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

Коли ми, українці, говоримо про «зраду», ми рідко маємо на увазі Америку. Але, схоже, настав час подивитися уважніше — не на дрони чи бронетехніку, а на ідеї, які приходять разом з ними.

Сільві Коффманн, колишня головна редакторка Le Monde, пише у Financial Times про тривожний зсув: Америка перестає бути захисником демократії й намагається змінити її визначення — вдома й у світі. Найнебезпечніше не те, що США можуть покинути НАТО, а те, що вони хочуть втягнути Європу у власну ідеологічну трансформацію, в якій демократія — це не свобода, а послух.

«Справжній шок від Трампа — це не відмова. Це зрада».
— Наталі Точчі, італійська політологиня

Ця зрада не вимагає армій чи вибухів. Вона відбувається через лексику

Через нові «цивілізаційні коаліції», які просуває віцепрезидент США Джей Ді Венс або Марко Рубіо у своїй доповіді про потребу «зберегти чесноти західної культури». Але яку культуру? Ту, яка ображає суддів, атакує іммігрантів, засуджує свободу слова й називає демократично обрані уряди «тиранами в масці».

США вже не просто змінюються. Вони втягують Європу в цей процес. Трамп особисто приймає ультраправого кандидата в президенти Польщі Кароля Навроцького в Овальному кабінеті. А за кілька днів до виборів міністерка безпеки США Крісті Ноєм прилітає до Варшави, щоб підтримати його публічно. Подібні втручання — і в Румунії.

Це вже не дипломатія. Це експорт системи.

Європа опинилась у новому геополітичному ландшафті: з одного боку — Росія, яка несе війну й диктатуру. З іншого — Америка, яка пропонує «новий порядок» у м’якій, релігійно-консервативній обгортці.

«Лідер цього руху зараз у Білому домі. Для нас це перелом», — каже іспанський урядовець у розмові з Коффманн.

Україна має бути пильною. Бо ця війна — не лише про території. Вона і про сенси. І якщо Захід більше не означає свободу, чесність і плюралізм, то за що ми насправді воюємо?

Нас вчать: Америку не критикують, якщо ти в її таборі. Але сьогодні, якщо ми дійсно в європейському таборі, ми повинні ставити питання. Бо те, що Трамп робить з Америкою, його соратники хочуть зробити з Польщею, Румунією — і, можливо, Україною.

Це не кінець партнерства. Це кінець ілюзій

І як каже Кофманн: «Америка в біді. Але перш ніж Європа зможе їй допомогти, вона має навести лад у себе».

Україна — частина цієї Європи. І, можливо, саме ми — з досвідом війни, диктатури, гібридної реальності — можемо першими побачити, коли союз перетворюється на пастку.

Based on: Сільві Коффманн у Financial Times (4 червня 2025)‍

On May 20th, the European Union adopted its largest and most ambitious package of sanctions against Russia - the seventeenth to date. It targets the deployment of the Russian Federation’s «shadow fleet», which helps circumvent the oil embargo, as well as strengthening restrictions on Russian energy companies and blocking the assets of Kremlin allies in various countries. At the same time, the eighteenth package is already being prepared, which may include a ban on the import of Russian gas and uranium, and the use of frozen Russian assets for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

These sanctions are a key instrument of pressure on the Kremlin, yet their effectiveness, coordination with partners and consequences for European unity remain open questions. Ondřej Kolář, Member of the European Parliament from the Czech Republic, answered the most important of these in an exclusive interview with Sestry.

Sanctions against Russia: EU unity challenges and the position of the USA

Maryna Stepanenko: Mr Kolář, what do you believe is the main advantage of the seventeenth EU sanctions package in combating the circumvention of the Russian oil embargo? Can this package seriously complicate the activities of the so-called «shadow fleet»?

Ondřej Kolář: This is a complex issue. The fact that this is already the seventeenth sanctions package indicates that the policy is not working as effectively as it should. We allow too many exceptions, lack proper enforcement, and are unable to stop large-scale sanctions from being circumvented not only by individual companies but also by entire third countries. Sanctions do matter, but we must implement and enforce them much better.

With this seventeenth package, I hope we have finally recognised how serious the problem is, especially when it comes to the «shadow fleet», which Russia uses very effectively to bypass restrictions. I am glad that the EU is following the example of the United Kingdom on this issue, although it is disappointing that it took us about six months just to start discussing this step.

The EU is moving too slowly. Russia makes decisions quickly and decisively, while we lag behind. This must change - we must be the ones who set the agenda

I welcome this package and the fact that we have finally focused on what truly matters, such as the export of fossil fuels, on which Russia is heavily dependent. The more we block this flow, the better it is for us and for Ukraine. But we must act faster and more precisely. We cannot afford to continue playing catch-up.

You mentioned sanctions circumvention, and the seventeenth package targets not only Russian companies but also their partners in countries such as China and the UAE. You also said that the EU often reacts rather than sets the agenda. Do you see a realistic path for the EU to stay one step ahead of Russia? Is there a way to truly block all the loopholes it uses to bypass sanctions?

I am afraid not. In order to close all avenues of evasion, the EU would have to persuade the entire world to stop cooperating with Russia, and that is simply impossible. Countries such as North Korea, Iran and many from the BRICS group still maintain ties with Moscow, helping it to create the image of a nation merely defending itself and aspiring to a «normal life». This is dangerous, and we cannot accept it. Our only real instruments here are diplomacy and international trade.

The main mistake of the United States was the abandonment of USAID - this created gaps now being filled by other countries such as China and Russia

The EU lacks equivalent resources to intervene fully, but we cannot yield these spaces. We must compete, demonstrate that we are the better partner, and discard the notion that our colonial past makes us unwelcome. What China is doing in many places is simply a new form of colonialism.

We shall not defeat Russia on the battlefield as Nazi Germany was defeated in the Second World War. Therefore, we must use all the other tools at our disposal. Diplomacy and trade are areas where we can stay a step ahead.

Following the negotiations in Istanbul, the European Union is preparing its eighteenth package of sanctions targeting the Russian energy sector, financial system and «shadow fleet». Do you believe the EU is ready to act independently of the United States' position, particularly given the calls by the newly appointed Chief of Staff to the German Chancellor, Thorsten Frei, for tougher measures, including a ban on the import of Russian gas and uranium?

I would very much like greater independence from Russia because, if we do not achieve it fully, we shall only let ourselves down. Independence from the United States, however, is more complicated. We are still heavily dependent on Washington in matters of defence, security and trade. The United States has been our principal partner for eighty years. Nonetheless, everything changes.

We cannot afford to react to everything Donald Trump says. The chaos following his inauguration is colossal. In the morning, he says one thing, by lunchtime another, and in the evening he denies both statements. European leaders have realised that it is better to be patient and not to chase after every change in his rhetoric.

The main thing now is to stand on our own feet. This means being proactive and projecting the EU on a global scale. For too long, the EU has been focused on internal development - enlargement and domestic matters, which was important, but we have neglected our global role. Europe has always been a global player, and it must remain one if it is to succeed.

Europe is highly attractive - people seek a better life here because of our unparalleled social security system and quality of life. However, we cannot take this for granted. We must defend it ourselves.

Dependence on the United States is no longer acceptable. They must remain our closest partner, not our guardian

President Trump, in a private conversation with European leaders, acknowledged that Putin was not ready to end the war, but simultaneously refused new sanctions, instead proposing peace talks at the Vatican. How do you assess such a stance by the United States?

Donald Trump is a naïve man who does not understand what is happening. He has been deceived many times by Putin, and he does not even realise it. He cannot evaluate his mistakes because he simply does not acknowledge them. One cannot play poker with one’s cards face up, yet that is exactly what he is doing - showing his hand to Russia, announcing his plans, sending to Moscow unqualified people with no experience.

When he tells European leaders that he forced Putin to join negotiations with Ukraine, a week after those negotiations already took place in Istanbul - it is the same as saying: «I have been asleep for three years».

It is madness. He does not know what he is doing, what he is saying to the world or to his allies

European leaders now realise that they have a clown for a partner. I hope they have enough patience and the necessary tools to calmly and clearly explain to Trump that he is wrong, that he is making matters worse, not better. And that the Russians are playing him. They must make him understand that Russia is not interested in compromise. Unfortunately, we must admit that the current President of the United States is utterly confused and of no help whatsoever.

The United States Congress has introduced the Sanctioning Russia Act, which provides for a 500% tariff on imports from countries that purchase Russian oil and for the expansion of sanctions against Russian sovereign debt. Can Congress, even without support from the Trump administration, independently advance this initiative?

I would be pleased if it were successfully implemented. However, observing how Donald Trump treats American democracy, I am very pessimistic. He does not care about Congress, the Senate or the courts - only about himself and his propaganda.

It does not matter what Congress decides. If Trump does not like it, he will boycott it just as he ignores court rulings and anything else with which he disagrees. This complicates everything greatly.

One day he says he will impose harsh sanctions against Russia, and the next day - the opposite. So where do we stand? What game are we even playing? Nothing is clear.

I am grateful to American legislators for this initiative, but I am cautious. If Trump dislikes it, he will block it without hesitation. I should like to be mistaken, but I do not believe he will support anything that does not serve him.

Challenges on Ukraine’s path to European integration

In March, Hungary threatened to veto the extension of EU sanctions against Russia, which could have led to the unfreezing of substantial assets. Although a compromise was reached, Budapest continues to express criticism not only regarding sanctions but also concerning EU enlargement. How serious a risk is Hungary’s stance for the unity of the European Union in the context of Ukraine’s European integration? What consequences could it have for the integration process itself?

Hungary plays the role of a useful idiot in the EU - Vladimir Putin’s «Trojan horse». They are bringing others over to their side, with a certain degree of success in Slovakia, whose government has become lost in Russian falsehoods. While Ukraine is in the spotlight, the situation in the Western Balkans is even more serious.

Hungary loudly spreads nonsense about the Hungarian minority in Ukraine but quietly undermines the EU elsewhere - especially in Georgia and the Western Balkans, where Hungarian diplomats actively export Russian lies

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary is part of EUFOR (European Union Force - a military mission led by the EU in Bosnia and Herzegovina tasked with maintaining peace and stability in accordance with the Dayton Agreement - Edit.) and closely cooperates with leaders of Republika Srpska connected to Putin. They play a disgraceful role in blocking EU enlargement, parroting Russian propaganda.

The EU has realised that it must bypass Hungary, but this creates dangerous precedents. Forming a «coalition of the willing» simply to circumvent Hungary and Slovakia could undermine confidence in the rules and integrity of the EU.

Ultimately, the Hungarian people must choose change. We can only hope that the next elections will bring a new government and with it a fundamentally different position on Ukraine and the region. Until then, we must wait and be patient.

The European Parliament actively supports Ukraine’s European integration, in particular by accelerating the accession process and opening negotiation clusters. How do you assess the role of the European Parliament in this process and its influence on the decisions of the EU Council?

Parliament is a legislative body, so almost everything in the EU passes through it. However, it does not play a decisive role in enlargement, although we do influence the process.

For example, I am a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and we closely monitor every country seeking to join the EU. Parliament prepares, votes on and publishes reports on the progress of each country - assessing how well they meet the accession criteria and offering recommendations.

We can also send missions for direct engagement with national partners to discuss the reforms necessary for moving closer to EU membership. But the final decision on enlargement does not rest with us.

We only provide support and guidance. The majority of Parliament supports enlargement, recognising that a larger EU is a stronger EU. Our role is to cooperate with national parliaments, not to pressure them, but to assist in carrying out the required reforms.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen noted that Ukraine could join the EU by 2030 if reforms continue at the current pace. How realistic do you consider this timeframe for Ukraine's accession?

I would be pleased, but much depends on when the war ends. That does not mean Ukraine should not join the EU before the war concludes - in fact, I believe it deserves a special status.

I often use the example of Puerto Rico - not a full US state, but a special territory with certain rights and responsibilities. Ukraine's situation is unique. None of the other candidate countries - Moldova, Montenegro, Albania or Serbia - have been at war since 2014. Ukraine has been at war for eleven years. We cannot treat it like an ordinary country.

It is important to set ambitious goals - they give us energy. But is 2030 realistic? Frankly, we do not even know what tomorrow will bring. When will the war end? How will it end? Will Russia keep its word?

That is why I believe a special status could be more effective and might even accelerate the process. Ukraine is being treated as if nothing has happened, and that is wrong.

Hybrid warfare and EU information security

In May 2025, Poland faced an unprecedented wave of hybrid attacks from Russia on the eve of its presidential elections. Do you believe the EU is adequately prepared for complex Russian information operations? What steps must be taken to strengthen information security in Europe?

Europe is not ready, not at all. Still, some states are more prepared than others. If you look at the Baltic and Scandinavian countries, their approach is completely different from that of Central Europe. It is strange, given our shared history. The Baltic countries were part of the Soviet Union. Czechoslovakia was occupied, but not for as long. Yet Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland are now very effective in countering hybrid threats. Meanwhile, countries like Hungary and Slovakia have completely lost their bearings.

Their minds have been washed by Russian propaganda

Poland, to its credit, speaks out loudly about the problem and wants to act. But in the Czech Republic, officials appear on television and say that disinformation does not exist - this is the worst possible approach.

We are lucky that bombs are not falling on our heads, but we are in a state of information warfare. And we are losing. In Brussels, no one even talks about Russian propaganda. It is not a topic. It seems that a country’s position depends on its historical experience with Russia.

We only began acknowledging the problem because Russia continues to escalate. They blew up an ammunition depot in the Czech Republic in 2014, and all we did was expel a few diplomats. Russian officials still move freely throughout the Schengen Area. No one can stop them.

Frankly, we lack courage. We have been unable to recognise Russia as an enemy for far too long. It does not want to be our friend - it wants to defeat us and reshape the world. Europe is unprepared, it is losing, and it has no coordinated response to hybrid threats. Each country acts on its own, and Russia exploits this chaos.

Russia influences EU countries not only through cyberattacks or disinformation, but also through so-called «soft power» - pro-Russian organisations, media outlets and even economic ties. How serious do you consider this threat to be? And what can the EU do to detect and stop such influence in time?

Yes, it is a serious threat - and Europe still cannot acknowledge it. We must stop convincing ourselves that Russia cannot be that bad. It is that bad. We must take Russian propaganda at face value - they broadcast exactly what the Kremlin thinks and wants.

We must respond to the warnings of our own security services. For example, in the Czech Republic, our intelligence has long stated that Russia’s ownership of numerous real estate properties poses a threat. Yet when it comes to confiscating them, the authorities suddenly claim that it is legally impossible. This fear of Russia must end. Yes, they have nuclear weapons, but their economy is ruined. They are not capable of winning a global conflict.

Europe acts as if it has Stockholm syndrome. Russia cannot match us economically or strategically, and they are not suicidal enough to start a nuclear war

We must acknowledge that Russia is the enemy and stop legitimising people associated with it. There is no reason why, especially in Central Europe, communists and pro-Russian populists should continue to be given media platforms. This must stop.

Russian propaganda must be banned. We must be tough on everyone: individuals, companies and institutions that help Russia gain influence. Bribery, manipulation, espionage - all of this must be tracked and punished. And those who speak out against Russia must be louder, clearer and relentless in explaining the reality. Because we are still unable to tell people what is really happening - and there is no excuse for what Russia is doing. None whatsoever.

Cover photo: Associated Press/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

‍

‍

‍

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.