“It’s a Joke” – South Dakota Governor Kristi Noam Rips Leftwing Media for BS Coverage of Biden’s Dumpster Fire NATO Press Conference (VIDEO)

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem recently condemned the fake news media for their coverage of Joe Biden’s recent “big boy” press conference and their refusal to press Biden on questions relating to American national security.

Leftist journalists and even DEI White House Press Secretary Karrine Jean Pierre jokingly referred to the presser as Biden’s “big boy” press conference as he comes under fire from the Democrats to drop out of the race. This comes after his horrendous debate performance and continued cognitive decline in recent weeks.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, old Joe botched the first question Thursday when he called Kamala Harris “Vice President Trump.”

Prior to this, at the NATO Summit, Biden referred to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as “President Putin” and slurred incoherently.

Far-left Lunatic Rachel Maddow, however, later said on MSNBC that “the way he talks about our relationship with our allies” is “impressive,” adding, “it just shows you he is a master of the foreign policy field and has been for decades in his career in the Senate, the Vice President and the presidency.” Luckily, nobody takes her seriously.

LOL: Rachel Maddow Says Biden Showed “Impressive Command” in Last Night’s Dumpster Fire Press Conference (VIDEO)

“It’s a joke,” Noem said of the coverage by Maddow and other leftist mainstream media outlets during an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox.

She continued, telling the media, “Once again, the American people know you’re lying to them, and you’re going to find out in November exactly how real it is that they’re going to vote for Donald Trump.”

Watch below:

Noem: He made many, many mistakes in that press conference. In fact, he didn’t even answer the question of how he was going to weaken the relationship between China and Russia. Never addressed that at all, and they didn’t ask him any hard questions. So, the media didn’t push him on how he’s going to get our hostages back from Hamas, what we’re going to do to bring peace to the Middle East. They didn’t push him on any of that. And then they call this a masterful national security press conference? It’s a joke. And the media, once again, the American people know you’re lying to them, and you’re going to find out in November exactly how real it is that they’re going to vote for Donald Trump.

The post “It’s a Joke” – South Dakota Governor Kristi Noam Rips Leftwing Media for BS Coverage of Biden’s Dumpster Fire NATO Press Conference (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Congressional Hearing Exposes MASSIVE Advertising Cartel Colluding to Censor Conservatives – “Makes Up 90% of Global Market Spend”

Guest post by Miriam Judith.

A damning new GOP congressional report has shed light on a massive advertising monopoly that has successfully cornered the world market, forcing companies to accept/censor messaging from the top down. Specifically, the marketing “cartel” is working to silence and suppress conservative voices by choking off their ability to generate revenue.

During a hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan began by calling out the World Federation of Advertisers and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) for their monopolization of the advertising market and collusion to blacklist right-wing media companies and voices. This one group reportedly controls a staggering 90% of marketing efforts WORLDWIDE.

“How do they do this: WFA members represent roughly 90% of the global advertising spend,” Rep. Jordan explained. “That means WFA has almost monopoly power over advertising dollars and a tremendous amount of market power.”

“They collude to make sure no other advertiser supports any news outlets, platforms, or creators that these massive companies don’t agree with. And these people don’t like conservatives,” he continued.

 

IMPORTANT THREAD https://t.co/8znnLn04AN

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) July 10, 2024

Democrats, like Jerry Nadler, responded to the claims with accusations that Republicans are only trying to “bully advertisers” into paying conservative platforms for ad space, while he laughably attempted to portray himself as a champion of free markets and free speech.

“Advertisers have the right to target their ad to the platforms, websites, and venues they choose. By forcing advertisers to run ads on websites that they deem to contain harmful information and content, the majority would be undermining those companies’ right to free speech under the First Amendment.” Nadler exclaimed.

Ben Shapiro from the Daily Wire also testified at the hearing, stating that his company had been the victim of these suppressing tactics.

“The question isn’t why the legacy media has lost American’s trust – we already know that answer. The question is why despite that loss, the legacy media continue to gain share in the advertising market.” Shapiro continues. ”The answer is simple – there is in fact an informal pressure from democratic legislators, this White House, Legacy Media, advertisers, and pseudo-objectives of brand safety organizations. That system guarantees that advertising dollars flow directly to left-wing media brands.”

These corrupt practices have raised concerns over the potential violation of antitrust laws, specifically when it comes to limiting consumer choice by entering into agreements that diminish fair competition. While the Democrats pretend to be champions of free markets and free speech, their actions consistently contradict themselves.

The facts are as clear as day, especially when companies are allowed to merge to create an organization that monopolizes 90% of a given market, this is a cartel – and it’s allowed to operate because it’s designed to silence dissent and political opposition on behalf of the global regime…

Watch the full hearing:

The post Congressional Hearing Exposes MASSIVE Advertising Cartel Colluding to Censor Conservatives – “Makes Up 90% of Global Market Spend” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Bill Maher on Democrats Replacing Biden: ‘The Question Isn’t If, It’s Who’ (VIDEO)

Liberal comedian and television show host Bill Maher has weighed in on Democrats replacing Joe Biden as their nominee, saying, “The question isn’t if, it’s who.”

Maher predicts that Biden will withdraw from the race as soon as August 9, the 50th anniversary of President Richard Nixon’s resignation.

The comedian discussed the issue on Friday’s episode of his show “Real Time with Bill Maher.”

“The one thing I know for sure is this: The question isn’t if, it’s who because he is not going to be the Democrats candidate for president,” Maher said.

Maher continued, “The one thing I know for sure about America is this, it’s run by Mean Girls, mean girls in the press and in politics and in life, and when they smell blood in the water, the lust to finish off a vulnerable person will never be denied.”

The issue with Biden isn’t if, it’s who. Who will replace him because he will not be the Democrats’ presidential candidate in 2024. pic.twitter.com/mWuL7V91A0

— Bill Maher (@billmaher) July 13, 2024

“Biden is toast,” he added. “The walls will keep crumbling, and my pick in the office pool for when he gives it up is August 9.”

Since his disastrous debate performance late last month, calls for Biden to step aside in the 2024 presidential race have been nonstop — especially from his own party.

Biden has maintained that he will not be withdrawing.

The post Bill Maher on Democrats Replacing Biden: ‘The Question Isn’t If, It’s Who’ (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

BREAKING: GUNSHOTS HEARD AT TRUMP – TRUMP RUSHED OFF STAGE (VIDEO)

DEVELOPING…

President Trump ducked for cover, and the Secret Service jumped on top of him after possible gunshots were heard at his rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

It appears Trump just survived an assassination attempt.

BREAKING

It appears that someone has shot at Trump or in his direction.

Secret Service tells him to get down. pic.twitter.com/rDb0aVRSl2

— Yashar Ali (@yashar) July 13, 2024

The post BREAKING: GUNSHOTS HEARD AT TRUMP – TRUMP RUSHED OFF STAGE (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

JUST IN: Eccentric Fitness Guru Richard Simmons Dead Just One Day After Celebrating His Birthday

Eccentric fitness guru Richard Simmons passed away on Saturday just one day after his birthday.

He was 76.

Thank you…I never got so many messages about my birthday in my life! I am sitting here writing emails. Have a most beautiful rest of your Friday.
Love,
Richard

— Richard Simmons (@TheWeightSaint) July 12, 2024

TMZ reported:

Richard Simmons — the legendary fitness guru — has died at 76 … TMZ has learned.

Law enforcement sources tell TMZ … police and fire responded to a call from his housekeeper just before 10 AM Saturday and pronounced him dead at the scene. We’re told no foul play is suspected at this time, and cops are investigating it as a natural death.

2:46 PM PT — We’re told Simmons fell in the bathroom in his home. LAPD’s elite Robbery Homicide Division responded to his house because this is a high-profile death though they still do not suspect foul play.

2:10 PM PT — Law enforcement sources say Richard took a fall last night, which may be connected to his passing.

The post JUST IN: Eccentric Fitness Guru Richard Simmons Dead Just One Day After Celebrating His Birthday appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Ohio’s Sen. Brown Raises $12.8 Million In Second Quarter

According to a Friday report in Axios, Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) raised $12.8 million in the second quarter of 2024 ahead of his race for re-election this November.

Brown, who first won public office as a state representative in the 1970s, has represented Ohio in the Senate since 2007. During his tenure, Brown has survived Ohioan realignment toward the GOP. He is currently the only Democrat who holds statewide office in Ohio. 

Brown faces the Colombian-born Republican Bernie Moreno, whose fundraising has consistently lagged. In the first quarter, Brown raised $12.1 million to Moreno’s $2.2 million.

Democratic candidates significantly outraised their Republican opponents this year. Since President Joe Biden’s disastrous June 27 debate performance, major Democratic donors have told the party that they will be diverting yet more funds toward congressional races to restrain on odds-on a Trump presidency.

The post Ohio’s Sen. Brown Raises $12.8 Million In Second Quarter appeared first on The American Conservative.

A Frenchman in ‘God’s Country’

A Frenchman in ‘God’s Country’

Louis Malle’s fondness for small-town Minnesota shines through in his 1985 documentary.

Forty-five years ago, a French filmmaker booked a trip to Minnesota. He had been a leading figure in world cinema since the late 1950s, and his films had won prizes at all the best festivals: Cannes, Venice, and so on. He had given signature roles to actresses such as Jeanne Moreau and Brigitte Bardot. He had previously worked in the United States, but his natural artistic habitat was on the continent. In short, there was no reason to assume that this filmmaker would have any affinity for the inhabitants of a town in a region colloquially known as the Corn Belt. 

Against all odds, Louis Malle—maker of such striking, often startling features as Elevator to the Gallows, Viva Maria!, and Lacombe, Lucien—found that he savored the company of the residents of Glencoe, Minnesota, the off-the-beaten-path farming town he first encountered in 1979 making his documentary God’s Country. The film, Malle explained in an interview in 1987, was intended to launch a series provisionally titled “America Seen by Louis Malle.” “It was for public television, which is excellent but with no financial resources,” he explained. 

Malle pursued the project with exceptional tenacity considering that, during the same period, he was also at work on such future classics as Atlantic City and My Dinner with Andre. After filming in Glencoe in the summer of 1979, Malle held off on assembling the material, partly because of the expense of editing and partly because he felt a yearning to make a return visit—to, in a sense, go home to a place nothing at all like his actual hometown in northern France. “I had stayed in contact with those people, with whom I had become friends. I came back to see them with a camera,” Malle explained. “In the time since I had been there before there had been a terrible financial crisis in the U.S., and the farmers had lost their land.” The film was first shown on public television in December 1985, and it remains available as part of a box set of Malle’s documentaries from the Criterion Collection and can be streamed on the Criterion Channel.

In its final form, God’s Country pays quiet respect to a community of mostly decent, largely honorable-seeming, and frequently humorous Americans. The film laments the forces that chipped away at their way of life: the farm crisis of the early 1980s and the more general flight from farming, changing manners and mores when it came to family values, religion, and drug use. If the documentary has a rueful, even funereal tone, it is because Malle had grown fond of the people whose lives he was documenting; it is impossible to mourn that which is not loved. 

Today, the long shadow of Michael Moore has left audiences conditioned to expect sarcasm when watching a documentary about ordinary people. Despite his commendable populism, Moore tends to approach his subjects with an attitude of superiority. In Roger & Me, Moore may not be instructing us to laugh at the beleaguered residents of Flint, Michigan—whose side he is ostensibly taking—but something in his supercilious manner encourages condescension. This was confirmed in later Moore productions in which his contempt for Charlton Heston or George W. Bush was not submerged but was, essentially, the feature attraction. 

It is, then, surprising to encounter the ethic of empathy Malle practices throughout God’s Country from its very first scene. Before we know where we are or who the people are, Malle—who operates his own camera throughout the film—ambles over to a tiny, mildly hard-of-hearing old woman, Miss Litzau. She is toiling in her flower and vegetable garden, which, despite her insistence that it has been overtaken by weeds, appears well-tended and verdant. The day looks splendid in that particular Upper Midwestern way: cool, overcast, comfortable. Then, over the course of several minutes, Malle gently (though loudly) prods Miss Litzau about her life, her family, and her hobbies. He asks whether she likes living in Glencoe. “My sisters wanted me to come to the cities, but I would not go to the cities,” she says. “Well, it’s so nice out here, seeing all these flowers grow. I love that. I don’t care much for the city.” 

This is how the rest of the film is constructed: a series of encounters, usually one person or one family at a time, between Malle and the locals. He spends time with a banker, a Dairy Queen proprietor, and the minister at one of the nine churches in town, the last of whom particularly impresses Malle. “Reverend Chapman, head of the First Congregational Church of Glencoe, is an amiable gentleman—very open-minded,” Malle says in a slightly quizzical tone that sometimes suggests he is reporting from Mars. 

Malle asks Chapman whether the divorce rate is up even in Glencoe. “Many marriages twenty years ago were in trouble, but they stayed together,” Chapman says. “And fifty years ago, divorce was almost unheard of. But the problems within the home and the marriage were still there.” In other words, the minister acknowledges that man’s fallen nature is not unique to any one time or place—it is as fallen in Glencoe as it is anywhere else, and as fallen in 1959 as it is in 1979. In the past, duty and propriety kept marriages intact. That’s a good thing, not a sign of hypocrisy.

Yet Malle has not come to Glencoe to talk about statistics or trends. He has come to meet people. One of his favorites is Jim Mackenthun, a wiry, mustachioed 28-year-old farmer who speaks with convincing sincerity about his life’s work. “I can remember, ever since I was old enough to think, farming is all I ever wanted to do,” he says. “I’m my own boss. I don’t have to go and punch a timeclock and have somebody get mad at me. I get up in the morning, and I know what I’ve got to do.” 

Jim, who has three children with his wife Bev, takes Malle on a tour of their modest home, which Jim presents as though Malle has never before seen a house of any sort. “This is what’s called the living room in here. This is where we watch the TV, if there’s any TV to watch, or just to sit and read the paper,” he says, noting that he only has time to watch TV in the wintertime. In the narration, Malle comments, “Jim and Bev’s hospitality is so gracious, I feel I’ve known them all my life.”

Like the Congregational minister, Bev perceives cracks in the wholesome surface: She got married when she was 18, but nowadays, she says, young women are waiting until they are 20, 21, or even 22—a stunning development. What must she think of the average age of marriage today? These are smart, sensible people who are aware that the values that stitch a community together can grow thin. The assistant chief of police proudly notes that, while young people in larger cities are avid consumers of marijuana, the kids in Glencoe might drink an occasional beer but don’t get drunk or high “on a regular basis”—a perhaps questionable source of pride. One young man in his early thirties revels in the single life, boasts of his lack of church membership, and expresses no problem with cohabitation. Times are changing, he says—they sure were.

Yet pillars of the community remained. Malle found he had a particular rapport with Arnold and Millie Beneke, an attorney and his wife, whose son, during the Vietnam War, was one of the so-called “Minnesota Eight,” a cadre of students charged with plotting to destroy draft files. Arnold and Millie express pride in their son’s commitment to his principles. “[We were] not supportive of breaking the law, but supportive of doing whatever he could to end the war,” Millie says. Here we have a reminder that antiwar sentiment was robust in the Midwest decades before there was a president named Donald Trump. Talking about Vietnam, Arnold says: “Talk about a fraud on the young men of America.” 

Malle does not strike a pious or sentimental tone in the film. He has fun at the expense of the seemingly perpetual lawn-mowing in Glencoe (“At all hours, men, women, children chop furiously every bit of grass that sticks out—maybe a vestige of the pioneer spirit”), and he seems somewhat overwhelmed by the overly effusive members of a ladies’ softball team who celebrate a win with repeated calls to go to the Pizza Ranch. Yet, just as he did with Miss Litzau, Malle gives himself the freedom, time and again, to be won over. 

We sense that Malle may be faintly annoyed with a pharmacist who wants to direct Malle’s camera to notable spots inside his drug store (“The horse may be of interest up above there”), but then he encounters the man’s wife, the very picture of Midwestern mannerliness, who asks, unprompted and sounding genuinely curious, “What part of France are you from?” The shell is cracked. Best of all is little Brian Thalmann, an extremely polite 10-year-old who answers Malle’s questions about his family’s enormous tractor. “It’s the biggest that John Deere—this brand name—makes,” he says, tactfully explaining that John Deere is a “brand name” on the assumption that Malle would have no idea who or what a John Deere is. 

Of course, Glencoe is far from actually being “God’s country.” No place on earth could live up to such a designation. In the film, several people make racist or anti-Semitic comments. There are examples of the smallness of a truly small town, including talk about the purportedly too progressive members of a theater group. At one point, Malle encounters an old man aimlessly shuffling along a sidewalk who speaks not of the glories of Glencoe but of the bleakness of being sent off to a nursing home. When Malle asks him where he would like to be, he says, “In the graveyard.” His face gives no indication that he is kidding.

If Malle did not find saints in Glencoe, he did find, as he put it, some friends. His return in August 1985 unfolds over the film’s final 20 minutes. At 91, Miss Litzau remains committed to her garden. Jim Mackenthun is so distressed by the farming crisis that he no longer wants his children to follow in his footsteps; his wife now has a job. Another struggling farmer comments, “You can only work so many hours a day and so many days a week, and when the return isn’t there, it’s not going to benefit you at all.” 

Then Malle settles down for dinner with Arnold and Millie Beneke, who put things into context. Millie says that despite the town having enthusiastically supported Reagan for reelection, economic prosperity is not, in fact, trickling down; local use of the food bank is up, she says. “The things that are going on right now can only be characterized in my mind as an obsession with greed, and a nation doesn’t live long with that obsession,” Arnold says. The news is grim, but Malle ends with an affirmation: “Millie and Arnold, I am proud to have become your friend. For me, you represent the best of this country—generous, smart, dedicated, unpretentious. Great Americans.”

What led Malle to approach the townspeople of Glencoe—even with their quirks, their flaws, their limitations—with such startling grace? Perhaps Malle had a reservoir of good feeling for Americans in the same manner that his fellow French cinephiles adored popular American directors like Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock, and Jerry Lewis. Or perhaps Malle had developed personal attachment to the country because of his marriage, in 1980, to actress Candice Bergen, on whose television sitcom, Murphy Brown, he later logged a guest appearance.

In the end, I don’t think any of these explanations are satisfactory. I think Malle simply took the people he met on their own terms and refused to limit his impressions with any preconceived notions or personal political judgments. 
The comedian Bill Maher, of whom I am no particular fan, recently said that while it is permissible to hate Donald Trump, “you can’t hate everybody who likes him.” He is correct. Maher said, “I don’t want to live in the country where I hate half the country, and I don’t hate half the country.” No one in their right mind would, but if anyone belonging to the present-day left wants to learn how to practice actual empathy, they shouldn’t just listen to a late-night television personality. Instead, they should watch God’s Country.

The post A Frenchman in ‘God’s Country’ appeared first on The American Conservative.

Yes, Trump Is a Realist

“In Trump’s first term, these realist impulses were muted and sometimes stopped by hawkish national security staffers who did not share his vision. But having learned that personnel is policy, Trump will not make this mistake again.” 

So write Andrew Byers and Randall Schweller in Foreign Affairs. Schweller, an academic at Ohio State, is a card-carrying foreign policy realist, and is willing to put his name to a claim that we have argued in these pages all along: Donald Trump, despite his mercurial nature and despite the opposition from entrenched interests in Washington, DC, is fundamentally displaying a realist instinct in his foreign policy. 

That might be an anathema to most traditional swamp creatures. “To most foreign policy elites, who view U.S. power as a normative good, this trend appears dreadful,” as they write. Yet “an ‘America first’ agenda is an intellectually defensible, fundamentally realist program that seeks to ascertain and act on the United States’ national interests rather than the interests of others. It is born of an inescapable premise: the United States no longer has the power it once did and is spreading itself too thin. It needs to sort its essential national interests from desirable ones. It must devolve more responsibility to its wealthy allies. It must stop trying to be everywhere and do everything.” 

In simple words, geography is destiny, America should shift defense burden back to its allies and prioritize theaters, instead of going insolvent trying to overstretch and imploding. 

It is a warning we should all heed. 

The post Yes, Trump Is a Realist appeared first on The American Conservative.

A Shift in Defense Burden Would Help Europe, Not Just the U.S.

A Shift in Defense Burden Would Help Europe, Not Just the U.S.

The fact is that American strength alone cannot keep the continent safe.


Credit: Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Prompted by this week’s NATO summit in Washington, much of the discussion in American defense circles will focus on comparing levels of military aid to Ukraine—and encouraging Europeans to spend more on their own defense.

For those in the American conservative movement who want the U.S. to focus more on the Indo-Pacific, these are important conversations. Those in this camp should continue emphasizing the importance of meeting (if not exceeding) the 2 percent minimum spending requirement for NATO members, and urge Europeans to take the lead on supporting Ukraine. 

Further, Americans who champion a shift to the Indo-Pacific should be encouraging Europeans to take primary responsibility for their own defense. These Europeans should be looking for ways to shift the burden from the U.S. military to European militaries—and soon—as a way of freeing up American resources to deter China.

Germany has announced that it will be establishing a permanently stationed brigade in Lithuania by 2027 (as opposed to bases with a rotating presence). The base will be modeled after American bases in Germany, with housing for soldiers and their families and base amenities. This sends a clear message in terms of commitment to the defense of the Baltics by NATO and should be applauded.

Estonia and Latvia deserve similar reassurances. European countries could send a real message that they are taking primary responsibility for the security by establishing permanent bases in Estonia and Latvia the same way Germany is in Lithuania (with the approval and coordination of the host governments, of course). In all cases, the focus should be on moving combat power to the Baltics as quickly as possible to provide reassurance and deterrence in the Baltics.

Even within supranational constructs like the European Union or NATO, the interests of nation-states play a role. Italy is never going to be as invested in protecting NATO’s eastern flank as Poland is. Individual NATO members should play to their strengths in a complementary manner, with Mediterranean countries like Italy, France, and Greece using their navies to police the Red Sea and Mediterranean, by both preventing attacks on shipping and targeting the Houthis disrupting commerce.

The French, Italians, and Greeks all have substantial fleets and an interest in safeguarding the trade route leading to Europe through the Red Sea. Yet the United States is currently taking the lead on bombing the Houthis in Yemen, using munitions it desperately needs to conserve for the Indo-Pacific.

The United States does not need to lead efforts in every security concern. In fact, Americans should encourage Europeans to take the initiative in security issues that are of secondary or tertiary importance to the United States.

For example, Portugal conducts partner-building exercises and counter-narcotics and counter-piracy operations in the Gulf of Guinea. Portugal, with its unique history in the region, its understanding of the players and issues—and its access to bases—is uniquely situated to conduct operations in the Gulf of Guinea. The United States can act as an enabler in a limited capacity if there are available resources, but should encourage Portugal to assume the central role in the region.

Europeans can also take over the mission in Kosovo (KFOR) by providing either the overwhelming majority or the entirety of the force stationed at Camp Bondsteel. U.S. Secretary of the Army Christine E. Wormuth herself recently floated the idea of dramatically reducing the American presence in Kosovo as a way of freeing up personnel and funding for more critical missions elsewhere. The mission in Kosovo has been static for decades. Europeans are more than capable of handling it with little or no additional resources provided by the U.S.

The U.S. will also continue to act as a key enabler in certain sensing and air defense missions for some time while Europeans develop their own capabilities—ideally sped up through increased tech sharing and weapons sales approved by the Department of State for transfer to NATO allies.

By taking on these additional roles, Europeans can free up American forces and resources to focus on deterring China in the Indo-Pacific. At the same time, the U.S. will maintain existing capabilities in Europe and provide critical enabling capabilities to the European forces providing the bulk of conventional deterrence in Europe.

The post A Shift in Defense Burden Would Help Europe, Not Just the U.S. appeared first on The American Conservative.

Is Zelensky Attempting to Hold On to Power?

Is Zelensky Attempting to Hold On to Power?

Restrictions of civil freedoms in Ukraine have become more draconian.

(Photo by Ukrainian Presidential Press Office via Getty Images)

If the war in Ukraine is, as U.S. President Joe Biden says, “a battle between democracy and autocracy,” then the leader of Ukraine may be undermining the “great battle” by undermining democracy.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky declared, “The war in Ukraine is a war in general for values: life, democracy, freedom.” He rallies world support by saying that, in its fight against Russia, Ukraine is “protect[ing] the world” by “fight[ing] for democracy.” Biden and Zelensky frame the war in Ukraine as the frontline of a larger war of democracy versus autocracy.

But since being elected, Zelensky has legislated a number of moves that have the appearance of being antidemocratic. These moves are justified as necessary compromises to combat the Russian invasion. Closer examination, though, suggests that these antidemocratic moves do little in the service of defending Ukraine against Russia’s invasion. And that raises the question of whether they are antidemocratic not out of temporary necessity but by design. It forces consideration of the question of whether their true purpose is to establish a monocultural Ukraine, purged of Russian culture, and to establish Zelensky in power in that Ukraine. 

Much of the focus of what little enquiry there has been into Zelensky’s consolidation of power has been on his decision not to hold elections during the war. Zelensky’s term in office came to an end on May 20, 2024. But this focus may be more of a distraction from more serious challenges to democracy. Elections are prohibited by Ukrainian law, although not by its constitution, in periods of martial law. Though Zelensky has hinted before that elections could be held during the war, he has ruled out doing so. 

It is true that, under the circumstances, elections would be a challenge, and many Ukrainians do not support holding them during the war. A survey conducted in February 2024 found that 49 percent of Ukrainians strongly oppose it and 18 percent rather oppose it, although the poll probably suffers from the methodological problem of excluding those in the eastern regions and those who have left Ukraine. 

There may be more serious challenges to democracy in a country where some say that, whether or not Zelensky’s continued term in office is legitimate, he increasingly holds sole power. The former Minister of Internal Affairs and ex-Prosecutor General of Ukraine Yuriy Lutsenko told Germany’s Die Welt that, in a supposedly democratic Ukraine, “Zelensky rules as a sole decision-making autocrat” who “makes decisions alone.”

More serious still are what appear to be undemocratic assaults on political freedom and freedom of the press and expression.

In March 2022, Zelensky signed a law that formally banned eleven opposition political parties, including the Opposition Platform for Life party that was once the second largest party in the Ukrainian parliament, holding 10 percent of the seats. Three of the banned parties took part in the 2019 elections and, combined, won 18.3 percent of the vote. The sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko of Freie University in Berlin reports that polls taken just before Russia’s invasion showed them collectively polling between 16 and 20%.

Banning the parties was justified by their “links with Russia.” But in his new book, Towards the Abyss: Ukraine from Maidan to War, Ishchenko points out that “practically every leader and sponsor of these parties with any real influence in Ukraine condemned Russia’s invasion, and such people are now contributing to Ukraine’s defense.”

The ban on opposition parties was not a necessary compromise that addressed Ukraine’s immediate security needs. The ban got parties that represented the cultural rights of ethnic Russians in the east of Ukraine and stood against a monocultural Ukraine out of the way. It was a ban that removed opposition to Zelensky and helped consolidate his hold on power. 

The timing may have had less to do with the Russian invasion than with polling that, by 2021, was showing Zelensky’s popularity on the decline. The Opposition Platform was ahead of Zelensky in some polls. Banning this party and sanctioning Viktor Medvedchuk, one of its leaders, may have had more to do with Zelensky’s political ambitions than with a temporary necessity mandated by security concerns. “A more realistic explanation,” Ishchenko says, “is that Zelenskyi targeted the leader of a rival party, which was rapidly gaining popularity.” Similar questions might be raised by the banishment to London of the most recent potential rival to Zelensky, the former Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valerii Zaluzhny.

A similar possibility arises from a closer look at limits being imposed on the freedom of the press and of expression. The Russian invasion of Ukraine brought in its wake severe constrictions of and restrictions on the media in Ukraine. 

“Since the early days of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022,” the New York Times reports, “the people of Ukraine have had access to a single source of television news.” That single source is called Telemarathon United News. Enacted on March 18, 2022, a presidential decree implemented “a unified information policy . . . by unifying all national TV channels, the programming content of which consists mainly of information and/or information and analytical programs on a single information platform of strategic communication – 24-hour informational marathon.”

Zelensky has proffered the single source news as a necessary compromise for security in the face of the invasion. “Telemarathon is a weapon. It’s a united information space. It works for Ukraine and against Russia,” Zelensky says. 

Others disagree. The New York Times reported on June 18 that “journalists and groups monitoring press freedoms are raising alarms over what they say are increasing restrictions and pressures on the media in Ukraine under the government of President Volodymyr Zelensky.” As with restriction on political parties, they say that the restrictions on press freedom “go well beyond the country’s wartime needs.”

Wartime government control of the media seems to be less about security and more about “crimping positive coverage of the opposition and suppressing negative coverage of the government and the military.” 

Lutsenko, the aforementioned former Minister of Internal Affairs and ex-Prosecutor General of Ukraine, agrees with this assessment, telling Die Welt that “freedom of speech and freedom of the press are very seriously limited.” He says that censorship applies, not only to matters of defense and security, but to “political debates…Many voices are simply not allowed to be heard on television screens.”

Sources interviewed by the Times also spoke of voices not heard, saying they receive lists identifying which officials can be quoted and which are “undesirable.”

In March 2023, a new media law extended the state’s censorship powers to print and online media, and granted the state the authority to review the content of all Ukrainian media, prohibit content it deems a threat to the nation, and issue mandatory directives to media outlets.

David Rundell and Michael Gfoeller in an op-ed that appeared in Newsweek, say that the law gives the council the power “to censor and shut down independent platforms.” Nicolai Petro, professor of political science at the University of Rhode Island and the author of The Tragedy of Ukraine, told me that the council also now has the power to block “any registered media site through an expedited court proceeding.”

“At this point there are no independent television stations broadcasting news in Ukraine,” say Rundell and Gfoeller. “Print and digital media remain heavily censored.” And the situation is not scheduled to improve. Petro says that “In 2024, the National Council’s supervisory functions will expand even further, and they will not expire after the end of the war.” This extension suggests, once again, a purpose beyond wartime security.

Although both the crackdown on opposition parties and on the media are presented as restrictions on pro-Russian elements made necessary by the war, neither seem to have security benefits. Both seem to have the benefit of removing opposition to Zelensky. This realization demands the question, more than the postponement of elections, of whether Zelensky is passing measures to undermine democracy and consolidate power in the disguise of security measures made necessary by the war.

The post Is Zelensky Attempting to Hold On to Power? appeared first on The American Conservative.