Tag: eu

EU state denies entry to Russian athletes

Latvia has denied entry to Russian athletes ahead of a crucial Luge World Cup stage hosted by the EU country, its foreign minister, Baiba Braze, has announced.

Like its Baltic neighbors Lithuania and Estonia, Latvia has been one of the staunchest opponents of Moscow since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, calling for more military aid to Kiev and increasingly harsh sanctions on Russia. Riga has provided almost $1 billion in assistance to the government of Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky since February 2022.

On January 3 and 4, the Latvian town of Sigulda hosts the fourth stage of the Luge World Cup. The points scored in the event are essential for athletes to qualify for the Winter Olympics in Italy’s Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo in February 2026.

Braze wrote in a post on X on Wednesday that Russian lugers “are not welcome in Latvia.”

“I have decided to include 14 Russian Federation citizens on the persona non grata list,” she said.

According to the foreign minister, the entry ban, introduced in line with the country’s immigration legislation, is indefinite.

Keep reading

Trump State Department Bars EU-Linked Globalists from Entry for Pushing Anti-Free Speech Censorship

The US Department of State, under the direction of Marco Rubio, has taken a rare and decisive step against European political figures accused of acting against American interests, barring several prominent individuals who’ve sought to censor free and open dialogue on American platforms.

The bold move signals a sharp and definitive break from years of deference—and even subservience—to Brussels’ ever-increasing, draconian regulatory ambitions.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio rightly framed the action as a defense of American free speech against what he described as organized, ideological pressure from abroad. He made it crystal clear that the era of tolerating overseas attempts to silence U.S. voices and American positions is over.

In a post on X, Rubio Wrote: “For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship.

Keep reading

Swiss Authorities Silent As EU Sanctions One Of World’s Most Respected Military Analysts

When German journalists Röper and Lipp were sanctioned, no one in Switzerland reacted—now one of the world’s most respected military analysts is being sanctioned—a Swiss citizen. Weltwoche is waking up, Switzerland is fast asleep.

Introduction

Terrorizing journalists with sanctions in order to suppress the truth is nothing new for the EU.

On May 20, 2025, the EU sanctioned two German journalists for the first time—Alina Lipp and Thomas Röper. At the time, we reported in detail on this case, “EU sanctions German journalists,” and also analyzed the case from a legal perspective.

The result was clear: punishment without crime or trial, disenfranchisement and expropriation without a hearing.

The EU is dangerously close to the Nazi regime of 1936, when Thomas Mann was expatriated.

Following the same pattern, action is now being taken against a Swiss citizen for the first time.

Jacques Baud – You Can’t Be More Objective Than He Is

Jacques Baud is one of the most objective and respected military analysts around. He is highly regarded and respected not only throughout Europe, but also in the US.

His work is not limited to analysis on the most prestigious YouTube platforms; he has also written numerous excellent books. His style is unique in that he does not concern himself with politics, but only with the analysis of warfare, in a calm and dispassionate manner. His analyses have never been anti-Ukrainian or pro-Russian, but objective.

He has long seen a NATO defeat on the horizon, not based on his wishes, but on the facts on the long front and the war strategy and tactics of the various parties.

This did not fit in at all with the Russophobic war cries of the EU, which still dreams of ultimate victory today, just like Adolf Hitler did in the spring of 1945.

The latest example comes from Friedrich Merz, whose lucidity must now seriously be called into question. To justify the theft of Russian assets, he said the following before the German Bundestag on December 15, 2025:

“To be very clear and very explicit here: we are not doing this to prolong the war. On the contrary, we are doing this to end this war as quickly as possible, ladies and gentlemen. Because this sends a clear signal to Moscow that continuing this war is pointless for Moscow.”

Friedrich Merz, December 15, 2025

Jacques Baud’s crime was therefore that his analyses were correct – no more and no less.

Die Weltwoche Stands up— Finally

When Alina Lipp and Thomas Röper were sanctioned, Weltwoche contented itself with an indifferent, lukewarm article and did not stand up for its colleagues – we were shocked.

It seems that the opportunistic Mr. Köppel has felt the heat from Ms. Kaja Kallas a little too closely for his liking: Köppel is finally standing up, because he could be next, and, as Martin Niemöller said, when it’s your turn, you’re wide awake.

“First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

Holocaust Memorial Day Trust

Now Weltwoche is also reflecting on the lack of a fair hearing and politically motivated persecution, not in as much detail as in our article of May 25, 2025, but still.

“Opportunism is costing a 70-year-old military analyst his quality of life”

Weltwoche has published half a dozen articles on Jacque Baud, and Köppel is playing the Joan of Arc of journalists, styling himself in his own way as the Winkelried of his guild. It’s rather late in the day. Had Köppel reacted with the same force in May, the men and women in Brussels would probably have thought twice about sanctioning a Swiss citizen. Opportunism is costing a 70-year-old military analyst his quality of life.

Keep reading

EU is Broke & Rejects Peace Since They Would Have to Return Russian Money

I have been getting emails asking if the EU robbing Russia is the prelude to the Great Taking. Let’s make this very clear – there is NO GREAT TAKING – that is sophistry. You might as well add that they will default on all pensions, medicare, and Social Security while at it. Not even the army would defend such actions.

Without the army, the government fails just as the 1991 coup in Russia collapsed when the army did not fire on the people. They know that such a “Great Taking” would be revolution. We will all be singing the Revolution song from Les Misérables.

The EU is on the verge of absolute collapse. Not only economically are they still in love with Marxism, but they are floundering and they are losing the support of member states all thanks to their stupid migrant policies, excessively high taxation, over-regulation, and now their desperate attempt to shut down free speech in a cynical effort to retain power. As I warned, the EU will sabotage any effort by Trump to end the war Ukraine. This is about the conquest of Russia for money.

Keep reading

The EU is getting ready for its most dangerous move

Modern diplomacy is increasingly taking on strange and contradictory forms. Participants in the latest round of Ukraine-related talks in Berlin report significant progress and even a degree of rapprochement. How accurate these claims are is hard to judge. When Donald Trump says the positions have converged by 90%, he may be correct in a purely numerical sense. But the remaining 10% includes issues of fundamental importance to all sides. This, however, does not stop Trump from insisting that progress is being made. He needs to create a sense of inevitability, believing momentum itself can force an outcome. Perhaps he is right.

What is more paradoxical is the configuration of the negotiations themselves. On one side sits Ukraine, a direct participant in the conflict. On the other are the Western European countries surrounding it. Indirect participants who, in practice, are doing everything possible to prevent an agreement from being reached too quickly. Their goal is clear: To persuade Kiev not to give in to pressure. Meanwhile, the US presents itself as a neutral mediator, seeking a compromise acceptable to everyone.

There are obvious reasons to doubt American neutrality, but let us assume for the sake of argument that Washington is acting in good faith. Even then, one crucial actor is conspicuously absent from the visible negotiating process: Russia. In principle, this is not unusual. Mediators often work separately with opposing sides. But in the public narrative, events are presented as if the most important decisions are being made without Moscow. Trump’s allies and intermediaries pressure Zelensky and the Western Europeans to accept certain terms, after which Russia is expected to simply agree. If it does not, it is immediately accused of sabotaging peace.

Keep reading

Why Should Americans Die For European Tyranny?

After the European Commission levied a several-hundred-million-dollar fine on Elon Musk and his social media platform X earlier this month, journalist Michael Shellenberger wrote a damning post in which he excoriated Europe’s rank censorship and state-sponsored propaganda.  He accused the commission of engaging “in a deception campaign aimed at confusing” Europeans and Americans into thinking that European elites’ “goal” is anything other than “to censor the American people.”

Shellenberger pointed out that Musk’s fine came while European governments are demanding backdoor access to all private text messages (under the pretense of combatting the transmission of child pornography) and creating a so-called “Democracy Shield” of government-funded “fact-checkers” that enables “censorship by proxy.”  He also noted that the European Commission announced the fine to coincide with the rollout of the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy, in which President Trump makes this promise: “We will oppose elite-driven, anti-democratic restrictions on core liberties in Europe, the Anglosphere, and the rest of the democratic world, especially among our allies.”

Shellenberger put two and two together to make a provocative observation:

“The EU is now in direct violation of the NATO Treaty,” which “requires member states to have free speech and free and fair elections.  France and Germany are actively and illegally preventing political candidates from running for office for ideological reasons, namely their opposition to mass migration.  And the Romanian high court, with the support of the European Commission, nullified election results under the thin and unproven pretext of Russian interference, after a nationalist and populist presidential candidate won.”

As a parting shot, Shellenberger accused the European political class of betraying its own constitution, a document that purports to protect free speech:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.  This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.”  

How can the European Commission pretend to defend its own charter when it seeks to eradicate the free exchange of ideas on X, censor Americans’ speech, spy on citizens’ private text messages, and create an army of government-funded NGOs to justify censorship and push the commission’s propaganda?

Keep reading

EU to Scrap 2035 Combustion-Engine Cars Prohibition, as Even Brussels Establishment Begins to Covertly Adopt Rightwing Policies

EU Commission walks back some suicidal ‘green’ policies.

The measure of the success by the right-wingers in Europe expresses itself not only by the high popularity numbers that the anti-Globalist parties are showing – leading in Germany, France and the UK.

There’s also the fact that leftist-liberal-Globalist politicians all over the continent are rushing to present some semblance of policy changes that mimic the successful right-wing ideas that deeply resonate with the voters.

The two most relevant examples deal with unchecked mass migration and ‘climate change/Net zero’ lunatic policies.

This basically demonstrates that patriotic forces come armed with better ideas and more effective policies.

To see the EU now defending the creation of ‘return hubs’ for illegal migrants – a clear copy of UK’s former PM Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda plan – is very significant.

And then, we have the promised EU ban on new combustion-engine cars starting in 2035, which has just been ditched, in one of the EU’s biggest walk-backs from its ‘green’ policies in recent years.

Reuters reported:

“The move, which still needs approval from EU governments and the European Parliament, would allow continued sales of some non-electric vehicles. Carmakers in regional industrial powerhouse Germany and in Italy had sought easing of the rules.”

Keep reading

Privacy For The Powerful, Surveillance For The Rest: EU’s Proposed Tech Regulation Goes Too Far

Last month, we lamented California’s Frontier AI Act of 2025. The Act favors compliance over risk management, while shielding bureaucrats and lawmakers from responsibility. Mostly, it imposes top-down regulatory norms, instead of letting civil society and industry experts experiment and develop ethical standards from the bottom up.

Perhaps we could dismiss the Act as just another example of California’s interventionist penchant. But some American politicians and regulators are already calling for the Act to be a “template for harmonizing federal and state oversight.” The other source for that template would be the European Union (EU), so it’s worth keeping an eye on the regulations spewed out of Brussels.

The EU is already way ahead of California in imposing troubling, top-down regulation. Indeed, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act of 2024 follows the EU’s overall precautionary principle. As the EU Parliament’s internal think tank explains, “the precautionary principle enables decision-makers to adopt precautionary measures when scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is uncertain and the stakes are high.” The precautionary principle gives immense power to the EU when it comes to regulating in the face of uncertainty — rather than allowing for experimentation with the guardrails of fines and tort law (as in the US). It stifles ethical learning and innovation. Because of the precautionary principle and associated regulation, the EU economy suffers from greater market concentration, higher regulatory compliance costs, and diminished innovation — compared to an environment that allows for experimentation and sensible risk management. It is small wonder that only four of the world’s top 50 tech companies are European.

From Stifled Innovation to Stifled Privacy

Along with the precautionary principle, the second driving force behind EU regulation is the advancement of rights — but cherry-picking from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights of rights that often conflict with others. For example, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of 2016 was imposed with the idea of protecting a fundamental right to personal data protection (this is technically separate from the right to privacy, and gives the EU much more power to intervene — but that is the stuff of academic journals). The GDPR ended up curtailing the right to economic freedom.

This time, fundamental rights are being deployed to justify the EU’s fight against child sexual abuse. We all love fundamental rights, and we all hate child abuse. But, over the years, fundamental rights have been deployed as a blunt and powerful weapon to expand the EU’s regulatory powers. The proposed Child Sex Abuse regulation (CSA) is no exception. What is exceptional, is the extent of the intrusion: the EU is proposing to monitor communications among European citizens, lumping them all together as potential threats rather than as protected speech that enjoys a prima facie right to privacy.

As of 26 November 2025, the EU bureaucratic machine has been negotiating the details of the CSA. In the latest draft, mandatory scanning of private communications has thankfully been removed, at least formally. But there is a catch. Providers of hosting and interpersonal communication services must identify, analyze, and assess how their services might be used for online child sexual abuse, and then take “all reasonable mitigation measures.” Faced with such an open-ended mandate and the threat of liability, many providers may conclude that the safest — and most legally prudent — way to show they have complied with the EU directive is to deploy large-scale scanning of private communications.

The draft CSA insists that mitigation measures should, where possible, be limited to specific parts of the service or specific groups of users. But the incentive structure points in one direction. Widespread monitoring may end up as the only viable option for regulatory compliance. What is presented as voluntary today risks becoming a de facto obligation tomorrow.

In the words of Peter Hummelgaard, the Danish Minister of Justice: “Every year, millions of files are shared that depict the sexual abuse of children. And behind every single image and video, there is a child who has been subjected to the most horrific and terrible abuse. This is completely unacceptable.” No one disputes the gravity or turpitude of the problem. And yet, under this narrative, the telecommunications industry and European citizens are expected to absorb dangerous risk-mitigation measures that are likely to involve lost privacy for citizens and widespread monitoring powers for the state.

The cost, we are told, is nothing compared to the benefit.

After all, who wouldn’t want to fight child sexual abuse? It’s high time to take a deep breath. Child abusers should be punished severely. This does not dispense a free society from respecting other core values.

But, wait. There’s more…

Keep reading

Why Is Europe Feverishly Preparing For World War III?

If there is going to be peace, why are we witnessing the largest military buildup in Europe since the end of the Cold War?  When it comes to the major players on the geopolitical stage, it is far more important to watch what they do than it is to listen to what they say.  And right now the actions that the major European powers are taking are telling us that they are preparing for a huge war with Russia.

Ukraine was supposed to be the final piece of the puzzle for the European Union.

It is an enormous chunk of territory, and it is absolutely teeming with natural resources.

For most European leaders, it is unthinkable that Ukraine could be allowed to fall back into Russian hands, but at the moment more Ukrainian territory is being taken by the Russians with each passing day.

In fact, it is being reported that the city of Seversk has just fallen…

Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, said that the “Southern” group of troops had taken control of the city of Seversk in the DPR.

“The city of Seversk has been liberated,” Gerasimov said during a report to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Every time the Russians move forward, European leaders feel even more pressure to send troops into Ukraine.

Apparently the British already have at least some soldiers in Ukraine, because one of them just died…

The British soldier who died in Ukraine on Tuesday has been named as L/Cpl George Hooley, 28, of the Parachute regiment.

Keir Starmer told the Commons on Wednesday that Hooley had died in a “tragic accident” away from the frontlines while watching a test of “a new defensive capability” with members of the Ukrainian military.

“His life was full of courage and determination,” Starmer said. “He served our country with honour and distinction around the world in the cause of freedom and democracy, including as part of the small number of British personnel in Ukraine.”

Did you notice that Starmer was purposely vague about how many British troops are in Ukraine?

Keep reading

The EU Insists Its X Fine Isn’t About Censorship. Here’s Why It Is.

When the European Commission fined X €120 million on December 5, officials could not have been clearer. This, they said, was not about censorship. It was just about “transparency.”

They repeat it so often you start to wonder why.

The fine marks the first major enforcement of the Digital Services Act, Europe’s new censorship-driven internet rulebook.

It was sold as a consumer protection measure, designed to make online platforms safer and more accountable, and included a whole list of censorship requirements, fining platforms that don’t comply.

The first target is Elon Musk’s X, and the list of alleged violations look less like user safety concerns and more like a blueprint for controlling who gets heard, who gets trusted, and who gets to talk back.

The Commission charged X with three violations: the paid blue checkmark system, the lack of advertising data, and restricted data access for researchers.

None of these touches direct content censorship. But all of them shape visibility, credibility, and surveillance, just in more polite language.

Musk’s decision to turn blue checks into a subscription feature ended the old system where establishment figures, journalists, politicians, and legacy celebrities got verification.

The EU called Musk’s decision “deceptive design.” The old version, apparently, was honesty itself. Before, a blue badge meant you were important. After, it meant you paid. Brussels prefers the former, where approved institutions get algorithmic priority, and the rest of the population stays in the queue.

The new system threatened that hierarchy. Now, anyone could buy verification, diluting the aura of authority once reserved for anointed voices.

However, that’s not the full story. Under the old Twitter system, verification was sold as a public service, but in reality it worked more like a back-room favor and a status purchase.

The main application process was shut down in 2010, so unless you were already famous, the only way to get a blue check was to spend enough money on advertising or to be important enough to trigger impersonation problems.

Ad Age reported that advertisers who spent at least fifteen thousand dollars over three months could get verified, and Twitter sales reps told clients the same thing. That meant verification was effectively a perk reserved for major media brands, public figures, and anyone willing to pay. It was a symbol of influence rationed through informal criteria and private deals, creating a hierarchy shaped by cronyism rather than transparency.

Keep reading