Патріархальний хрестовий похід: адміністрація Трампа забороняє слова «жінка», «грудне вигодовування» і «мігранти»

Every fourth country in the world has experienced regression in the field of women's rights, according to the latest UN Women 2024 report, and in the European Union, about 50 million women continue to experience high levels of sexual and physical violence - both at home and at work, as well as in public spaces.

We speak with Doctor of Sociology, Professor at the University of Warsaw, Elżbieta Korolczuk, about the situation of women's rights in the world, Poland and Ukraine, as well as about what should be done to protect and support women's rights, which are once again under threat.

The Influence of the Church

Olga Pakosh: Professor, what does the regression of women's rights mean?

‍Elżbieta Korolczuk: It means that in many countries, the process of equalising opportunities has stalled, and in some, the situation regarding existing rights has even worsened.‍

Of course, it has never been the case that all participants in public life, even in liberal countries, accepted gender equality

There have always been groups opposing women's rights - reproductive rights, the right to abortion, contraception or women's equality in political life.

But in democratic countries, there was a general consensus that we should strive for the full participation of women in social and political life. Groups opposing this remained on the margins of public life. Today, anti-gender views are moving to the centre of public discussion and - depending on the country - take various forms.

For example, in Afghanistan, where in different periods of the twentieth century laws were introduced to improve the situation of women, today women have no rights whatsoever. Fundamentalists have ensured that women cannot work, leave the house alone or study. They cannot participate in public or political life, and most of them also experience violence - there is data showing that this may concern up to 85 per cent of Afghan women.

Meanwhile, in the United States, where for many years the political mainstream shared the belief that women's rights were an obvious part of democracy, there is now an assault on both democracy and women's rights. Both are connected to the development of anti-gender and conservative movements, which often resonate with organised religions, such as Christianity and Islam, as well as Orthodox Judaism, which has also never been a friend to women.

- And what about Poland? It has been almost two years since the change of government. Why, despite previous promises, has no action been taken to at least partially regulate the issue of abortion?

- Firstly, because the current political class - and this applies not only to Poland but also to many other countries - is significantly more conservative than the majority of society. Secondly, the issue of women's rights and minority rights remains under the strong influence of religious institutions.

In Poland, we are observing a distinct cultural conflict: the country is rapidly secularising - the younger generation is moving away from institutional religion, and often from faith altogether. At the same time, a significant portion of voters, predominantly older people, remains deeply religious. The Church as a political institution still plays an enormous role, both at the national level and locally. Bishops often effectively participate in local political life. The economic power of the Church also carries great weight - it remains one of the largest property owners in the country.

- Could a change of president influence anything?

- Can we trust politicians? This is a question many people are asking themselves today. Promises were already made two years ago, during the parliamentary elections. However, as research shows, a significant portion of young women who voted for the current coalition in 2023 now feels disappointed and disillusioned. During the campaign, mobilisation efforts were directed specifically at them, notably through promises regarding reproductive rights, financial support concerning issues related to abortion, equality for the LGBT community and so on. At present, these promises remain unfulfilled. What will change after the presidential elections - we shall see.

I fear we are dealing with the ignoring of female voters: at first, something is promised to them to secure their votes, and later, the promises are not fulfilled

Such a strategy not only alienates specific groups of voters but also generally undermines trust in democracy as a political system. The question is to what extent the politicians themselves realise this and whether they understand the long-term consequences of such actions.

As a sociologist, I do not have excessive expectations. However, as a citizen, I hope that the ruling parties will eventually awaken and that the change of president will lead at least to the resolution of such basic issues as the abortion ban or inequality in LGBT rights.

In Poland, a victim is not obliged to prove that she said «no» to the rapist

- What is the current situation regarding women's rights in Ukraine?

- War, like any crisis, always negatively affects society. On the one hand, of course, it affects men, as they predominantly die at the frontline or bear other severe consequences related to military service. On the other hand, the burden of daily survival falls squarely on the shoulders of women. This concerns not only professional work but also activities connected with maintaining the lives of families, communities and the general everyday functioning of people. Moreover, many women serve in the Ukrainian army, carrying, in essence, a double burden.

War also means the suspension of normal political struggle, which likewise complicates the ability of minorities to defend their rights. Individual rights, as well as the rights of particular groups, are pushed into the background in the face of the harsh reality of resisting Russian aggression.

Nevertheless, it is noticeable that politically, Ukraine is striving for integration with Europe, and this opens opportunities for the implementation of equal rights solutions. For example, one can compare Ukraine and Georgia - two post-Soviet states that started from similar positions. Ukraine resolutely chose the path of European integration, which, incidentally, became one of the factors of the military conflict, and in this context, adopted many decisions, such as the ratification of the Istanbul Convention and the protection of the rights of women and minorities. Georgia, by contrast, has moved in the opposite direction. It has drawn closer to Russia - notably through religious issues, restrictions on the activities of non-governmental organisations and the strengthened influence of the Orthodox Church.

The Georgian government is moving towards restricting the rights of minorities, particularly LGBT people, which is part of a broader process of narrowing the rights of civil society and the space for grassroots movements. This indicates that we are dealing not only with ideological or cultural differences, the attitude towards equality is also an element of the geopolitical choice made by states. It was the same in the case of Poland and other countries that joined the EU - this process was linked to the acceptance of at least some obligations in the field of equality. And this undoubtedly matters for the specific decisions taken by the state, although the results do not always meet expectations.

- What laws or legal mechanisms are lacking in Ukraine to support women's rights? Is the problem solely due to the crisis caused by the war?

- I am not a specialist in Ukrainian affairs - it is worth asking Ukrainian women themselves about this. However, I think the situation is complicated. On the one hand, it is worth asking: how open are state institutions to the voices of minorities, including women? How much do they actually represent groups that are in a vulnerable position in society?

On the other hand, the problem also lies in the way existing norms are implemented. For example, when it comes to protection from violence, one of the most fundamental issues. If such protection does not exist, it is clear that female citizens do not have equal rights.

If they are not protected in their own home or on the street, there is no point in talking about equal opportunities in politics or other fields

And here the question arises: is a state that is undergoing such a deep crisis - military, economic, infrastructural - capable of effectively guaranteeing women the protection from violence? I believe we must demand this, but at the same time, we should understand that it is an extremely difficult task.

- And what about Poland? Is Polish legislation effective in the context of protecting women?

- Yes, in many areas there are quite good legal standards, but often they are not properly implemented. An example can be the changes introduced in February this year - regarding the definition of rape.

According to the new provisions, rape is any violation of sexual boundaries without clear consent. That is, theoretically, now the victim is not obliged to prove that she said «no» - instead, the perpetrator must prove that he obtained consent

At the same time, we do not have any large-scale information campaign on this matter. Most people do not even know that anything has changed. There are no relevant educational programmes. There are not enough training sessions for the police and prosecutors that would allow for the effective implementation of the new standards.

Such matters should be on the front pages of newspapers

«Women's rights are not given once and for all»

- The United States was once an example in the fight for women's rights and the implementation of these rights. What about now? Are the suffragettes turning in their graves?

- I hope that the United States will become not only an example of how what seemed to have been achieved can be destroyed, but also teach us how to truly maintain it. It is worth emphasising that, compared to Poland, Ukraine and most Eastern European countries, women's rights in the USA were guaranteed quite late, at a time when most women in Eastern Europe were already working and had a certain degree of financial independence.

In Poland, women gained the right to abortion in 1953, while in the USA, the federal right to terminate a pregnancy was introduced only in the mid-1970s.

Although in the early 1960s and 1970s women were fighting for access to legal abortions, over the last five decades, the USA has created the image of a country where the rights of minorities and women are highly developed

However, this struggle for equality was always tense, and opponents of equal rights never stood aside.

Today, the main difference is that part of the political elite has become extremely conservative, and the system of rights protection at the federal level is beginning to collapse. This particularly concerns decisions of the Supreme Court, which has overturned provisions that guaranteed the right to abortion at the federal level, notably the ruling in Roe v. Wade.

These changes show how important it is to constantly monitor adherence to the principles of equality. Women's rights are not given once and for all. This also demonstrates the link between the rights of women and minorities and democracy.

On the one hand, in undemocratic countries, the erosion of women's rights is very clearly visible, as women are usually the first group to lose their rights. When a rigid power hierarchy is created, women generally end up at the bottom.

On the other hand, criticism of women's rights is often used as a pretext for attacks on democratic values and institutions. Attacks on gender equality today are a tool in the hands of anti-democratic movements, which mobilise society by stirring up fear and convincing people that both gender equality and democracy itself have gone too far. An example is Trump's campaign against Kamala Harris, who was portrayed as a spokesperson for the transgender community, and topics related to funding gender reassignment surgeries in prisons were used to mobilise voters and at the same time to ridicule liberal democracy.

The strategy of right-wing populists is to ridicule the topics of equality, portraying them as absurd and as a threat to women themselves, while at the same time inciting society against democracy as such

- What can we, ordinary women, now do in Poland and Ukraine to protect our rights?

- The answer has already been given to us by the suffragettes: no one will grant us rights for free, we must fight for them. And once we have gained them, we must defend them.

It is a bit like marriage. Usually, if we take on all the obligations but do not demand what is ours, the other side will not help and will not voluntarily grant us our rights

The same applies to political life.

It is about voting, supporting organisations that help women, as well as those who take it to the streets - people who mobilise. It is about supporting specific women who act for others. Even if we ourselves are not ready to engage, we can support them. It is about supporting specific female politicians, as well as holding them accountable. It is about checking what they are doing, on what basis, and expressing our opinion. This is something we must never renounce. Whether on Facebook, in public discussions or at the workplace.

We still live in a good place where our voice has weight

We are not in Afghanistan - we are in a place where we have a voice, and we can use it.

We must make an effort, get used to the fact that political activity is simply part of our lives, not a marginal thing that appears only, for example, during elections, or does not appear at all. Because then we voluntarily give up the possibility of changing the world.

There are women who oppose the right to abortion. Of course, they have the right to do so. But unfortunately, they act neither in their own interest nor in the interest of their sisters, friends, or daughters. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion. But in a world where women are forbidden to do so, it is ordinary women who will pay for this ban with their lives, health, and mental well-being. And we simply should not agree to such a world.

The West had all the tools to foresee Russia's war against Ukraine - and chose to ignore them. Even before 2014, analysis reached NATO's highest offices: the annexation of Crimea, the threat to Mariupol, the Russian Federation's dominance in the Black Sea. The forecasts were accurate, but most member states opted for the illusion of partnership with the Kremlin.

Are changes still possible? What is required to achieve them? And can NATO remain an effective security alliance in a new era of threats? These and other questions were addressed in an interview with Sestry by Dr Stefanie Babst - one of the most influential security strategists in Europe, who worked at NATO for over 20 years, including as Head of the Strategic Foresight Team. Today, she is an independent analyst, the author of a book on the West's «blind spots» in its strategy toward Russia, and an active participant in international discussions on war, peace and security.

Ukraine, Russia and the strategic miscalculations of the West

Maryna Stepanenko: You led NATO's Strategic Foresight Team. How do you assess the West's ability to foresee Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine? Were there signals that were simply not heard, or perhaps deliberately ignored?

‍Stefanie Babst: There were many warnings that went unheeded. Allow me to explain. In international relations, it is crucial to accurately assess the mindset, capabilities and intentions of another actor. NATO failed to do this with Russia. As the Head of Strategic Foresight at the Alliance, I issued the first serious warning in 2013 - a few months before the annexation of Crimea. I presented an analysis outlining Russia's malicious intentions and its military preparations against Ukraine.

It was reviewed by the Secretary General and discussed with member states, but no action was taken

Some countries - the Baltic States and Poland - took the analysis seriously. Others - notably Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom - preferred to maintain the NATO-Russia partnership. From 2014 onwards, we intensified our analysis, forecasting actions such as the seizure of Mariupol, dominance in the Black Sea and the use of Donbas as a staging ground. These forecasts were presented at the highest levels, including the NATO Council, but were ultimately dismissed.

In 2015 and 2016, we broadened our focus to include China and its ties with Russia, offering future scenarios and forecasting so-called «black swans» - high-impact events that are hard to predict, seem unlikely but could have serious consequences if they occur. Again, many perceived this only as «intellectual exercises». Thus, NATO possessed the tools of foresight - and chose to ignore them. And that comes at a very high cost.

In your work, you call for a review of the West's strategy toward Russia. In your view, what «blind spots» remain in Western approaches - particularly regarding support for Ukraine?

Three years ago, I called for a powerful, multifaceted deterrence strategy to help Ukraine not just freeze the war but win it. I invoked George Kennan's Cold War approach, urging the use of all available instruments - economic, diplomatic and military - to push Russia out of Ukraine. But apart from some Baltic and Northern European countries, no one took this seriously.

NATO and the EU still lack a defined end goal. If Ukraine's victory were the objective, a corresponding strategy would have been developed

Instead, Western leaders underestimated Ukraine's resilience and failed to act decisively even after Russia crossed countless red lines. President Biden, despite his commitment to Ukraine, framed his approach around what the United States would not do: we will not provoke Russia, we will not give Ukrainians long-range weapons, we will not do this or that. This is not a strategy. Now, with Trump’s return, many European governments are passively hoping for a US-Russian agreement that merely freezes the war - something I believe is dangerous both for Ukraine and Europe.

My main criticism is the lack of political will in the West. Too many still see this as Russia's war against Ukrainians. But it is our war too

Stefanie, why do you think Europe failed to prepare effectively for Trump’s presidency?

Planning within NATO and European governments is often difficult, as politicians typically focus on short-term goals, usually only a month ahead. In times of emergency, particularly due to Washington's unpredictability, Europe must abandon crisis management mode and stop reacting to every event, such as a new tweet.

Europe must be firm with the United States, clearly communicating that their actions - including threats to countries like Canada and Denmark, withholding intelligence from Ukraine and halting cyber operations against Russia - are unacceptable. These decisions had deadly consequences, and member states should not be afraid to hold the United States accountable for violating the fundamental principles of the Washington Treaty.

Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary General, recently visited Florida to meet President Trump, hoping to impress him with defence spending figures. He praised Trump’s leadership and even claimed that Trump had «broken the deadlock» in relations with Russia. However, this is detached from the reality of ongoing Russian attacks.

If the NATO Secretary General lacks a clear message, the best approach is silence, focusing on supporting member states and protecting them from any threat. We do not have time for empty words and political games.

Europeans must remain immune to American political theatre, focusing on strengthening defence capability and supporting Ukraine’s defence industry so it can resist Russian aggression

Migration and war

Germany is no longer the EU leader in asylum requests from South American and Middle Eastern refugees. At the same time, in the first quarter of 2025, applications from Ukrainians rose by 84 per cent. What does this indicate?

It is entirely understandable that many Ukrainians have chosen to leave their country for personal and professional reasons - this is natural, and no one should be blamed for it. But this migration has political consequences in Germany, particularly when far-right parties exploit it by portraying Ukrainian refugees as a burden on the social system, regardless of their skills or motivation. These sentiments are especially strong in eastern Germany, where parties like AfD and certain left-wing populist movements have gained support.

What concerns me is the lack of strong counteraction from the federal government in Berlin - clearer messaging and political leadership are needed

If more Ukrainians arrive, I hope the next government will take a positive stance, recognising that many of them can significantly contribute to the German workforce. This would mean reducing bureaucracy, accelerating integration and facilitating their employment. Whether this happens remains to be seen.

Continuing on this topic, in recent weeks, some districts in Germany have publicly declared that they can no longer accommodate Ukrainian refugees due to overburdened social systems. How do you assess these sentiments?

It is true that local communities across Germany still face difficulties in accommodating refugees - an issue that arose after Chancellor Merkel’s decision to open the borders, leading to a large influx of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and other countries. Many municipalities remain overwhelmed by demands for housing, language training and integration support. However, Ukrainian refugees do not pose the same challenges.

Ukrainians generally integrate well, bring strong skills and education and do not contribute to social tensions

In contrast, some refugees from the Middle East struggle to adapt to liberal democratic norms, which fuels far-right narratives, particularly in eastern Germany. Parties like AfD and figures such as Sahra Wagenknecht exploit this, promoting anti-Ukrainian, pro-concession rhetoric that ignores the reality of Russian occupation.

Unfortunately, mainstream democratic parties are not doing enough to push them back. With growing support from American right-wing populists, such as those connected to Trump or Musk, this polarisation may deepen further, posing a serious threat to democratic cohesion in Europe.

Europe on the brink of war

Amid full-scale war in Ukraine, initiatives have emerged in Poland and Germany to prepare schoolchildren for emergencies. Does this indicate a deeper shift in Europe's security culture, where defence is no longer solely the army's responsibility, but that of the entire society?

Although some defence-related courses have begun in Germany, they remain insufficient, and the wider public remains largely unprepared - both mentally and physically - to play a defensive role.

Serious debates are now underway about reinstating military conscription, but surveys show that two-thirds of people aged 20 to 30 would refuse to serve, with many saying they would rather emigrate than defend the country.

This reflects a deeper issue: decades of political messaging have conditioned Germans to believe they live in peace, surrounded by allies, and need not prepare for conflict

As a result, Germany also lacks bunkers for emergencies, civil defence training and basic resilience measures for the population. Changing this mindset will require strong political leadership. Without it, the Bundeswehr will remain under-equipped and unable to contribute significantly to efforts such as a potential coalition in Ukraine.

We see civil defence becoming part of public policy, from educating children to testing alarm systems. Is Europe beginning to think seriously about its own resilience in the face of potential escalation beyond Ukraine?

Undoubtedly. Some countries, such as Finland, Sweden, Poland and the Baltic States, have prioritised both military capability and societal resilience in recent years. In cities such as Riga and Warsaw, the Russian threat is well understood. However, countries like Germany, Belgium, Portugal, France and others still view Russia’s war against Ukraine as a regional issue.

Fortunately, leaders such as Kaja Kallas are advocating for a long-term strategy against Russia. Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, I have argued that we must prepare for a protracted conflict, as long as Putin’s regime remains in power, Russia will continue to pose a threat to Ukraine and the whole of Europe.

Strategic vision

Given your views on NATO's evolution and the need for a new coalition, potentially the so-called «coalition of the willing», how do you envisage its structure? What strategic or institutional frameworks will be important to effectively counter Russian aggression, considering internal challenges within NATO, particularly due to the influence of populist leaders, including Trump?

During my time at NATO, I was proud of my team’s ability to anticipate challenges before they emerged, especially regarding NATO’s enlargement. I was actively involved in the admission of new members, including the Baltic States, Slovenia and Slovakia.

One of the moments I had hoped to witness was seeing Ukraine’s flag at NATO headquarters, but I no longer believe that is a realistic goal

Instead, I believe Ukraine should focus on building a new coalition with like-minded countries, rather than pursuing NATO membership. The Alliance, particularly under the influence of destructive politics, is becoming increasingly divided.

If I were advising President Zelensky, I would recommend not wasting energy on NATO accession but rather focusing on strengthening a broader, more flexible alliance to counter Russian aggression. This would allow us to move beyond the status quo and prepare for the future.

Considering the current dynamics within NATO, how long do you think the Alliance can maintain its current structure before significant changes become inevitable? Do you have a timeframe in mind?

When President Trump was elected, I predicted he would undermine the rules-based order, and we are already seeing significant damage done to NATO, especially concerning the US commitments. European countries have started discussing enhancing the European pillar within NATO, planning to prepare for a potential US withdrawal within five to ten years. However, I believe that timeframe is overly optimistic - we may have only five to ten months before we witness new disruptions.

Looking back, it is clear NATO missed the opportunity to prepare for these challenges. In 2016, I prepared a document for the Secretary General outlining potential harm Trump could cause, but it was dismissed at the time. The issues I raised remain relevant today, and NATO's bureaucracy is too risk-averse to plan for unforeseen scenarios.

If the Alliance fails to act, it risks becoming a reactive organisation that merely responds to Trump’s tweets instead of proactively working toward the future

I hope that countries such as France, the United Kingdom and Northern European states will cooperate with Ukraine to create a new joint alliance capable of better confronting future challenges.

Cover photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/East News

This project is co-financed by the Polish-American Freedom Foundation under the «Support Ukraine» programme, implemented by the Education for Democracy Foundation

‍

‍

I think people don’t realize how bad things were in America even before Trump. If anything, I see Trump as simply someone openly talking about the things the American government has been doing for centuries. By no means am I saying that what Trump is doing is okay – but he is honest about it. After all, the Biden administration deported an average of 57,000 people per month, while the Trump administration deported 37,660 people last month – and yet we never hear about Biden’s deportation plans. We praise liberals for their commitment to human rights, but what have they actually achieved?

They don't protect women's rights, they allow the genocide of Palestinians, they arrest students for protesting, they enable Russia to continue its crimes, and they restrict our freedom of speech. And yet we are expected to vote for them because they are the “lesser evil”? I keep hearing that the future "rests in the hands of young people" because the older generation caused this whole mess. I’m expected to protest, vote, organize – while being cut off from all of it.

What kind of democracy is America, if our only choice is between two evils, both backed by the same powerful interests?

I think when looking at America, we need to ask ourselves: “For whom was it ever good?” It has always been a good country for white Americans, and now it’s probably even better for them. But has it ever been a good country for women? Has it ever been good for people of color? I think we forget this when we idealize America. It was never a great country, and it will never be “great again” unless the past we're referring to is that colonial, racist empire that Trump wants to bring back.

Looking at the “American Dream” from the perspective of a post-communist country in Eastern Europe, it’s easy to idealize it. Nevertheless, I always try to remind people from Eastern Europe that the society, security, education, and healthcare we have here are worth a million times more than the idealized version of what their life could look like in the capitalist utopia of America.

I recently visited New York. Although it’s one of the most expensive cities in the U.S., the price hikes over the past year shocked me. I heard from friends that they can’t afford their rent because it was raised by 25%. Some of them haven't been able to find a job since last summer – and by "job" I mean any job, even in a café or grocery store. And these are people who graduated from prestigious universities like Columbia or NYU.

Food prices continue to rise. Last year, groceries that lasted me about 10 days cost around $120. When I came to New York recently, that amount had doubled. It’s obvious that Trump wants an economic collapse so that only the top 1% can afford anything – but what then? Are all the people that are unable to afford anything supposed to end up arrested and become another form of slave labor for the American empire? Is that Trump’s plan?

Homelessness in America is another thing I noticed become worse after being away for a year. To my surprise, I found that Americans have become even more indifferent to it than before. The rise in the number of people using drugs on the streets is terrifying, and the fentanyl epidemic is rapidly turning more cities into “zombie cities. ”It was already a serious problem during the pandemic, but now it’s even worse.

More and more people can't afford to pay rent — and more and more are ending up on the streets.

Although the sight of people using drugs frightens me, what I feel even more strongly is anger. Why is no one helping them? How can Americans be so indifferent, watching people die on the streets every day?

Now Trump wants to make homelessness illegal. He will use those who cannot be trapped within the capitalist system as another labor force for America's prison-industrial complex

America is slowly falling apart, like every empire, but its problems didn’t arise overnight.

The cracks in the foundation had existed for years in a country whose core was built on genocide and slavery, but now they can no longer be ignored. So how can the citizens of this country continue to look away and not take action? Because it’s easier to sit at home, distracting themselves with entertainment, social media, or daily responsibilities, than to confront the harsh realities of what is happening around them.It saddens me to realize that many Americans only grasp the seriousness of the situation when their own property is at risk. Only when their belongings, their sense of security, or their daily lives are threatened do they start to understand that change will not come from passive observation or waiting. The urgent need to take to the streets and demand action becomes clear only when the consequences of inaction are personally felt. But history shows us that by then, it’s already too late.

“First they came for the socialists,

and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me".

Martin Niemöller