Jeremy Corbyn Is Back

Last Thursday, Jeremy Corbyn arose from the ashes after over 30 years of relentless smear campaigns seeking his political death. The establishment, the Tories, the tabloids, and several Labour MP’s had joined forces to deal a coup de grace against him in the snap election. However, Corbyn’s stunning results blew them all away and upturned the old political and economic orthodoxies.

The Labour Party won 262 seats, – 32 more than in 2015 – the largest increase in seats and votes since 1945. Even so, the Tories won the election, although without an absolute majority, getting 318 seats, or 13 fewer than in 2015, which has obliged Theresa May to form a chaotic pact with the DUP, an extreme unionist North Irish party with numerous former terrorists.

With this outcome, Corbyn will challenge the now failing Tory government from the first day and will try to force a new general election later on this year, which could eventually proclaim him Prime Minister.

Corbyn said, “Labour will invite parties to defeat the government and vote for Labour’s manifesto in a “substantial amendment” to the Queen’s speech, as well as suggesting the party would also kill off the “great repeal bill”.

“We are ready and able to put forward a serious program which has great support in this country,” he said, though the Labour leader conceded his party “didn’t win the election”.

“We are going to put down a substantial amendment to the Queen’s speech which will be the main points of our manifesto. So we will invite the House to consider all the issues we’ve put forward – jobs-first Brexit, policies for young people and on austerity,” he said.

 

After all that; the constant defamations, machinations of oligarchs, vitriolic attacks by war-mongers and ruthless propaganda by the corporate media against him were ignored by millions of Brits, and Corbyn has a real chance of winning a new possible general election with an absolute majority.

According to recent polls, most of those who did not support him, did not do so because they thought he was unelectable, and they would now vote for him in a new election. Also, Labour MPs who once disparaged him are now praising him. And part of the media has phased out their constant smear campaigns against him.

Corbyn’s resurgence would have been impossible without the mass support of young people, who voted for him in numbers never seen before in history. They have decided that he represents the future of the UK and not the past and that his manifesto is more than just a pipe dream. They believe that it is a realistic plan to transform UK society into a fairer one. Hundreds of thousands of old folks have united with them in thinking that with Corbyn as Prime Minister, anything is possible.

Before becoming Labour Party leader in 2015, Jeremy Corbyn had been toiling in obscurity on the back-benches in parliament for over 30 years. From there he affirmed his political convictions, leading him to become today’s leader. His honesty and his fierce defense of the working class have characterized his long political life.

All these difficult efforts have started to bear fruit. The support of young people and the mass mobilization of elderly has provided Corbyn with an undeniable mandate to begin a new modern social revolution, which should end with the creation of a real democracy.

The type of democracy where the citizens will control all political institutions and politicians will become their real representatives. A democracy where politicians will never again be seen as powerful actors in the world, but rather as the people’s servants.

Everyone thought that Corbyn was a moribund politician close to retirement, but the people and only the people, have made him arise from the ashes to finalize his work. From now on, the constant defamation, machinations of oligarchs and vitriolic attacks against him will no longer matter. Corbyn has come back and he will never leave again until he finishes his new popular mandate. And most importantly, the people — teenagers, elders, women, man, locals, immigrants, etc. — appear now to be willing to follow him until the bitter end.

Trump Tries to Impose His Ideas During the G7 Summit and Germany Says EU Cannot Rely on the US Any Longer

Last week, Trump attended the G7 Summit in Tormina (Italy), his first since becoming president. The meeting, which reunited 7 of the most powerful countries in the world, aimed to make crucial agreements on immigration, terrorism, poverty, and trade.

In the present edition, the organizers announced substantial format changes to adapt it to Trump’s attitudes. They wrote documents in simple English, added pictures, and shortened meeting times to keep Trump from getting bored and losing his focus after a few minutes.

Trump’s economic adviser, Gary Cohn, said Mr. Trump “came here to learn. He came here to get smart. His views are evolving…exactly as they should be.”

Prior to that, most of the leaders had already met Trump. And they were conscious of his limited ability to follow arduous talks. However, they expected that the new format would help him understand the content of meetings. Nevertheless, Trump’s bold, presumptuous, smug, and thoughtless demeanor lead the Summit to be an absolute failure.

Unfortunately, all efforts to give Trump a better understanding of the Summit were in vain. According to numerous attendees, Trump was a good listener, but he was also often distracted, leading him to ignore crucial talks on immigration. Most participants also accused him of trying to impose his agenda without even negotiating with them, causing widespread anger.

Due to Trump’s refusal to negotiate realistic policies with other leaders, the latter pressured him on the climate change pact – but he did not promise anything and said that he will make a decision next week. Later on, he announced his decision via Twitter:

Screenshot from 2017-05-31 09-56-12.png

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the discussion on climate change had been “very unsatisfactory”, adding “we have a situation of six against one.” In the end, the rest of the leaders isolated Trump and reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris accord, the world’s first comprehensive deal aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The participants also said that there had been uncertainty over Mr. Trump’s position on sanctions imposed on Russia in response to its actions in Ukraine. However, White House economic adviser Gary Cohn said at the summit on Friday:

“We’re not lowering our sanctions on Russia. If anything we would look to get tougher on Russia.”

Italy had planned a five-page G7 statement on human mobility, stressing migrants’ rights, their positive contribution to host nations and the threat they faced from traffickers. Instead, Trump undermined it and the final statement highlighted the right of nation states to secure their borders, and set migration targets.

Trump was especially impolite and rude with the Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni. As footage reveals, he removed his “headphone” translator and ignored him during his speech on immigration. This was the first time that someone behaved like that since George W. Bush, who was also well-known for being easily distracted during international meetings.

Donald Tusk (EU) said that Trump agreed that Brexit was an incident, not a trend. He added that Trump acknowledged that Brexit will make Americans lose thousands of jobs. This statement was welcomed by most of the leaders. However, most of them also claimed that Trump acted hypocritically by endorsing Brexit during his recent campaign.

During the G7 Summit, Trump used a “nasty” narrative against Germany. He suggested that Germany was benefiting from other European countries. Although he was right on this point, his lack of knowledge about the EU left all leaders perplexed, demonstrating Trump’s mental gymnastics.

The Summit went through a shocking period when it discussed trade. Trump argued that the existing commercial situation between the EU and the US was unfair, and also threatened the EU with taking unilateral actions against its economy. He also suggested that he may soon increase taxes for the German automotive industry operating in the US.

Cohn said the US president “raised issues of unfair trading practices around the world” adding: “We have large trade deficits with most EU countries. The president doesn’t like having large trade deficits.”

Despite the various disagreements, the G7 leaders finally agreed on strengthening their collaboration in the fight against terrorism. With the recent Manchester terrorist attack still on their minds, they agreed on increasing control of the Internet to detect the so-called “lone wolf” (terrorists).

We will combat the misuse of the Internet by terrorists. While ranking as one of the most important technological achievements in the last decades, the Internet has also proven to be a powerful tool for terrorist purposes,” said the joint statement signed by the leaders meeting in Sicily. However, White House National Security Adviser HR McMaster said that Mr. Trump would make his decisions based “on what’s best for the American people.”

The G7 summit ended without much progress and displayed the various difficulties that world’s leaders have to face in dealing with Trump. The low level of Trump’s understanding and his unpredictability will make it hard for them to make crucial agreements with him in the future. It is in this context that most of the G7 leaders declared the summit as an absolute failure.

Angela Merkel said that after the last G7 Summit, Germany and the EU could not rely on the US and the UK any longer. She also advocated for making a stronger independent EU.

A few days after the G7 summit, Trump returned to his routine of writing self-congratulatory tweets. This time he said:

Screenshot from 2017-05-28 17-51-26.png

Screenshot from 2017-05-31 10-16-08.png

Screenshot from 2017-05-31 10-16-33.png

After the G7 Summit, it is clear that Trump’s bellicose narrative against several allies has worsened relations between the US and the international community. Some of them, such as Germany, think that it will be impossible for them to make future agreements with Trump, and are already waiting for the US mid-term elections in 2018. They think that a bad result for Republicans could precipitate an eventual impeachment against Trump which could enable the restoration of the relations between the US and Europe.

 

Can Marine Le Pen Still Win the French Presidential Election?

Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron are competing furiously to become the next French president in the run-off election on May 7. When both candidates won the first round of the election a week and a half ago, most experts contended that Macron would win the run-off vote with ease. However, during the last week, Le Pen has proved herself to be more intelligent than her rival, and it now appears that she has greatly increased her chances of becoming the next French president.

A few days ago, Marine Le Pen launched a national campaign to clean up her xenophobic image in order to convince the French people that she represents them. To that end, she stepped down as a National Front leader to appear more moderate. This action has already attracted thousands of Fillon’s supporters who will now vote for her in the run-off vote on May 7.

Aware that this gesture was not enough, on Wednesday, May 26, Marine Le Pen began to disguise her political ideas by presenting herself as the working class candidate who, if elected, would eventually fight against the European establishment. To this end, Marine Le Pen visited striking workers in Amiens while her rival, Macron, was meeting union bosses some miles away.

During her visit, Le Pen dealt the first blow by being welcomed and cheered by the vast majority of the workers. Her 15 minute visit was enough for her to be portrayed by the media as the workers’ defender. On the other hand, Macron was unwelcomed, booed and portrayed as the establishment candidate when he tried to visit those same workers. When these facts were spread by the media the next day, millions of French citizens began to believe that perhaps Le Pen represents them.

Le Pen’s latest blow came recently when she adopted Mélenchon’s rhetoric in one of her speeches to convince leftist voters to vote for her. She contended that she shares their desire to fight against the European oligarchy. Although it is hard to measure the real impact of Le Pen’s words, Mélenchon’s party, La France insoumise, recently decided to advocate for cast a blank vote or abstain in the runoff on May 7, which benefits Le Pen.

Despite her many small victories little more than a week, Le Pen was involved in a scandal on May 1 when she plagiarized an entire speech by Fillon when she spoke at a Labor Day rally. For an instant, it appeared that this fact would ruin her candidacy. However, her rapid response, suggesting that she did it on purpose to attract Fillon’s voters, has given her even more popularity.

On Wednesday, during the presidential debate, Le Pen was able to bring the debate onto her swampy home field. Although Macron appeared to be more prepared than her to become president, he was not able to avoid going negative against Le Pen. And Le Pen is the best at that.

What many said, that Le Pen would not have any chance of winning the run-off vote, appears to be obsolete. According to several polls conducted before the TV debate on Wednesday, Marine Le Pen will obtain the 41% of the final vote. Considering that a few months ago the media contended that she would not get more than 18%, she still has a real chance of becoming the next French president.

As seen during the last week, it appears that, in the end, Marine Le Pen has been able to disguise herself as the candidate of the working and middle class who will fight against the French establishment. However, the main problem is that Le Pen is simply hiding her real intentions from the public in order to become president. But what would really happen if she did so?

If Le Pen became president, she would soon return to her political roots by trying to install what she has always advocated for: a fascist dictatorship where immigration and whoever who does not support her ideas will be oppressed and repressed on a daily basis. To that end, she will try to implement several measures, like holding a referendum on membership in the European Union or reinstating the death penalty in France (hopefully, she will never use the guillotine to behead prisoners as happens in Saudi Arabia).

For those who still think that Marine Le Pen is like Donald Trump, they are completely wrong. Although it is true that there are some similarities between them, Le Pen has been participating in politics since her youth. In addition, she inherited the National Front (her current political party) from her father. These facts make her more dangerous than Trump and also indicate that she is determined to govern by decree and, if necessary, by violating French and international law.

On May 7, around 47 million French citizens will determine the political future of France and the EU. Many of them are not even aware of the importance of their vote. But hopefully, in the end, all of them will make the right decision in order to avoid past mistakes that once spread fascism across all of Europe. The truth is that Le Pen is a fascist imperialist who wants to implement similar ideas to those governments who adopted fascist ideas during WWII.

If you are a French citizen, you should remember that after the election you will not be able to change the situation with ease. So if you do not want Le Pen to bring chaos to France, you should act before it is too late The destiny of France and the world are now in your hands!

 

French Election

On Sunday, France held the first round of the presidential election cum referendum on EU membership. Emmanuel Macron won the largest share of the votes with 24% of the vote, followed close behind by Marine Le Pen with 21.3%. Thus, these two candidates will now compete for the French presidency in a runoff vote on May 7.

During his first interview after the election, Macron said,

The French people have decided to put me at the top in the first round of the vote,” “I’m aware of the honor and the responsibility that rests on my shoulders.”

In contrast, Marine Le Pen said that the outcome of the election was “an act of French pride” and called on French citizens to support her in order to defeat Islamist terrorism.

On Monday, Ms. Le Pen quickly renewed her attacks on Mr. Macron calling him “weakling” for his anti-terrorism policies.

The defeated candidates also gave their opinions about the outcome of the election and called on French citizens to support Emmanuel Macron against the xenophobic Marine Le Pen in the runoff vote on May 7.

The socialist Benoît Hamon, with 6% of the votes, was the first to concede and called on his supporters to vote against Marine Le Pen.

Fillon conceded with a 40-minute speech:

“The obstacles in my path were too many and too cruel,” he said. I accept responsibility for this loss,” added Fillon, asking his constituents to remain united and determined going forward into the French parliamentary elections. The defeated leader said he had ”no choice but to vote against the extreme right.” “I will vote in favor of Emmanuel Macron,” he concluded.

Jean-Luc Melenchon refused to say who he would back, criticizing both candidates for having “no stance on the environment or the future of civilization, and who both challenge the welfare and social model of the country.” He also said that the 500,000 members of his organization, La France Insoumise, will hold a vote to decide whether to support Macron, cast a blank vote, or abstain in the runoff vote in May.

The current President, François Hollande called on French citizens to reject far-right candidate Marine Le Pen and back Macron in the runoff on May 7.

For the first time in six decades, neither of France’s main left-wing or right-wing parties had a candidate remaining in the run-off election.

The outcome of the first round of the French election portrays a terrifying scenario. French citizens will now have to choose between Emmanuel Macron, a former investment banker who represents the establishment, and Marine Le Pen, a xenophobe who wants to destroy the EU and expel millions of legal resident immigrants in the name of fighting terrorism.

Macron’s victory would probably lead to the French working class losing purchasing power, which, in the short-term, will weaken the French economy. On the other hand, Le Pen’s victory would be catastrophic. She wants to hold a referendum on EU membership, and expel millions of immigrants who sustain the French economy.

According to recent polls, Emmanuel Macron will win the second round with 59% of the vote. However, experts have suggested that there is a factor which could give Le Pen the presidency: so-called Islamist terrorism.They think that a major terrorist attack in the next week in France would send a shock wave through French society, giving Le Pen a real chance of becoming president.

Paradoxically, Marine Le Pen wants to eradicate terrorism and Islamist terrorists want to assassinate her. However, they need each other to survive for the following reasons:

1- Marine Le Pen needs a terrorist attack to have any hope of victory.

2- Islamist terrorists need Le Pen to cause chaos in Europe if they want to spread their ideas and attract new militants.

While French citizens await the outcome of the runoff vote on May 7, the establishment is endorsing Emmanuel Macron in order to instate a new financial dictatorship in France if he becomes president. Marine Le Pen, meanwhile, has renounced her membership in the National Front (her political party) while being endorsed by Trump and U.S. alt-right organizations.

It is clear, then, that Neither Le Pen nor Macron will transform French society into a fairer one. Thus, the only thing that French citizens can do is organize and prepare themselves for a long battle against the unfair measures implemented by their next president.

U.S. Strike on Syria

On Thursday night, Donald Trump directed a strike against a Syrian military airbase, which targeted fighter planes, ammunition bunkers, radars, and petroleum storage. The Syrian regime said that the attack killed 7 soldiers and wounded 3.

In a brief press conference, Trump assured the American public that the strike was in retaliation for the last chemical attack against innocent civilians in Khan Sheikhoun in north-western Syria, which caused as many as 80 casualties, including many children.

Despite the fact that the UN could not reliably determine the accountability of the Syrian regime over the chemical attack, the U.S. government and the mainstream media launched a campaign to accuse them.

Ignoring the resolution of the UN, the NATO and other allies expressed their support for the strike and said that it was proportional. On the other hand, the Russian government condemned the attack and said that the U.S. is helping terrorists on the ground. Furthermore, the Russian Army announced the cessation of its communications with the U.S. in Syria and reiterated its support for the Syrian regime.

48 hours after the strike, in a joint statement, Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and several local militias said that the U.S. had crossed the line and that the next time they will respond with force. According to this coalition, there are many reasons to think that the U.S. wants to exert utter control over Syria due to its geolocation.

Despite their many lies, Russia and the U.S. have committed several war crimes in Syria. For years, the U.S. has bombed civilians and assisted rebel groups with ties to terrorist organizations, which have killed thousands of innocents. And Russia has supported the Syrian regime, which has also killed thousands of innocent civilians.

Everyone still remembers, when in 2003, at an assembly of the UN, the then U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, assured that the Iraqi government had WMD, which could soon cause carnage in the region and perhaps worldwide. As a result, the international community created a coalition to invade Iraq, which caused as many as 1 million of deaths. It was not until after some years that the international community found out that the CIA deliberately fabricated that story to intervene in Iraq.

By attacking Syria, Trump has gained as much popularity as Bush did during the Iraqi invasion. Since the strike, the mainstream media, including the most critical such as CNN, and The New York Times have praised Trump’s military action and elevated him as an excellent President.

It is deeply troubling that Trump has found out the key to gain popularity. Due to his incapacity to govern the country, it appears that he will launch more military interventions in countries such as North Korea and Iran.

It is important to remember that for years, Donald Trump suggested that Obama’s intervention in Syria was a political move to gain popularity. However, he is now adopting the same ploy. Fortunately for everyone, he could not delete his past tweets and here there is a sample of them:

Screenshot from 2017-04-08 13-55-13Screenshot from 2017-04-07 23-10-42

Despite the complexity of the Syrian conflict, this will only end when all parties negotiate a realistic resolution. Apparently, Trump is not willing to do so, but a strong antiwar movement may force him (like in the past with previous administrations) to step back in his bellicose decisions.

While the U.S. antiwar movement is organizing to become stronger, Trump is deploying warships, and troops in the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula. Over the next months, the world will observe whether the antiwar movement succeeds or Trump causes chaos everywhere.

 

Wilder’s Defeat and the European Union

On Wednesday, the Netherlands held the most important general election since the creation of the European Union. Most analysts suggested that, without a doubt, its results would determine the political future of the European project (including a potential dissolution).

After the rise of fascism in countries such as the UK and the US, the odds of victory for xenophobic and anti-European parties represented in the Netherlands by Geert Wilders, were higher than ever.

Over the last year, Wilders had expressed his desire to split with the European Union countless times, and the fear of that happening turned the Dutch elections into a referendum. As a result, the 13 million citizens eligible to vote had in their hands the hard task of deciding whether to remain in the EU or open a Pandora’s Box and begin its dissolution.

Months before the elections, the predictions were clearly favorable for Wilders. Most of the national polls suggested a clear victory for him, and some of them gave him 46% of the vote. On the other side, his great rival, the previous prime minister and candidate, Mark Rutte, spent most of the campaign persuading Dutch citizens that Wilders was “on the wrong side of populism.” His chances of winning were very low since most of the polls gave him catastrophic results.

However, (and fortunately for the European Union), the above-mentioned prognosis was erroneous, and despite winning 5 more seats than in the previous elections, the VPP of Wilders obtained 20 seats out of 150.

The winner of the elections was the VVD of Rutte who obtained 33 seats, 13 ahead of Wilders. Despite losing 8 seats compared to the previous elections, he declared that he was euphoric with the results. Considering that not even the most optimistic person believed in his victory, the final results were extraordinarily good.

Despite his victory, Rutte will have a hard task going forward if he wants to become the next prime minister for the third consecutive time. His victory is insufficient to form a government. For that reason, he will need to negotiate with at least three more political parties to form a coalition. Due to the complexity of the situation, it will take several months before he can form a stable government.

Dutch citizens delivered a clear message to the international community:

“We want neither bigotry nor populism in our country.”

Despite the citizens’ clear message refusing bigotry and populism, no one should forget that millions of them voted for Rutte because it was considered the best option to defeat Wilders. He represents the establishment, and as such, he will put the interests of the wealthy before those of the middle and working class.

Without a doubt, the defeat of Wilders was great news for the European Union, and this will contribute to decreasing populism in other countries. However, there is still a lot of work to do in the Netherlands to build a fair society where no one is discriminated against regardless of sexual, political, and religious orientation.

For the moment, the European Union has been able, temporarily, stall a critical threat to its existence. But unless its structure changes soon and the EU brings about equality among all its Members States, the alleged fascist’s populism will become a serious menace for the EU again.

The Truth is that the European Union has lost the appeal that it once had. The existing inequalities among member states in the EU, (notably ascendent Germany, which during the hardest moments of the global financial crisis, far from being supportive, took away benefits from the poorest countries in the Union), have contributed to the rise of populism all across Europe.

When countries such as Greece were going through catastrophic times, the German economy was in perfect condition without any signs of weakness. Later it was revealed that Germany took away vitality from countries such as Greece by demanding they pay back loans with exorbitant interest rates.

It is clear then that, without structural changes and more equality, the dissolution of the European Union will soon be inevitable.

Pending the arrival of big structural changes, the European Union will soon be tested again in upcoming elections in Germany and France. Fortunately, now that the Dutch elections are over, populism will not have many chances to win, but as I have said, structural changes must soon be done or it (populism) may increase its odds to obtain good results. 

Conflict Between Turkey and The Netherlands: The Winners and Losers.

On Saturday, just four days before the Dutch elections and one month before Turkey holds a crucial constitutional referendum (on expanding Turkish presidential powers), a new diplomatic dispute began between the Netherlands and Turkey.

Everything began when the Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu announced he would visit Rotterdam to call on Turkish expatriates to vote favorably on the referendum. Right after this announcement, the Dutch authorities notified Cavusoglu that he was banned from entering the country, alleging that there was a risk to public order and security.

Despite the ban, Cavusoglu decided to take a plane to the Netherlands. In response, the Dutch government withdrew landing permission for him and his aides, forcing him to land in Germany. Once in Germany, the minister Cavusoglu said:

“This decision is a scandal and unacceptable in every way. It does not abide by diplomatic principles.”

“Listen Netherlands, you’ll jump once, you’ll jump twice, but my people will thwart your game,” he said. “You can cancel our foreign minister’s flight as much as you want, but let’s see how your flights will come to Turkey now.” “They don’t know diplomacy or politics. They are Nazi remnants. They are fascists,” said the Turkish President Erdogan.

After the minister’s incident, the Dutch government released a statement reaffirming its decision and expanding the ban to all Turkish ministers. However, Turkey’s family minister, Fatma Betul Sayan Kaya decided to evade the prohibition and went to Rotterdam from Germany by car. Once in Rotterdam, Fatma Betul attempted to enter the Turkish consulate, but due to her illegal status in the country, the Dutch authorities proceeded to detain her and later deported her to Germany.

“Netherlands is violating all international laws, conventions and human rights by not letting me enter Turkish Consulate in Rotterdam,” said Fatma Betul.

After Fatima’s detention, a crowd of 1000 pro-Erdogan supporters who had gathered near the Turkish consulate in Rotterdam turned violent. Due to such violence, the police demanded them to dissolve the protest, but given their refusal, the police proceeded to disperse the protest. This happened when the protesters reacted even more violently by causing riots and damage to urban surroundings.

After the incident, the Dutch government said it considered the Turkish family minister undesirable and a “persona non grata.”

“We do not want the Dutch ambassador to Ankara to return from leave for some time,” said the goverment.

Geert Wilders, the right-wing candidate in the next Dutch elections, said: “to all Turks in the Netherlands: Go to Turkey and never come back!!”

On Sunday, a Turkish protester took down the Dutch flag flying over the consulate in Istanbul and replaced it with a Turkish flag. Footage of the incident showed a man on the roof shouting “Allahu Akbar” as the flag was replaced.

On Monday, the continued escalation of the conflict aroused suspicions about the real motive of the conflict, and why it had begun precisely when both countries face the most important election in decades.

Everything suggests that Turkish President Erdogan was looking for this confrontation. As previously mentioned, Turkey will soon hold a constitutional referendum, and the government is not sure about its results. In this context, a diplomatic conflict against the Netherlands will help Erdogan to mobilize his supporters and persuade his opponents to support him on the referendum.

In addition, the existing conflict has aroused nationalism among Turkish citizens. As a result, many of those who had concerns about giving Erdogan more power will now support him to keep the country united against foreign threats.

Erdogan is also using the existing nationalist arousal to brainwash Turkish citizens by suggesting that Western citizens are Nazis and anti-Muslims. This maneuver allows him to divert attention from his domestic authoritarian actions and constant violations of human rights.

Despite the fact that Erdogan already has a lot of power to make decisions, he knows that the approval of the constitutional changes is the last step to implement a full authoritarian system in Turkey.

On the other side, the conflict between the Netherlands and Turkey is also benefiting the Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders. The Netherlands will hold general elections tomorrow, and as in Turkey, the escalation of the conflict has also awakened a nationalist feeling among its citizens. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Dutch citizens who did not initially support Wilders finally will.

Dutch citizens did not like to see a thousand Turks flying foreign flags and supporting a dictator in Rotterdam. They did not like to see the provocative behavior of Turk’s representatives ignoring the ban and entering the Netherlands.

Like in all conflicts, there are also losers in this story, and this time, they are the citizens from both countries, who under an enormous pressure, will have to decide their political future, and democracy which could soon be totally eliminated from both countries.

Wilders and Erdogan’s game has already started, and citizens will have to choose between democracy and dictatorship. Their decisions will also determine the future political world and the incitement of new conflicts. The die is cast.