Saturday, October 14, 2023

CRYPTO CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M
FTX’s stolen crypto funds linked to Russian cybercrime networks

By Rony Roy
October 13, 2023 
Edited by Yana Khlebnikova
NEWS


Blockchain analytics firm Elliptic has released new findings that suggest a Russian-linked entity may be behind the high-profile hack of cryptocurrency exchange FTX.

The revelation comes as part of an ongoing investigation into the theft of a staggering $477 million in various cryptocurrencies from the exchange.
Funds moved during SBF’s court appearance

Elliptic’s report highlights a key moment that casts doubt on initial suspicions that FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried could be involved in the theft.

According to the firm, $15 million of the stolen assets were moved on Oct. 4, 2023, at 3:41 p.m. EST. At that time, Bankman-Fried was reportedly in a Manhattan courtroom without internet access, making it unlikely that he was responsible for the transaction.

Since the hack, a significant portion of the stolen funds has been converted to Bitcoin (BTC) and funneled through ChipMixer, a now-defunct privacy mixer. Elliptic’s analysis shows that these assets were often mixed with funds from Russia-linked criminal groups, including ransomware gangs and darknet markets.

“This points to the involvement of a broker or other intermediary with a nexus in Russia,” the firm stated.

FTX lost 9,500 Ethereum (ETH) to an unidentified hacker on the same day it filed for bankruptcy last November. The hacker also made off with other cryptocurrencies, including Pax Gold (PAXG), Tether (USDT), and Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC).

While some of these assets were frozen by regulatory authorities, most were successfully converted into other cryptocurrencies and moved to different blockchains.
You might also like:FTX hacker switches strategy after THORSwap suspends service
Breaking the blockchain trail

Elliptic notes that the hacker used various methods to obscure the trail of stolen funds.

On Nov. 20, 65,000 ETH were converted to Bitcoin via RenBridge, a service ironically owned by Alameda Research, which shares a balance sheet with FTX.

After a pause of nine months, an additional 72,500 Ethereum (ETH), valued at $120 million, were converted to Bitcoin through the use of THORSwap, a service that has since suspended its interface due to money laundering concerns.

Daily transaction count related to stolen FTX assets | Source: Elliptic

With ChipMixer no longer operational, many of the funds were mixed through Sinbad, a service believed to be a rebranded version of Blender. The U.S. Treasury Department previously sanctioned the latter for aiding the North Korean Lazarus Group.

However, Elliptic does not believe that the Lazarus Group is behind the FTX hack, citing the hacker’s relatively unsophisticated money laundering techniques.

While the identity of the FTX hacker remains unknown, Elliptic’s latest findings add a new layer of complexity to an already intricate case.

The firm’s analysis points to a Russian-linked entity as a likely suspect, although further investigation is needed to confirm these suspicions.



UK
How Starmer has killed Labour's left wing

Peter Oborne
6 October 2023 

His brand of right-wing authoritarianism has abolished the radical tradition embodied by Corbyn


UK Labour leader Keir Starmer is pictured at a summit in Canada, on 15 September 2023 (AFP)


Labour conference 2024: Newly elected Prime Minister Keir Starmer strides onto the stage.

An ecstatic audience rises to its feet in galvanic applause to celebrate the greatest victory in the history of the Labour Party. Bigger than Clem Attlee’s great victory over Winston Churchill’s Tories in 1945; bigger even than Tony Blair’s famous 179-seat majority in 1997.

Meanwhile, the Tory Party is broken by defeat and poisoned by the battle for the successor to Rishi Sunak.

In theory, the British left ought to celebrate the end of 14 years that - as even many Conservatives accept - have been a disaster for the country. In practice, there is a profound sense of loss.

One of Starmer’s predecessors as Labour leader, Harold Wilson, the winner of four general elections, declared that his party was “a moral crusade or it is nothing”. For Wilson, Labour was a party of two basic factions: the head and the heart.

Stay informed with MEE's newsletters
Sign up to get the latest alerts, insights and analysis, starting with Turkey Unpacked

Thus, Wilson’s Labour government had strong right-wing voices, such as Roy Jenkins and Denis Healey. But they were balanced by left wingers such as Michael Foot and Tony Benn.

The postwar Attlee government had robust right-wing talent, such as the foreign secretary, Ernie Bevin. But he was balanced by left wingers like Aneurin Bevan, founder of the National Health Service.

This meant that the 20th-century Labour Party was at its best a magnificent democratic force capable of appealing to great swathes of British society, from the working classes to professionals. Not so under control freak Starmer, who has abolished this delicate balance.
By-election victory

Starmer’s brand of right-wing authoritarianism has no room for a Foot, Benn or Bevan. He has abolished the battle of ideas, along with the radical tradition of which former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was the final embodiment.

I don’t believe that Starmer has thought through the consequences. He will pay a price for driving out the British left.

When he takes power next year - and in the wake of Thursday’s sensational Rutherglen by-election, there can be little doubt of that outcome - the British left will not be represented in parliament.


Starmer has defined his leadership against the Labour left. His challenge at the Labour conference this coming week is to show that he can also define himself against the Tory right

This has not happened since the party’s first leader, Scottish trade unionist Keir Hardie, was elected MP for West Ham South in 1892 (there’s no way a socialist like Hardie would survive in Starmer’s party). That was more than 130 years ago.

Banned from parliamentary debate, the British left will only be heard on the streets and through strike actions. This is profoundly dangerous for democracy - all the more so at a time when economic forecasters predict a recession and living standards are in sharp decline.

Crucially, there’s a version of this problem on the Tory benches. Just as Starmer has purged the left of the Labour Party, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson purged the left of the Tories.

Back in 2019, the Conservative Party endured the political equivalent of what natural scientists call a mass extinction event, when Johnson drove out the so-called one-nation Tories from the party in order to impose his own version of political uniformity.

Politicians such as former chancellor Ken Clarke, rising star Rory Stewart and many others were forbidden from standing in the 2019 general election. This act of hubris opened the way for entryists from the far right. The party retains its name and legal structure, but as the recent Tory conference in Manchester proved, the party has otherwise changed beyond recognition.
Far-right conspiracies

I have seen the term “fascism” used in connection with this conference. I don’t think that’s quite right. Fascism is associated with militarism, violence and above all, Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini, the two dictators who arose in the 1930s.

The term should not, and cannot, be used in relation to Sunak’s Conservatives. But Sunak’s supporters aren’t Conservative in the traditional sense. How should we describe them?

During the conference, they lied, spouted far-right conspiracy theories, dumped climate-change policies, mocked the rule of law, pilloried minorities and generally echoed the language and the politics of former US President Donald Trump.
 
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak addresses delegates at the annual Conservative Party conference in Manchester, northern England, on 4 October 2023 (AFP)

Racism, as I exposed last week in my article on Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s attack on British Pakistanis, has become an embedded feature of the politics of Britain’s governing party. The Tories under Sunak can be compared to the AfD in Germany or the Trump Republicans.

This is not an accident. Isaac Levido, Sunak’s political strategist, learned his trade at the feet of Lynton Crosby, master of the art of exploiting “wedge issues” for electoral advantage.

Judging by recent events, he’s planning to do exactly the same in next year’s general election. And he’s targeting one group of voters in particular: the far right.
Labour's challenge

There’s a reason for this. Over the summer months, polls consistently showed a Labour lead over the Tories of between 15 and 20 percent. Such a lead might appear indestructible - until one notes that the populist Reform UK regularly scores up to 10 percent.

Tory strategists crave the support of these hard-right Reform voters, whose support would lift the Conservatives to the mid-thirties in the polls - a base from which to challenge Starmer.

This scares Starmer. I understand why.
 

Labour: Starmer is paving the way for the triumph of dark politics
Read More »

A quarter of a century ago, Jenkins described Blair’s task ahead of the 1997 election as “a man carrying a priceless Ming vase across a highly polished floor”.

Hence Starmer’s aversion to risk; his supplication to media giant Rupert Murdoch; his ingratiation with the right-wing vote; his sycophancy to big business; his intolerance of the left; and his refusal to make the moral case for Labour against the hard right.

The consequences when Starmer wins power will include a cowed majority at Westminster for a technocratic Labour government, while real politics gets going elsewhere. On the left, this will occur through extra-parliamentary actions, while on the right, the Conservative Party will mutate into something increasingly dark, horrible, intolerant and dangerous.

So far, Starmer has defined his leadership against the Labour left. His challenge at the Labour conference this coming week is to show that he can also define himself against the Tory right. It really ought not to be too difficult - not against the Sunak rabble.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.



Peter Oborne won best commentary/blogging in both 2022 and 2017, and was also named freelancer of the year in 2016 at the Drum Online Media Awards for articles he wrote for Middle East Eye. He was also named as British Press Awards Columnist of the Year in 2013. He resigned as chief political columnist of the Daily Telegraph in 2015. His latest book is The Fate of Abraham: Why the West is Wrong about Islam, published in May by Simon & Schuster. His previous books include The Triumph of the Political Class, The Rise of Political Lying, Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran and The Assault on Truth: Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and the Emergence of a New Moral Barbarism.
POLITE PROTESTER

UK
Protester who disrupted Keir Starmer conference speech knows his actions 'crossed the line'

The protester stormed the stage, threw glitter and shouted "true democracy is citizen-led"


NEWS
By Patrick EdrichReporter
13 OCT 2023
A protester storms the stage and throws glitter over Labour party leader, Sir Keir Starmer during the leader's speech on the third day of the Labour Party conference on October 10, 2023 in Liverpool 
(Image: Ian Forsyth/Getty Images)

A protester who disrupted Keir Starmer's keynote speech at the Labour Party Conference apologised and said he knows his actions "crossed the line".

Protester Yaz Ashmawi admitted to tipping glitter over the Labour leader and grabbing him just as he was about to begin his set-piece speech in Liverpool on Tuesday. Speaking to the Politics Uncensored podcast on Fubar Radio, Mr Ashmawi said he took "responsibility" for what he did and apologised for making Sir Keir feel unsafe

He told show host Ali Milani on Thursday: "The thought that, even for a moment, he felt that he was in danger is horrible to think about. I think it is absolutely fine to pour glitter on someone and to go onto the stage. I just think it is physical contact that crossed the line there."

Asked whether he would like to apologise to the Opposition leader, he said: "Yes, absolutely. I’m sorry for doing that." Merseyside Police confirmed it arrested a 28-year-old man from Surrey on suspicion of assault, breach of the peace and causing public nuisance following the stunt.

On Thursday, the force said the man — who Mr Ashmawi has confirmed is him — has been bailed pending further inquiries. Mr Ashmawi told the podcast he was kept in a cell for 22 hours after his arrest.

He belongs to a group called People Demand Democracy, which is calling for reform of the political system. The campaigner said the group wanted to see an “upgraded form of democracy”, suggesting it backed a more proportional electoral system.

After throwing the glitter over Sir Keir, Mr Ashmawi shouted “true democracy is citizen-led”. The protester continued to shout “politics needs an update”, “we demand a people’s house”, “we are in crisis” and “our whole future is in jeopardy” as he was wrestled to the ground.

Mr Ashmawi said he used some chairs to hoist himself up and he "hopped" onto the stage where Sir Keir was standing waiting for the applause to subside before addressing those at the ACC Liverpool conference centre. He said: “The thing is, I put my hand on his arm and touched him and I think… politicians, they get a lot of death threats and they have a need to feel safe and I compromised that in that moment by touching him."

He added: "If Mr Starmer felt that he was threatened… I take responsibility for that, I want to take full responsibility for my actions."

Sir Keir pushed the activist away from the microphone with his right arm before security arrived. After removing his jacket, the Labour leader said "if he thinks that bothers me, he doesn’t know me".

He later admitted the incident "could have been a lot worse", and questions have since been raised about the level of security in place. ACC Liverpool, who provided the security at the conference, said: “A protest incident took place during the leader’s speech at the Labour Party conference when an attendee gained access to the stage.

"Whilst The ACC Liverpool Group recognises the rights of all groups and individuals to free speech and freedom of expression, the safety of all those attending events including speakers, performers, customers and staff is of the utmost importance to us.

"Highly trained stewarding and security teams ensured the incident was dealt with appropriately. We will assist Merseyside Police as required."
UK

Lobbyists and corporate sponsors were everywhere at the Labour conference

It’s been clear for a while that Keir Starmer’s Labour is embracing big business. Its conference confirmed it

STARMERS NEW LABOUR ARE RED TORIES


Ruby Lott-Lavigna
12 October 2023

Labour conference made clear the party is embracing lobbying and big business |
Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

“God loves repentant sinners,” shadow health secretary Wes Streeting joked at a Labour Party Conference event this week.

He was responding to a question about Policy Exchange, the Tory-linked think tank that was hosting the talk, as well as others throughout the week. An unfazed Streeting welcomed its presence, saying he was glad to see it had come to the place where the “intellectual energy and ideas are”.

Policy Exchange was co-founded in 2002 by Michael Gove and has a close relationship with the Conservative government. But here it was in Liverpool, holding talks with Labour’s shadow cabinet.

It’s been clear for a while that Keir Starmer’s Labour is embracing big business, and this year's conference bore that out. According to the National Executive Committee, Labour’s governing body, “business day” received double the revenue of last year’s, with double the attendance – and many more on the waiting list

But it goes further. From events sponsored by American pharmaceutical companies, housing developers or arms firms to right-wing think tanks, lobbying was front and centre at the conference.

Just as it did a week earlier at the Conservative Party Conference, Policy Exchange hosted numerous events. openDemocracy revealed last year that the think tank had helped write the UK’s controversial Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act after urging the government to pass legislation targeting Extinction Rebellion in a 2019 report. It does not disclose its UK funders, but an investigation by this website in 2022 found it had taken cash from US oil giant ExxonMobil.

It was also given the lowest possible transparency rating in openDemocracy’s ‘Who Funds You?’ project earlier this year, and has ties to the current net zero minister Claire Coutinho.

Not to be outdone, right-wing think tank the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) said at a conference event on Sunday that it was set to announce a Labour peer as a patron. Days after openDemocracy reported the comment, the ASI released a statement praising Starmer’s speech, saying he “put forward a serious, innovation-focused, positive vision for the country”.

And alongside the think tanks, corporate sponsorship was rife. As we revealed last month, fringe events were sponsored by arms manufacturers, fossil fuel companies and a spy-tech firm. Other sponsors included property developers, the National Residential Landlord Association, cryptocurrency firms, and pharma companies.

AbbVie, an American pharmaceutical company, sponsored a talk entitled ‘How Labour can prevent a two-tier system, increase NHS capacity and improve outcomes for all major conditions’. The panel featured a representative from the company.

This is a company that unsuccessfully launched legal proceedings against the NHS claiming it had breached procurement rules and treated the company unfairly. It has also received criticism for its medicine pricing in the US.

What’s in it for them? Companies that sponsor events are able to have representatives on the panel and can request certain questions be asked by the chair. But it doesn’t always go unnoticed.

In a talk sponsored by spy-tech firm Palantir on the Ukraine war, an audience member accused the panel, which featured the company’s executive vice president for technology, of “human-rights-washing”. Palantir, whose owner has donated to Donald Trump’s political campaign, has built software to support drone strikes and immigration raids.

Audience members also raised concerns in talks sponsored by fossil fuel companies. In a Cadent-sponsored event, there was a heated discussion when the company was challenged by an audience member on the environmental benefits of hydrogen gas. In another, audience members were removed after objecting to the presence on a panel of Offshore Energies UK, an energy lobbying company that supported the Rosebank oil field development.

If the Labour Party is, as widely predicted, the government-in-waiting, then these relationships are going to prove pivotal in the coming years. That's why it's important to take note of what's happening now.
The Big Lie – how right-wingers make stuff up to win elections

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 
Today

The devastation unfolding in Gaza this week has ignited the ugliest of political deceit, backed up by a lapdog right-wing press.



Not so long ago, lying in politics was a sackable offence. After lying about his affair to Parliament in 1963, John Profumo resigned and then devoted his life to charity work. Even in 2004, Boris Johnson was sacked as vice-chairman and shadow arts minister by then Tory leader Michael Howard, for publicly lying about his extramarital affair with Spectator columnist, Petronella Wyatt.

But today, political lies are not only rampant, but they are also conveniently brushed aside, with the offenders being let off without reprimand or penalty. Rather than just being ‘woolly with the truth,’ they are blatant falsehoods, with the intention to deceive, manipulate public opinion, and, ultimately, win elections.

Recent weeks have seen a tsunami of lies surface among the political Right, in Britain and abroad.

The devastation unfolding in Gaza this week has ignited the ugliest of political deceit, backed up by a lapdog right-wing press.

During a Fox News broadcast on the Israel/Palestine conflict, Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican Party (RNC), described it as a ‘great opportunity’ for Republican candidates. Shortly after the Hamas attacks, Republicans started spouting out falsehoods, claiming that the US has been funding Iran, with the funds then being used to provide Hamas with the rockets launched at Israel.

Tim Scott, South Carolina senator and presidential candidate, claimed that “Joe Biden funded these attacks on Israel.” JD Vance, Ohio Senator, said that “Americans must face a stark truth: our tax dollars funded this.” Donald Trump, predictably, chimed in, claiming: “Sadly, American taxpayer dollars helped fund these attacks, which many reports are saying come from the Biden administration.”

US writer Noah Berlatsky explains that the pretext behind the lies is the hostage deal that Biden made with Iran in September. The Biden administration released $6bn in exchange for five US prisoners. The US said that the funds would only be used for humanitarian purposes, such as medicine and food.

“GOP leaders almost certainly know that the money released in September doesn’t come from American taxpayers, was restricted to humanitarian purposes, and couldn’t have been funnelled to Hamas in time to be used in what appear to be long-planned attacks in any case. In short, these Republican leaders are deliberately lying,” writes Berlatsky.

The author goes further to say that in their latest lies, the GOP want to find a way to link Biden to Hamas, “because the GOP base extremely Islamophobic – three quarters of white evangelicals, core Trump voters, supported his ban on Muslim immigrants.”

In Britain, there has been a similar rush to deploy the escalating devastation in Gaza among the Right for some wholly imaginary political advantage. The Daily Mail’s frontpage on October 10, provocatively asked: “How can the British Left make excuses for a terrorist group that murders women and children?”

The column, written by Richard Littlejohn, who is well-known for his culturally-insensitive commentary on the biggest global tragedies, claimed ‘anti-Semites are out on the streets of Britain again, in the absurd guise of condemning Israeli ‘aggression.’

Hypocritical really, when you consider that the Daily Mail is considered one of the most ‘vicious and dangerous purveyors of racist propaganda in the UK.’ In the 1930s, it adopted what has been described as an ‘overtly tolerant’ attitude towards Hitler, with its proprietor, Harold Harmsworth, the first Viscount Rothermere, being a stanch admirer of Hitler. More recently, in 2021, the newspaper was labelled as discriminatory and racist towards peaceful Muslim communities, for an article which claimed several areas in the UK had become ‘no-go areas for white people.’

Just hours after the Hamas attack, and the extensive military response from the government of Israel, social media was alight with similar scare rhetoric, with fake and misleading information about the conflict. As AP News reports, among the fabrications, users have shared false claims that a top Israeli commander had been kidnapped, and circulated a doctored White House memo purporting to show President Joe Biden announcing billions in aid for Israel. Imran Ahmed, the respected CEO of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, told Al Jazeera: “The flood of grifters spreading lies and hate about the Israel-Gaza crisis in recent days, combined with algorithms that aggressively promote extreme and disturbing content, is exactly why social media has become such a bad place to access reliable information.”

The lies, misinformation and disinformation surrounding events in the Middle East this week sit inside a wider political world to which truth is a stranger. This year’s Conservative Party Conference was awash with lies and conspiracy theories, where ministers were inventing things that they claim Labour will do, such a tax meat, introduce blanket 20mph zones and councils that decide when we can go shopping.

One glaring alternative ‘fact’ was made by transport secretary Mark Harper. During his conference speech, he pledged to crack down on ’15 minute city’ schemes, which means ‘councils can decide how often you go to the shops, and that they can ration who uses the roads and when.” The ’15 minute city’ myth was the focus of viral online conspiracy theory on an alleged UN-led attempt to lock people into their home neighbourhoods.



Andrew Bowie, a junior minister who was quizzed by the BBC about Harper’s interpretation of the concept, failed to come up with an example of a council in Britain seeking to restrict people’s access to shops, adding that such ideas were “coming up in discussions online.”

In this case, a Tory minister used an online conspiracy, audaciously promoted it during a conference speech, in a bid convince onlookers it is a Labour-backed ‘sinister’ attack on our freedoms.

Another false claim being peddled by Tory ministers is that, under Labour, the UK would take 100,000 migrants a year. But as fact-checkers Full Fact unearthed, the 100,000 figure is misleading and not reliable, because it makes several assumptions and appears to misinterpret a recent EU agreement on relocating asylum seekers.

Peter Walker, deputy political editor of the Guardian, warns that the rise in provably false statements by Rishi Sunak and his ministers “adds weight to theory No 10 is sowing untruths for electoral advantage.”

But let’s not forget that such tactics have been implemented with success by right-wing regimes around the world.

It could be said that the penchant to lie for political gain and, to some extent, get away with it, was started by Donald Trump. His presidency was marked by lies. The Washington Post’s Fact Checker team identified that in four years, Trump’s false or misleading claims totalled 30,573. His wildly dishonest presidency accumulated on a relentless and dangerous lying spree about the election he lost.

This month, a new lawsuit began in New York, accusing the former president of lying about his wealth, including allegations of conspiracy, falsifying business records and insurance fraud.




Yet despite Trump being known as an habitual liar, and after a string of lawsuits centred on misinformation and fraud, he is still a serious contender for the GOP presidential nomination. In fact, he continues to enjoy a huge lead in the nomination race. This in itself speaks volumes about the ‘normalcy’ and tolerance of political lying today.

And it’s not just in the US. In Bavaria, Germany, fuelled by what has been described as a “targeted campaign of disinformation,’ particularly about the unpopular law to phase out gas boilers and replace them with heat pumps, Greens have been subjected to growing hostility, which has seen has seen activists routinely spat on, insulted and threatened. Such disinformation saw Markus Söder, the state’s prime minister, claim a new heat pump cost an eye-watering €300,000. In actual fact, the figure is €11,000-€25,000.

Then there is Brexit, which was literally sold on a string of spectacular untruths. The biggest of the Brexit lies had to be Vote Leave’s killer slogan imprinted on its campaign bus:

“We send the EU £350m a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead.”



In May 2016, the UK Statistics Authority said it was “disappointed” by Vote Leave’s use of the figure. “As we have made clear, the UK’s contribution to the EU is paid after the application of the rebate… The continued use of a gross figure in contexts that imply it is a net figure is misleading and undermines trust in official statistics,” it said.

Not that such concerns ever stopped Boris Johnson doubling down on it. In 2017, Johnson was still writing:

“We will take back control of roughly £350m per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS.”

Even at this year’s Tory conference, Michael Gove had the audacity to use his speech to claim that the Leave campaign’s £350m a week to the NHS has been delivered.

Attempting to convince his audience of Brexit benefits, the levelling up secretary said:

“Brexit has been delivered… And there is now more than £350m extra a week for our NHS … Promise made, promise delivered.”

Another huge Brexit lie was the Leave campaign’s claims that Turkey was joining the EU. An official Leave poster published on May 23, 2016, insinuated that Turkey was about to join the EU and that freedom of movement rules would mean its entire population – 76 million – would soon have the right to live and work in the UK. The then defence minister, Penny Mordaunt, claimed: “This will not only increase the strain on Britain’s public services, but it will also create a number of threats to UK security. Crime is far higher in Turkey than the UK. Gun ownership is also more widespread. Because of the EU’s free movement laws, the government will not be able to exclude Turkish criminals from entering the UK.”

As we now know, Turkey was no more about to join the EU in 2016 than it is now. But that didn’t stop Boris Johnson claiming he never mentioned Turkey during the EU referendum campaign, despite having told the Daily Express in April 2016:

“I am very pro-Turkish but what I certainly can’t imagine is a situation in which 77 million… of Turkish origin can come here without any checks at all.”

Which brings me on to Boris Johnson, who was labelled, with good reason, the ‘Pinocchio Prime Minister.’



Like Trump’s tenure, Johnson’s was marked by lies and coverups. Dishonesty over a Downing Street Christmas Party during Covid and a flat redecoration were just two of the infamous lies associated with the former PM.

Political journalist Peter Osborne, who was a columnist and commentator for the right-wing press barons on mainstream newspapers for many years, has written extensively on lying in politics. Having becoming concerned about Boris Johnson and his lies when he was Foreign Secretary, Osborne started a website on Johnson’s lies shortly after he became prime minister. The journalist singled out Johnson’s claims that the Brexit deal would not create a trade border with Northern Ireland as the lie he found particularly harmful. As was the claim that the government was building 40 new hospitals. For Osborne, political lying has consequences: “Governments which get away with lies get away with the misgovernment the lies protect. They never take responsibility for error and failure,” he says.

But the good news, to some extent, is that in Johnson’s case, the lies and scandals eventually got the better of him. The damning Partygate report found that there was “no precedent” for the scale of the lies as Johnosn misled Parliament over Partygate in a number of ways. Following the report, the former PM resigned as MP.

The bad news is that despite lying contributing to the once untouchable Prime Minister’s political demise, there is something of ‘dishonesty epidemic infecting Tories,’ as Green MP Caroline Lucas described it. But whether the likes of meat tax, 15-minute cities and bendy bananas will win over the electorate for the Tories remains dubious. What it does show, is just how desperate they have become.

Right-Wing Media Watch – How the Tory media reacted to the Labour Conference and Starmer’s speech

Coming straight from a disastrous Conservative Conference in Manchester, where party factions jostled from day one, and ended up more divided than united, the Tory media must have been poised at their keyboards, ready to ‘dish the dirt’ on Labour in Liverpool. According to Guardian sources, the Tories even sent in extra ‘spies’ to the Labour conference, who were tasked with infiltrating fringe events taking place outside the secure zone, meaning they did not need an official pass to gain entry, to record any comments that could be used to embarrass Keir Starmer.

But even with the unexpected glitter-throwing incident by a heckler at the start of the Leader’s speech, the conference was notably light on dissent that the Tory press had little to base their assaults on.

Though that didn’t stop them having a go.

‘Wes Streeting accused of ‘staggering hypocrisy’ for saying MPs should be banned from second jobs despite spending almost two months on outside work,’ was a headline in the Daily Mail on October 3.

Right or wrong, a Tory newspaper lecturing on an opposition MP’s ‘hypocrisy’ over second jobs, when analysis has repeatedly shown that the vast majority of MPs with additional jobs are Conservatives, reeks of its own hypocrisy. But it is the Daily Mail, so what do we expect?

Following Rachel Reeves’ speech, the Express conjured up some desperate headline about the Shadow Chancellor apparently being ‘mocked over glaring omission from economy speech.’ The man doing the mocking was, unsurprisingly, the Chancellor himself. Following the speech, Jeremy Hunt said: “It is extraordinary that Rachel Reeves failed to mention inflation once when it is the biggest challenge facing the British economy.”

Ironically, Hunt’s comments about Reeves failing to mention inflation led to him being mocked, as his Labour counterpart did in fact make clear the cost of living has soared under the Tories, she just didn’t mention the ‘i’ word.

Reeves told delegates: “The price of energy – up. The price of the family food shop – up. And mortgage bills, up hundreds of pounds every single month.

“Never forget – this time last year, in their clamour to cut taxes for those at the top, the Conservatives caused market chaos, crashed the economy, and left working people to pay the price.”

Posting on X, Byline Times political editor Adam Bienkov described Hunt’s comments as ‘outright disinformation. Inflation was mentioned within the opening line of Reeves’ speech and throughout.’

Naturally, the Express didn’t dwell on Hunt being mocked for doing the mocking.

In response to Starmer’s speech, the right-wing press’s coverage was somewhat surprisingly ‘neutral.’ The Guardian’s Alexandra Topping even went as far as to say, ‘Labour may take heart from right-wing media reaction to Starmer’s speech.’

The centre-right Times wrote how Starmer sounded like a ‘prime minister-in-waiting.’ The Daily Mail was less admiring, criticising how Starmer didn’t mention “small boats crisis,” tax, Brexit, striking public sector workers “or wokery.” No surprise there then, from a newspaper which makes ‘anti-woke culture war’ a leading feature on its pages and online almost daily.

But it was the Sun’s coverage of Starmer’s speech that was perhaps the most interesting. While not exactly gushing, the tabloid said that “we cannot not fault his delivery, nor his stoic handling of the protest.”

Could it be that the Sun is beginning to tack towards Labour? After all, Starmer seems to be cosying up to the Murdoch-owned newspaper, something which has attracted criticism from the Left.

Are we set for a re-run of 1997, when Murdoch turned the lights off on the tabloid’s support for the Tories, by backing Blair?

Woke bashing of the week – GB News in meltdown over British Airway’s ‘non-binary’ uniforms AND ‘woke’ Big Brother

GB News has excelled itself in the woke-bashing stakes this week. Bev Turner, who recently came under fire from her own co-host would you believe for calling the scandal-hit Russell Brand a ‘hero,’ has spoken her mind once more. In a discussion on BA’s new uniform entitled ‘Flying Woke,’ Turner couldn’t keep her outrage under wraps.

“Oh my word,” she said, adding: “The whole point, I guess, is that they are much more aligned in terms of uniform.”

Daily Express columnist Carole Malone, jumped in, saying: “If non-binary people have rights, why shouldn’t women?”



Thankfully, journalist Emma Burnell was present during the discussion, and managed to offer some sense and balance, reminding viewers that the uniform comes in different options, so employees can wear which one they want.

The uniform, which is BA’s first updated uniform in 20 years, looks pretty stylish as far as I can tell, comprising of a tailored-fitted items for men, women and non-binary colleagues, thereby enabling employees to express themselves fully, regardless of their gender identity.

But BA’s uninform wasn’t the only ‘woke’ beef the right-wing ‘news’ channel got upset about this week.

‘ITV outrage as ‘woke’ Big Brother forces fans to ‘switch off’ following ‘snowflake’ pronoun debates,’ screamed a headline. Pointing to a trans contestant, a discussion about preferred pronouns in the house, halal meat and a Tory-voting contestant being grilled by ‘leftie Trish,’ the article claims ITV viewers have been switching off the new Big Brother series ‘in their droves,’ because the much-loved reality show is deemed as ‘woke.’ The report cites several outraged viewers who shared their comments on X, including one foul-mouthed viewer, who said:

“What’s your pronouns ? F*** OFF ye woke f*****y 2023 s***e! That’s me switched off already. Get in the (bin) #BigBrotherUK #bigbrotheruk #BBUK #bbuk.”

Though I wouldn’t pay much attention to X users being quoted in GB News’ articles, as just last week the channel published a report on Fiona Bruce apparently being accused of ‘bullying, anti-Tory bias as she badgers MP EIGHT times for answer.’

Attempting to give the claim some credit, the report cited a post by the parody account Sir Michael Take, who wrote: “Conservative MP Richard Holden answers Marxist Fiona Bruce’s question 8 times. Yes 8 TIMES. Yet she continues to violently bully him.

“This anti Tory sexist misogyny by BBC presenters such as Bruce, Munchetty, Kirkwood, Winkleman etc. MUST STOP NOW!”

You would have thought the reporter would have noticed the blatant sarcasm, but then again, it is GB News, so maybe not.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch
Poland’s democracy is on the brink. Can these elections save it?

The high stakes of Poland’s elections, explained.

LONG READ
 Oct 14, 2023, 
Donald Tusk, the leader of Civic Platform (PO) opposition alliance, attends an election convention in Katowice, Poland, on October 12, 2023. 
 Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Jen Kirby is a senior foreign and national security reporter at Vox, where she covers global instability.

WARSAW, Poland — “We have been talking that these are the most important elections since 1989, which was the first partly free elections since the fall of communism,” Jakub Kocjan, a rule of law campaigner for Akcja Demokracja, a Polish pro-democracy organization, told me from his apartment in Warsaw, less than a week before parliamentary elections that may determine the democratic future of Poland.

Behind him, a map of the European Union spans the wall. Another map, this one of Poland, hangs on the other side of the room. Kocjan sits in a desk chair, one leg extended and propped up on a bed. His foot is in a plastic boot, an old injury flaring up.

“There is some point,” Kocjan says, “where there is no possibility to go back to democracy.”

For Kocjan, and for many other civic and pro-democracy activists, opposition party members, and some observers, this October 15 election is that point.

Poland’s democracy is wounded, the consequence of eight years of rule by the right-wing populist Law and Justice Party (PiS). The party has captured state institutions and resources, dismantled the judicial system and constitutional courts, consolidated control over public media. The party has mainstreamed nationalism, which has put Poland at odds with the European Union and its members, like Germany and with other partners, most recently, Ukraine.

The stakes of the election are undeniable: If PiS wins again and returns to power, it will keep Poland on this illiberal path: more undermining of the rule of law and the judiciary; more domination over the media and the state resources; more tension with European partners. Which is why these elections feel to many like the most important vote in more than 30 years.

“This time, many people are expecting the same — but more. Stronger, with the Hungarian path actually becoming a reality,” said Piotr Łukasiewicz, a former Polish diplomat and analyst for security and international affairs with Polityka Insight, referring to Viktor Orbán’s authoritarian consolidation in Hungary.

“THERE IS SOME POINT WHERE THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY TO GO BACK TO DEMOCRACY”

Yet Poland is divided, and right now the elections are a bit too close to call — and that means, despite the odds, the democratic opposition has a chance to unseat PiS. PiS’s control of the media and state resources has skewed competition, but it has not eliminated it. Broad public frustration over the high cost of living has eaten away at PiS’s support, along with the rise of a more radical far-right party, the Confederation that has questioned Poland’s support for Ukraine, and is appealing to younger voters, especially men.

Jen Kirby traveled to Warsaw, Poland, days before the country’s October 15 vote. She met with activists, civil society leaders, and political and foreign policy experts, and wandered the streets of Warsaw asking people their biggest concerns ahead of Sunday’s parliamentary elections. Most people quickly walked away, although a few people stopped and shared their worries, frustrations, and hopes for Poland’s future.

The opposition centrist Civic Coalition, led by former Prime Minister Donald Tusk, is promising to restore Poland’s democracy and improve relations with Europe. Civic and an array of other opposition coalitions on the left, center, and center-right, are pulling close in polls. It is a catch-all, diverse group, but together they may be able to get PiS out of power and try to begin unraveling the illiberal regime it created.

None of this is a guarantee. PiS seems unlikely to win an outright majority, but it very much could still garner the most votes, enough to form a government, even if they have to seek the help of the more right-wing Confederation. Even if the opposition coalitions win enough seats to potentially form a government, it is likely to be a slim edge, under a very broad tent, and reliant on cooperation from many disparate groups, which may weaken its effectiveness. No matter who emerges, this parliamentary election could make Polish politics a lot more unstable. That may dislodge PiS for now, but make unpredictable what could replace it.

These election results also matter for more than just Poland. They will reverberate across Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO). Poland is Europe’s front line in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a critical transfer point for arms, and a host of more than 1 million Ukrainian refugees. The future of Poland’s democracy may influence regional stability and its future support of Ukraine; PiS has picked fights with Kyiv, in part, to fend off the rise of the far right, and if PiS retains power, those tensions may persist, another nick in an increasingly fragile Western coalition as the war moves closer to its third year.

Poland is not alone in being framed as a last-chance election: Recent votes in Brazil, Turkey, and soon the United States and India, all carry similar stakes. One election isn’t enough to unmake polarization or fully fix a faltering democracy, but it may be the first step to healing the break. This is Poland’s test: not just whether it can save its own democracy, but whether it can be a model for Europe and the world that it’s even possible.

“There are two feelings that everyone has,” Kocjan told Vox. “First is a lot of hope because we really know that we have this chance, and we cannot waste it. Because it will be too late.”

The other, he said, was anxiety that even if the opposition won enough votes, it would be able to take control. “It is really hard to imagine,” he said, referring to PiS, “that they will simply give the power to the other party.”

How do you win an election you’re rigged to lose?

Warsaw, Poland’s capital and biggest city, is largely an opposition town. The campaign signs at bus stops or on street signs skew toward the opposition, Koalicja Obywatelska (KO), or the Civic Coalition. On Nowy Świat, a main thoroughfare in Warsaw’s Old Town — the part of the city reconstructed after World War II to look like it did before it was destroyed — many voters criticized the direction of the country, the state of education, health care, and democracy. “I really want to change what’s been there so far,” one Warsaw resident told Vox. “My whole heart is with the Civic Coalition, with the opposition party.”

Elsewhere, near the Wileński (Vilnius) metro station in the North Praga, an area by the Warsaw district that had the most PiS support in the last parliamentary election in 2019, not everyone seemed eager to vote for PiS again. A woman sitting at a stand selling socks said she’d had enough and would definitely not vote for Jarosław Kaczyński, the deputy prime minister and leader of the PiS party. She recently had to buy medicine. It cost too much for her, and yet, she saw plenty of people getting benefits who didn’t work for them.

Civic Coalition campaign signs in Warsaw. Jen Kirby/Vox

It reflected some of the fatigue around PiS. The right-wing party is socially conservative, but a lot of its popularity was built on its populist economic policies, which included generous welfare benefits like a child subsidy. PiS oversaw a period of growth, which they can’t take exclusive credit for, but their policies did benefit lower-income households, and so PiS became the party most trusted on economic issues.

But the economic aftershocks of Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine have raised Poland’s inflation to some of the highest in Europe and that has refracted onto PiS. PiS was popular as long as Poles felt things were improving, but now with the costs rising, support for PiS is flagging.

That did not necessarily translate to support for the Civic Coalition in this neighborhood though; one man said he’d take the current government over the opposition, but he’d prefer to clear them all out. Another woman said she wouldn’t vote because she didn’t like anyone.

Some of this disillusionment is because, as high as the stakes of the election, voters are mostly dealing with the same cast of characters (if that sounds familiar). Civic’s leader, Tusk, was the Polish prime minister from 2007 and 2014 and is the former president of the European Council — that is, a guy who’s been around for a long time. “The Civic Coalition doesn’t look like a new offer,” explained Edwin Bendyk, chairman of the Fundacja im. Stefana Batorego, a pro-democracy organization, of some of the public’s hesitation around the party. Plus, media propaganda doesn’t help. Poland’s public media has relentlessly attacked Tusk, framing him as a European bureaucrat who is an agent of Germany, but also an appeaser of Russia. On Warsaw’s streets, residents repeated some of these attacks.

Still, it all felt fairly typical for a week ahead of a major election: the motivated, the undecided, the disillusioned, the indifferent. This is the trickiness of an illiberal democracy. It isn’t a fully authoritarian state where elections are a farce. The PiS has chipped away at the rule of law and democracy but not destroyed it entirely, and the beats of the electoral system are intact. The outcome of the vote is still uncertain, though exactly how uncertain is hard to know because it’s difficult to quantify exactly how far the scales have been tipped.

“The election will be free. It’s not fair because of the advantages that the government has. But it’s still more or less a functioning democracy,” said Adam Traczyk, director of More in Common Polska, a pro-democracy think tank.

The PiS party was legitimately elected in 2015, and since then has used the levers of power to capture the state and its institutions. PiS has subverted the constitutional and judicial system. PiS painted judges as post-communist holdovers, acting against the people’s interests — in part because they had previously thwarted some of PiS’s legislation and agenda, and they, after all, PiS had a democratic mandate. Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal is stacked with PiS loyalists and is now neutered to the point of dysfunction.
Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the leader of Law and Justice (PiS) ruling party, gives a speech during a final convention of elections campaign in Krakow, Poland on October 11, 2023. 
Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via Getty Images

In this, and other ways, PiS has fully captured the state, subverting it to its own political interests. This election has shown just how tilted things are. PiS has turned public media into state propaganda that relentlessly attacks the opposition. In this campaign, PiS has raised funds from state-controlled entities and its employees. A state-controlled oil and gas company owns a press company that publishes almost 20 regional newspapers and hundreds of weeklies and online sites; they refused to publish ads for certain candidates because of their “left-wing” values. The PiS party has approved benefit and pension hikes ahead of this campaign.

“THE ELECTION WILL BE FREE. IT’S NOT FAIR BECAUSE OF THE ADVANTAGES THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS.”


As a nationalistic party, PiS has also tried to hype up its base by fear-mongering around immigration, especially from the Middle East and Africa (though PiS itself was embroiled in a cash-for-visa scheme), and a meddlesome Europe that is trying to interfere in Poland. To motivate their supporters, PiS is staging a referendum it has little power to implement, with loaded questions like: Do you support “the admission of thousands of illegal immigrants from the Middle East and Africa, according to the forced relocation mechanism imposed by the European bureaucracy?”

PiS has also tweaked electoral rules, increasing polling stations in rural areas, places most likely to benefit PiS. It is likely PiS strongholds are already overrepresented since the country hasn’t updated its parliamentary count to adjust for potential population changes, and some estimates suggest cities — where the opposition tends to do well — are underrepresented. Right now, a record number of Poles — some 600,000 — have registered to vote abroad. Those will most likely favor the opposition, but they must be counted within 24 hours or they are disqualified, a rule PiS passed in January that notably does not apply to the rest of Poland’s votes.

These baked-in disadvantages are why the opposition faces steep odds, and it explains some of the desperation they feel. “For the opposition, this is seen pretty widely as an election that if they don’t win this one they might not be able to win another one, that the systemic advantage of the government would be so strong,” said Michal Baranowski, managing director for the German Marshall Fund East, in Warsaw.

Tusk and the opposition have framed this election as the last chance to save Poland’s democracy. Jakub (Kuba) Karyś, chair of Komitet Obrony Demokracji (Committee to Protect Democracy), said he believed if the opposition did not win these elections, they would be the last ones.

“Having this government for the third time would be a disaster because they will continue to close up this authoritarian system,” Bendyk said. Poland was not authoritarian yet; there was still a free press, strong civil society, and thriving local democracy which Bendyk described as the immune system in the democratic resistance. But one by one, PiS would target these. “It’s quite easy to lay down rules to demand you can be penalized for different actions,” Bendyk said. “It can be difficult to do what we are doing now.”

Thousands of people hold Polish and EU flags as Donald Tusk, the leader of Civic Coalition, delivers a speech during the March of a Million Hearts on October 1, 2023 in Warsaw, Poland. 
Omar Marques/Getty Images

In her office in Warsaw, Marta Lempart, leader of Strajk Kobiet, or Women’s Strike, a women’s rights and pro-abortion-rights group, was preparing to film videos to respond to different election outcomes. She has campaigned against PiS’s strict abortion laws. I asked how the organization’s work would change if PiS won again. “When they close the system,” Lempart replied, “our operations will be different because I will be in jail, obviously.”

Can the opposition actually win?

The opposition has an incentive to hype the stakes and make this election existential. But most experts and other observers Vox spoke to agreed that Poland would continue on this anti-democratic path if PiS captured power again.

And, right now, the opposition does have a real, if tenuous, opening.

The cost of living concerns of the electorate are real. Beyond that, PiS is facing a challenge from its right, the radical, anti-establishment party Konfederancja, or Confederation. The group doesn’t really fit into neat boxes; it’s a wild mess of libertarians, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, antisemites, and incels. Confederation also has a strong anti-Ukraine strain, reviving historical grievances, criticizing the war and Poland’s support for it, and Warsaw’s welcome of Ukrainian refugees.
Slawomir Mentzen, co-leader of the Konfederacja (Confederation) alliance of right-wing and far-right political parties, tosses fake money to supporters while speaking in a style closer to that of a standup comedian at an election campaign rally on September 16, 2023, in Szczecin, Poland. 
Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Broadly, Poles are still supportive of Ukraine and of Warsaw’s political and humanitarian response to Russia’s invasion, and Russia is too big of a security threat for a real pro-Russia party to thrive. But Confederation’s anti-establishment message is peeling off some disillusioned voters, especially from younger demographics. That has freaked out PiS enough that it has hardened its stance on Ukraine, an uncomfortable development for the Western alliance given Poland’s position on NATO’s eastern flank.

Together, though, PiS looks somewhat vulnerable. So the pro-democracy opposition is mobilizing. In early October, hundreds of thousands of opposition supporters attended a massive rally in Warsaw. Karyś, of the Committee to Protect Democracy, said his group has registered more than 27,000 volunteers so far to observe the polls.

The democratic opposition — both parties running and pro-democracy activists and civil society leaders — is a diverse group. They are unified to dislodge PiS, which gives the vote a bit of the feel of the 2020 US election: anti-Trump more than pro-Biden; anti-PiS more than pro-Tusk and pro-Civic. Kocjan, the rule of law campaigner, said people are trying to vote strategically; that is, if they live in a more conservative district, voting for the opposition party most likely to win, not necessarily the one they favor the most.

A woman in a “Vote” T-shirt with a red lightning bolt painted on her face — a symbol of Women’s Strike — at a demonstration. Under the slogan “Not One More!” (Ani Jednej Wiecej!), thousands of Poles took to the streets in Warsaw and in numerous cities across the country to protest once again the tightened abortion law after the death of another pregnant woman in a Polish hospital. 
Attila Husejnow/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

In 2020, PiS oversaw a near-total ban on legal abortion, one of the most extreme in Europe. Lempart, leader of Strajk Kobiet, is trying to motivate voters on the abortion issue, especially younger voters, ages 18 to 25, to convince them they can get enough pro-abortion MPs elected, they can dismantle these restrictions.

She noted that many young voters are disillusioned with the current political establishment — something backed up by surveys — but the opposition wasn’t offering a positive message, just criticizing young people, telling them to vote and save the country or else.

Her organization’s approach was to give voters a clear deliverable. “We’re saying ‘it’s absolutely okay if you don’t feel anything, when you see the flag, when you hear the anthem, if you don’t care what happens, [if] the call to save the country just doesn’t appeal to you,” she said. But the Parliament needs 50 percent plus one to change the abortion laws. “If you go and vote for abortion, believe that then we can deliver,” Lempart said.

Can Poland reverse its illiberal path?

The radical far-right Confederation may end up the decider on Poland’s democratic future. PiS is still likely to win the most seats in parliament, though it seems unlikely to secure an outright majority. It may have to look to its rivals in the Confederation. The Confederation hates PiS because of its welfare spending; going into government with them would probably destroy their anti-establishment credentials. Still, PiS might just need to persuade a few opportunistic politicians to switch sides.

And even if the opposition can pull it out, the path forward is likely turbulent and tricky. One wild and risky possibility is the far-right Confederation tolerating a minority government led by the Civic Coalition. And no matter what, PiS is unlikely to go quietly. Their allies are in the courts, including the ones that deal with elections. Their allies control the business interests. Their allies control the messages on public media.

“If the opposition really manages to win or has enough votes to form a coalition, it’s not that on the 16th of October, we will all be sitting and singing Kumbaya and everything will be fine,” said Maria Skóra, a researcher at the Institute for European Politics (IEP), in Berlin. “The thing is that Law and Justice will not give up their powers too easily.”

Which is why many activists, experts, and observers in Warsaw seemed to think the most likely outcome of this election is one of instability: a fragile, messy government that might not last very long. That instability still offers the chance of evicting PiS from some of the centers of power, but the consequences of that are just as uncertain. It might make it far more difficult to undertake any meaningful reforms, and the opposition in disarray could be replaced by an emboldened PiS or a radical right, maybe in snap elections next year.

Even if the opposition does take control, it is a prospect — but not a guarantee — of change. “We also realize that the democratic opposition parties are not angels,” Bendyk said. But, he added, “At least open the window for opportunity for changes.”

What that window looks like is hard to say because reversing an illiberal democracy hasn’t really been done. “You don’t have an example of a country where you had an illiberal regime, established over years, and then rolled back by a democratic, liberal government,” said Piotr Buras, head of the Warsaw office for the European Council on Foreign Relations. Because Poland isn’t a full-on authoritarian system, you can’t just start from scratch. If the opposition gets into power, it will be because it won an election, after all. “An illiberal regime, this is a different animal,” he added.

Experts and activists suggested the opposition might find some tasks easier than others: replacing people at the public media station, or disentangling some of the state-controlled businesses from the state. But for the judiciary and the courts, even experts are perplexed by some of the changes there. How to unravel that and restore rule of law will be a complicated, and maybe even doomed process. On top of that, Poland’s PiS-aligned president, Andrzej Duda, will be in power until at least 2025. He can veto legislation, which a divided Parliament probably won’t have the votes to override.

“YOU DON’T HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF A COUNTRY WHERE YOU HAD AN ILLIBERAL REGIME, ESTABLISHED OVER YEARS, AND THEN ROLLED BACK BY A DEMOCRATIC, LIBERAL GOVERNMENT”

“It’s the question,” Tracyzk said. “Do you want to do it quickly? Or create possibly even more chaos risking that every four years there will be chaos once again? Or do you want to try to do it kind of in a more democratic stable manner, knowing that it will take more time, knowing that you will not be able to fix all the things that quickly?”
The very high stakes of Poland’s election — for the country and the world

Yet Poland, if it has the chance, has to try. These elections are critical for global democracy but also for Europe and the rest of the world. The PiS party has challenged Europe and the supremacy of its rule of law, a perpetual and persistent problem from the bloc. PiS is picking fights with its neighbors, like Germany, at a time when Europe is trying to figure out its own future — on foreign policy, governance, and security. Tusk, a former European official, will almost certainly reset Polish relations with the EU, although he’ll be dealing with a long list at home.

But the war in Ukraine looms over all of it. After Russia’s full-scale invasion, Poland emerged as Ukraine’s ironclad supporter. Poland used this position to rally other EU countries, putting pressure on its partners, like Germany, to deliver tanks. It won some goodwill, including from the EU, and some saw it as a sign that Warsaw might become the new power center in Europe and of NATO.

That has since shifted. The Polish public remains broadly supportive of Ukraine and of hosting Ukrainian refugees, but inflation and inflammatory rhetoric, especially by the Confederation, has eroded some of that enthusiasm. As a result, the PiS party has turned Ukraine into an electoral issue, most notably with its dispute over Ukrainian grain.

Poland has said the transit of Ukranian grain into Europe is hurting undermining Polish farmers (who also happen to be an important voting bloc for PiS), and so it (along with some others) would defy a EU rule and continue banning Ukrainian grain imports. The spat culminated with Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki saying last month that Poland was no longer giving weapons to Ukraine. This was a bit misleading; Poland continues to be a transfer point for international aid and weapons, but Poland itself is not sending more weapons, mostly because it has already given everything it has to give. But the damage was done.

“How can this Polish government go back and become an advocate again, and actually name and shame our bigger allies — Europeans, Americans, as well, to some extent — on sending more, or sending more advanced weapons?” Baranowski, of GMF, said. “We, as a country, just gave away a huge chunk of credibility that could have been used and was used successfully.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is seen on a screen as people gather to mark Ukraine’s Independence Day while a demonstrator holds up a placard reading “Stop Russia” and showing an image of Russian President Vladimir Putin, at Zamkowy Square in Warsaw, Poland, on August 24, 2023. 
Janek Skarzynski/AFP via Getty Images

As experts said, Ukraine is not about to break with the Western alliance; it still sees Russia as too big of a threat and the war as critical to its security. But as the war enters something of a standstill, Poland’s domestic politics could spill over and further strain the Western alliance, which is already under pressure, especially as the United States now struggles to approve Ukraine aid. And if the PiS party must work with the Confederation to stay in power, Poland’s tensions with Ukraine may only grow deeper.

Although the PiS party has sold itself as the real protectors of Poland, if opposition wins they will continue support for Ukraine, and potentially offer a little relations reset. Beyond that, so much of the rhetoric around Ukraine support revolves around defending democracy — even as some of its supporters, like Poland, are not exactly living up to those values.

With Sunday’s election, Poland has the chance to rebuild its democracy, as it also defends the one next door. “Poland is the final buffer between the West and the East,” said Karyś. “It’s incredibly important for Europe and the world for it to be there.”