JD

Waanzin hoe personen met een migratie-achtergrond die oproepen tot een strengere aanpak van wangedrag op straat én in de huiskamer agressief benaderd en beledigd worden door de woke elite. Neokolonialisme en paternalisme is niet (alleen) te vinden op rechts, het zit òòk op links!

The financial package for Ukraine is in place: Ukraine will receive an interest-free loan of 90 billion Euros as I suggested. This sends a clear signal from Europe to Putin: This war will not be worth it. We will keep Russian assets frozen until Russia has compensated Ukraine.

EU leaders are meeting in Brussels these days for a European Council summit. Among other issues, the Council has already sent two telling signals about how the EU views the war and its own role in it. • First, EU leaders agreed on a financial framework to support Ukraine in 2026-2027 in the form of a large loan, aimed at ensuring predictability of assistance and reducing the scope for annual crisis bargaining. This matters not just in terms of the amount of money involved, but as a political signal: support for Ukraine remains a strategic priority that requires planning "for years ahead," not reactive "from summit to summit" decisions. • Second, at the level of the summit conclusions, the EU more clearly outlined its response framework for hybrid attacks, with an emphasis on resilience, protection of critical infrastructure, and readiness to apply additional restrictive measures. This is also significant, as it shifts the discussion from "isolated incidents" toward an understanding of systematic pressure on European societies. At the same time, both signals lead to the central question: is European leadership ready to speak honestly about this reality - so that societies understand the scale of the threat and support the necessary decisions? This question points to a much deeper problem: a crisis of leadership in European democracies. And it concerns not just security, but democracy itself - the ability to speak frankly with one’s own society and to obtain a mandate for decisive action. ▪️ The EU lacks a shared "threat map" Let us start with the obvious: EU countries perceive both Russia and the cost of confronting it differently. For some, this is a matter of survival and long-term confrontation. For others, it is a manageable risk that should not be "inflated" because of domestic politics, economic concerns, or elections. As a result, joint decisions are hard to reach: the disagreements are not technical, but political. ▪️Language is also a security tool There is another factor that is discussed less often, yet explains a great deal: narrative. In democracies, words carry weight. How leaders name events determines what society considers normal, what it is willing to support, and what costs it is prepared to bear. Language, therefore, is part of security policy. ▪️ The "glossary" problem: euphemisms instead of clarity Today, European politicians often describe Russian attacks using language that: • softens reality ("hybrid threats," "incidents," "interference"); • sounds overly bureaucratic - as if the issue were regulations rather than conflict; • fragments the picture into isolated episodes that people do not connect into a coherent story. This is partly deliberate. The moment a situation is called a war, a logical question arises: "What are you going to do next?" That, in turn, implies costs, priorities, and unpopular decisions. Euphemisms seem to "lower the temperature," but at the price of long-term weakness. ▪️ Distrust of citizens is a dangerous vulnerability for democracy This brings us to a painful issue: many leaders appear not to trust their own voters. As if they fear that society cannot handle an honest conversation - that people will be frightened, exhausted, or unwilling to pay the price of security. Sometimes the problem is also that elites themselves are not ready for the next step: there is no agreed plan, no package of decisions, no social safeguards. But the outcome is the same - careful formulas instead of a direct conversation. ▪️ Why silence makes everyone less secure The worst part is that this tactic is not neutral - it increases risks. When events are framed as mere "incidents," the response becomes reactive rather than strategic. People are not prepared - neither psychologically nor practically. When reality becomes undeniable through a serious shock, a sense emerges that "we were not warned," and trust erodes. Externally, this looks like indecision - and indecision invites provocation. In other words, silence does not reassure; it gradually undermines trust and makes democracies more vulnerable. ▪️ An honest conversation - without a permanent state of emergency At the same time, honesty does not mean a constant state of alarm or emergency. It is crucial not to cross the line where, under the banner of security, democracy itself begins to shrink - where opposition is restricted, space for debate is narrowed, and dissent is labeled "disloyalty." That is why what is needed is an honest but democratically responsible conversation. It should include: • clear criteria: what we consider an attack and how we respond; • transparency and oversight, including parliamentary control; • an honest "social contract": what the costs will be and how the state will protect people; • the role of citizens: what each individual can do to make society more resilient. So, today, the main challenge for leadership in Europe is not only to find the right tools to counter threats, but to restore democracy’s key resource: trust. And trust starts with language. It is time to call reality by its name - not to frighten people, but to become more resilient. When Russian border guards in uniform physically enter EU and NATO territory, as happened on 17 December in Estonia, things must be called by their proper names. Russia is a threat. Russia behaves in a hostile manner toward the EU. And people must be aware of this.