Russia Matters, 12/19/25

EU leaders have abandoned a plan to fund Ukraine with €210 billion in frozen Russian assets, which the leaders of France, Germany and some other “Old Europe” countries have been pushing for months, thus failing what the New York Times described as an EU unity test. The decision not to tap the Kremlin’s frozen wealth is a big setback for Kyiv and its supporters in Europe, some of whom described this week as a “break or take” one, while advocating for the use of Russian assets. Instead of using these frozen assets, which European support[er]s have argued was essential for Ukraine to sustain its defense against Russia, the EU agreed to provide Kyiv with €90 billion ($101 billion), largely in loans, through 2027, financed by joint borrowing on capital markets backed by the EU budget.²The deal—without which Ukraine was likely to default as early as next spring—provides a critical two-year financial lifeline. However, in practical terms, that still leaves Kyiv needing around $50 billion per year in additional outside support simply to keep the state functioning, as well as to finance the procurement of drones, drone components and other military equipment. It is crucial to underscore that this is a loan, not a transfer of frozen Russian assets. As such, it adds to Ukraine’s already heavy debt burden rather than easing it, allowing the country to struggle on rather than stabilizing its finances. As reported above, the broader initiative Volodymyr Zelenskyy had been pressing—backed by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron, among others—to mobilize frozen Russian assets has, for now, failed. Opposition to using the frozen Russian funds in such a way has come from Belgium’s Bart De Wever, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico among others. In its preview of a vote by EU leaders this week on whether to use Russian funds for funding Ukraine, The New York Times wrote that this vote could “Unify the European Bloc — or Splinter It.”

Russia Matters (from Levada Center), 12/12/25

Finnish President Alexander Stubb claimed peace is closer for Ukraine now than at any time early 2022. “We’re quite close” to an agreement, Stubb said on Dec. 9. The Russian public seemed to share Stubb’s desire for peace. A Levada Center survey (November 2025) showed a record 65% now favor moving to peace talks (+4 points since October), while only 26% want to continue fighting (the lowest share on record).

By Kevin Gosztola, The Dissenter, 12/9/25

With Netflix’s bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, and Paramount’s hostile offer for Warner Bros., a report from the Roosevelt Institute calls urgent attention to the way in which media consolidation and deregulation has impacted freedom of the press.

The Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank, contends that the press clause in the First Amendment has all but disappeared. Instead, it is now widely accepted in government that the First Amendment defines the “freedom of private entities to operate without public accountability, rather than the right to know—citizens’ affirmative right to freely accessible, trustworthy, and democratically essential information.”

“The Political Economy of the US Media System” [PDF] was authored by Victor Pickard, a media professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and Bilal Baydoun and Shahrzad Shams of the Roosevelt Institute, whose work for the Roosevelt Institute focuses on defending democracy.  

As the authors outline, “[T]he structure of our laissez-faire media system—touted as a bulwark against the tyranny of state-run media—has not protected against threats from the state. Both public and commercial media outlets today face serious threats from the Trump administration beyond regulatory action alone, as it has pursued lawsuits widely believed to be ideologically motivated against the BBC, CBS, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal and defunded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.”

“The administration has launched what amounts to a systematic campaign against press freedom, combining legal harassment, access restrictions, funding cuts, and rhetorical attacks to undermine independent journalism. While Trump himself has long delegitimized the press as ‘fake news,’ the current assault, backed by the power of the federal government and all the resources at its disposal, is an escalation that threatens the institutional foundations of American journalism.”

Subscribe To The Dissenter

The authors maintain that part of this escalation involves “rule by deal over rule of law,” where “commercial logics that animate our media system” subject media companies to “political jawboning, threats, and attacks.”

In 2004, media scholar and media reform advocate Robert McChesney declared, “Unique problems accompany constitutional protection of a free press.” He pointed out that these problems “tend to be shunted aside when the discussion is framed solely in terms of free speech.” That serves market capitalism, however, the report addresses how this is inconsistent with “both the intent of the framers and the history of the US press system.” 

The authors focus their attention on the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices have time and time again nested press rights under the speech clause or failed to even grapple with the state of press freedom.  

Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has “interpreted the Speech Clause not as a tool for empowering everyday people to speak their mind and enjoy access to a diversity of viewpoints, but as a vehicle for advancing deregulatory, corporate causes.”

A prime example is the lawsuit brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Co-filed by then-Representative J.D Vance, according to the Lever News emphasizes, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argues “party-coordinated contribution limits violate their free speech rights.”

“Precluding coordination by parties and their candidates undermines the availability and accuracy of electoral communication,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce declared. “In this way, free association, free expression, and free enterprise are deeply intertwined.”

Subscribe to The Dissenter

To the report’s authors, this represents a negative approach to the First Amendment that fails to fully protect press rights. This approach serves powerful corporate interests by declining to affirm any government obligation to enact policies that would “foster a speech environment or press system that supports a vibrant and inclusive democratic society.”

“In prioritizing the expressive rights of corporations over the informational rights of citizens, viewing the press as functionally the same as an individual speaker, the court has entrenched a deregulatory logic that structurally favors concentrated media power and commercial gatekeeping,” the report additionally states. 

This dynamic fuels pressure on media organizations and makes companies vulnerable to threats from FCC Chair Brendan Carr, who has weaponized regulatory action to suppress journalism and silence those who speak out against the Trump administration. 

It was the “neoliberal revolution” that by the 1980s led the FCC to allow “market forces” to effectively determine what was in the public interest. FCC Chair Mark Fowler referred to a television as nothing more than a “toaster with pictures” and “recast the media audience from citizens fulfilling the role of self-government to consumers of a good like any other.” All of which was backed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 brought about one of the most intense periods of media consolidation in the history of the telecommunications industry. That set the stage for the corporate libertarian policies promoted by Trump’s FCC.

But in the era of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the FCC actually had the “Mayflower rule” that “prohibited broadcasters from engaging in political or partisan editorializing.” There were “structural limits on ownership and contracts” that were aimed at ensuring the media played a constructive role in democracy. Media ownership rules weren’t a tool for extracting political favors, and the Supreme Court even upheld such public interest regulation in NBC v. United States in 1943.

Anti-communism hysteria combined with corporate libertarianism, as Congress and the FBI scrutinized members of the FCC. “The leading progressive at the FCC, Clifford Durr, effectively resigned from the agency in 1948 in protest over President Harry S. Truman’s loyalty oath order.”

The Mayflower rule was replaced in 1949 after political attacks. The new rule was known as the “Fairness Doctrine.” It was imperfect, yet much like public broadcasting in the United States it was relentlessly opposed by a right-wing conservative faction until Reagan eliminated it entirely.

Subscribe to The Dissenter

Trump proudly defunded public media, particularly the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). It’s a predictable outcome, given how Republicans waged a decades-long culture war to discredit and curtail public service broadcasting.

As McChesney outlined in 1997, “[T]he attack on public service broadcasting is part and parcel of the current attack on all non-commercial, public service institutions and values.”

“Neoliberalism is not merely a set of economic principles; rather, it is implicitly a theory of democracy. And the democratic system that works best with a market-driven economy is one where there exists widespread public cynicism and depoliticization, and where the mainstream political parties barely debate the fundamental issues.”

“Or, as the Financial Times has put it, the best political system is one in which the capitalist control of society is ‘depoliticised,’” McChesney further asserted. 

Media oligarchs have wildly succeeded in expanding their dominance and power in a manner that threatens the stability of the press and media system. Just look at what private equity has done to destroy local journalism in communities throughout the country.

Already in 2025, media oligarchs Larry Ellison and David Ellison took control of Paramount Global when their company Skydance merged with Paramount. There should be some call from within the FCC against the Ellison family’s attempt to own even more of the media system, but the opposite is happening. (The Associated Press reported that “an investment firm run by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner” is pushing for the deal.)

The history and analysis laid out by the Roosevelt Institute is a worthwhile plea for a radical shift that enables “a truly democratic information ecosystem”—one where corporate capture of media is as alarming as the potential for state control to erode liberties.

By Ken Klippenstein, Substack, 12/6/25

Attorney General Pam Bondi is ordering the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism,” according to a Justice Department memo published here exclusively.

The target is those expressing “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology,” as well as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” and “anti-Christianity.”

Bondi Memo On Countering Domestic Terrorism And Organized Political Violence

151KB ∙ PDF file

Download

That language echoes the so-called indicators of terrorism identified by President Trump’s directive National Security Presidential Memorandum-7, or NSPM-7, which the memo says it’s intended to implement. Where NSPM-7 was a declaration of war on just about anyone who isn’t MAGA, this is the war plan for how the government will wage it on a tactical level.

In addition to compiling a list of undesirables, Bondi directs the FBI to enhance the capabilities (and publicity) of its tipline in order to more aggressively solicit tips from the American public on, well, other Americans. To that end, Bondi also directs the FBI to establish “a cash reward system” for information leading to identification and arrest of leadership figures within these purported domestic terrorist organizations. (The memo later instructs the FBI to “establish cooperators to provide information and eventually testify against other members” of the groups.)

The payouts don’t end there. Justice Department grants are now to prioritize funding to programs for state and local law enforcement to go after domestic terrorism.

In a section titled “Defining the domestic terrorism threat,” the memo cites “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment” — indicators that federal law enforcement are instructed to refer to FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs). Those JTTFs are then instructed to “use all available investigative tools” in order to “map the full network of culpable actors involved” in both “inside and outside the United States.”

The memo also directs the FBI and JTTFs to retroactively investigate incidents going back five years, authorizing the JTTFs in particular to use everything at their disposal to do so.

“Upon receipt of these referrals, the JTTFs shall use all available investigative tools, consistent with law enforcement internal policies and statutory obligations, to map the full network of culpable actors involved in the referred conduct inside and outside the United States,” the memo says.

For months, major media outlets have largely blown off the story of NSPM-7, thinking it was all just Trump bluster and too crazy to be serious. But a memo like this one shows you that the administration is absolutely taking this seriously — even if the media are not — and is actively working to operationalize NSPM-7.

NSPM-7 was signed in September largely in response to the murder of Charlie Kirk, which was a 9/11-type event for the Trump administration, as I’ve reported. (Kirk’s assassination is referenced explicitly in the Justice Department memo.) As anyone who lived through 9/11 can remember, the government doesn’t always think rationally in moments like those, to say the least. And so here we are, with a new War on Terrorism — only this time, millions of Americans like you and I could be the target.

By David Zauner, The Nation, 12/9/25

On June 5, shortly after 10 in the morning, black-clad officers stormed into the House of Trade Unions. The symbolic building on the Maidan, Kyiv’s Independence Square, is the headquarters of the country’s largest trade union federation, the Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine (FPU).

The roughly 30 officers ordered the union employees to pack their things. The House of Trade Unions, they stated, has been confiscated. Employees and journalists were stopped outside, prevented from entering the building—by force if necessary.

The president of Profbud, an FPU member union representing the rights of workers in the construction industry, Vasyl Andreyev, speaks of a completely new level of escalation. Despite the government’s aggressive campaign against trade unions, this step came as a surprise to everyone, he recalls. Until that day, Profbud also had its offices in the House of Trade Unions.

Behind the operation was the Asset Recovery and Management Agency (ARMA), a state body responsible for securing and managing assets linked to corruption. In tow that day were heavily armed security forces and the new private property management company selected by ARMA.

The raid was not an isolated incident but part of a deepening confrontation between the government and the country’s unions. International union federations criticized that the seizure was part of a broader pattern of repression, including intimidation, criminal investigations, and legislative attacks.

ARMA justified its action with corruption allegations. Between 2016 and 2018, union officials had allegedly embezzled FPU real estate and personally profited from it. On this basis, the agency seized not only the House of Trade Unions but also numerous other FPU buildings. In April, law enforcement authorities arrested the FPU president, Grygorii Osovyi, along with four other officials. Osovyi has been under house arrest ever since.

Vasyl Andreyev says he cannot comment on the ongoing proceedings. However, he is not aware of any evidence supporting the accusations. The FPU and numerous unions at home and abroad criticized the arrest as politically motivated. The aim, they argued, was to destabilize the country’s largest trade union federation. The general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, Luc Triangle, called for the immediate release of Grygorii Osovyi and the termination of all proceedings.

Even if there were some merit to the corruption allegations, labor lawyer Vitalii Dudin argues, the government’s approach is disproportionate. Dudin, a leading figure in Ukraine’s grassroots organization Sotsialnyi Rukh Social Movement), adds, “Legal action against individuals cannot justify measures that affect an entire organization.” He also suspects political motives behind the escalation. “Our governing party is pursuing a clearly neoliberal course. Until now, our trade unions were the only ones seriously opposing it.”

With his party Sluha narodu (Servant of the People), Volodymyr Zelensky achieved an unprecedented election victory in 2019. His faction holds nearly 60 percent of the seats in the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament. Well before Russia’s full-scale invasion, the government repeatedly sought to reform labor legislation in ways that favored employers. Each time, it was forced to backpedal by large protests led by the unions.

The situation changed fundamentally with the outbreak of war. Martial law allows neither demonstrations nor strikes. Many union members are fighting at the front or living in exile. “The government did not create this situation, but it has undoubtedly taken advantage of it,” Dudin says.

In March 2022, just weeks after the war began, parliament adopted the first reforms of labor and trade union law—among them the very neoliberal bills that had previously failed time and again because of union resistance.

The new regulations make it easier to dismiss employees, raise the maximum weekly working time from 40 to 60 hours, and allow weekend shifts without extra pay. While some emergency measures can be explained by wartime conditions, Dudin argues that many go far beyond what the situation requires. “They weaken the role of collective agreements and collective bargaining. This is the 101 of market liberalization.”

Further “reforms” followed. The government introduced so-called “zero-hour contracts”: on-call employment with pay only for hours worked. Although the law guarantees a minimum of 32 hours per month, lawyer Vitalii Dudin warns that the reform risks a two-tier workforce—secure contracts for compliant employees, precarious ones for union members.

The government’s “reform” frenzy is not over yet. Last year, the Ministry of Economy published a draft of a new labor code. It contains 329 articles that, according to the government, are intended to reduce bureaucracy and bring Ukraine closer to European standards. Critics see this as a further shift in the balance of power in favor of employers.

Without giving reasons, companies could decide on new working hours and wages within a week. Employees could be suspended without pay during ongoing dismissal negotiations. Trade unions would lose any say in operational decisions. “All of this,” says political economist Yuliya Yurchenko, senior lecturer at the University of Greenwich, “would not bring Ukrainian labor law closer to the EU, but instead move it further away as deregulation continues.”

However, after the initial shock at the start of the war, the unions have regained their footing. So far, they have successfully prevented the bill from being put to a vote in parliament. Observers suspect a direct link between the regained strength of the unions and the escalation of state repression. But Dudin speculates that the government underestimated how strong the headwinds of this escalation would be. Harsh criticism has come not only from international trade union alliances; dissatisfaction also seems to be growing among the population, he says.

On the sidelines of a summit in central Kyiv, which was actually meant to focus on Ukraine’s EU accession process, frustration erupted in early November. “How can EU accession be discussed here while trade union buildings are being seized?” one audience member asked. Another criticized the government’s reforms as neither progressive nor EU-compliant but somewhere between “neoliberal and libertarian.” The invited Ukrainian MPs appeared visibly tense and failed to provide answers.

The invitation came from the Social Democratic Group in the European Parliament. In their speeches, several members of the European Parliament warned—without directly naming the attacks on trade unions—that the current course was leading in the wrong direction. Yuliya Yurchenko was also invited as one of the panelists and became far more explicit. If policy is geared solely toward the interests of companies and not workers, she asked, who will benefit from the promised progress?

We need policies for the majority—not just for oligarchs—that address reskilling and upskilling, childcare, flexible hours for parents, and affordable housing, Yurchenko tells The Nation. At the summit, she delivers a final, unmistakable rebuke: The government’s treatment of trade unions, she says, is authoritarian and absolutely unacceptable. “We are not Russia. We are Ukraine.”

The audience applauded, though most Ukrainian MPs had long since left the chamber. On the ground, the immediate tension had quietly eased by the time of the summit. The FPU has found a new headquarters, less than two kilometers from the Trade Union House. And since July, Serhiy Byzov has been the federation’s new president. The government knows it crossed a red line with the arrest of Grygorii Osovyi and the confiscation of the House of Trade Unions, Dudin says.

For several months, the government has taken a more conciliatory tone. At the celebrations marking the FPU’s 35th anniversary in October, several members of the governing party attended and publicly praised the union’s work. “After all the campaigns against the unions, it was a bizarre sight,” Dudin recalls.

According to parliamentary sources, the planned labor code is also not expected to be submitted to parliament—at least not this year. But Dudin does not believe in a genuine change of course. “They will try again. I have no doubt about that.”