Ever since Zohran Mamdani exhilarated the left with his out-of-nowhere mayoral campaign, mainstream Democrats have been dejectedly searching for an inspirational figure of their own. Where is the Democratic executive who has the media savvy to inspire his own cultlike following while making pragmatic governing decisions and ignoring the incessant demands of progressive activists?

At last, the moderates have found such a Democrat. His name is Zohran Mamdani.

Mamdani’s election, which created the theoretical prospect of 8.5 million Americans living under “the warmth of collectivism,” as he once put it, was met with understandable shock. The reality, however, has been far more mundane.

Mamdani’s campaign platform already contained several gestures to moderates. He said he would retain Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch, who is, to put it plainly, a billionaire Zionist cop, three things never in favor with the hard left. He also pledged to liberalize permitting to encourage more housing construction by private developers. When The New York Times asked him during the campaign, “What’s one issue in politics that you’ve changed your mind about?” Mamdani cited “the role of the private market in housing construction.”

Most important, Mamdani emphasized the importance of efficiency in city services. This might sound like an ideologically neutral goal, and it has been embraced at times by the leaders of left-wing governments—including Milwaukee’s “sewer socialists” during the early to mid-20th century. But efficiency creates tension with progressive interest groups, which generally care less about maximizing taxpayers’ bang for the buck than maintaining secure jobs and high wages for public employees.

Once elected, Mamdani retreated from some of his progressive ambitions. Among his splashiest campaign promises was “fast, free” bus service. Skeptics had questioned the wisdom of forgoing the revenue from bus fares, especially given the possibility that free buses would become mobile homeless shelters inhospitable to other New Yorkers. Mamdani still says he wants free buses, but in his initial proposal, released in concert with Governor Kathy Hochul, he quietly adopted the position of his critics, dropping the plan to eliminate fares and focusing instead on speed and reliability. He shrank another of his most ambitious proposals, universal child care for 2-year-olds, into a more gradual expansion, beginning with a modest increase of 2,000 new seats this fall and a goal of adding more in subsequent years.

During the campaign, Mamdani promised to establish an “Office of Community Safety,” which would cost $1 billion a year and task civilian workers instead of police officers with responding to mental-health emergencies. This notion was itself a compromise. As a state-assembly candidate, he’d endorsed defunding the police. As a mayoral candidate, he suggested shifting responsibilities. But as mayor, Mamdani wound up providing just over $40 million a year for this service, or 4 percent of the promised amount.

As a candidate, Mamdani said he would relinquish mayoral control of schools—a key demand of teachers’ unions, which understand that putting schools under the direction of school-board officials elected in low-turnout races gives the unions enormous leverage over education policy. He reversed that position even before he took office. Perhaps he realized that voters would hold him accountable for school performance, and that his goals would not be served by ceding authority to an interest group whose incentive is to maximize teacher pay and job security rather than to produce good outcomes for students. He has also put off a promise to reduce class sizes, which teachers’ unions care about but which is not an especially cost-effective way to promote learning gains.

Mamdani did follow through on his promise to freeze rent for about 40 percent of the city’s apartments, even though nearly any economist would say that the freeze makes housing less affordable in the long run. But this move merely followed decades of ineffective precedent. Mamdani’s most novel position on housing has been to push for a streamlined approval process to unlock more private home construction.

He has pushed Albany to raise taxes dramatically on wealthy New Yorkers, although so far he has settled for a pied-à-terre tax on second homes worth more than $5 million. And he has continued to pursue his goofy notion of opening city-run grocery stores that he believes would hold down food prices. It is difficult to see how this project could succeed, because public employees have little expertise in the complex supermarket business, and subsidizing public stores to undercut their competitors on price would both threaten small businesses and encourage black-market reselling. But Mamdani met these and other objections to his plan by scaling the public stores back to the size of a small demonstration project.

At the same time, he has made many overtures to moderates. He unveiled an initiative to combat anti-Semitism, which some pro-Palestinian activists have denounced for funding Jewish organizations that are Zionist. He also maintained the NYPD’s Strategic Response Group, which has policed terrorist threats and aggressive protest tactics by activist organizations. The DSA has called this group “specialized units used to suppress dissent” and demanded that Mamdani abolish it. Leftists have denounced all of these moves, which prioritize security for the targets of protesters at the expense of the freedom of protesters to harass their targets.

More recently, he has infuriated the left by refusing to fire Tisch after ICE agents shot a New Yorker earlier this month. Instead, Mamdani praised Tisch—one of the best police commissioners in recent memory—for fighting corruption and bringing the murder rate to its lowest level in years.

Mamdani has not abandoned his antagonism toward Israel, which is the issue that animated his early career in politics and has helped endear him to the left. In his statement commemorating the October 7 massacre of Israelis, he devoted most of his attention to Palestinian victims of Israel’s counterattack. But if not everybody loves the balance he has struck, he is at least attempting to strike one. Mamdani has grasped the value, or at least the necessity, of reassuring Jewish New Yorkers of their safety, even if they disagree with him on the Middle East. This commitment has placed him at odds with the most radical elements of the Free Palestine movement, which have sought to make Zionists uncomfortable, if not outright frightened. When anti-Israel activists booed Mamdani and accused him of perpetrating genocide last week, they were responding to the fact that he is acting as a mayor for the city’s entire population, not the most fanatical elements of his base.

It’s possible that, in his heart, Mamdani would rather be leading a genuine socialist revolution than making hype videos of city workers filling potholes. But enacting socialism is notoriously harder than calling for it at a rally. It’s especially tricky to pull off in a city that faces severe fiscal constraints, whose rich denizens can easily move to nearby jurisdictions to protect their wealth, and that relies heavily on cooperation from the state legislature and the governor. A similar mismatch between ambition and authority applies to Mamdani’s vision of a post-Zionist Middle East, which lies well beyond the purview of his municipal powers.

To his credit, Mamdani has confronted quickly the hard realities that other socialist leaders have learned more painfully, trading his Marxist dream of revolutionary transformation for patient gradualism. Mamdani has adapted quickly to the limits of his office. His political talent (and core of allied social-media influencers) has enabled him to maintain his base of adoring fans even as he confines his work to humdrum municipal governance. Mamdani has discovered that socialism can succeed in New York through one simple trick: abandoning socialism.

Drawn by Adam D Thompson

Archive link: https://archive.ph/kXTzv

This new crisis looks different and the bloc’s leaders are preparing to talk directly to Putin

The latest crisis in relations between the US and Ukraine has strong echoes of the darkest days of 2025. The infamous televised Oval Office confrontation between JD Vance, Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy crystallised fears that America was now on Russia’s side. Those worries flared up again with the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska.

European leaders responded to these previous crises with determined Trump-whispering. They embraced Zelenskyy and coached him on how to sound grateful and conciliatory in his dealings with the US president. And they deluged Trump with phone calls and flattery, in an effort to take the roughest edges off US policy.

This time around things look different. Zelenskyy is much less restrained in his remarks about Trump. He has directly accused the US of throttling satellite services in Ukraine and suggested Trump is attracted to autocrats. The Ukrainians have also defied a US demand to stop hitting Russian energy facilities. This weekend saw some of the biggest strikes yet on oil facilities in St Petersburg.

Zelenskyy’s outspoken statements may be driven, in large part, by anger and exasperation. But there is also probably some calculation behind his change in tone. With Trump weakening in the polls and Republicans apparently heading for defeat in the midterm elections, it could be worth appealing to Americans over the heads of the president and his cronies. On the campaign trail, even some Republican candidates have questioned Trump’s plan to buy Russian diesel. Polls suggest Americans do not share Trump’s admiration for Vladimir Putin.

There is also an important shift under way in Europe’s approach to Russia. There is a growing consensus in European capitals that the continent’s leaders can no longer tolerate a situation where only the Americans are talking to Putin. Channels with the Russians are already open and a call between European leaders and Putin may happen soon.

The change in approach reflects a belief that Trump-whispering is increasingly ineffective — particularly given the president’s preoccupation with the midterms and his anger at what he regards as Europe’s failure to help him in Iran. The Europeans also fear US policy is largely driven by a desire for business deals with Russia, rather than a coherent security vision.

Europe’s own approach currently rests on two props — support for Ukraine and sanctions on Russia. Both policies are regarded as crucial, particularly as US support for Ukraine weakens. But direct European involvement in peacemaking efforts is also increasingly seen as a necessity — particularly since it is European money that is keeping Ukraine afloat, following the cut-off in US financial aid.

The Europeans seem confident Putin will be willing to talk. But the Russian leader himself is believed to be floating the idea of a three-way summit between himself, Trump and Xi Jinping of China. That kind of summit would play to Russia’s great-power pretensions — and would keep Ukraine and its most important supporters out of the room.

Russian wariness about engaging with the Europeans may be increased by the kind of proposals that could be put on the table. If and when European talks with Putin take place, the Russian leader is likely to be presented with two possible paths to peace. The first is to freeze the conflict on the current line of control — and in return get a guarantee that Ukraine will never join Nato. The second option would be for Ukraine to cede the rest of the Donbas to Russia — but then to join Nato.

Both of those choices would be regarded as a betrayal by some in Ukraine. But, given the strong desire for peace in his country, Zelenskyy might be able to sell either idea. The Europeans are much less confident that Putin is ready to accept either. But they still think it is important to start talking directly to the Russians.

Alongside the diplomatic rethink, there is also growing European determination to become less dependent on America for crucial capabilities — in particular, the satellite coverage provided by Starshield and Starlink. Two Finnish companies — Nokia and Iceye — this month announced a partnership to develop satellite communications networks for military and civilian purposes. But the first launches are not expected until 2028 — so that cannot solve Ukraine’s immediate problems.

For the moment, the Zelenskyy government remains very reliant on US satellite capabilities both to defend against incoming attacks — and to provide information for offensive operations. Indeed, the Ukrainians have not given up hope that they can persuade the US to extend satellite assistance, allowing them to target missile launch sites deep inside Russia.

The fact that Ukraine is still so dependent on US capabilities might suggest that it is in Zelenskyy’s interest to continue to be as obsequious as possible to Trump and Elon Musk — in the hope that they will relent and provide Kyiv with the help it needs.

Instead, the Ukrainian leader has gone in the opposite direction. He has even discussed the possibility that the US might side directly with Russia against Ukraine. “He’s gone full Carney” is the verdict of one top European.

That is certainly a risky strategy. But Trump has not left the Ukrainians with many better options.

Gen. Xavier Brunson suggested that the Republic of Korea “begins” at a fence 2 kilometers south of the Military Demarcation Line — remarks that run contrary to the Armistice Agreement

Ukraine did not receive a warning from the US about an impending Russian missile attack on Sunday evening, Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said, reviving concerns that Washington is withholding intelligence in order to bully Kyiv into capitulating to Moscow.

Yuri Ihnat, a spokesperson for the Ukrainian Air Force, said on television on Monday morning that Ukraine had not received a warning before a Russian missile barrage hit power plants in Kyiv at around 11pm. Earlier, a Ukrainian government official had told the Guardian the US had not warned the capital about the impending missile strike.

Ukraine did receive a warning before a successive strike, at 3am, Ihnat added.

“Once again, Russia launched a ballistic missile attack in multiple waves throughout the night, and once again, there was no warning from our partners,” Zelenskyy wrote in a social media post on Monday morning.

“When the supply of missiles for Ukrainian air defence is blocked, and Russia receives sanctions relief or delays, it is, unfortunately, a denial of reality on the part of our partners,” the president added.

On Friday, Donald Trump waived a sweeping package of sanctions on Russia, telling Congress the pause on the legislation, named after the late senator Lindsey Graham and passed by both chambers, was in the national interest. Ukraine has also complained of slowed deliveries of PAC-3 air defence missiles from the US.

The US president wrote on Truth Social on Sunday: “My decision on Russia is a very simple one. I am in the process of negotiating peace in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and don’t want to do anything that will drive, foolishly, Russia away from the bargaining table.

“Zelenskyy doesn’t care, and frankly, with all of the money that Europe is famously giving him … he doesn’t want to end this war, and probably never did.”

For years, the US had warned Ukraine before Russia launches ballistic missiles, giving authorities several minutes to sound alarms and allow civilians to reach shelters before the strikes hit. However, Ukraine has said it was not warned on at least three days in the past week before missiles were launched, amid a public quarrel between Zelenskyy and Trump.

Speaking in the early hours of Monday on a trip to Samarkand, Uzbekistan, the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, said: “If it happened last night, I don’t know exactly. I know a few nights ago there was a software problem involving their early warning system.”

US officials have not previously mentioned a software glitch in the early warning system. In at least one case, Ukrainian officials had been told that bad weather over southern Russia had obscured preparations for the missile launch. Rubio said the military’s European Command was looking into the strikes.

The US has maintained plausible deniability as services and programmes provided to support Ukraine have suddenly begun to fail. The Trump administration has denied that it throttled services in Ukraine for Starlink, the satellite internet service run by Elon Musk that is used both on offensive drones and anti-air weapons by Ukraine.

Ukraine has also said US weapons delivered through the PURL scheme, where Europe purchases US weapons then delivers them to Ukraine, have been delayed. The Trump administration reportedly threatened Kyiv with a slowdown in crucial weapons deliveries unless it stopped striking Russian oil refineries.

In early October 2026, South Korean conservatives took to the streets to protest President Lee Jae-myung. The rallies came amid deep partisan divisions following former president Yoon Suk Yeol's failed attempt to impose martial law in December 2024.

Lee Jae-myung's own administration has plenty of problems, but that's not the main story. The bigger factor is the broader political climate.

Like much of the world, South Korea has been caught up in a broader rightward shift (just look at recent developments in Brazil and Germany). In foreign policy, anti-China sentiment now plays much better in South Korea than anti-Japanese sentiment.

The Korean right had everything going for it, while the left basically had no shot. Then Yoon Suk Yeol came along and fumbled the bag spectacularly. A career prosecutor who'd spent his entire professional life inside the prosecution service, Yoon turned out to be an absolute disaster as president. His greedy, dim-witted wife, a walking plastic-surgery meme, kept getting baited by the press into one scandal after another. And then, apparently after mainlining YouTube conspiracy slop until his brain turned to mush, Yoon pulled off the most spectacular self-own imaginable: a catastrophically stupid martial-law stunt that blew up in his face and torched the Korean right's golden opportunity.

Without Yoon handing them the game on a silver platter, Lee Jae-myung, derisively nicknamed "North Korean puppet Lee," and the Korean left, already mired in their own political shit, would never have even made it to the table. Their weak political footing was simply papered over by Yoon's next-level clownery and South Korea's economic "golden age," especially the stock-market boom.

Yoon's moves were so stupid, ham-fisted, and damaging that they were almost beyond parody. A president shaping his political worldview by binge-watching far-right conspiracy slop on YouTube sounds like a satirical fake-news story straight out of The Babylon Bee.

In a relatively centrist political climate, this should have been an instant career-ender. It was the gravest breach of democratic norms since South Korea's democratization, and both sides should have united in condemning it. Even bitter political opponents should be able to agree on some basic democratic ground rules. Yoon should have been politically finished, utterly disgraced.

Yet in reality, huge numbers of people continued to support him, openly defying the authorities. The left and right became locked in a prolonged political standoff, while online discourse grew even more lopsided. Conspiracy theories recast the martial-law attempt as a heroic stand against supposed Chinese control, portraying Yoon as some lone hero willing to put everything on the line. The whole affair even spilled over into anti-China demonstrations, with protesters hurling anti-Chinese slurs and chanting for Chinese people to "get out."

This shows just how far South Korea's alt-right has pushed its way into the political mainstream. It also lays bare the collapse of consensus politics after years of mutual destruction between left and right. Both sides just want to destroy each other, and nobody gives a damn about the rules or basic decency. The whole episode also reveals something about the underlying character of South Korean public opinion.

The Korean right is far more unhinged than its Japanese counterpart, and even more so than the American right. Of course, the Korean left, Lee Jae-myung included, isn't exactly a bunch of saints either. This is a no-holds-barred war with no honor on either side.

But even if Lee were better in every conceivable way, would that have prevented mass protests by the Korean right? Not a chance. The hatred between the two camps has become completely detached from reality, a perpetual-motion machine running on nothing. In the Korean right's worldview, Lee, the supposed "North Korean puppet," is nothing more than a marionette controlled by the evil CCP. Whatever he does, it's automatically assumed to be part of some sinister plot.

South Korea really is the final boss of grind culture. People run on no sleep and iced Americanos every day, and their collective mental state is... something else.

Japan, by contrast, doesn't have the kind of two-party rivalry where both sides are locked in a no-holds-barred arms race of extremism and mutual destruction. The LDP is a big-tent party that leans right, keeps drifting further right, and has dominated Japanese politics for decades. But a big tent is still a big tent.

At the end of the day, even rival LDP leaders are colleagues from different factions within the same party. They may be trying to tear each other to shreds behind closed doors, but they're still forced to compromise and cut backroom deals. Today you're my defense minister; tomorrow I'm your party secretary-general. They can't just go all-in on a fight to the death and refuse to back down.

A representative democracy can't function properly on institutions alone. It also needs some basic political consensus as its foundation. Otherwise, when a Trump-like figure takes power, most of the institutional safeguards people count on turn out to be little more than paper shields.

America's golden age was when the two parties really were "about equally rotten," and their policy differences were mostly down in the weeds. That was why they could work together in Congress. Those were the good old days when Democrat Joe Biden and Republican John McCain could forge a lifelong friendship across party lines.

Compare that with today, when whoever takes office makes settling scores with the other side their first order of business. Crushing domestic opponents takes priority over dealing with external threats, and the goal is to rip up and reverse as much of the previous administration's agenda as possible. Then, when they leave office, they regret not having gone even harder on their opponents.

In this kind of environment, even genuine disagreements become difficult to resolve through the democratic process itself. Instead, every time power changes hands, the two sides add another link to an ever-growing chain of mutual hatred.

The result is a severe incumbent penalty: hyperpolarized political warfare and a deeply fractured society mean that whoever takes office struggles to leave anyone satisfied. In a sense, it's a vicious cycle of polarization and political revenge.

Prime Minister Mark Carney says he is “open” to amending the Canadian constitution to deal with major questions of structural change but only where there is strong “consensus” in the country.

In little-noticed comments during a podcast interview with host Ryan Jespersen, the prime minister addressed how he intends to respond to Alberta’s concerns, and why he advocated for voters to reject a future binding independence referendum, along with urging them to say “no to the nine” other questions and vote against Premier Danielle Smith’s other proposals for change.

Monday’s referendum vote asks 10 critical questions about Alberta’s place in Canada, including nine demands for more power over immigration, judicial appointments and withdrawal from federal programs with compensation guarantees. A demand to abolish the unelected Senate — long on Alberta’s wish list — would require constitutional change.

In the interview recorded Friday after he appeared alongside Smith in Red Deer, Carney insisted the federal Liberal government under him is already working with provinces on immigration reform and on changing the rules around investment in this country.

He went on to say, “The constitution is not unamendable, to be clear.”

“But it requires building a real consensus around what’s necessary to change and why it (should) change and which elements you are going to change,” said Carney.

In last week’s whirlwind trip between Calgary and Edmonton, Carney repeatedly outlined his belief that Canada “is working” and on the podcast repeated his view is that it is important to make “positive” change by working with provinces.

“Through cooperative federalism, through making the country work, we’re building that track record in Alberta,” and he added, making progress with other provinces, citing Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, the territories, Nova Scotia and others in the Atlantic region. “You build that, and then you say, ‘OK, where do we need to change?’”

“I get the point about an unelected Senate,” Carney said, but he pushed back against calls to make that a priority.

The prime minister argued that where Alberta representation counts is in the elected House of Commons. He said the number of seats in that chamber is periodically updated to reflect changes in population, and Alberta has gained seats as a result. “The primacy of the House of Commons in developing legislation and governing the country is reinforced by that democratic legitimacy.”

“Am I open to constitutional reform?” Carney continued. “Yes, I’m open to it,” he said. “But I’m not open to — or I’m open to it with laying the groundwork for consensus. And part of the way you, in my judgment, the way you lay groundwork for that is you build trust, you build on success, you move forward … And that in my view is the most effective way to do that.”

Carney said his job as prime minister is to “work with the facts on the ground, the governments we have in provinces, the governments that exist around the world and working with all stakeholders, including First Nations.” At another point, he noted the difficulty of renegotiating the Crown’s relationship with the First Nations who signed Treaties 6, 7 and 8 on territory that covers Alberta.

The prime minister made clear that he views Alberta’s concerns as “issues,” not grievances.

Carney reminded listeners the constitution’s amending formula was developed by former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed, calling him the greatest premier the province had.

The amending formula is complicated. It requires a unanimous vote by all provinces, the Commons and the Senate for certain changes, including major ones to the Senate itself. It requires the support of seven out of 10 provinces representing more than 50 per cent of the population for other changes — and Smith made a point on Friday to a conservative conference that she believes that the latter requirement is a threshold that can be met now that there are conservative-leaning governments in eight provinces.

Lawyer Keith Wilson, a leader of separatist voices in Alberta, said Saturday in an interview with the Star that a lot of the “gestures” by Carney are “temporary and relationship-based” and “not constitutionally based; they’re not structural, they’re not statutory based.”

“And that means Albertans continue to be vulnerable. We could have another national energy program. We could have an export tax imposed which would be devastating to our economy.”

Wilson said the federal government can only truly address those demands with “actual structural reforms, not just nice photo-ops.”

On the eve of its referendum, Alberta now stares down a fundamental question: is Monday’s vote the finish line, or the starting point to a years-long struggle over separation?

Independence leaders are vowing to keep up the fight regardless of the outcome and in the face of expectations from pollsters and federalist Albertans that their opinion is the minority. 

The margin of victory will determine the force with which that movement can assert itself in Alberta’s political culture, or how reassured federalists can be of the province’s chances of staying in Confederation.

That raises the pressure of the high-stakes referendum even higher.

Thomas Lukaszuk, the former Progressive Conservative deputy premier who traversed the province in his maple leaf-speckled RV, first collecting signatures for a petition rejecting independence and then later campaigning ahead of Monday’s vote, says a win must be big enough to “send a very strong message.”

“It has to be decisive, and that means we as Canadians have to accept it as being decisive. I am not the one to define what decisive means, but at the end of this painful and divisive process we as Albertans and we as Canadians have to be satisfied that Albertans have sent a clear signal to the rest of Canada and to the rest of the world that this country is united,” he said.

“Certainly, (a) 50 per cent plus one vote would not do it, but in the realm of 70 per cent and higher would definitely send a very clear signal.”

Lukaszuk spoke after sharing a stage at back-to-back evening rallies with the prime minister, who travelled to Alberta Thursday and Friday to urge voters to turn out to ensure a “decisive” win that he said is needed to be commanding.

Throughout rallies and whistle stops in Calgary, Edmonton and Red Deer, Carney hammered home a message that suggested people should not take polls for granted.

The stakes are also high for Smith, who said the separatists in her own party should accept the results of a decisive vote to defeat the movement, but she declined to say how she would deal with those in her ranks who refuse to abide by the outcome. 

In Berlin, a coalition consisting of the Left Party, the Greens, and the SPD is becoming increasingly likely. CSU leader Markus Söder and others within the Union are seething, and criticism is also mounting within the SPD at the federal level. The federal government now has one more problem to deal with.

For Markus Söder, the conditions could hardly be better. As the CSU leader takes the stage on Sunday morning at the Junge Union’s "Deutschlandtag" (Germany Day) event, the dominant topic among the delegates is the potential left-wing coalition in Berlin. Following the release of an exploratory paper by The Left, the Greens, and the SPD in the capital the previous day (read more about that here), the outrage among the youth wing of the Union parties is immense. And Söder is enough of a political pro to harness that anger to his advantage. He knows that nothing unites parties quite like a common opponent.

"The red front is standing firm," the CSU leader rails. He warns that a red-green-red coalition intends to carry out expropriations—"and on a massive scale, at that." He calls it "Honecker 2.0." Expropriating housing corporations would cost 16 billion euros, "but, of course, someone else is expected to foot the bill"—Bavaria, for instance, via the fiscal equalization scheme between the German states.

Söder then turns his attention to the federal SPD. "We must now pass a law as quickly as possible that puts an end to these absurd fantasies about expropriation." He notes that this had been agreed upon, and adds that if the SPD refuses to follow through, it demonstrates that they support the expropriation plans put forward by those involved in the 'red-green-red' exploratory talks.

Söder is also calling on his coalition partner to take action regarding migration policy. He argues that it is unacceptable for the capital to undermine the hardline migration stance established by CSU Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt. He insists that plans for new state-level admission programs must be blocked through federal legislation.

Furthermore, Söder suggests that the SPD and its popular Defense Minister, Boris Pistorius, should head to the Rotes Rathaus—Berlin’s city hall—because, according to a preliminary policy document, the cooperation between the Berlin Senate Department for Education and the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) is set to be terminated. This would mean that soldiers would no longer be permitted to speak in schools.

The Chancellor is powerless

Söder’s statements are well received by the young politicians of the CDU and CSU. Time and again, he draws loud, rhythmic applause. The atmosphere during his appearance on Sunday morning is more relaxed than it was during Friedrich Merz’s speech the previous day.

While the latter also issued a stern warning against a left-wing coalition in Berlin, Merz faced two challenges during his address. First, the delegates primarily wanted to hear how he intended to push through pension reform against the SPD’s opposition and resolve the CDU’s internal crisis. Second, the exploratory paper for the Berlin coalition had not yet been released at the time of his speech. Unlike Söder, Merz could not engage with specific policy points; he could only make appeals. "This is unacceptable! Stop it!" he exclaimed, directing his remarks at the SPD and the Greens. Shortly thereafter, those parties unveiled their plans for the capital.

The formation of a government in Berlin is becoming an additional burden for the already beleaguered federal coalition. Thorsten Frei, leader of the Union’s parliamentary group, describes it as "an unnecessary game with fire." He argues that antisemitism and fantasies about the socialization of assets have no place in the capital. "Anyone who recklessly engages with the political fringes is shaking the very foundations of our country. Berlin deserves better," says Frei.

Junge Union seeks to ostracize left-wing state government

On Sunday, the Junge Union demonstrated a fierce determination not to simply accept this development. The delegates unanimously passed a motion that harshly criticizes a potential left-wing coalition. The document was initiated by JU leader Johannes Winkel and Johannes Volkmann.

The exploratory paper from the red-green-red coalition contains "a great deal that goes beyond the limits of what is tolerable and beyond the boundaries of our constitution," says Winkel. Volkmann describes the agreement as a "shameful low point—a rupture in our culture—for which the SPD and the Greens must be held accountable." The motion from the JU (Young Union) includes four demands:

• a "political and social ostracism" of a potential coalition in Berlin between The Left Party, the Greens, and the SPD;
• the exclusion of the state [of Berlin] from the information systems used by security agencies;
• a federal law prohibiting the socialization [of assets/property]—a measure the coalition committee had agreed upon in the summer. This ban must now be implemented, "if necessary, by invoking the Federal Chancellor’s authority to set policy guidelines";
• a body tasked with documenting potential legal violations in Berlin.

Resistance from the SPD parliamentary group

The SPD leadership has remained largely silent so far. Only Defense Minister Pistorius has spoken out, calling it "completely incomprehensible" that the prospective coalition partners in Berlin intend to terminate the cooperation agreement with the Bundeswehr—an agreement that was only concluded in June of this year. "Ending the cooperation agreement in Berlin would send a signal against the Bundeswehr and its vital mission," Pistorius warned. "Such a signal must not come from Berlin."

Within the SPD’s parliamentary group, however, discontent is brewing. As early as last week, a number of lawmakers—led by interior policy spokesperson Sebastian Fiedler and digital policy spokesperson Johannes Schätzl—expressed their dissatisfaction in a statement and began gathering signatures from across the party’s various factions. They did not quite finish the process, partly because deliberations on the legislation to reform the intelligence services demanded a great deal of attention. But now, they are no longer willing to wait.

"Our compass of values ​​is never up for negotiation," reads the headline of a statement obtained by Der Spiegel. "In our view, the recurring conflicts regarding antisemitism within the Berlin branch of The Left party—along with documented contacts with the Rammo clan’s circle and individuals from extremist milieus, as well as the disputes over how these matters have been handled—raise significant doubts about the political reliability of this state branch," the 20 signatories write.

In addition to Fiedler, the signatories include other interior policy experts such as Daniel Baldy, Helge Lindh, and Ingo Vogel, as well as leading representatives from various internal party factions. Esra Limbacher and Claudia Moll, spokespersons for the "Seeheimer Kreis," have endorsed the statement, as have Lina Seitzl—a spokesperson for the "Berlin Network"—and board member Markus Töns. Former Interior Minister Nancy Faeser is also among the signatories, as is Johann Saathoff, Parliamentary State Secretary at the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.

"Antisemitism is not a peripheral issue that can be resolved with a joint statement," the SPD lawmakers write. The protection of Jewish life, they assert, is "non-negotiable." They further note that even a well-founded suspicion that individuals linked to organized crime or terrorist organizations could gain political access undermines trust. "This makes our support for the police and security agencies all the more important."

While the signatories acknowledge the decision-making authority of the Berlin state branch of the party, they also point to their own "responsibility for the credibility of shared social democratic principles." "For this reason, under the current circumstances, we strongly oppose the initiation of coalition negotiations with the Berlin Left Party," they write.

Within the Union, such voices are likely being noted with approval, yet those issuing these warnings do nothing to alter the fundamental problem. "The SPD needs to explain, once again and in precise terms, what is happening here and how it plays out in reality," demands Markus Söder, just before departing the Junge Union’s "Deutschlandtag" (Germany Day) event. After all, he notes, it "naturally" places a strain on the government’s overall functioning.

Text translated by Google Translate, mistakes are my own.

Russian President Vladimir Putin had reportedly suggested a summit between himself, U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping for a deal to end the Ukraine war.

The meeting was mentioned in a phone call to Trump on Oct. 9, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, citing a former Russian intelligence officer briefed on the matter. The call also produced a deal for Moscow to sell diesel oil on the global market.

The summit is not confirmed, but if it takes place will not involve Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and may take place at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in November in the Chinese city of Shenzhen.

The country has descended into chaos. Massive debt problem, political polarization, and welfare state bloat. How do you fix it?

With the recent articles on AI and Solar tech export controls, it seems like China is now concerned about possible loss of its tech advantage. Is that really such a risk, however? It seems like they are on par with other countries: is there some unique insight or development they want to protect, or are they more concerned with some other geopolitical gambit I can't see?

The No Kings movement has long been a subject of debate on this subreddit. Some have supported the anti-Trump, anti-authoritarian protests, while others have been more cynical, arguing that one-day mega rallies aren’t going to depose Trump, and that protests without specific actionable policy demands are useless.

I have long argued here that the No Kings protest are a dress rehearsal for nonviolent mass resistance to attempted election theft by Trump and his cronies. The point is to build the muscle memory of demonstration up, so that if that critical moment comes where DOJ agents are seizing ballot boxes or ICE is barring Democratic Representatives-elect from the halls of Congress on trumped-up fraud charges, friends of democracy already know what to do.

In their first update after their October 17th early voting drive, No Kings leadership has basically confirmed my theory of the case.

>No Kings: Vote Early on October 17 was a powerful start, but there’s more work to do.

>We must ensure that every valid vote is counted, certified, and protected.

>The No Kings movement stands ready to mobilize in response to attacks on our elections. By signing the No Kings pledge, you commit to be part of the solution, ready to join mass nonviolent action in rapid response to election disruption and subversion if needed.

>Sign the pledge now to host or attend an event in your community if a national rapid response mobilization is called.

>Following the October 17 No Kings: Vote Early mass day of activations, gather with the No Kings movement online on Wednesday 10/21 at 8pm ET / 5pm PT to talk about the final push for voter turnout, as well as what happens post-election: how we're preparing for election enforcement, how you can start to plan now to be ready to protect the results of the election.

>From today through Election Day, No Kings has a dual mission: continuing to drive every eligible voter to cast their ballot, while preparing our nationwide network to rapidly respond to any attempts at election interference.

>If officials attempt to obstruct the count or refuse to certify valid results, our movement must be ready to stand together in disciplined, nonviolent community action to defend our elections. This includes you.

This is a call to flood the streets like Ukrainians did in 2014 and South Koreans did in 2024. Theirs is not a call to violence - No Kings is exceedingly clear that they are nonviolent for both ideological and practical reasons - but a call to civil resistance should we come face to face with an attempt to convert what has been a democratic republic into a one party personalistic dictatorship.

TL,DR: it has long been debated whether No Kings has a coherent theory of the purpose of their protests. This update proves they do. We may hope that their theory is *wrong*, and that Trump just sulks away in the face of Democratic victories, but if they are right in their predictions, their preparations make sense.

Relation to this sub: the Trump administration is both anti-democratic and exceedingly hostile to the beliefs of this subreddit. Movements to preserve American democracy in the face of authoritarian threats are central to keeping the policies of this subreddit politically viable, in addition to this subreddit’s own committment to democracy.

European companies face “devastating” retaliation from Washington if Brussels presses ahead with plans to restrict American rivals such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX from parts of the European market, the US ambassador to the EU has warned.

Andrew Puzder’s warning comes after the European Commission this year proposed reserving part of its spectrum band that allows smartphones to connect directly to satellites for European players. That would limit the frequencies for Chinese and US companies such as SpaceX, which operates the Starlink satellite network.

Asked whether European companies should fear retaliation, Puzder told the FT that they “should be wary that it could happen and it would be very devastating for those companies”, given the size of the American market.

The proposed changes to the bloc’s spectrum allocation have already raised fierce criticism from SpaceX, which has warned the move risks poorer connectivity in Ukraine where its Starlink service has been critical to civilian and military communications since Russia’s full-scale invasion.

The proposed changes are part of a broader push to strengthen Europe’s technological sovereignty.

European policymakers are seeking to reduce their dependence on American technology amid concerns about the unpredictability of US President Donald Trump and the risk of relying on foreign companies for critical infrastructure.

The European Commission has introduced a Cloud and AI Development Act that would impose sovereignty requirements on providers of sensitive cloud services, while seeking to help European technology companies to scale up and provide alternatives to US tech companies.

Puzder said he recognised Europe’s right to protect sensitive government information but warned against using legislation to favour domestic companies at the expense of American competitors.

“If the purpose is to make United States less competitive, I think that that’s not a legitimate goal of this kind of legislation,” Puzder said. “You don’t make European companies more competitive by making US companies less competitive.

“We have best-in-class products in this area. They’re reliable products, they’re trusted products. We don’t need some kind of synchronised mediocrity.”

The ambassador also questioned whether the EU’s enforcement of its Digital Markets Act, which seeks to curb the power of the world’s largest technology companies, was really aimed at improving competition or more at generating revenue for the European budget, given the multibillion-euro fines on American companies.

“You start to wonder, are we trying to deal with the competition in the digital marketplace or are we trying to generate revenue from American companies to benefit Europe?”

Puzder argued Europe’s ambitions to strengthen its own tech industry risked being undermined by its regulatory approach and by discouraging investment from the American companies, as US tech companies are growing increasingly frustrated by the EU’s regulatory restrictions and fines.

Instead of seeking to curb the dominance of American companies, Brussels and Washington should join forces to compete with China in the race to develop AI, Puzder said, echoing comments from Trump that “the worst thing that could happen is that we lose this race to China”.

The ambassador urged Europe “to let go of this regulatory mindset where they’re going to try and stop things because we’re in a race with China” — both on AI and on quantum computing.

He said the US has the ingredients to win that race “but it’d be a lot easier if we were working with Europe instead of fighting Europe”.

The Commission said the proposal “incentivises the entry into the market and diversification of EU suppliers, while remaining open to non-EU operators”.