Daily Archives: October 29, 2023

There were moments, last week, whenif not for the first timeDonald Trump seemed out of control. On Monday, at a rally in Derry, New Hampshire, he compared himself to Nelson Mandela; said that he had to save the country from fascists, Marxists, Communists, and sick people; mimed a fistfight with Joe Biden (Poom! Poom! Poom! Id hit him right in that fake nose!); and went on a rant about seeing six-month-old McDonalds containers in the streets of Washington, D.C. Being in real estate, he said, I always kept clean properties, I like clean, clean, well-run, you know, tippy-top, we say tippy-top. We want them to be tippy-top. Well, our capital is the opposite of tippy-top! Its a shithouse.

Two days later, he stomped out of a New York City courtroom, after Judge Arthur Engoron refused to deliver a mid-trial verdict in his favor in a civil case alleging that he had fraudulently inflated the valuations of his tippy-top properties. During a break, hed told reporters that the judge was a partisan, with a person whos very partisan sitting alongside of him. Engorons clerk was sitting next to him; on Truth Social, Trump had described her, fantastically, as the girlfriend of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. That post had led to a narrow gag order. Now, asked by Engoron to take the stand, Trump claimed that the very partisan person hed referred to was actually his former fixer, Michael Cohen, who was testifying that day; Engoron told Trump that he wasnt credible and fined him ten thousand dollars. It was an ignominious and bizarre prelude to the four criminal cases Trump is facing, in D.C., Florida, Georgiawhere the prosecution recently secured four guilty pleas from his co-defendantsand New York. (He has denied any wrongdoing.)

But the comments that Trump made during another courtroom break last Wednesday suggest that, in one respect, he is very much in control. This time yesterday, nobody was thinking of Mike, he said, referring to Representative Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana. And then we put out the word and now hes the Speaker of the House. That is a fair statement. Trump is delusional on many subjects, but Johnsons strange ascent suggests that he is clear-eyed about the hold he has on congressional Republicans.

The G.O.P. House caucus had seemed to be in a state of anarchy in the past few weeks. On October 3rd, in a coup engineered by Representative Matt Gaetz, Kevin McCarthy was voted out as Speaker, ostensibly because he had worked with Democrats to keep the government open; but the maneuver may simply have been a product of Gaetzs demonstrated narcissism. (Although Gaetz denies it, it might also have been a reaction to a pending ethics inquiry, which he has portrayed as politically motivated.) He didnt seem to know who might replace McCarthyit just had to be a thorough Trumpist.

Next came the fight between Steve Scalise, the Majority Leader, and Jim Jordan, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, both of whom are in Trumps camp. Scalise has a more senior role, but apparently he had an enemy in McCarthy, for reasons having to do with each mans ambitions. Jordan had been deeply involved in Trumps efforts to hold on to power after the 2020 election, and Trump gave him the nod, which helped scuttle Scalises bid. However, some Republicans balked at Jordan; there was talk of his being a bit too January 6th-associated for swing districts, but the real problem seems to have been his loud style and the thuggish approach his allies took to lobbying for votes.

By the time Jordan was voted down, the dysfunction was embarrassing. Congresss inability to move forward on any legislation in the absence of a Speaker was causing concern internationally, leaving further aid for Ukraine and Israel (and for civilians in Gaza) uncertain. The trouble was that the Republicans next candidate, Tom Emmer, while being a Trump supporter, had voted to certify the 2020 election. He tried to make up for that last week by abasing himself before Trump. After Trump informed reporters that Emmer had called me yesterday and told me, Im your biggest fan, Emmer hurried to post a video of the remarks on X, adding, Thank you, Mr. President.

It wasnt good enough. On Truth Social, Trump wrote, I believe he has now learned his lesson, because he is saying that he is Pro-Trump all the way, but who can ever be sure? Has he only changed because thats what it takes to win?, and he dismissed Emmer as a Globalist RINO. Emmer dropped out within hours. The message was that it is not sufficient to pay homage to Trumpyou have to really feel it.

Mike Johnson seems to really feel it. He was elected as a freshman in 2016 and gained a foothold in the House by championing Trump on matters ranging from the would-be Muslim ban to the first impeachment trial, in which he was part of Trumps defense team. He spoke ecstatically about the President returning his calls, and got to fly on Air Force One. He, too, was involved in Trumps strategizing after the 2020 election, which Johnson suggested had been rigged with the help of Dominion voting machinesa thoroughly discredited conspiracy theory. Johnson rallied a hundred and twenty-five colleagues to sign on to an amicus-curiae brief in a case brought by Texas to invalidate the electoral votes of Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. (The Supreme Court declined to hear it.) If the 2024 election is contested, one can imagine how Trump might insist on Johnson using the Speakers gavel to help him.

Before running for office, Johnson was a lawyer for conservative Christian causes, and has written that he views homosexual relationships as unnatural. The climate crisis, on the other hand, is something he has presented as naturalnot chiefly to be blamed on human activity. On Thursday, he told Sean Hannity that the issue with mass shootings was not guns. Supposedly, the Party was willing to elect him without a single dissenting vote because he is very friendly. But Johnsons affability is just another version of Jordans irascibility or Gaetzs awfulness: a personal factor that fuels or settles squabbles within a closed, Trumpist circle.

Despite the spectacle of infighting, there is a sense in which the G.O.P. has rarely been so unifiedbehind Trump. He may be the only thing that brings the Party together, even as he imbues it with his own brand of nihilism. The Speakership race is not the only Republican contest he has been in control of. He was in New Hampshire the day of the rally to file his paperwork for that states Presidential primary. Hes still more than forty points ahead of any other Republican candidate in national polls.

See more here:

Trump Gets Fined in Court but Wins in the House - The New Yorker

Democracys main agenda is to outlive fascism, autocracy and nihilism by whatever means necessary.

When fascism was originally outlined, its objective was to become a bulwark against Marxism; it did not foresee a conflict with democracies in America and Europe. As it developed in different parties, the contradictions became obvious in Germany in the 1930s.

America faces another version of fascism, which has been simmering for a long time in the GOP. And again, as could be expected, it is in conflict with the goals of democracy.

But are we sure what the goals of a democratic society are? America is proudly pluralistic, but life today is experienced collectively by the new agendas that concern the planet we live on, what we read and who we love; these are big questions.

Included also are the struggles to defeat racism, sexism and the linchpin of American-style fascism theocracy.

America is colorful, queer and, in its diversity, intersectional, which means one can be religious and gay; Black or Latino and impoverished; or a woman with a disability. These are boundary-crossing experiences that multiply empathy.

The Republican Party is afraid of these positive ways of thinking about mutual responsibility and would bring the country to a level of cruelty unforgivable in a democratic society. Confronting fascism on the battlefield has already been done and we won; now the struggle is at home, and we do not need guns and bombs to defeat fascists. We need to vote them out.

Egon de Uriarte

Lancaster

Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

See the article here:

The challenges to democracy [letter] | Letters To The Editor ... - LNP | LancasterOnline

This past week, news broke that the Canadian government would offer euthanasia to those who have mental disorders, including people with addiction problems. This is on top of the existing euthanasia policies from our neighbors to the north which promote doctor-prescribed suicide as a healthy alternative for the sick, the disabled, or the depresseda medicine placed on par with any other wholesome healthcare treatment. The sanctity of life, once held as a paramount virtue, is finding itself challenged by a new ethos that seeks to redefine the very heart of morality. If we allow this trend to continue unchecked, we may find ourselves in a society that values life not for its inherent worth, but rather for its perceived qualitya perilous threat to the very foundations upon which our civilization is built.

Our Canadian neighbors have embraced this perverted culture of death with open arms, legalizing euthanasia at an alarming rate. This has cast a shadow upon much of our own country, for such decisions by modern political leaders are spreading throughout many of our own states, marking a significant departure from the steady values that have long governed our society. Oregon, for example, just recently extended its own euthanasia law to non-residents, making all Americans eligible to travel to their state, fill a simple script from a doctor at one of their local pharmacies, lay down in a hotel room, swallow a cocktail of poison that destroys their organs, and kill themselves. To ensure these physician-assisted suicides are done with dignity, however, social workers come by afterwards to collect the bodies.

Societies should not be judged on the basis of how well they provide for the happiness of their young, healthy, and wealthy members, but for how well they provide for their elderly, their sick, and their poor. The former group relies, to a greater extent, on their individual strength to carry them through their pursuit of happinessthe latter relies on the aid of others. That the strong members of a society are happy proves virtually nothing about the character of that society. On the contrary, that the weak are happy comes to prove that others have helped them, demonstrating that the bonds between family, friends, and neighbors are loving and efficacious, and that the social fabric of such a society is strong. In our case, the happiness of the elderly, the sick, and the poor of West Virginia can be proof that our people are knit together in a resilient community, rather than thrown together by mere geographic proximity.

For this reason alone, it is necessary that the practice of euthanasia, which intentionally encourages and ultimately enacts the suicide of the elderly and the infirmed, remain as foreign to the common life of West Virginia as it is to the health of any just and reasonable society. Instead of that unconditional commitment to love and service by which individuals transcend their own individuality and begin to live as a community, euthanasia offers only conditionality, which measures each and every person against standards of living that may well find them wanting. Instead of occasions to test and prove the promises we make to love each other no matter what, euthanasia degrades infirmity, old age, and the compassion these weaknesses can elicit into occasions to care for each other only so much, within a narrow extent, and under only finite conditions of convenience. In this manner, euthanasia, while allegedly limiting its impact only to the end of life, actually demoralizes everyone at all stages of life, limiting our noblest social impulses by characterizing life itself as only conditionally worth living, while reducing the care for those who suffer to a mere option, rather than the sacred duty of those who have to give of themselves to those who have not.

The desire by those who are suffering to kill themselves is not a sign of a banal need to be met by the provision of some appropriate technology, but a sure sign of social collapse. No one with a love for our state and its people could provide such suicidal desire with the means to its destructive end. Good conscience and common sense urge us to instead eradicate whatever grim causes of suicidal desire afflict our West Virginia community. To do otherwise would be to adopt an unequal and irrational policy by which suicidal ideation in the young and otherwise healthy is treated as an illness in want of a cure, while suicidal ideation in the elderly and infirm is treated as a demand in need of a supply. Such a two-faced answer to the timeless question of whether life is worth living makes a mockery of good and prudential government, while giving credence to the cynicism that so often sees in the rule of law nothing more than a favoring of the strong over the weak. Ultimately, such a dreadful policy forces the state and its representatives to determine between good and bad suicide, thus expanding the states authority beyond every reasonable limit, inciting it to act as a god amongst men.

To any such apparent demand for euthanasia, nothing but a society wide effort of reform will serve as an adequate response. Such a campaign against the despairing loneliness and lack of meaning in life, spreading from the nihilism of our present age, must include the active encouragement of friendship, intergenerational family life, meaningful work, civic participation, the uplifting of our communities with beautiful architecture, festivals and holidays to celebrate our common life together, compassionate medical care, a culture of genuine love and appreciation for the elderly, and the unequivocal affirmation that every human life, no matter what suffering it bears, is never a burden to be done away with, but a gift of infinite and interminable goodness from that which is True and Beautiful.

It is not the case that the technical consent of the infirmed and elderly to their own suicide renders euthanasia as something just and good. We are social creatures, apt to act on each others desires and meet each others expectations in order to keep a broad and abiding peace. When a society enshrines in its law, decrees in its conventional wisdom, and affirms in its practice the possibility of licit suicide, it is a vain pretense to imagine that such validations are not themselves formative of individual desirethat they do not suggest, in morally-empowered terms, suicide as a responsible and law-abiding solution to the problem of pain. The very possibility that doctors, whose authority in our society can be profound, may prescribe suicide as a solution to a terminal disease or disheartening prognosis, presents the act as a medicine rather than as the definitive rejection of all medicine, and so encourages suicidal desire to flourish. Euthanasia is not a solution to a need, but is rather productive of the very need that it purports to fulfill.

Our great state of West Virginia ought to preemptively reject euthanasia by an amendment to our state constitution, for this accords with our tradition of patriotism. A healthy commonwealth relies on the virtues of its members, and a well-functioning republic demands that those who participate in it embody a minimum of goodwill, prudence, and fortitude by which the individual is enabled to love the common good and to sacrifice his own interests for its sake. A community which does not foster this patriotism is a community in name only, a mere collective mix of individuals unwilling to live as members of a social body that both includes and transcends them.

This patriotism, which sustains and nourishes West Virginia, is a seed sown in the soil of the family and a lesson learned in the school of friendship. These lessons of love are severely disrupted by euthanasia, which would encourage healthy residents of our state to facilitate the suicide of those whose age and infirmity would otherwise call forth their loving sacrifice, even as it would encourage those in our state who suffer to see themselves as a burden to their friends rather than as an occasion for their heroic love and virtue. A people accustomed to euthanizing their fathers are not a people prepared to sacrifice themselves for their fathers home, and children raised under advertisements recommending suicide are not children who are being raised ready to suffer and give of themselves for the good of our state. Euthanasia destroys the solidarity of the family, and through this root, it would ultimately help destroy the character of West Virginia.

The rejection of euthanasia as utterly foreign to the spirit of West Virginia is a commitment to keeping our hands free of innocent blood and to professing, in all humility, a limitation to the power of the state, which cannot administer death as a cure for pain without usurping divine prerogatives. Such a limitation is also a protection against the avarice and cynicism of a wealthy elite who stand to gainand profitthrough the disruption of the stable and peaceful custom by which families in our state love each other, bear with one another, and care for their sick and dying.

Against this culture of death, we must offer a vision of a restored and rejuvenated West Virginia, a community whose strength is known by the happiness of the weak, the infirmed, and the elderly, who are not only aided and assisted by their family, friends, and society until the day they die, but whose very suffering is the irreplaceable means by which we may transcend ourselves, enter deeply into communion with one another, fulfill our nature as social creatures, and learn the sacrificial love that can so often give life true meaning.

(Pat McGeehan is a six-term state delegate. He resides in Chester).

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read the original here:

Standing against the insidious spread of euthanasia | News, Sports ... - The Daily Times

The Washington Post's Aaron Blake highlights a new poll probing what share of the Republican base even wants a House speaker to be elected. The first thing to know is that the poll in question, conducted by Suffolk University, is deeply goofy, asking respondents which of these two sentiments they more agree with:

1. Congress needs to elect a Speaker as soon as possible to fund immediate needs like support for Israel, Ukraine, and to prevent a government shutdown in November, or

2. I dont care if Congress elects a Speaker. Every day that goes by without a Speaker means that Congress cant waste more of our tax dollars.

You can see the poll is designed to split Americans into two groups: those who are vaguely informed about politics and understand what a speaker does, and those who are generally uninformed radio listeners and base their entire personalities around what some performative turd announces during peak commuting hours. Unfortunately, it also loaded the civics-based first option with support for Ukraine and Israel, which stacks the deck against Republican support. Still, the question basically probes whether respondents ground their beliefs more in civics or trolling.

What's interesting is the sheer number of Republicans who chose the trolling option34%whereas only 57% preferred to have a speaker and a functioning government. Butsurprise!not caring whether the government remains open jumps to 40% among those who support Donald Trump in the upcoming Republican primaries.

What we have here, yet again, is more evidence that Trump's base is hostile to the very concept of government, doesnt understand what it does, and is far more interested in nihilistic trolling than in developing actual, well-considered political opinions.

Trump appeals to Americans who might not have ever thought deeply about government before but who very much like the idea of a showboater "shaking up" Washington with knee-jerk racist opinions and declarations of their group's innate superiority in America. It's a militia movement, but one armed with TV remotes rather than guns. (But also frequently guns, too.)

There's another way to look at these poll results, thougha way that might better put things into perspective. Thirty-four percent of Republicans and 40% of Trump supporters chose the trolling option of "Every day that goes by without a Speaker means that Congress cant waste more of our tax dollars"both an expression of civic nihilism and a well-known conservative partisan taunt.

It's better to have no government at all than one I don't agree with or control might be the cleaner version of that sentiment.

And that's just New Leopardism. Forty percent of Trump's supporters want leopards to eat America's face if the alternative is the government doing nonconservative things, and if the leopards eat the supporters own relied-upon governmental services during a release-all-the-leopards federal shutdown, then that'll be a problem for Future Them, not Current Them.

A chunk of Trumpism wants to see Congress grind to a halt because they think the outcome would be funny or cathartic. That suggests that the Republican fetish for shutting down the government whenever the option arises won't go away soonnot when the base is demanding leopards on every street corner.

Sign if you agree: No more MAGA circus. Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker!

RELATED STORIES:

Donald Trump's speeches are turning into incomprehensible, fascist pablum

Cheney lays Republican disarray squarely on McCarthy sucking up to Trump

Senate Republicans fear House GOP may screw over 2024 chances

Excerpt from:

A large chunk of Republicans are quite set on voting for the face ... - Daily Kos

In the lead-up to Canada Day I wrote a lament for our countrys atomization and polarization. I bemoaned our decadence, our lack of national unity, andrather cavalierlypointed to Israels robust patriotism, strong birth rate, and shared sense of purpose to make the case that Canada ought to experiment with a mandatory year of national service, just as is required of young Israelis.

While the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel caused me to pause and approach the matter more soberly, it didnt fundamentally change my view. In fact, it is increasingly clear that the horrific act of terrorism, and our subsequent inability to properly reckon with it, has revealed the true depths of Canadas moral relativism. Fortunately, the event that so exposed our flaws can also be a source of inspiration. Israels 9/11, while revealing our weakness, calls on us to find courage, and provides us, in the brave reactions of Israelis themselves to the tragedy, with examples to aspire to.

Some thoughtful critics of the disturbing, morally bankrupt Canadian responses to Hamas attack on Israel have pointed to a creeping nihilism in the West to explain how mainstream Canadians can defend such evil acts. And theres no question that a worldview which understands only power, identity, and oppression leads to a shocking inhumanity. But a few wrong-headed opinion leaders alone dont make for a rotten culture. More concerning in the weeks following October 7th has been the deafening silence of their neutral appeasers. Brushing off tough questions, avoiding taking a stance by appealing to both sides and de-escalation, the newsroom editors, university administrators, and labour leaders choose neutral amorality when confronted with discomfort and sit idly by as their more radical peers ratchet up their justifications.

Our dominant culture of deference and equivocation seems mostly harmless in times of peace and prosperity when manifestations of evil are subtle. We value pluralism after all. Surely good ideas will win out, we think. Surely our proud history will guide us if ever we have to face an uncertain future. But that uncertain future is here, and as de-colonization discourse takes to the streets our neutral liberal mainstream is struggling to respond. Nowhere is Canadas moral confusion playing out more dramatically than in the Liberal Party itself, where a leader who flirted with trendy post-modernism when times were easy is struggling to bring his team onside in defence of civilization when times are tough.

The apparent harmlessness of liberal neutrality when the impacts of evil are merely subtle explains our reluctance to take assertive action in favour of a common good. For libertarians like my friends at the Institute for Liberal Studies who opposed my mandatory service proposal, the potential benefits would never outweigh the coercive state power involved in implementing it. And for most Canadians, most of the time, our moral neutrality feels benign. But when world events force us to confront overt evil, its clear not only that Canada would fail were it to arrive at our doorstep, but that we cannot even summon the courage to consistently oppose it as it terrorizes our allies abroad.

If there is any benefit to the horrors of October 7th, it is in the fact that overt, unsubtle evil is clarifyingit shakes us out of our stupor and stiffens our spines. Stories from the attack remind us of what is important, and what is at stake. Tales of rape so vicious it broke bones, of an unborn baby cut from its mothers womb, and of youthful revellers screaming in fear, their young lives cut short, remind us of the vitality of our bodies, their purpose, and their fragility. Tales of mothers losing daughters, fathers searching for sons, and family members burned to death in embrace remind us of the irreplaceable bonds of family, our most sacred relationships. Tales of terrorists crossing into sovereign territory, descending on a music festival and kibbutzim, and murdering thousands in order to make all Israelis feel terror in their own country remind us that in Canada our safety is a great privilege, our democracy delicate, and our geography lucky. We should never wish to witness the kind of evil that leads to war, but when it comes, we should be grateful for the gifts of its clarifications.

And while Canadas weakness is shocking and concerning, we should take some comfort that that strength is not entirely inaccessible to us. Indeed, Canadian Israelis are summoning the call of their countrymen even today, flying toward bloodshed to fight for what they believe in. They are summoning an ancient virtue, often inaccessible to us neutral liberals. And their fellow compatriots provide ample models for those among us who wish to be inspired by their bravery: a young man throwing himself onto a grenade to spare his girlfriend, a Bedouin man trying to hide Jews from the terrorists who sought them out, a former IDF general leaping into a truck to drive into harms way to rescue his son and grandchildren and saving others along the way.

For those of us who have been lamenting Canadas moral rot and cultural decay, our countrys social response to the events of October 7ththe nihilistic justifications and the neutral liberal equivocationhas felt like an unwelcome reminder. But just as the attack revealed unpleasant truths about the health of our country, it provided helpful hints as to how we might go about healing. If in response to future incidents of evil in Canada and abroad we can summon a shred of the courage shown by Israelis in the face of terror, perhaps we rise above our passive neutrality, reject the proliferation of nihilisms death cult, and promote a shared vision of Canadian valuesmaybe even some wed be willing to fight for.

The rest is here:

Israel's civic strength in response to the Hamas attacks should stiffen ... - The Hub

You either want a rules-based international order or you dont. Ukraine aid is the test.

In a recent conversation with a group of academics and activists from developing countries, a high-level German decision-maker noted that while Germany is preparing to spend 100bn on its military, it does so with a heavy heart. Putin, he said, made us do it.

Not all in the group agreed. Putin, many argued, is no excuse for arming yourself instead of helping the world, especially when there is a humanitarian emergency in Gaza following the October 7 Hamas massacre.

After all, there are countries with more than 200 million population surviving on a state budget of just one-fifth of German military spending. Some described the German governments position as disingenuous.

And yet, all evidence of the slow political process by which Germany has come to the decision to strengthen its defense and to help Ukraine fend off Russian aggression points to the opposite. No democratic country in Europe is rejoicing in cutting spending on welfare, economic development, or humanitarian aid, and redirecting that money to military spending. It is just that there is no other way to stop a rapacious and imperialist neighbor repeatedly acting on its imperial instinct for at least the third time since 2008.

No consensus was reached in that conversation in Berlin, not least because the audience was electrified by the eruption of war in Israel and Gaza since the Hamas, but not at all by 20 months of Russian aggression in Ukraine.

According to a survey from early 2023 by the European Council on Foreign Relations, a clear divide has emerged between the European and American public on the one hand, and those elsewhere, even those fairly neutral on the Chinese-Russian push to end the rules-based international order like India and Turkey.

Get the Latest

Sign up to receive regular emails and stay informed about CEPAs work.

While the West still believes it must help Ukraine to win and to stop Russias further expansionist aggression, large parts of the developing world would be satisfied if war simply ended, with Ukraine giving control of significant parts of its territory to Russia. Despite all the years of ever-closer connections between the economies of these countries and the West (or even because of this connectivity, as Mark Leonard argues), the West and the rest of the world do not see eye to eye when it comes to defending the principles of international law and liberal democracy against land grabs and the normative nihilism of dictators.

This points to how much is at stake in Ukraine. No other conflict today is to such an extent about the survival of a global order based on international treaties and democratic norms. If the West, after proclaiming its support for more than a year and a half, and allocating massive aid to Ukraine, does not remain united and genuinely supportive of Ukraine until it wins, the rules-based global order may sadly lose what remains of its credibility. (This, after all, was the rallying cry of that key post-Cold War event, the US-led liberation of Kuwait in 1991, which re-established that borders cannot be changed by force.)

All of which should remind the US Congress of what is at stake in Ukraine. It is true that since the outbreak of all-out war, the US has been the number one contributor to Ukraine in absolute numbers, but it ranks 16th in the world in terms of the share of its GDP dedicated to this aid.

The idea of continuing military aid to Ukraine is currently criticized by both the conservative right (because it is US taxpayers money spent to help people abroad) and the left (which has a long-standing historic affinity to Palestine, but not to Ukraine.)

Nevertheless, however pressing the need to address other conflicts, Ukraine should firmly remain on the list of US priorities, as it remains for its friends and allies in Europe. Failing Ukraine would undermine the unity that emerged in the West following February 24, 2022, and no good scenarios are in store for a petty and disunited West. The world is watching.

Marija Golubeva is a Distinguished Fellow with the Democratic Resilience Program at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). She was a Member of the Latvian Parliament (2018-2022) and was Minister of the Interior from 2021-2022. A public policy expert, she has worked for ICF, a consultancy company in Brussels, and as an independent consultant for European institutions in the Western Balkans and Central Asia.

Europes Edgeis CEPAs online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position or viewsof the institutions they representor the Center for European Policy Analysis.

View original post here:

No Time to Go Wobbly on Russia - Center for European Policy Analysis