15-fold in 2022 before stabilizing in 2023. EU governments spent heavily on energy subsidies and diversification strategies, including importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the U.S. and Qatar. A reasonable aggregate cost for the energy shock, including household and industrial energy bills and state interventions, is around $250 billion over the 2022–2023 period.
• Food Inflation: Ukraine and Russia are key exporters of wheat, corn, and sunflower oil. Disruptions in supply chains pushed food prices higher across Europe. Based on OECD estimates and national food subsidy programs, the additional cost burden is estimated at $50 billion.

Total Estimate for Inflationary Costs: $300 billion

3. Lost Economic Opportunities

Indirect costs are harder to pin down but arguably just as significant. The war undermined confidence, disrupted trade, and shifted investment priorities:

• Slower GDP Growth: The European Commission revised GDP growth forecasts downward for 2022 and 2023, with notable slowdowns in Germany, Italy, and Eastern Europe. Estimating the GDP shortfall compared to pre-war trajectories suggests a cumulative loss of $150 billion.
• Trade with Russia: Trade volumes between the EU and Russia plummeted due to sanctions. The EU lost a key market for exports and had to reconfigure imports. Based on historical trade data, the lost trade opportunity is estimated at $50 billion.
• Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Capital Flows: Investor caution due to geopolitical risk, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, has suppressed capital flows. Lost or delayed investments are estimated at $50 billion.

Total Estimate for Lost Opportunities: $250 billion

4. Other Indirect Costs

Some costs, while less visible, still weigh heavily on national and EU budgets:

• Defense Spending: Several EU countries, including Germany and Poland, have announced large increases in defense budgets. Not all of this can be attributed to Ukraine, but a conservative estimate of $100 billion is reasonable.
• Administrative and Logistical Costs: Managing sanctions, customs changes, financial monitoring, aid distribution, and refugee processing carries a significant overhead. An estimated $30 billion is allocated here.

Total Estimate for Indirect Institutional Costs: $130 billion

Summary of Estimated Costs (2022–2025)

Category	Estimated Cost (USD)
Assistance to Ukraine	$171 billion
Inflationary Costs	$300 billion
Lost Economic Opportunities	$250 billion
Other Indirect Costs	$130 billion
Total Estimated Cost	$851 billion

Final Thoughts: A Most Probable Total

Based on a grounded aggregation of public data, institutional reports, and economic projections, we estimate that the total cost to the EU from the Russian invasion of Ukraine between 2022 and 2025 is approximately $850 billion.

Given the inherent uncertainty in projecting macroeconomic impacts and indirect costs, we suggest a confidence interval ranging from $750 billion to $1 trillion.

While the EU’s support for Ukraine reflects strategic, moral, and political values beyond monetary cost, understanding the scale of the financial implications is vital. It allows policymakers, economists, and the public to assess both the sacrifices made and the resilience shown in the face of one of the most consequential geopolitical crises of the 21st century.

Sources:

• European External Action Service (EEAS)
• European Commission Economic Forecasts (2022–2024)
• Bruegel Energy Tracker
• Eurostat inflation reports
• OECD food price data
• IMF World Economic Outlook
• National defense budget announcements (Germany, Poland, France)

As the war in Ukraine drags on, many in the West continue to pin their hopes on the Russian opposition — envisioning it as a democratic counterforce that could one day usher in a freer, more peaceful Russia. Yet this optimism overlooks a deeply embedded truth: the vast majority of Russia’s liberal opposition is still tethered to the very imperialism and colonialism that undergird the Kremlin’s authoritarianism. As long as these views remain intact, a truly democratic Russia is not only improbable — it is impossible.

Even in exile, opposition figures who have positioned themselves as champions of democracy routinely reveal their blind spots when it comes to Russia’s internal colonialism. In April 2025, Russian opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza sparked backlash after suggesting that ethnic Russians may struggle more than minorities to kill Ukrainians because of shared history and culture. This comment, which implicitly suggested that non-Russians are more expendable in war, was met with outrage from minority communities. Kara-Murza later insisted his remarks were taken out of context, but the damage was done.

The reaction wasn’t simply about phrasing. It tapped into a longstanding pattern: the Russian opposition, even those who oppose Putin’s war and advocate for reforms, often fails to confront the imperial assumptions that define the Russian state. This failure isn’t just academic — it has real consequences for ethnic minorities who continue to be politically sidelined, economically exploited, and culturally erased under Moscow’s centralized rule.

Critics of the regime from minority communities have pointed out the uncomfortable truth: Russia’s opposition largely mirrors the very power structures it claims to resist. “Russian colonialism is not simply about Putinism,” says historian Botakoz Kassymbekova, “but a more general part of the political imagination and ambition of the metropolitan political groupings, liberal or illiberal.” In other words, the empire exists not only in Moscow’s policies but in the mindsets of those who imagine a post-Putin Russia.

This is not a new phenomenon. Under both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, regions like Buryatia, Chechnya, and Tatarstan were subjected to Russification, their languages and identities suppressed, their economies subordinated to the imperial core. Today, these same regions are disproportionately targeted for military recruitment and economic exploitation. Yet when activists from these republics — like Alexandra Garmazhapova of the Free Buryatia Foundation — speak out against these injustices, they are often dismissed or ignored by the opposition’s central figures.

At best, Russia’s liberal opposition treats the issue of internal colonization as a secondary concern. At worst, it actively undermines the movement for decolonization. In a December 2024 interview with Vox, Kara-Murza called decolonization “an amazing gift to Putin’s propaganda,” arguing that it plays into the Kremlin’s narrative that the West seeks to destroy Russia. Opposition figure Yulia Navalnaya, speaking at the Bled Strategic Forum, went further, questioning why people with shared culture and background should ever be “artificially divided.” We already wrote about her late husband Alexei Navalny: Putin’s opponent, but still a far-right nationalist.

Such comments betray a fundamental misunderstanding of liberal democracy. Democracy is not the maintenance of artificial unity but the protection of self-determination. It is not about preserving the illusion of national greatness, but about guaranteeing the political agency of all peoples within — or outside — a federation.

True democracy cannot coexist with colonial domination. As Central European University professor Alexander Etkind noted, decolonization is not just discourse, but “a political practice” — one historically linked to wars and revolutions. The Russian Federation is home to over 190 ethnic groups, many of which have never been meaningfully included in the decision-making processes of the state. Moscow’s recent moves — such as forcing regional leaders to abandon the title “president” or curbing the teaching of minority languages — reveal the ongoing erosion of even symbolic autonomy.

Even within the opposition, there is limited support for real structural change. Ilya Yashin, one of the few who has cautiously supported the right to secession, has said such rights should be enshrined in a future Russian constitution — yet he quickly adds that he sees no sign that any republic truly wants independence. Whether this is denial or wishful thinking, it reflects the opposition’s broader reluctance to imagine a non-imperial Russia.

This reluctance has consequences beyond Russia’s borders. By presenting itself as democratic while refusing to engage with the grievances of colonized peoples within the Federation, the Russian opposition lends credence to the myth of the “good Russian” — a figure whose mere opposition to Putin supposedly qualifies them as a liberal democrat. As exiled writer Katia Margolis recently observed, this myth “carries special weight” in the West, where suffering under dictatorship is often confused with moral clarity.

But surviving oppression does not automatically confer democratic values — especially if those values are selectively applied. Supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty while denying Tatarstan’s right to self-determination is not democracy. Condemning the war while ignoring the militarization of Buryatia is not justice.

If the West is serious about fostering democracy in the post-Soviet space, it must abandon the fantasy that Russia’s current opposition is ready to lead such a transformation. It must listen more to the voices from the margins — from indigenous peoples, republic activists, and those who have long resisted both Putin and the empire he maintains.

While most Russian opposition figures have been vocal in their criticism of Vladimir Putin’s regime and the invasion of Ukraine, few have explicitly addressed Russia’s imperialistic and colonial legacies. However, Garry Kasparov stands out as a prominent figure who has consistently condemned Russia’s imperialism and colonialism.​

While other opposition figures like Alexei Navalny, Vladimir Kara-Murza, and Ilya Yashin have condemned the war in Ukraine and criticized the current regime, their focus has primarily been on anti-corruption and “democratic” reforms, with less emphasis on addressing Russia’s imperial culture.​

To imagine a democratic Russia without confronting its colonial foundations is to build castles on sand. Without decolonization, there can be no democracy — only a more polished version of the same imperial project.

In an age where truth is losing its gravitational pull, Europe faces a defining question: can democracy survive in a post-truth world?

From Russian disinformation campaigns to the viral spread of lies about elections, vaccines, or climate change, we are witnessing a silent corrosion of democratic trust. Propaganda is no longer just a relic of the 20th century, it is a digital, algorithmically-amplified threat that undermines public discourse and weakens institutional legitimacy.

To confront this, the Strategic Intelligence Institute proposes a bold but necessary idea: the creation of a European Information Authority (EIA), a scientifically grounded, politically independent fourth branch of democratic governance.

This vision is laid out in our newly released policy brief, “A Fourth Branch for Democracy: Establishing a European Information Authority to Defend Truth in the Digital Age.” It outlines both the necessity and the feasibility of such an institution.

Why a Fourth Branch?

The EU already has robust legislative, executive, and judicial institutions. But none of them are structurally equipped to patrol the digital battlefield where democracy is being eroded daily. Truth itself — what is real, what is false, what is misleading — has no dedicated guardian.

Worse, no information authority is independant from the executive branch, that is often the branch benefiting the most from lies.

The EIA would fill this gap: a neutral, transparent institution designed to track and correct falsehoods that threaten the public good, without censoring opinion or political dissent.

How Would It Work?

The EIA would be built around three pillars:

• Scientific Integrity: Claims are assessed not through ideology but through transparent, evidence-based processes. The model is closer to peer-reviewed science than political oversight.
• Technological Capacity: A publicly vetted AI system flags viral falsehoods in real time. Then, expert panels—made up of over 1,000 vetted academics—review and issue context-rich findings. A special tribunal handles appeals.
• Institutional Independence: To avoid politicization, the EIA would operate independently from the European Commission, Council, and Parliament. Its budget would be tied to EU GDP, and its experts elected in staggered, non-partisan terms.

A Light Prototype Comes First

We understand that creating a full-fledged fourth branch of government is a monumental task. That’s why the policy brief also lays out a “light version”: a pilot agency that could be launched quickly at the EU or national level. With a leaner team and a focused scope (e.g., elections, health, climate), this agency could prove the concept in real time, build public trust, and set the stage for broader adoption.

Addressing the Critics

This proposal is not a call for a “Ministry of Truth.” It’s a call for intellectual accountability. Only empirically false or highly misleading content would be addressed, and all decisions would be public, appealable, and evidence-backed.

We also anticipate and welcome democratic scrutiny. That’s why the entire system would be open-source, independently audited, and governed by scientists—not politicians or corporations.

Truth is a Public Good

The right to speak freely does not include the right to deceive entire populations without consequence. As a society, we regulate pollution, fraud, and public health—why not the pollution of our information environment?

Europe must lead the way in defending truth as a public good. The Information Age demands an evolution of democratic architecture, and the EIA could be the institution that ensures the survival of truth itself.

📘 Download the full policy brief here

In recent years, Donald Trump’s approach to governance has sparked heated debate around the world. Supporters view him as a tough negotiator and a political outsider shaking up the status quo. Critics, however, argue that many of his actions reveal a clear trend toward authoritarianism, marked by the erosion of institutional checks and a disregard for both international norms and economic principles. Below, we dissect some of the main arguments used to defend Trump’s policies and present a fact-based rebuttal to each.

1. Tariffs Are Taxes – And Republicans Voted for Them

Despite traditionally opposing tax increases, today’s Republican leadership has largely supported Trump’s imposition of broad tariffs on imports from numerous countries. Tariffs, by definition, are taxes paid by domestic consumers and businesses on imported goods. This runs counter to the conservative principle of low taxation. In effect, Trump’s administration introduced massive new taxes, just not by name.

2. Tariffs as a Negotiation Tool – Misused

In business and diplomacy alike, threats are used as leverage before actions are taken. Trump, however, frequently imposed tariffs preemptively, triggering immediate retaliation from trade partners rather than initiating productive dialogue. This escalates into prolonged trade conflicts, most notably with the European Union and China, which harms American farmers and manufacturers. Using force first and negotiating later is not effective diplomacy, it’s coercion.

3. Misunderstanding Trade Deficits

Trump’s claim that the U.S. loses money through trade deficits is economically flawed. Trade is not a zero-sum game. When a consumer buys a $5 Big Mac, they aren’t being “robbed”—they’re exchanging money for value. Similarly, when Americans buy goods from abroad, both parties benefit. Blocking imports under the guise of “protecting” American jobs ignores the value of global supply chains and consumer choice.

4. Tax Cuts and Economic Distortion

While Trump has promised tax relief for lower-income Americans, these measures often remain unimplemented or symbolic. Meanwhile, tariffs increase the cost of goods, particularly for the middle and lower class. The economic impact of combining tax cuts with new tariffs is unpredictable and destabilizing at best, especially when consumer behavior shifts due to sudden price hikes. Especially when the tariffs already don’t even cover the cost of the tax cuts he plans.

5. A Weakened Congress and Expanding Executive Power

Trump has increasingly bypassed the legislative process, using executive orders to push major policy changes. The idea that Congress would let him act to give him an illusion of power misses the point: Congress has largely abdicated its role in checking executive overreach. The fact that significant legislation has stalled while executive orders multiply is not a sign of balance, it’s a warning about democratic erosion.

6. The Fallacy of Reciprocal Tariff Dismantling

Supporters argue Trump’s tariffs could lead to the fall of foreign trade barriers. In reality, this hasn’t happened, in any time in history. On the contrary, targeted countries like China and Russia have responded with their own tariffs, deepening economic divides. Far from opening markets, Trump’s trade war strategy has narrowed them in the past. Now he expanded this poor idea to the whole planet.

7. Accusations of Institutional Bias – Where’s the Proof?

Claims that Democrats have “infiltrated” the state or weaponized government agencies remain unsubstantiated. Institutions like USAID, often targeted by such accusations, perform critical work around the globe, from supporting healthcare and education to promoting democratic governance. Problems in implementation, like in Afghanistan, do not prove partisan corruption. Generalizations without evidence are political smears, not legitimate critiques.

8. USAID’s Global Role

USAID exists to promote U.S. interests through soft power, helping to stabilize developing countries, fund civil society, and counter authoritarian influence. Cutting its budget or discrediting its mission weakens American influence abroad, especially in contested regions where U.S. values are in competition with those of authoritarian powers.

9. Allegations Against Judges Must Be Specific

Sweeping claims about “partisan” or “corrupt” judges demand evidence. In a system based on the rule of law, accusations against judicial officials require facts, not innuendo. Without clear examples, these attacks resemble autocratic tactics used to delegitimize independent courts.

10. The Constitution and Destruction of Public Records

While the DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) may not be unconstitutional in name, its actions, such as sudden mass firings and orders to destroy public records, raise serious constitutional and legal concerns. The deliberate erasure of institutional memory undermines accountability, transparency, and democratic oversight.

11. Foreign Policy Fantasies: The Greenland Case

Trump’s suggestion that the U.S. could get Greenland “one way or another”, emphasing that military actions are not out of the table, despite clear opposition from its residents and leadership, is more than absurd; it’s a troubling example of imperial thinking. Such proposals directly contradict international law and the right to self-determination, principles enshrined in the UN Charter, which the U.S. helped create.

Conclusion: Facts Over Fiction

Donald Trump’s second term raises important questions about the balance of power, economic strategy, and international leadership. While his defenders paint his style as unconventional but effective, a deeper look reveals a pattern of undermining democratic institutions, destabilizing global alliances, and misapplying economic tools. The facts speak for themselves, and the warning signs are clear.

Authoritarianism rarely begins with tanks in the street. More often, it starts with the slow erosion of checks and balances, justified by slogans and scapegoats. A critical, fact-based discussion is essential to safeguarding democracy.