Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • Russia’s internet crackdown leads to a spring of growing discontent

    Russia’s internet crackdown leads to a spring of growing discontent

    On a bright spring weekend in central Moscow, dozens of residents gathered in an orderly line outside the presidential administration building, with uniformed police stationed nearby keeping close watch over the demonstration. They had come to submit formal complaints against the Russian government’s rapidly intensifying internet restrictions — a sweeping regime that has included repeated cellphone internet shutdowns, blocks on the country’s most widely used messaging apps, and severed access to thousands of independent websites and digital services. This gathering marks the latest visible eruption of public anger over policies that have upended daily life for ordinary Russians, damaged commercial operations, and even drawn criticism from longstanding supporters of the Kremlin.

    For years, the Kremlin has pursued a long-term goal of placing the entire Russian internet under full state control, with the ultimate aim of potentially isolating it from the global web. Authorities have already blocked tens of thousands of websites, social media platforms and messaging services that refuse to comply with domestic content and surveillance rules. Most Russian internet users have adapted by relying on virtual private networks (VPNs) to bypass these blocks, but the government has increasingly cracked down on VPN tools as well. Last year, the restrictions escalated to an unprecedented level: authorities began ordering widespread shutdowns of cellphone internet access, and in some cases fixed-line broadband, leaving only a small set of pre-approved government sites and services accessible via official “white lists”.

    Kremlin officials have justified the extreme measures by claiming they are necessary to disrupt the navigation of Ukrainian drones that carry out strikes on Russian territory amid Moscow’s four-year full-scale invasion of Ukraine. However, the shutdowns have hit remote regions that have never experienced a Ukrainian drone attack, leaving ordinary residents and business owners reeling from the widespread disruption.

    The regime has targeted Russia’s two most popular messaging apps, WhatsApp and Telegram, with restrictions growing progressively stricter: first voice and video calls were blocked, then sending messages became functionally impossible without a VPN connection. In place of these widely used private platforms, the state has pushed its own domestic alternative called MAX, which security analysts and users widely suspect functions as a state surveillance tool. Last week, Digital and Communications Minister Maksut Shadayev confirmed his department had been ordered to further crack down on remaining VPN access, and while unconfirmed media reports have revealed the ministry has drafted a slate of harsh new anti-VPN regulations, the department has declined to respond to requests for comment from the Associated Press.

    Sarkis Darbinyan, a digital rights lawyer and co-founder of RKS Global, a digital rights advocacy group, told the AP that the end goal of the Russian government is to corral all domestic internet users into a state-controlled “digital ghetto” made up only of Kremlin-approved Russian platforms. “The internet is no longer this universal digital good,” Darbinyan noted. The crackdown has not only restricted access to independent information: it has thrown daily digital life into chaos, making it impossible to order ride-hailing services or food deliveries, complete electronic payments for goods and services, and maintain contact with friends and family abroad or inside Russia.

    In recent weeks, discontent has spread beyond ordinary users to reach the highest echelons of Russia’s business and industry elite, with growing numbers of prominent leaders voicing public concern and urging the Kremlin to adopt a more moderate approach. Alexander Shokhin, head of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs and a former 1990s government minister who has been a member of the ruling United Russia party since the 2000s, raised the issue directly with President Vladimir Putin during a recent industry forum. He told the gathering that widespread cellphone internet shutdowns “made life difficult for both businesses and citizens”, adding: “Given the high level of mobile technology penetration in our lives, we hope that a systemic, balanced solution will be found.” Putin, who appeared on stage alongside Shokhin, spoke immediately after his address but declined to make any comment on the internet crackdown.

    A similar call for moderation came from top executives at two of Russia’s four major cellphone carriers during a recent telecommunications conference, according to Russian state news agency Interfax. Sergei Anokhin of Beeline and Khachatur Pombukhchan of Megafon proposed that instead of blanket internet shutdowns, authorities could allow carriers to identify and restrict only suspicious individual users, a targeted approach that “would make life significantly easier for people, for clients”, Pombukhchan said.

    Even prominent IT industry figures have openly pushed back against the policies. Leading Russian tech entrepreneur Natalya Kasperskaya recently publicly blamed the federal communications regulator Roskomnadzor’s aggressive anti-VPN crackdown for a brief, widespread outage of banking and other essential digital services last weekend. “There’s no technical way to block VPNs without disrupting the entire internet,” she wrote in a Telegram post, adding a sharp warning: “So, comrades, take screenshots of interesting websites, withdraw as much cash as possible, and get ready to listen to radio reports about foreign enemies who have blocked our once-beloved RuNet.” Roskomnadzor denied any role in the outage, and Kasperskaya later issued a formal apology for her claim, but she doubled down on her call for open dialogue between authorities and the domestic IT sector, stressing that “technical decisions sometimes cause downright shock and a desire to at least get an explanation.”

    Even a foreign leader has openly criticized the policy. During a televised April 1 meeting with Putin, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan made a thinly veiled jab at the Kremlin’s restrictions, noting that “in Armenia, our social media, for example, is 100% free. There are no restrictions whatsoever.” Footage of the exchange showed an unsmiling Putin staring at Pashinyan with eyebrows slightly raised, offering no response.

    Across Russia, from Moscow in the west to Vladivostok in the Far East, opposition activists have taken cautious steps to organize pushback against the internet crackdown since late February. Well aware that any unauthorized public demonstration is met with harsh suppression, and that government critics are routinely jailed on spurious charges, activists have followed strict protest laws to apply for official authorization for their gatherings. In the vast majority of cases, permission has been denied, and dozens of activists have already been arrested on a range of charges. A small number of small, authorized pickets have managed to go forward in a handful of cities, while in other regions, activists have posted flyers and banners on public walls and notice boards denouncing the restrictions.

    Leading opposition politician and Kremlin critic Boris Nadezhdin, who has emerged as a prominent voice of the anti-crackdown movement, says that the measures have “infuriated a huge number of people”, echoing the widespread public frustration. Nadezhdin, his supporters, and other activist groups have applied for permission to hold small rallies in dozens of Russian cities on April 12, the annual Cosmonautics Day holiday that marks Yuri Gagarin’s 1961 mission as the first human in space. Nadezhdin explained the strategic choice of date with a subtle smile: “We’re filing for authorization (and saying) we’re marking Cosmonautics Day. Our slogans will be (about the fact that) cosmonautics is impossible without science, technology and progress, and progress, science and technology development is impossible without connectivity, without communication, without the internet.”

    Nadezhdin says he is determined to ramp up public pressure on the Kremlin despite the ongoing crackdown, noting that public frustration over the restrictions is “enormous”, and that ordinary Russians are willing to participate in authorized, safe demonstrations to voice their discontent. Moscow-based opposition politician Yulia Galyamina echoed that assessment in a video recorded near the April demonstration outside the presidential administration, where she and other protesters submitted their complaints. She said the discontent over the internet crackdown “is truly widespread”, adding: “The more there is public outcry over the blocking of the internet, Telegram in particular, and depriving us of the possibility to communicate with each other, interact, express our political position, the bigger the effect will be.”

  • Peruvians choosing a president from 35-candidate pool in Sunday’s election

    Peruvians choosing a president from 35-candidate pool in Sunday’s election

    On Sunday, Peru will hold a landmark general election that will select the Andean nation’s ninth president in just 10 years, alongside the launch of a new bicameral legislative system — all against a backdrop of soaring violent crime, deep-rooted public corruption, and widespread voter cynicism that has left much of the population skeptical of change. Thirty-five candidates are competing for the nation’s top office, an unprecedented field in Peru’s electoral history that ranges from a longtime political scion and a former capital mayor to a popular comedian, reflecting deep fragmentation in the electorate that analysts say all but guarantees a June runoff.

    Voting is compulsory for Peruvian citizens between the ages of 18 and 70, with more than 27 million registered voters nationwide. Around 1.2 million of those eligible to vote are currently living abroad, with the largest concentrations of overseas voters located in the United States and Argentina. To win the presidency outright, a candidate must secure a 50% majority of the vote; given the split field, no candidate is expected to hit that threshold, pushing the race to a second round.

    For most Peruvian voters, the single most pressing issue driving this election is the unchecked surge in violent crime that has upended daily life across the country. Official government data shows homicides have doubled over the past decade, while extortion cases have jumped fivefold. In 2025 alone, more than 200 public transportation drivers were killed in targeted attacks, leaving ordinary residents afraid to leave their homes. A 2025 national survey from Peru’s National Institute of Statistics and Informatics found that 84% of urban respondents worried they would become a crime victim within the next year.

    Juan Gómez, a 53-year-old construction worker supporting five children in Lima, summed up the pervasive frustration with public insecurity and political failure. “You can’t trust anyone anymore, nothing’s going to change,” Gómez said. “(Criminals) come on motorcycles, put a gun to your head… you look around and there’s no police officer. What are you going to do? You just let them rob you.” Raúl Zevallos, a 63-year-old retiree, echoed those fears, noting the constant risk of violence that comes with routine travel. “You get on the bus, and you have to sit far from the driver; you don’t know if you’ll make it home alive,” Zevallos said. “Criminals drive by on motorcycles, shoot, kill the driver, and you could die, too.”

    In response to widespread public anger over crime, most candidates have rolled out hardline policy proposals aimed at demonstrating they will tackle the crisis. Planks of these platforms include constructing massive new maximum-security megaprisons, restricting prisoner access to food unless they work, and reinstating the death penalty for serious violent offenses.

    The most high-profile candidate in the race is Keiko Fujimori, a conservative former congresswoman and daughter of late Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori, who is making her fourth bid for the presidency. Fujimori has campaigned on an “iron fist” anti-crime agenda, promising to make prisoners work to earn their meals and allow judges presiding over criminal cases to remain anonymous to protect them from gang retaliation. But her platform faces scrutiny: her political party supported recent legislative changes that legal experts argue have weakened criminal prosecutions, including eliminating preliminary detention for certain offenses and raising the legal bar for seizing assets connected to criminal activity.

    Another leading conservative contender is Rafael López Aliaga, the former mayor of Lima, who has proposed building new large-scale prisons in Peru’s remote Amazon region, also backing anonymous judges and calling for the expulsion of undocumented immigrants living in the country. The race also includes outsider candidates, most notably Carlos Álvarez, a comedian who has pivoted to politics and has promised to invite policy experts from El Salvador, Denmark, and Singapore to help craft a new national security strategy for Peru.

    Beyond the presidential race, Sunday’s election will mark the return of a bicameral Congress to Peru for the first time in more than 30 years, a change enacted via 2024 constitutional amendment by sitting lawmakers despite 80% of voters rejecting the proposal in a 2018 public referendum. Under the new structure, the 60-seat Senate will hold substantial new powers: the president will no longer have the authority to dissolve the Senate, and the chamber will have the power to remove the president from office through impeachment with just 40 votes, a lower threshold than the 87 votes required under the previous unicameral system. Political analysts note that the lower impeachment threshold was a direct response to the frequent turnover of presidents over the past decade that left Peru with nine leaders in 10 years, but warn the new structure concentrates too much power in a small chamber.

    “They’ve concentrated too much power in a 60-people chamber,” said Alejandro Boyco, a researcher at the Institute of Peruvian Studies. “They are not going to be immune to being corrupt.” The new Senate will also be responsible for appointing and disciplining top government officials, including the national Ombudsman, Constitutional Court justices, and members of the Central Bank’s board of directors, in addition to reviewing and amending legislation passed by the lower congressional chamber.

  • ‘Ceasefire not holding’: US and Iran may have to talk ‘as guns are firing’

    ‘Ceasefire not holding’: US and Iran may have to talk ‘as guns are firing’

    Diplomatic efforts to salvage a fragile US-Iran ceasefire were thrown into chaos on Wednesday, after a series of escalating events threatened to derail talks scheduled for this weekend in Islamabad. Just 24 hours after Pakistani-mediated negotiators announced the preliminary two-week truce, deadly Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon, an unclaimed attack on an Iranian energy facility on Lavan Island, and conflicting public statements from all sides left the agreement on the brink of collapse.

    The crisis began when Israel launched its most punishing wave of air raids on Lebanon since the broader regional conflict began, killing more than 250 people and wounding over 700, according to Lebanon’s state civil defense service. Shortly after the airstrikes, an unclaimed strike hit Iran’s oil refinery on Lavan Island, prompting Tehran to respond by launching dozens of drones and missiles targeting the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Iran subsequently announced it had closed all vessel traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the critical chokepoint through which roughly 20% of the world’s global oil supplies pass.

    Adding to the mounting diplomatic tensions, key Arab Gulf states have openly pushed back against the preliminary truce terms, which Tehran says codifies its long-held control over the strait. For Gulf nations including Bahrain, Kuwait and the UAE, the waterway is the sole export route for their energy sectors – even Saudi Arabia, which maintains a Red Sea pipeline that allows it to bypass Hormuz, views Iranian control of the strait as an existential strategic threat. The UAE, which has grown increasingly aligned with Israel during the current conflict, has already demanded clarification on the ceasefire terms, and insisted any final agreement must include Iran paying damages and reparations to Gulf states. Tehran has simultaneously demanded its own reparations and the full lifting of international sanctions in any final deal.

    Public missteps by the Trump administration have further fueled Gulf skepticism. In an interview with ABC News, President Donald Trump suggested he was open to a joint US-Iran venture to collect tolls from commercial vessels passing through the strait, a comment that stoked fears among Gulf leaders that Washington would negotiate the waterway’s future without consulting their governments. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later walked back the president’s comment, clarifying that the US policy remains to keep the strait open to traffic without any restrictions. The White House also pushed back on Iran’s announcement of a closure, claiming there had actually been an uptick in vessel traffic through the waterway – a claim directly contradicted by public vessel tracking data.

    The most serious rift between the two sides has emerged over the scope of the ceasefire itself, particularly over the inclusion of fighting in Lebanon. US Vice President JD Vance, speaking to reporters during an official trip to Hungary, claimed the truce had never included a ceasefire in Lebanon, framing the disagreement as a “legitimate misunderstanding” between the two sides. He added that Israel had already agreed to moderate its strikes in the country to support ongoing diplomatic efforts. However, the original ceasefire announcement, posted to social media by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and tagged to Trump and his senior administration officials, explicitly states that Iran and the US “along with their allies, have agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon and elsewhere”.

    Beyond the immediate fighting in Lebanon, analysts warn the core sticking point that could completely derail upcoming talks is Iran’s demand to maintain its right to uranium enrichment. Randa Slim, a distinguished fellow in the Middle East program at the Stimson Center, noted that while Tehran has publicly emphasized its solidarity with Lebanese Hezbollah, the group is unlikely to be the issue that collapses negotiations. “Iran is not going to ‘go to the mat’ for Hezbollah, despite paying lip service to this. The real deal breaker for Iran is the ban on uranium enrichment. That is a red line,” Slim explained to Middle East Eye.

    Enrichment rights are one of 10 core demands Iran has laid out for a lasting peace agreement. On Tuesday, Trump initially acknowledged the 10-point framework provided a “workable basis on which to negotiate” in a social media post, but within hours he reversed course, publicly ruling out any enrichment activity. “There will be no enrichment of Uranium, and the United States will, working with Iran, dig up and remove all of the deeply buried (B-2 Bombers) Nuclear ‘Dust,’” Trump wrote, referencing the US’s June 2025 pre-emptive strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.

    Iranian Parliament Speaker Bagher Ghalibaf listed Trump’s reversal on enrichment, the Israeli strikes in Lebanon, and the Lavan Island attack as three clear violations of the preliminary ceasefire agreement, arguing that the upcoming negotiations have already been undermined before they even begin. “The very ‘workable basis on which to negotiate’ has been openly and clearly violated, even before the negotiations began,” Ghalibaf wrote in an official three-point statement Wednesday.

    Despite the breach, Vance argued that Iran’s demand for enrichment rights does not inherently conflict with US objectives, using an offhand analogy to downplay the disagreement. “Ghalibaf said, ‘We refuse to give up the right to enrichment’. And I thought to myself: ‘my wife has the right to skydive, but she doesn’t jump out of an aeroplane because she and I have an agreement that she’s not going to do that,’” Vance told reporters. Analysts caution that even with the escalating violence and broken commitments, both sides still have incentives to move forward with Saturday’s scheduled talks in Islamabad. Slim noted that calling the current arrangement a ceasefire is already a generous assessment, but that both parties will likely find a way to frame ongoing violence as compatible with negotiations. “The ceasefire is not holding. The question is whether the meeting between the Iranians and Americans can still talk as the guns are firing. Both sides can come up with a spin on why they should talk,” Slim said.

  • Three ways Orban gives himself an edge in Hungary’s vote

    Three ways Orban gives himself an edge in Hungary’s vote

    As Hungary prepares to hold its national parliamentary election this Sunday, long-serving nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban finds himself facing a surprisingly competitive challenge from opposition candidate Peter Magyar — but independent observers and international monitoring organizations have raised urgent alarms over a deeply skewed electoral landscape that heavily favors the incumbent. Over Orban’s 16 consecutive years in power, his ruling Fidesz-KNDP coalition has reshaped nearly every pillar of Hungary’s electoral and media ecosystem to entrench its hold on power, turning what should be a free democratic contest into a test of European democratic norms, analysts say.

    The first and most structurally significant advantage Orban holds stems from sweeping changes to Hungary’s electoral framework enacted after his coalition returned to power in 2010. Analysts note that even if the Fidesz-KNDP alliance loses the overall popular vote by a margin of three to four percentage points, the 2011 electoral overhaul and subsequent redrawing of constituency boundaries would still allow the ruling bloc to retain its parliamentary majority.

    Additional structural advantages come from specialized rules for ethnic minority representation and cross-border voting that disproportionately benefit Orban. Preferential mandates for ethnic minority groups require far fewer votes to secure a parliamentary seat, and representatives from both the German and Roma minority communities have a long history of aligning with the ruling coalition. Orban’s 2010 citizenship law granted simplified naturalization to ethnic Hungarians living in neighboring countries, most of whom hold favorable views of the policy and the prime minister, and these voters are eligible to cast mail-in ballots — a privilege not extended to Hungarian emigrants living further abroad, who tend to hold critical views of Orban’s nationalist government.

    Human rights groups have warned that outdated voter rolls and weak ballot security for mail-in voting create openings for irregularities, including the possibility of ballots being cast in the names of deceased voters. Concerns are further amplified by the fact that political parties allied with Orban oversee the collection of cross-border ballots in Romania and Serbia, leaving the process open to potential manipulation.

    A second core advantage comes from the ruling coalition’s near-total control of Hungary’s media landscape, a transformation overseen by business allies of Orban since 2010. Hundreds of independent media outlets have shuttered over the past 14 years, while remaining independent outlets have been acquired by pro-government oligarchs and converted into mouthpieces for Fidesz. Media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) estimates that 80 percent of Hungary’s print and broadcast media is controlled by business figures tied to the ruling coalition, and these pro-government outlets receive the vast majority of all state advertising spending.

    Critics point to stark data confirming the media’s pro-Orban bias: an 11-month study conducted in 2023 by the independent liberal think tank Republikon Institute found that 95 percent of all coverage of Orban on public television’s flagship news broadcast was positive, while challenger Peter Magyar was portrayed in a negative light 96 percent of the time. Orban’s government has repeatedly denied that it interferes with media editorial decisions.

    The third key advantage for the incumbent stems from widespread allegations that he has diverted taxpayer funds and state resources to power his re-election campaign, a practice the government defends as a legitimate duty to inform the public. In the lead-up to Sunday’s vote, Fidesz has accessed multiple official state mailing lists — including confidential records held by the national tax authority — to distribute campaign messaging directly to voters. The government has also run a massive taxpayer-funded media campaign promoting its anti-Ukraine policy positions, including opposition to Ukraine’s EU accession, with ubiquitous billboards featuring Orban’s image urging Hungarians to “stand together” with his government.

    Multiple state-owned enterprises, including national electricity distributor MVM, have also paid for out-of-home advertising that repeats Orban’s key campaign messaging on energy policy. A 2024 investigation by independent conservative Hungarian outlet Valasz Online found that the government has allocated millions of euros in public funding to dozens of local non-governmental organizations that have direct ties to Fidesz, many of which share office space with local ruling party chapters. Local media has documented that many of these NGOs have been distributing pro-Fidesz campaign pamphlets directly to voters during the election cycle.

    International monitors have been sounding the alarm over Orban’s undue electoral advantage for more than a decade. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) first documented that Fidesz held an “undue advantage” in the 2014 election, and has issued increasingly critical assessments of Hungarian electoral fairness in subsequent cycles. For this election, the OSCE has deployed a full-scale election observation mission — only the third time the organization has done so for an election in an EU member state, and the second consecutive full mission for Hungary.

    Orban has pushed back against all criticism, arguing that Hungary maintains a “very strong” democracy and that his government fully embraces political competition. Nonetheless, the array of advantages stacked against Magyar has led many democracy advocates to question whether the election can truly be considered free and fair, with results that will have far-reaching implications for the future of democratic governance within the European Union.

  • Key Indian states hold elections that will test reach of Modi’s party in opposition strongholds

    Key Indian states hold elections that will test reach of Modi’s party in opposition strongholds

    On Thursday, voters across three Indian regions — the states of Assam and Kerala, and the federal union territory of Puducherry — headed to polling stations to cast their ballots in the first phase of a series of critical state-level elections that are widely viewed as a critical barometer of public support for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

    These electoral contests have positioned the BJP and its regional coalition partners, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), against a fragmented but unified front of national and regional opposition parties. Currently, the NDA holds governing power in Assam and Puducherry, while Kerala is under the control of a opposition-led administration. Two additional opposition-governed states, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, are scheduled to hold their polling phases later this April, with official results for all five electoral contests set to be announced on May 2.

    The elections unfold against a backdrop of growing public anxiety over skyrocketing energy prices and tightening supplies of cooking gas, economic pressures amplified by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East that has roiled global commodity markets.

    For Modi and the BJP, the outcome of these state polls carries far-reaching political implications. After the 2024 national election, the BJP was forced to depend on a coalition of regional allies to form its federal government, so a strong performance across these five regions will not only cement the party’s reputation as India’s dominant political force but also strengthen Modi’s standing in the national coalition. A solid showing would also signal that the BJP is successfully making inroads into long-held opposition strongholds, expanding its geographic footprint across the country.

    At the same time, these elections are a make-or-break moment for India’s fragmented opposition, which is working to build a cohesive, sustained challenge to the BJP’s national dominance after weaker-than-expected showings in recent national and state contests.

    Each region carries its own unique political dynamics that shape the BJP’s campaign strategies. In the northeastern border state of Assam, which shares a frontier with Bangladesh, the BJP is fighting to retain its incumbent power by centering its campaign on a hardline stance toward immigration, one of the state’s most persistent and divisive issues. Ruling party leaders have leaned into sharp, polarizing rhetoric centered on claims of illegal immigration by Bengali-speaking Muslim communities, framing the election as a fight to protect the state’s demographic and cultural identity.

    In the southern state of Kerala, the BJP faces a far steeper uphill battle. Power in Kerala has historically alternated between two rival coalitions led by the Indian National Congress and national communist parties, and the BJP has never managed to gain significant electoral traction in the state. Even so, the party has poured unprecedented resources and campaign effort into expanding its political presence in the region in this cycle.

    For the small federal territory of Puducherry, the BJP is working to consolidate its influence by leveraging a pre-election coalition with a prominent regional party to hold and expand its current share of power.

    The most closely watched and contentious of all the upcoming contests remains West Bengal, where the regional Trinamool Congress has held governing power for three consecutive terms. The BJP has never controlled the state, and already high political tensions have been amplified by allegations of widespread irregularities in a recent electoral roll revision process called the Special Intensive Revision.

    Opposition parties claim the process has disenfranchised millions of eligible voters, disproportionately targeting minority Muslim communities. The Election Commission of India has rejected these claims, asserting that the revision was a routine procedural step designed to remove dead, duplicate, and fraudulent voter entries from the rolls. Similar electoral roll updates have already been carried out in multiple other Indian states in recent cycles.

  • Trump’s Iran war widens rift with European nationalists once viewed as MAGA allies

    Trump’s Iran war widens rift with European nationalists once viewed as MAGA allies

    BUDAPEST, Hungary – When Donald Trump reclaimed the U.S. presidency one year ago, a core pillar of his international agenda was clear: reinvigorate the close ideological bonds his first administration had built with right-wing and nationalist movements across Europe, laying the groundwork for a new populist global order. Today, that project lies in tatters, as a growing wave of revulsion against Trump’s war with Iran has split the transatlantic right, once seen as a unified rising political force.

    The high-profile visit of U.S. Vice President JD Vance this week, where Vance stumped directly for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán ahead of this weekend’s hotly contested general election, is increasingly an outlier, not the norm, for European conservative and far-right leaders. Just months ago, most of these figures counted Trump as a key ideological ally. Now, many are openly breaking with the U.S. administration over its Middle East policy.

    Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, one of Europe’s most prominent nationalist leaders, rejected Washington’s request to use a Sicilian U.S. air base for strikes against Iran. Marine Le Pen, head of France’s major far-right National Rally party, has slammed Trump’s war aims as deeply erratic. Even Alternative for Germany, the country’s largest opposition far-right party, has gone a step further: its leader is now calling for all U.S. military forces to withdraw from German soil entirely.

    While a fragile ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran is currently holding, Orbán’s longstanding alliance with the Trump administration faces its biggest test yet ahead of this weekend’s vote. For more than a decade, the Hungarian leader has been the ideological standard-bearer for global right-wing populism, a model that many American conservatives have openly cited as a blueprint for restricting immigration, restructuring state institutions, and locking in long-term partisan control for his ruling Fidesz party.

    Charles Kupchan, a professor of international relations at Georgetown University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, notes that while Orbán’s longstanding ties to Trump may buffer him from the anti-Trump backlash roiling other European far-right factions, that protection is far from guaranteed. “Getting a blessing from Donald Trump is now a mixed blessing,” Kupchan explained.

    This break between Trump and European nationalists follows an earlier rift triggered by Trump’s controversial demand earlier this year that Denmark cede control of Greenland to the U.S., a move that sparked widespread outrage across the European political spectrum, including among right-wing factions. Trump doubled down on his criticism of the transatlantic alliance earlier this week, writing on social media that “NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN,” going on to label Greenland “THAT BIG, POORLY RUN, PIECE OF ICE!!!”

    Daniel Baer, a former U.S. ambassador and Obama administration State Department official now with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the ongoing friction between Trump and European far-right groups lays bare the fundamental limitations of his goal to build a global bloc of nationalist leaders. “Building some sort of international coalition around national chauvinism is very difficult,” Baer noted. “It’s clear the majority of people in these countries, if not anti-American, have turned anti-Trump.”

    To date, Orbán has refused to join the wave of criticism against Trump, sticking to the careful neutrality he has maintained throughout the conflict. In a recent interview with British conservative outlet GB News, Orbán argued that the question of whether Trump launched a war or pursued peace remains unresolved. “It hasn’t been decided yet, historians will make a decision on that,” he said. “I think we need some time to understand whether we are moving to the peace by these strikes, or just the opposite. It’s too early to say.”

    Orbán’s reluctance to criticize Trump extends far beyond shared ideology: for years, he has framed his close personal and political ties to Trump, as well as other global strongmen like Russian President Vladimir Putin, as a unique asset that lets him defend Hungarian national interests more effectively than any opposition candidate could. He has repeatedly highlighted Trump’s public praise for his leadership to his conservative base, and built his reelection campaign around the claim that his alliance with the Trump administration guarantees Hungarian security and economic prosperity.

    Still, that strategy carries growing risks as anti-Trump sentiment spreads even among Hungarian voters. Vance’s visit this week, which saw the vice president denounce European Union critics of Orbán as foreign interferers in Hungary’s democratic process, did follow a familiar ideological script: Vance praised a elite Hungarian higher education institution funded by Orbán’s government and led by the prime minister’s political director for “build[ing] up the foundations of Western civilization” — echoing the Trump administration’s own domestic push to reshape the ideological direction of elite U.S. universities.

    But Mario Bikarsku, senior Europe analyst at global risk intelligence firm Verisk Maplecroft, warns that Vance’s high-profile visit could end up hurting rather than helping Orbán’s election chances, as public opinion of the Trump administration has turned increasingly negative even within Hungary. “Vance’s visit could have the opposite effect on Orbán’s popularity than the one intended,” Bikarsku said.

    Kupchan added that most successful European far-right parties have already built solid domestic political foundations independent of American support, giving them little incentive to align with an unpopular U.S. administration on the global stage. “Trump’s effort to create a transnational movement of far-right populists may affect the margins, but the main reason you’re seeing Reform U.K. and AfD and National Rally and other far-right parties prosper has little to do with Trump and more to do with national factors,” he explained.

    That dynamic works against Orbán in particular: across the globe, voters are increasingly leaning toward opposition parties in the wake of widespread economic and political instability. For most European far-right groups, which have spent years out of power, that trend has boosted their poll numbers. For Orbán, who has held uninterrupted power for 16 years, that same wave of anti-incumbent sentiment puts his grip on office in serious jeopardy. “We are living in an age,” Kupchan said, “where being an incumbent sucks.”

  • US resumes processing Afghan visas that will result in denials, says rights group

    US resumes processing Afghan visas that will result in denials, says rights group

    A leading advocacy organization for Afghan evacuees has sounded a sharp alarm over the Trump administration’s recent restart of special immigrant visa (SIV) processing for Afghans who supported the U.S. government, calling the long-awaited resumption a calculated deception preordained to end in widespread, blanket denials.

    #AfghanEvac, the coalition coordinating evacuation and advocacy efforts for at-risk Afghans, made the allegations public in a formal statement released Wednesday. According to group leadership, the Trump administration has begun directing Afghan SIV applicants to coordinate cross-border travel and schedule in-person interviews at U.S. embassies, but it is intentionally withholding a critical piece of information from those applicants: under current administration policies, their applications are almost certainly set to be rejected.

    “This is not speculative rumor — this is confirmed by sworn testimony from a senior State Department official,” said Shawn VanDiver, president of #AfghanEvac.

    The testimony in question comes from Andrew Veprek, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration, who submitted the statement to a federal court in Washington, D.C. on March 30 as part of ongoing litigation in the case *Afghan and Iraqi Allies v Rubio*, filed late last year. Veprek confirmed in his testimony that SIV processing resumed in February of this year, a step the administration was ordered to take by the court.

    However, #AfghanEvac emphasizes that processing an application is not equivalent to approving entry into the United States. Veprek’s own testimony acknowledges that the Trump-era Afghan travel ban remains fully in force via executive order, and consular officers face no requirement to notify applicants in advance of potential inadmissibility grounds that will lead to denial.

    The timing of the visa processing restart carries added significance amid a separate administration deadline to close Camp As Sayliyah, a U.S. processing facility in Qatar that currently holds more than 1,000 at-risk Afghans stuck in limbo while waiting for U.S. resettlement approval. The Trump administration originally set a March 31 deadline to shut down the camp, and the State Department has been searching for third countries willing to accept the displaced Afghans. Department officials have also blamed the prior Biden administration for what they claim was inadequate vetting of the Afghan evacuees.

    Interviews with multiple Afghans currently held at the Qatar camp contradict that claim, however. Multiple evacuees told Middle East Eye they have already received approved U.S. visas, some through pathways outside the SIV program, and standard protocol requires extensive pre-screening before evacuees are ever flown to the Qatar facility in the first place.

    As of April 8, the camp remains open, contradicting the original March 31 shutdown timeline. The only Afghans who have been allowed to leave the facility so far have accepted U.S. government stipends to return to Afghanistan — a move the State Department previously told Middle East Eye it would not pursue.

    VanDiver explained the tangible harm of the administration’s deceptive policy: “In plain terms: people are being told to show up for a process that the government already expects to end in denial, without being told that upfront. For many, that means spending scarce resources, crossing borders, and taking on real personal risk for an outcome that is effectively predetermined.”

    Veprek’s testimony also outlined new plans to increase monthly visa interview scheduling at the U.S. embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan — where thousands more Afghans are waiting for SIV outcomes — by 25% this month. Even with that increase, however, Veprek acknowledged the U.S. cannot expand processing much further, noting that allocating the majority of interview slots to Afghan applicants rather than Pakistani citizens risks damaging bilateral relations between Washington and Islamabad.

    Data from the U.S. government compiled by #AfghanEvac underscores the staggering scale of the ongoing backlog. As of August 2025, 178,110 Afghan applicants have already received chief of mission approval, the formal qualification step for an SIV. None of these approved applicants have yet completed their required interviews or received their issued visas. #AfghanEvac warns the backlog could take more than a decade to clear at current processing rates, a timeline stretched even longer by widespread staff cuts implemented last year as part of the Trump administration’s DOGE initiative.

  • Bruce Lehrmann suffers crushing court blow as High Court knocks back appeal on Brittany Higgins defamation findings

    Bruce Lehrmann suffers crushing court blow as High Court knocks back appeal on Brittany Higgins defamation findings

    One of Australia’s most high-profile and polarizing legal sagas has reached its final conclusion, after the High Court of Australia formally rejected former Liberal Party staffer Bruce Lehrmann’s last-ditch bid to overturn a devastating defamation ruling against him brought by Network 10 and journalist Lisa Wilkinson. In the wake of the court’s ruling, Brittany Higgins, the woman at the center of the original allegations, has called the decision a long-awaited end to a years-long period of trauma.

    The legal battle traces its origins back to 2019, when Higgins alleged that Lehrmann raped her inside the parliamentary office of their then-boss, Senator Linda Reynolds, following a night of social drinking. The allegations first entered the public spotlight in 2021, when Higgins gave an interview about her experience on Network 10’s flagship current affairs program *The Project*, hosted by Wilkinson. Lehrmann subsequently launched defamation proceedings against the outlet and Wilkinson, claiming the interview had destroyed his reputation.

    The first major ruling in the case came in the Federal Court, where Justice Michael Lee delivered a landmark verdict finding that on the balance of probabilities, Lehrmann had indeed raped Higgins. Lee wrote in his judgment that Lehrmann was “hellbent on having sex” with Higgins and did not consider whether she consented to the encounter. Lehrmann immediately launched an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court, but the three justices hearing the appeal not only upheld Lee’s original ruling but strengthened the findings against him: they concluded Lee should have explicitly found Lehrmann had “actual knowledge” that Higgins did not consent, and also reaffirmed the original ruling that Lehrmann lacked credibility as a witness.

    Undeterred, Lehrmann launched a final appeal to the High Court, arguing that Lee had improperly conducted independent research outside the scope of the trial and relied on non-legal academic material to reach his verdict. Lawyers for Network 10 pushed back against this claim, noting that Lee only referenced the academic work to contextualize legal arguments, and explicitly stated in his judgment that he would not rely on any information not entered as evidence in the trial. On Thursday, the High Court issued a brief, decisive ruling: “Special leave refused with costs.” The ruling marks the end of all appeal avenues available to Lehrmann.

    In a public statement issued immediately after the ruling, Higgins said the High Court’s decision brought “a measure of finality to a long and painful chapter.” She argued that Lehrmann had exploited Australia’s defamation laws to continue silencing her and the journalists who reported her experience, a tactic she said is far too common for survivors of sexual violence. “Defamation claims brought by perpetrators of violence against women retraumatise victim-survivors, who have already endured profound personal violation, and extend the harm we suffer,” she wrote. Higgins called for a national reckoning with Australia’s legal framework, urging reforms to better protect survivors who speak out, safeguard press freedom to report on sexual violence, and prevent the legal system from being misused as a tool of ongoing abuse. Moving forward, she said her focus will be on healing and continuing her advocacy for legal reform that treats survivors with dignity and protection.

    The ruling also carries severe financial consequences for Lehrmann. He has been ordered to cover all court costs incurred by Network 10 and Wilkinson throughout the entire proceedings, totaling an estimated AU$2.5 million: roughly AU$2 million from the original Federal Court trial, AU$500,000 from the Full Court appeal, and additional costs for the High Court application. Court records have previously established Lehrmann is currently an unemployed student, leaving him at high risk of bankruptcy. During earlier appeal proceedings, Lehrmann’s solicitor Zali Burrows told the court her client could not raise a AU$200,000 surety requested by Network 10, noting that “the only shot he’d probably ever have in making money is by going on OnlyFans or something silly like that”, arguing the media coverage of the case had left him effectively unemployable.

    This long-running legal saga has an additional prior chapter: Lehrmann previously faced a criminal trial for sexual assault charges in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, but those proceedings were dismissed after juror misconduct forced a mistrial. The charges were ultimately dropped entirely out of concern for Higgins’ mental health and wellbeing. Lehrmann has maintained his consistent denial of all allegations from the start, asserting no sexual contact occurred between him and Higgins on the night in question, and claiming the two separated immediately after entering the parliamentary office and did not interact again that evening.

  • Australia moves to shore up fuel supplies as it prepares for extended disruptions

    Australia moves to shore up fuel supplies as it prepares for extended disruptions

    BRISBANE, Australia — Amid lingering global energy market disruptions tied to Middle East conflict, the Australian government has announced a landmark emergency scheme to backstop two of the nation’s largest fuel suppliers amid inflated spot market prices, as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese warns that supply chain disruptions will persist long after a newly announced two-week ceasefire in the region takes hold.

    Speaking to reporters Thursday during a visit to an Ampol refinery in Brisbane, Albanese confirmed the government has finalized terms to underwrite purchases of gasoline and diesel by top domestic suppliers Ampol and Viva Energy. The agreement covers spot market fuel acquisitions made at prices well above typical commercial rates, a response to the upward price shocks that have rippled through global energy markets since the escalation of conflict in the Middle East.

    Under the scheme, the federal government will also gain authority to direct fuel distribution across the country, with priority given to regional communities and agricultural regions that have experienced widespread fuel shortages and empty gas station tanks over recent weeks.

    Albanese stressed that even if the newly brokered two-week ceasefire in the Middle East holds, the damage to global fuel supply chains will not reverse quickly. “This will have a long tail,” he said. “If the ceasefire holds, that doesn’t mean that the world global capacity comes online in a week or a month. It will take a considerable period of time. This will have a long tail. That is very, very clear.”

    Albanese described the ceasefire announcement itself as an important positive step forward, but made clear the government is preparing for extended supply-side instability. In a immediate follow-up move to shore up long-term fuel security, he will travel to Singapore Friday for high-level talks with Singaporean Prime Minister Lawrence Wong focused on strengthening bilateral energy trade and supply chain resilience.

    Albanese noted that the fast-arranged meeting — scheduled on relatively short notice — underscores the close strategic and economic ties between the two nations. “We don’t preempt one-on-one meetings at leaders’ levels, but the fact that we’re being welcomed at relatively short notice to Singapore speaks about the strength of the relationship,” he said.

    A statement from the Singaporean government confirmed the visit aligns with both nations’ ongoing regional commitments to maintaining open energy trade and consistent fuel flows. The two countries have deep existing energy interdependence: Australia ranks as Singapore’s second-largest supplier of liquefied natural gas, while Singapore is Australia’s single largest source of refined petroleum products.

    “This visit follows Australia and Singapore’s joint commitment to keep fuel flowing between both countries and to work together to strengthen energy supply chain resilience,” the Singaporean government statement added.

    Albanese emphasized that his administration is moving with urgent speed to boost domestic fuel supply and address the shortages that have disproportionately impacted non-urban areas of the country, framing the emergency underwriting scheme and upcoming Singapore talks as complementary steps to protect Australian households and businesses from extended energy market volatility.

  • 10k+ sign Ben Roberts-Smith petition in 24 hours

    10k+ sign Ben Roberts-Smith petition in 24 hours

    Less than 48 hours after Australia’s most decorated living former soldier Ben Roberts-Smith was taken into federal police custody at Sydney Airport, a pro-Roberts-Smith petition has already gathered more than 10,000 signatures, laying bare the sharp, growing national rift over how Australia should handle his alleged war crimes.

    Footage captured the dramatic arrest: Roberts-Smith, a Victoria Cross recipient, was escorted off a Qantas domestic flight by Australian Federal Police (AFP) officers as he traveled from Brisbane to Sydney with his partner and two teenage daughters. He faces five criminal murder charges linked to the alleged unlawful killings of Afghan civilians during his military deployment between 2009 and 2012. Currently held on remand, Roberts-Smith will remain in custody at least until April 17, when he is scheduled to file an application for bail.

    The arrest comes eight months after Roberts-Smith lost a landmark civil defamation trial against Nine Entertainment’s Australian newspapers. In that 2023 ruling, Justice Anthony Besanko found that on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, reporting that alleged Roberts-Smith participated in the murder of four unarmed Afghan men was substantially true. That civil verdict cleared the way for criminal investigators to bring formal charges, marking the first high-profile criminal prosecution stemming from Australia’s long-running inquiry into special forces war crimes in Afghanistan.

    The petition calling for Roberts-Smith’s release was launched by Australian political activist Drew Pavlou, who has emerged as a leading voice for the ex-soldier’s supporters. The campaign has already drawn high-profile backing from powerful Australian figures: billionaire mining magnate Gina Rinehart and One Nation party leader Pauline Hanson have publicly defended Roberts-Smith. Stuart Bonds, a One Nation electoral candidate for the New South Wales seat of Hunter, reaffirmed his leader’s position, noting Hanson has built personal ties with Roberts-Smith and his family. Bonds added that the prosecution sends confusing, conflicting messages to currently serving Australian military personnel. The movement even gained international attention when tech billionaire Elon Musk commented publicly that the prosecution of Roberts-Smith “sounds insane”.

    But supporters of the prosecution frame the arrest as a long-overdue landmark step for institutional and military accountability. Leaders of human rights and justice organizations say the charges mark a critical moment for victims and affected Afghan communities who have waited years for justice. “The proper investigation and prosecution of alleged war crimes by members of the Australian special forces in Afghanistan are essential to ensuring justice,” said the executive director of the Australian Centre for International Justice. Public attention to the allegations has remained high for years, ever since the high-profile collapse of Roberts-Smith’s defamation suit put the claims of war crimes back into national headlines. Now, the shift from civil findings to criminal prosecution has reignited a fierce national debate that shows no sign of easing, splitting public opinion across the country.