Supreme Court excludes Yabloko’s federal list weeks before September’s parliamentary election

Russia’s Supreme Court has removed the liberal Yabloko party’s federal list from September’s State Duma election, eliminating the only registered party campaigning explicitly for a ceasefire in Ukraine. The decision further narrows the space for lawful anti-war politics and raises fresh doubts about whether voters will be offered meaningful political choice.

A national list removed

The court annulled Yabloko’s registration on Monday following a challenge brought by Rodina, a nationalist party aligned with the Kremlin. Russia’s Central Election Commission had previously approved Yabloko alongside ten other parties for the vote, scheduled for 18-20 September.

The case included allegations concerning campaign spending, copyright material and conduct said to violate electoral rules. Rodina also argued that elements of Yabloko’s political position were incompatible with Russian law. Party representatives rejected the accusations and said they would challenge the ruling.

The judgment removes Yabloko from the national party-list contest. Russia elects half of the State Duma’s 450 members from party lists and the other half in single-member constituencies. The position of individual candidates in those constituencies depends on separate registration decisions, several of which have already gone against Yabloko members.

Yabloko has no seats in the outgoing Duma and was not expected to threaten the dominance of United Russia. Its significance in this election was instead political: it offered a registered, nationwide channel through which voters could express opposition to the war without joining a prohibited organisation or participating in a public demonstration carrying a risk of arrest.

A campaign centred on peace

In its official election platform, Yabloko called for an early ceasefire agreement, negotiations, freedom of expression and an end to political repression. It described the ballot as one of the few remaining lawful ways for Russians to register disagreement with the authorities’ direction.

That platform distinguished Yabloko from the five parties represented in the current parliament, all of which have supported the government’s central policy on the war. The distinction mattered even if the party’s prospects of crossing the electoral threshold remained limited.

A ballot does more than allocate seats. It also records the range of political positions that citizens are permitted to express. Removing an option because it challenges the state’s defining policy weakens that function before voting begins.

The pressure did not start with Monday’s ruling. An independent Russian Election Monitor assessment reported in June that 32 Yabloko members had already been prevented from standing under various legal provisions. It also recorded searches, detentions, fines and criminal proceedings affecting party politicians and activists.

Some candidates have been excluded over old social-media posts containing images associated with organisations or individuals later designated as extremist. Others have faced accusations of “discrediting” the armed forces, a legal category increasingly used against criticism of the war.

Political participation under pressure

The court decision should be understood within a wider dismantling of independent civic and political activity. Election monitors have been prosecuted, media organisations have been blocked or forced abroad, and the “foreign agent” and “undesirable organisation” systems have imposed severe legal and financial burdens on civil society.

As The European Times previously reported, a United Nations independent expert has described a sustained pattern in which national-security and public-safety laws are used to criminalise dissent and anti-war expression.

Those restrictions affect more than prominent opposition figures. They shape what teachers, local councillors, lawyers, students and ordinary voters believe they can safely say. When the cost of political participation includes dismissal, prosecution or imprisonment, formal electoral procedures cannot by themselves ensure a genuinely free contest.

Why the decision matters to Europe

Russia is no longer a member of the Council of Europe, but its political direction remains inseparable from Europe’s security and human-rights landscape. The erosion of peaceful political competition also reduces opportunities for Russian citizens to influence policy through institutions rather than through exile, silence or confrontation.

European governments and institutions have limited ability to alter domestic Russian court decisions. They can, however, maintain support for independent media, election documentation, human-rights defenders and democratic groups inside and outside the country. Such support should remain transparent and carefully designed so that it does not expose recipients to additional danger.

European policymakers should also resist treating Russian society as identical to the Russian state. Yabloko’s removal demonstrates precisely why that distinction matters: citizens who reject the war exist, but the lawful mechanisms through which they can make that position visible are being steadily closed.

September’s election will still produce a new State Duma. Yet after the exclusion of the only registered nationwide party offering an explicitly anti-war platform, the result will reveal less about the full range of public opinion than about the political choices the authorities were prepared to permit.

By Fr. Alexander Men

The social position of a Christian is somewhat unique in every country, and so it would be completely wrong to assume that a uniform way of life and action exists everywhere. I think you’re not interested in how Christians live in Latin America, where they fight for their rights through armed force, or how this issue was resolved in the United States in the nineteenth century, but rather in how it is handled in our country. Strangely enough, our approach to this issue is very similar to how it was handled in ancient times. We’ve, to some extent, come full circle and returned to those times.

In the third century, Tertullian wrote that “we are (he was addressing the pagans) in your offices and on your ships, in your armies and in your markets, we occupy all public places, and everywhere we are not the worst, but the best.” Well, perhaps he exaggerated a little during the course of his polemics, so to speak, but history has shown he was right, because Christians were the most steadfast, honest, and reliable members of society. Otherwise, the emperors who were forced to recognize Christianity at the beginning of the fourth century would not have done so. There were other, more convenient religions for them. At that time, there was the religion of SOL INVICTUS, the Invincible Sun. This was solar veneration, which was philosophically meaningful, which had its own pleasant ritual, very widespread among soldiers. And you know that the Roman Empire at that time was, as they say, in the power of the military; the army decided everything. And there were even attempts to establish the religion of SOL INVICTUS, the Invincible Sun, through state means. Julian the Apostate was the one. Ibsen wrote a wonderful play about him, “Caesar and the Galilean.” I recommend everyone read it. Nevertheless, the emperors rejected this cult, which was undoubtedly beneficial to the state, beloved by the army, and easily assimilated by society. What played a role here? History has shown that it was precisely because Christians turned out to be the best of their time. Perhaps we could have left it at that, because that’s the answer to this question.

We must prove ourselves the best, although it’s quite difficult, although it’s easier to say that we have our own ideas, and in general, that’s why we don’t want to do this, we don’t want to do that. But imagine if some train driver said, “Oh, what a mess we have here. You know, I’m going to crash my train into a pole today.” Or something else. This means that some people’s dissatisfaction with the existing order doesn’t justify their failure to fulfill the duties they are obligated to fulfill: parental duty, educational duty, professional duty, human duty, and so on.

This model is difficult. Why? Because there are two extremes. One extreme is to become like everyone else and thereby lose all spiritual expressiveness; the other is to set yourself against everyone and become a sect of grumbling outsiders. Both are easy enough. Any untalented person easily becomes a grumbling outsider, saying that everyone around you is a scoundrel, but if only they’d given me a chance, we’d show you. But in reality, they have nothing to show for it. And it’s fortunate for them that they’re not given a chance. If they were, they’d be ten times worse than others we don’t like.

So, this is our middle ground. Of course, you may encounter problems: the unfavorable structure of our professional structures—hospitals, institutes, the arts… There are no general solutions here. You must always ask yourself: how can I fulfill my human duty, and that’s it. To what extent? Well, there’s no computer that would always give you a precise answer. (A voice from the audience: “What do you mean there isn’t one?”) Yes, there isn’t one. The Gospels, for example, aren’t structured like a quiz. That’s not there. What should I do if I’m supposed to work well, but if I work well, I’ll lower my plan, say, and then I’ll let my enterprise down (I’m speaking figuratively), whereas if I work poorly, I’ll fulfill the plan, but then I’ll let society down in general. This, so to speak, aporia, to put it in philosophical terms, or antinomy—we’re not called upon to resolve it; that’s what the competent authorities are for, let them worry about it. Our task is to fulfill our duty, and in doing so, we can help society as best we can.

So, not being an outsider, not being a completely mimicked person—that’s the difficult task. (A voice from the audience: “It’s an unstable equilibrium.”) Absolutely right. Why balance? Because the life of an organism is balance, balance, you understand? Once it’s out of balance, that’s it, it ends up in the hospital. The life of any mechanism is balance; An unbalanced mechanism must either be scrapped or repaired. The state of the soul is unbalanced—you know that, no need to explain it to you. Thus, everything, including the movement of the Solar System, the Milky Way, and other devices, is connected to a certain balance. And it’s difficult, but that’s how life works.

By the way, this always requires creative effort, otherwise you could just sit and… If there were answers to everything, and you just had to press buttons, you’d get an answer right away, and you’d do it, while you sit there, spitting, and drinking some harmless fruit drink, and that’s it. I think that’s quite, so to speak, clear. Well, of course, there are many such questions—how to conduct yourself at meetings, and so on. These are details, the main thing is that people see you as a person of principle, as we say among the people, independent and fair. There are such expressions. Yes, yes, a person they can rely on. Do you know what’s widespread in our society? It has nothing to do with the social structure; it’s rooted in a flaw in the cultural tradition. The cultural tradition of all peoples has its flaws. What kind of flaw do we have? Unreliability. Utter unreliability. A person can tell you one thing, and it’s completely… It doesn’t matter what he says, because he won’t follow through. You look into his bright, transparent eyes; at that moment, he believes you, but he’s crossed the threshold and forgotten you exist altogether. This is unreliability, this is irresponsibility, this is disorganization—it’s a veritable abyss of sources for all sorts of hackwork. It’s a vice, and it seems we must fight it. If you come on dates, I mean business dates, because you’ve already had your fill of romantic dates; however, you can meet with your wife. I sometimes arrange dates with my wife; it’s quite pleasant, after all. But you definitely need to have the charm to come! Of course, so that everything works for us. No, I understand that this won’t work, but we must strive for it.

QUESTION: The Immaculate Conception, similar in other religions, the attitude towards it. ANSWER: The point is that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not connected to the doctrine of Christ, who could have been born in a normal way; that’s completely irrelevant. Here, we’re talking only about the Virgin Mary. And you know very well that in the history of the world… I even remember reading something once—I can’t remember now—either an article or a brochure—called “Mothers of Great People.” It showed that, while not always, very often, mothers played a colossal and decisive role for great people. Not only genetically, because they passed on their qualities, but also spiritually, through their influence. Therefore, even theoretically, abstracting from what the Gospel says about the Virgin Mary, we must still consider what kind of woman she was who became his mother. And therefore, this very lofty conception of her is undoubtedly connected to a special kind of spirituality and religiosity. We don’t have documentary evidence for this, but we have the intuition of tradition, poetry, and inner conviction. Of course, they might say, “Well, we don’t know anything about her except her name and a few facts.” I think what we do know is enough to elevate this to such a high level. Some of you have seen her, videos of her.

(Inaudible, noise in the audience). There are women and men who have been examined by doctors, who, in a state of some kind of special empathy with the crucifixion, empathy, have developed bloody wounds that were simply being examined. Therefore, the state of the spirit can very well influence the body. So there is no… For Christ, this is of no importance. It is important for her, because, being a mother, she still belonged to no one. (QUESTION from the audience: Is this still a symbol or reality?) I think it is entirely reality. (Noise in the audience, question inaudible). All gods had a father and mother. In any case, this was never present as some kind of important theme. On the contrary, consider that all of mythology was steeped in eroticism. All these gods slept with each other, continually giving birth… What immaculate conception! It was pure “porn,” as they say now, just read the whole story… Sure, Athena was a virgin, but that’s all. Besides, why compare Athena to the Virgin Mary? She was a virgin—a special being; she didn’t conceive.

QUESTION: Is this even biologically possible or not?

ANSWER: Of course, it’s possible, quite possible, quite possible. I say again that the influence of the spirit on the human body is limitless. Well, just take the facts that have been observed with people who controlled their hearts, who stopped their hearts. After all, there are such people. The influence of the spirit on the body is enormous, enormous. Therefore, we know no limits.

QUESTION: You once expressed the opinion that in fifty years, the existence of the human spirit will be scientifically proven. ANSWER: Yes, indestructible. Possibly, very possible. Depending on how science develops. Possibly even faster.

Source in Russian: Home Conversation (date not specified), phonogram, https://damian.center/men/

By Fr. Alexander Men

When we speak of the authority the Lord left to the Church, we must first banish, eliminate, and completely erase the idea of ​​its similarity to earthly authority. For now, let’s forget that, say, church authorities during the Middle Ages, the Modern Era, and modern times sometimes became state-like, ruling like a baron, prince, emperor, dictator, or president. This authority is of an entirely different nature; it cannot even be compared.

The Lord says: “Whoever desires to be first must be a servant of all,” “Do not be called rulers, teachers, or fathers—do not lord it over others.” This means He fundamentally rejects the social, sanctioned authority of the Church. “Let him be a servant of all.” And even the Pope is forced as a result of this to bear in his title the expression “servant of the servants of God”—that is, he is a servant of all—at least formally, but he must nonetheless. So, first of all, this caveat must be made. If ecclesiastical authority is not to be despotic, tyrannical, and administrative, then historically, that’s precisely what it has become. But the ideal has always remained, and in its name, constant renewal has taken place; it has always shone. Any distortion is nothing more than a distortion. And we have a criterion by which we can measure this.

Why was Peter appointed? First, all the apostles were not chosen from among people of high social rank, and we have every reason to believe that this was done intentionally. Then came Paul, then Apollos the Alexandrian—influential, educated men; then came those in power. Already in the time of the Apostle Paul, the state treasurer in the city of Corinth was a Christian—a man whose name is inscribed on monuments found in Corinth, and he appears in the Epistles. But above all, the Lord chose people who were outside the social establishment, who enjoyed no public recognition or respect, who held no place of honor in the world, “unlearned and simple,” as the Acts says. Nevertheless, of these, the most influential might have been the tax collector Matthew, who was obviously more literate than all the others, or the young John, who was close to the high priest and was apparently more than just a fisherman and also a man of considerable means.

Peter was appointed. This is the secret of his soul. For the Lord says, “Blessed are you, Simon, for this was not revealed to you by human flesh and blood, but by the Father in heaven.” When Peter saw the Messiah in Jesus, it was an epiphany. But the fact that he always stands first is a free election; we cannot assume that it is determined by any known factor. God chose a man who was neither learned nor simple, and appointed him to make it clear that the Church was born not through the energy, talent, education, or any other additional qualities of the first teachers, but by the power of the Spirit of God.

From the very beginning of his preaching, Confucius sought a princely patron because he understood that he needed to rely on some real state power; Buddha himself was a prince; Plato also sought, trying to find, so to speak, a political base.

Christ provides no political base; all his disciples are worthless politically, worthless economically, and that is precisely why the power of God was revealed—He built the Church on the faith of ordinary people, so that no one, not even the most outcast of the world, could say, “Of course, it was them, the apostles.” No, these were not rich, influential, noble, or particularly wise people. This does not mean that one must be a fool to be a Christian. Later, there were intelligent ones, and then came Paul, the wise man. But the foundation was laid by people who would ensure that no one could cite their own weakness, their low social status, and say, “Well, that’s not for me.” Moreover, this all began with Christ’s own way of life, which was not an extraordinary one. You see, when they say, “Here’s a yogi who breathes ten times a day and eats a handful of rice and that’s it,” that’s fine for some, but it immediately places him beyond the bounds of ordinary human standards. People say, “That’s wonderful, but it’s not for us.” But no one can say about Jesus, “Not for us.” John the Baptist came, an ascetic, fasting—people say he has a demon. Christ came, eating and drinking—they still don’t like it. But it was Christ who emphasized that He led an ordinary life. But this doesn’t solve all the problems. Our main question is this: the Church, that is, the family that the Lord founded on earth, as it grows, involuntarily takes on social forms—this, of course, is a community. And in a social community, as in an organism, certain functional elements begin to operate. And the Apostle Paul reduces all this to a biological analogy: he says that the body has various organs, and these organs have various functions. So it is in the Church—are all apostles, are all teachers, do all heal, do all have the gift of speech? For such a community to exist, it must be structured; as it grows, institutional differentiation must emerge.

But before such a structure can emerge, there’s a secret: when we, the ministers, bring forth the true word of the Gospel, it’s not our word, it’s His: “Whoever listens to you, listens to Me.” Of course, there are differences. I can speak for myself; who knows what comes to mind. Then, of course, this criterion is completely inappropriate. But if it corresponds to the Gospel—and we can always know and sense the degree to which it does—then it is so, because He commands us that through us all things exist. Look, He wants to do something in the world, that is, He is planting the Kingdom of God on earth, but He also says: “I continue to remain and will act.” Yes, He will act, but through us. Through us—therefore, we are all endowed with the authority of God’s servants, Christ’s servants, priests; as the Apostle Peter says: “You are a royal priesthood, a chosen generation.” This means we are all consecrated to God. Then come the functional differences within the Church organism. Jesus told the apostles, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Why “bind and loose”? This is an ancient expression denoting certain statutes or regulations, that is, “You affirm this—then so be it; you deny that—then so be it.” But here the question naturally arises: what if some regulation does not correspond to the Gospel? Then it automatically loses its power, it loses its inner grace, because it is not the word of Christ spoken through a pastor or an archpastor—whoever. It is now only their word. But still, the word must be kept alive through people, because books alone are not enough, because there is—as each of you knows—a special power that is transmitted from soul to soul. A book has its advantages, but it also has its drawbacks, because there are things that cannot be conveyed by words alone. Note that this is why Christ wrote nothing. He didn’t write to prevent the letter from being deified; He didn’t create a strictly regulated church organization, which is why Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants still argue over how to organize the Church.

Catholics believe it should be built as a single organism led by a single pastor; Orthodox believe that each nation should have its own pastor; Protestants go even further—each community can be more or less partisan. But Christ left us no instructions on this—lest we canonize the statutes and lest we cultivate the cult of these statutes, because this is a human matter. Even Holy Scripture was not commanded by Him. In Jesus Christ Super Star, the disciples sing at the beginning, as they sit at the Last Supper: “The time will come, we will write the Gospel…”—that’s a parody! You won’t find a word in Holy Scripture where the Lord says, “Well, now go and write the Gospel, do it.” No! He said, “Go ye and teach,” which didn’t mean writing at all, and, “Do this in remembrance of Me,” meaning celebrate the Eucharist. That’s all! He left no more commandments. “And lest it be among you as among the Gentiles, where the kings lord it over the Gentiles, and ye are not so: but he that is greatest among you shall become as the youngest, and he that rules as he that serveth; and among you let every man be a servant.” Everything else developed as a natural process: we needed the Gospel—through it the Spirit of God worked, and all the other aspects were necessary. But, of course, in the course of history they naturally became infected with the traditions of the elders.

The most dangerous enemy is the traditions of the elders. After all, the Lord rebuked few, but He rebuked the traditions of the elders and the Pharisees. And so the Church is always in a state of Holy Week: it always dies—and rises again. And the entire history of the Church proceeds like this: human principles bury it, hammer nails into its coffin lid, then the coffin bursts open, and it emerges again and again. The Czech Marxist historian Zdeněk Nejedlý said: the revolutionary poison of the Gospel continued to operate throughout the Middle Ages and the modern era. He interpreted this, so to speak, socially, which is, of course, incorrect; it is much broader. Therefore, reformist tendencies in the Church, although sometimes extreme and veering somewhat to the left, were nevertheless always justified, for the words of John Chrysostom remain immutable: “The Church is eternally renewed.” And when we say that we are the Church of tradition, the Church of tradition, this can be misunderstood: that we are a Church that has died, a Church that has stopped and frozen, like a mummy. No. The Church of tradition is a Church that develops the Spirit originally given to it.

As for the issue of Peter as the head of the apostles, this problem pertains to the realm of faith. If Catholics believe that God acts through Peter’s successor, then He does so. This is impossible to prove historically or scientifically. And when, in polemics against the Catholic structure, we begin to advance the idea that such authority did not exist before, then a Protestant can expand on our argument and say that there were no weddings before, for example, no icons. Of course not! So what does that mean, should we abolish this and much more?

The late Patriarch Sergius said that the Church developed along the line from pluralism to unity; At first, the communities were all independent and scattered, then they united, then episcopates and metropolitan sees emerged, then the patriarchate emerged—and this entire movement was undeniably centripetal. Organizationally, the Church was just one step away from becoming a unified state organism. But Divine Providence prevented this. He utilized human sins, the strife between the Latins and Greeks, to preserve pluralism at least at the two poles of the Roman Empire; and two types of piety emerged, and now three. In reality, there are several types of Christianity; there must be at least four, since, according to tradition, there are four types of human character. And we can say, as if parodying it, that Protestants are choleric, Orthodox Christians are phlegmatic, or rather melancholic, and Catholics are sanguine, and so on. I’ve been very crude, but if you dig deeper and look into it, you’ll see that some people, who are considered Orthodox and by all appearances are, are at heart a perfect Baptist, while there are Baptists who are completely Orthodox. Some Jews are such that if you rip off their hat and put on something else, they’d be a truly Orthodox person, a true Orthodox. These are human types.

Then the question arises—we’re back to square one again—why did God entrust this authority? Well, there is no such authority. A.S. Khomyakov’s merit is that he demonstrated (admittedly, with some twists) that there is no external authority in the Church. The downside was that he lost touch with reality, the physical reality of the Church—and that any human union requires a certain discipline, otherwise everyone will be like the swan, the crayfish, and the pike. But we must always remember that this discipline is not divine, but conventional, conditional.

Preserve the structure of the Church as a community. I like one thing, another needs another; one likes iconography, another likes painting—we need to find some way to accommodate each other. But essentially, Khomyakov was right, because in the Church there should be no external authorities, only spiritual ones. We freely accept the authority of the Gospel. Even the authority of Christ is not an external authority. (Berdyaev later tried to express this, developing Khomyakov’s thought.) Yes, it is, of course, an authority for us, an authority in the sense of the highest, it is the bearer of the highest truth—but it is not something that oppresses us, but something we have accepted, freely opening ourselves to this flow. It’s not easy to express, and Khomyakov struggled with it, and Berdyaev later struggled with it, but still, it is Khomyakov’s achievement—the assertion that here the freedom of God’s children remains…

A young man, a teacher from a neighboring village, baptized, came to me recently. He wanted to understand this, he wanted to go to church. Well, of course, he started asking about the Inquisition and other things. I tell him: this is the simplest thing. Because we have a criterion by which we can distinguish the genuine from the imaginary. In Graham Greene’s novel, “The Power and the Glory,” it’s very aptly stated in the conversation between the hero and the lieutenant who is leading him to execution. The hero says: if all your people are bad, then everything is lost, because for you, everything depends on people; we may have bad people, but in reality, everything for us lives by other things. He literally said: “God makes sons of Abraham from stones, and he will always find them.” To make it clear that this is, after all, not a human matter.

And therefore, I am deeply amazed by the reasoning of many Western theologians who speak about the future of Christianity. They reason in the same terminology and in the same psychological atmosphere in which one might speculate about the fate of any organization or party: “How will it be? Will it succeed or not? Will it have a market for its ideas or not? “Yes, things are rather bad…” Absolutely pointless reasoning. Because if these gentlemen were invited back to the times of the apostles—what would be the need there? What social conditions would they have there?! “The rebel is crucified!” (Remember, there is a poem by A.K. Tolstoy, “Against the Tide,” a very good one; they say there: the rebel is crucified—it’s all over, so what, we can now rest in peace.) But it turns out—no, everything came to the surface. And Pope Leo X said the same in the 16th century: this is some kind of monastic squabble…—and got the reformers*. So, judging the Church solely on the basis of sociology is simply a completely short-sighted decision. This is precisely why we talk about its duality, about the divine-human nature. Here we are, members of the Church, its instrument, but what happens to us is, generally speaking, always a miracle… Always a miracle. We are not a club of common interests, although, of course, you and I have much in common in life, character, and aspirations. Nevertheless, there is a certain mystery that will continue to bind us together, because “where two or three are gathered in My name, I am among them”—and this will overcome our weaknesses.

———————————————————————

* This refers to Martin Luther’s conflict with the Catholic Church.

Power is indeed given, but conditionally, for a time—”whoever wants to be great must be a servant…”

As for the idea of ​​a high priest, sociologically speaking, it certainly makes a lot of sense. It is certainly more convenient when church leadership is outside the state, when it enjoys autonomy, when it has a vast global network of theologians, and so on, and therefore is more mobile. But this also carries its own danger, and that’s natural—humanity can always turn this against itself. But we must always see where Christ’s Church is, and where its external aspects are.

Source in Russian: From the collection “World Spiritual Culture,” Conversations on Christ and the Church,

By Fr. Alexander Men

Before discussing good and evil, it’s important to note one interesting detail about the phenomenon of evil, the mystery of evil. When evil encounters a person, it produces completely different effects. We know people who, as a result of experiences, suffering, and crises, have fallen into complete spiritual despondency, atheism, and so on. Conversely, we know just as many, if not more, people who, after going through negative experiences, somehow deepened spiritually.

One day, the young Merezhkovsky, later a great writer, was brought to Dostoevsky by his father. Fyodor Mikhailovich read the boy’s poems and said angrily, “Bad, absolutely bad! One must suffer, suffer!” His father laughed and said, “No, it’s better if he doesn’t write, as long as he doesn’t suffer!” But Dostoevsky was right: people with absolutely serene lives—they lack any profound understanding of others—”the well-fed do not understand the hungry.”

But the experience of crises, the experience of suffering, makes us open to other people. Therefore, the topic of evil is vast, tragic, and painful. And you are mistaken in thinking that it is so well-developed in Christian thought that I will now read a complete outline, and all you have to do is absorb it. This is not a theory or a hypothesis, but it remains a problem for us all, and not so much a problem in the realm of philosophy or theory, but a problem of life.

In the Gospel, Christ never speaks of the origin of evil, its essence and meaning; He speaks only of how we should live in a world where evil reigns, dominates, and exists. This is the “rule of the game” of our world. He thereby demonstrated that the metaphysics of evil, that is, the theory of its origin, is secondary here, and that the most important thing is the person who resists it. One could say more: each of us would like for the highest Creative Love to eradicate and uproot evil from the world in an instant, as if by magic. But we are offered something entirely different, something that corresponds to human dignity. We are offered that we, as part of creation, in which evil exists, participate in the struggle against evil, that nature itself, creation itself, in our person, build a dam against evil.

“What is inherent in man?” you ask.

Everywhere, not only in man, but also in the structure of matter, in the structure of life, in the structure of spiritual, mysterious dimensions, lies goodness—or rather, what we call good. Creation is fundamentally harmonious, and evil is not some independent principle, but rather corruption, a caricature, a perversion.

If a machine malfunctions, is faulty somewhere, then this is a defect in that machine. So, evil in our souls, in society, in nature—it’s a flaw of creation, not some primordial given. Nevertheless, its cause is neither accidental nor superficial, but profound.

If we leave aside the flaws in nature for now, and focus only on what pertains to our lives, we can conclude that this flaw is inherent in our entire species, the entire human race. And it arose primordially, very early on. Modern scientists, psychiatrists, and psychoanalysts, based on completely different considerations, agree with this idea. Comparing the human and animal psyches, they have come to the conclusion that humans are, after all, abnormal creatures, that some balance is disrupted within them.

In animals, all bodily functions, all psychological reactions to the surrounding world, are normal. They express joy, their fear, they seek food, they flee from danger: everything is in its proper place in animals. An animal will never seek pain for some masochistic pleasure, will never experience joy from inflicting pain on another. Sadism is alien to animals. When you see a cat playing with a mouse, don’t think she’s a sadist—it’s something entirely different. For her, it’s like a steak for us, but she’s learning through this game. For her, it’s gymnastics, exercise. She brings the half-strangled mouse to her kitten, and it learns to catch this half-strangled mouse—it’s all part of the patterns of her life, her psyche; it’s all normal, organic.

Humans, however, develop a host of pathological connections, where they may torment not out of any expedient motivation, but simply because they’ve developed a mental anomaly and derive pleasure from another’s suffering. You all know this, each in your own microscopic or larger part.

Let’s say there are people who won’t calm down until they’ve brought a family member to tears. And then suddenly, peace sets in, they’re practically ready to kiss them. What’s going on? False connections are being made—misaligned relationships within the soul that produce this paradoxical, absurd effect. So, scientists have been trying to understand why the most intelligent creature we know on earth, or perhaps even in the universe—at least, as long as we know such a single intelligent creature—why does this creature behave more insanely than any cockroach or any horse? And the conclusion (this is a hypothesis) is this: in their animal stage, man was intimately connected with nature; they were an organic part of nature, just like any other living creature. And so, when the spiritual awakening, when their reason awakened, when their human qualities awakened, they tore them away from nature. He became nature’s stepchild, he became an ugly duckling, he became some kind of incomprehensible creature, alien to nature and yet unable to break away from it, yet connected to it with every fiber of his being. And this state of separation from the natural mother’s womb, according to psychoanalysts, creates such profound inner discomfort, disharmony, and chaos in the human soul. This is where what we call sin in theological terms arises.

There’s much truth to this hypothesis: people in urban civilization, deeply disconnected from nature, are often more harried, more perverted, more exhausted: the absence of nature and the ecological crisis take a very heavy toll on people. You know how strong the pull of people to the bosom of nature is now, and with what tenderness they sometimes write about mushrooms and herbs in various magazines. “Back to nature!” And this didn’t just emerge today…

Just think of all of Russian literature. Where is Aleko striving? He flees the city’s conventions for the wild life of the gypsies. He fails because he drags raging passions with him. Mtsyri also flees to the mountains, where instead of ringing bells, he fights a leopard. All of Tolstoy’s heroes are drawn to nature as a refuge. Recall Prince Andrei’s thoughts about the oak tree… Turgenev wrote a great deal about this. So this phenomenon is not new…

But in fact, this explanation is oversimplified and insufficient. The fact is that if we were talking only about separation from nature, the disturbances would be more related to our physical condition. Meanwhile, modern, civilized, urban man is physically no worse off than the “natural” man of the past. We must discard the old myth that in ancient times there were great heroes, that primitive people were, like in Vasnetsov’s paintings, powerful giants. And in the Middle Ages—look at their knightly armor in museums: it wouldn’t fit any modern young man!

Tall, strong men were an extraordinary rarity. People like Ramses II or Peter the Great were simply mutants. Man was paralyzed by numerous illnesses, aging very early. Do you remember old lady Larina? What kind of old woman was she? She was probably about thirty years old. People very quickly lost their sight, their teeth, and none of this could be restored. And so modern, urban man is quite physically well developed.

It all comes down to his spiritual state. And for us, the answer to ancient biblical wisdom is perfectly clear: man was cut off not only from nature, and not primarily from nature—he was cut off from the very Source of life, from the spiritual Source of life. Disease struck his spiritual being. This is what we call man’s original sin, or the Fall. Man (any of us) lives with this, just as he lives with the gifts of his heredity, just as he lives with his belonging to the human race.

And he fights this within himself, he fights it in the world around him, and he is called to overcome it. Alone, with help from above, but alone! This is the greatness of man, this is his position as the king of nature.

It is not evil that is inherent within us, but infinite potential. And modern man is, in fact, as far removed from God’s true plan for man as some Australopithecus, running across the savannah three million years ago, is from Goethe or Tolstoy. The evolution of man as a biological species has ended. And those of you who have had any contact with biology know this well.

Spiritual evolution has begun. It is painful and difficult, like all evolution. And the saints, the great heroes of the spirit, being spiritual mutants themselves, constitute the spiritual vanguard of humanity. They march ahead, and we follow their example, as if rushing through every opening that opens up on humanity’s path. This cannot happen quickly; it cannot happen through a change in external conditions.

A few words about external conditions. It was terribly tempting to think that the spiritual principle within humanity would be freed from the passions and madness that oppressed it if it were returned to its natural environment. The famous French writer, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who exerted a tremendous influence on Europe, on Indian philosophy, on all of humanity—a man of greater influence than many even realize—believed that it was necessary to return to the original, primordial state, back to nature. And thousands of his followers have spoken of this, and they continue to do so today.

But history shows that changing conditions, even the most favorable ones, do not change a person at all. We find saints and true people in all civilizations, in all countries, in all centuries. And we cannot say that a savage is better than a civilized person. Savages also have their criminals, their scoundrels, and civilized people have their scoundrels and their wonderful representatives of the human race.

This means that spiritual evolution is underway, and all evolution is a struggle—a struggle for existence, but for spiritual existence. And we carry it out within ourselves; we are obliged to carry it out. That is the most important thing. We fight for ourselves. And this is the answer to the question of the interaction of good and evil in the world. Good (we use this term loosely here), good is that which is beautiful, that which creates, that which moves forward, that which fulfills. This is life. Do you understand? And evil is death, that which hinders development, that which distorts, that which leads astray, that which dehumanizes a person, that which makes him no longer human. Evil is sin, it is grotesque.

It is completely impossible to calculate the quantitative ratio of good and evil. There are no such statistics. Because it is not something that can be counted. It is such a living, dynamic whole that no one, even just themselves, can say within themselves, “I am 30 percent good and 70 percent evil.” Even if they did say so, it would be inaccurate and incorrect. And finally, it is completely wrong to think that evil is animalism, and goodness is the rational principle in man. This, of course, is oversimplifying. Of course, reason is truly human. But when we want a drink—that’s the animal speaking within us! So what’s wrong with wanting to eat or sleep? That’s the animal speaking, and there’s nothing evil in that. That is to say, what is organic, biological within us can be sacred, beautiful: beautiful as a tool serving a higher purpose.

Is a motor evil or good? It’s neither! If this engine powers an ambulance, can it be good? If it powers a tank that crushes people, does it become evil? The same applies to our animal nature. It can be used for good or evil. And, of course, the most important thing here is to understand the hierarchy of these concepts.

For every structure to stand firm, there must be a support point, an axis. Every community must have a center. Within a person, there must be a King, a Lord, a Master. This is our Spirit, our Reason.

Concerning the creation of man, the Bible says that God created man to have dominion over the reptiles, over the fish, over all creatures. And Saint Basil the Great poetically comments on these words: within our body, within our nature, all of nature already exists. All the reptiles, all the fish, live within us. Indeed, it’s even a biological fact: look at the evolution of the embryo, and you’ll see that we had tails, gills, and so on. But let man reign, let him reign!

Sometimes churchgoers and believers attack reason. This stems from a misunderstanding. Reason is God’s greatest gift. All the sins and crimes of humanity were committed when reason was asleep, when reason was suppressed. Goya has an etching, “The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters,” and this is entirely true. Take any horrific situation from world history or from your own life. When something vile, shameful has happened to us, when something vile has occurred in society—can we say that reason triumphed at that time? Absolutely not! Madness triumphs, the irrational, the blind, the evil triumphs…

If you’ve seen the film “Ordinary Fascism,” isn’t it clear that reason was asleep at that time, and its sleep gave birth to monsters? There are plenty of such examples, and I won’t cite them all. They are happening even now, all over the world. Madness! That’s the enemy, not reason. So, it’s not an animal, but sin, sin as an evil will, misdirected, a will permeated with evil. That’s how we need to divide things up.

Will—where is it directed? It should be directed toward human perfection, directed toward what we are programmed for—after all, each of us carries a desire for the absolute, for absolute love, deep down inside. But in reality, it doesn’t exist. We settle for crumbs simply because it doesn’t exist. Absolute beauty doesn’t exist. We fish for it everywhere, but we don’t see it. Absolute goodness, absolute truth, doesn’t exist. We want the absolute for everything. And when we don’t get it, we become deeply disappointed and skeptical. But we must seek it and continually climb toward it, never becoming disillusioned, never stopping. Because it is the ladder leading to Heaven. Because the absolute exists. Only here it’s scattered in tiny grains, like grains of gold in sand. Because love and beauty, the truth in the world around us, are planetary light reflected from the Sun. And when a person spiritually penetrates to the core and comprehends the mystery of God, they suddenly see that they have found this very center, the epicenter of this explosion, from which rays emanate, generating these sparks of goodness, beauty, love, and, moreover, generating in us this amazing and strange yearning for Heaven.

This is one of the extraordinary testaments to the presence of God’s power among us: man’s striving for this absolute. After all, everything in nature is arranged quite purposefully: a giraffe, deprived of a voice, has no desire to sing, nor a hippopotamus to fly. Everything stands in its place. But for some reason, only humans possess this desire, which cannot be fully realized in this world. But since it is embedded within us, it is not there by chance. This means that within our invisible yet profound core lies the potential to rise to extraordinary heights. And we know this from the history of mystics, from the spiritual wealth of those who, during their lifetimes, for a moment, or sometimes for a longer period, were able to soar on the wings of the spirit and touch this heavenly Robe.

Therefore, every believer, every Christian, is Antaeus in reverse. Remember the myth of Antaeus? He was always in touch with Mother Earth and gained new strength; when he was lifted from the earth, he weakened. But we must live the opposite: we must constantly touch Heaven. If we don’t touch, we fall. We weaken.

And one more comment: animal manifestation—is it good or bad? Alas, my friends, it is not given to man to return to the animal state. Not given! Man always becomes worse than an animal. It is impossible to become a peaceful beast. A backward movement in evolution, in God’s plan, is not foreseen. And when it appears, it is always a downward movement, and only downward.

Repeated attempts have been made to create some kind of image of a person who stands outside the spiritual, who experiences pleasure simply from nature, the fresh air, the warm sand. Some writers have been captivated by this idea. But it is still a perversion, it is still an ugly fall. And the writer who celebrated such an existence was a rather sad example of moral collapse.

Now the next point. In what forms does evil exist in the world? I would say, perhaps, three or four. The first, elemental form is chaos, all decay, mortification, disintegration. Everything that hinders the perfection of the world, the perfection of life. This is death. In Scripture, death is called the greatest enemy. So it is on the level of nature.

The second evil is on the human level. This is moral evil.

And finally, on the purely spiritual level: what we call demonic evil. Here, a person comes into contact with those mysterious dimensions of existence in which some kind of malfunction, some kind of defect, also occurs. A person immerses themselves in these dimensions and becomes their bearer, infected by them. This is the source of the demonic possession of people—bearers of evil, people for whom evil is their second nature, people poisoned by evil.

Does it exist in human form? Here’s the answer: when people are thoroughly imbued with evil, they truly embody it.

Is it necessary to fight evil all your life? You see, it’s very important dilemma. Creation is happening now. God is at work among us now. God is at work in nature every second, and His creative power constantly opposes the forces of destruction. And we are His allies. Nature, which creates, is also His ally. Life resists death every minute, resists destruction, resists disintegration. Think how it tries to deceive death, how life is cunning: when an organism dies, it still manages to pass the baton through its hereditary code, through its genes, to the next generations, so that the tree of life does not die.

So an organism, be it an amoeba or an antelope, appears, eats, drinks, settles in, and now can no longer struggle. No, it is constantly in a state of overcoming, a constant conflict. And the best proof and testimony is our body. Every heartbeat is a resistance to death. We are constantly resisting. Finally, every effort of the will, moral, is a resistance to spiritual death, that is, to sin. I believe that if we deprive a person of this confrontation, their participation in creation will end. Humans are called to be active. Everyone at their own level, according to their capabilities and abilities, but internally, they must be active.

Let’s imagine a person anywhere, but where their most beautiful human qualities are revealed. A nurse crawling under fire to save a wounded man—she overcomes the fear of death, pity for her loved ones, whom she could orphan, and much more. She must make a colossal inner effort to move forward. A scientist developing something essential for people—he doesn’t sit back and wait for manna to fall. He must constantly strive to overcome his ignorance. This means that struggle isn’t something one-time; it is our breath, our existence, our life.

In Georges Bernanos’s remarkable book, “Notes of a Country Curate” <…> one of the characters, a French priest, tells of his altar server, who suffered from a mania for cleanliness. She scrubbed the church every time until it shone. Men would come and dirty everything; when they left, she scrubbed again. She, poor thing, died because she was constantly washing the floor and became infected by the dampness. She wanted to clean it once and for all. She thought it was possible.

The priest gave this example in connection with a conversation about whether it’s possible to one day win, one day rest on your laurels and never move again. No, constant cleaning, constant work, constant movement. Like the beating of a heart, like the rotation of the planets.

And finally, one last thing. I said nothing about the origin of evil. There are many theories, theological and philosophical, many attempts to understand how it arose in the dark depths, in the depths of the universe unknown to us, how it arose that one of the wills, some wills, some forces—rational, semi-rational, conscious, semi-conscious—directed their flow in opposition to the flow directed by the will of the Creator.

In order to understand this blind, dark will, we must somehow comprehend it. But this is nonsense—it cannot be comprehended. This is where all theories suffer from inadequacy, and therefore they are all rejected in the Bible. There is the Book of Job, which we have already mentioned. There was a man who tried to sue God, demanding that He explain to him why he was suffering. Three friends came to him, and each of them expounded some theological and philosophical theories about the existence of evil. But Job refused to accept this. And God did not answer him, but He appeared to him Himself. And Job understood everything, but understood it on some other level, which he could not express.

Our theories are incapable of encompassing all this. Moreover, if we knew everything clearly, we would be like infallible gamblers. We would be people with guarantees in everything; we would not be required to dare to face the unknown. Imagine a man setting out on a dangerous journey, and some idle but rather perceptive fortune teller tells him precisely where, what, and how will happen, and that everything will end well. Will this man be courageous, will his fortitude manifest on this journey? Of course not! He’ll walk along whistling, because his entire fate is written in his pocket. Meanwhile, the Lord calls us to embrace the Unknown, to embrace it, and to plunge into it, as a man plunges into the sea, and swim.

Only then will we be truly human. That’s why Christianity has such a negative attitude toward fortune-telling; not because it’s impossible to leap over time and see something—there is such a possibility, and experience has proven it. But fortune-telling evokes a lack of trust in God, and if there’s distrust, our entire life goes down the drain.

Imagine that you’ve met someone who calls and invites you somewhere, telling you that they will show you this and that. You love this person, you trust them. But, using the common mantra of “trust, but verify,” you simultaneously inquire about them. Naturally, trust is destroyed, and the relationship is distorted.

In the realm of faith, such double-entry bookkeeping is impossible, just as it is impossible in the realm of truly profound human relationships; that’s why faith demands trust.

The biblical word “faith” comes from the word for “firmness,” “steadfastness,” “faithfulness.” You’ve probably all heard the word “amen.” “Amen” means “exactly so,” “surely.” The biblical word for “faith”—”emuna”—comes from precisely this root. A person trusts God and knows that He will never fail them in the end. And then a powerful feedback loop emerges that nothing can destroy, because compared to this force, all the forces of the world are nothing.

Source: Home Conversation from a conversation with parishioners in Novaya Derevnya (date undetermined), https://damian.center/men/

More than 900 migrants smuggled as international investigation targets senior facilitatorsContent type

A coordinated international operation has dealt a significant blow to two international migrant smuggling networks with close links to Libya and the Western Balkans, leading to the arrest of three High Value Targets in Germany and Serbia.

This follows several years of intensive and extensive investigations led by the German Federal Police under the direction of three Bavarian Public Prosecutors’ Offices. 

The action day, carried out on 5 August 2026, brought together authorities from Germany and Serbia under the framework of an Operational Taskforce coordinated by Europol. Investigators targeted senior members of two interconnected Syrian criminal networks believed to have organised the smuggling of more than 900 migrants into the European Union.

The operation resulted in:

• 3 High Value Targets arrested in Germany (1) and Serbia (2);
• 6 searches in the Saarbrücken area in Germany;
• the seizure of extensive evidence, now under forensic examination.

Smuggling migrants across two of Europe’s busiest routes

The investigations uncovered two Syrian criminal networks operating simultaneously along the Central Mediterranean and Western Balkan migration routes, exposing the irregular migrants to life-threatening conditions throughout the journey while generating substantial illicit profits.

One criminal network with links to a militia operating in Libya allegedly arranged dangerous sea crossings from Libya to the Italian island of Lampedusa aboard overcrowded and unseaworthy boats carrying up to 61 migrants without life jackets or other safety equipment.

Migrants, predominantly Syrian nationals, are believed to have paid between EUR 6 500 and EUR 7 800 per journey before being moved onwards to Germany through secondary smuggling networks. Investigators estimate that this criminal network alone generated at least EUR 875 000 in illicit profits. During the investigation, one of the suspects was also repeatedly found with suspected counterfeit euro banknotes with a value of between EUR 30 000 and EUR 100 000.

A second criminal network operated from Serbia, coordinating the movement of migrants along the Western Balkan route towards Germany and other Western European countries. The network allegedly charged between EUR 2 000 and EUR 10 000 per person to smuggle predominantly Syrian nationals from Serbia via Hungary and from Bosnia and Herzegovina via Croatia into the European Union. From there, migrants were transported in cars, vans and lorries through Austria, Czechia, Poland, or Slovakia before reaching their final destinations. 

Three senior facilitators targeted

The three suspects arrested had all been prioritised as High Value Targets within the Europol-coordinated Operational Taskforce, reflecting their prominent roles in organising large-scale migrant smuggling operations across multiple countries.

The suspect arrested in Saarbrücken, Germany, is a 26-year-old Syrian national, believed to have organised the smuggling of at least 125 migrants in five different facilitation journeys since October 2024. 

The Serbian authorities also arrested in Belgrade two senior members of separate migrant smuggling networks on the basis of international arrest warrants issued by Germany.

One suspect, a 31-year-old Syrian national, is believed to have coordinated at least 17 large-scale smuggling operations involving more than 150 migrants travelling along the Central Balkan route under dangerous conditions between April and November 2022 alone.

The second suspect, aged 32, allegedly played a central logistical role in a network responsible for moving at least 625 migrants through Serbia towards Western Europe between 2023 and 2024. 

Five additional members of this network had already been arrested during coordinated actions in Germany, the Netherlands and Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2025.

European coordination

Europol’s European Centre Against Migrant Smuggling coordinated the Operational Taskforce supporting the investigations by:

• facilitating intelligence exchange between the participating countries;
• providing operational analysis to identify links between investigations;
• supporting the identification of High Value Targets;
• coordinating operational activities during the action day;
• deploying experts to provide real-time analytical and operational support.

Eurojust set up a joint investigation team (JIT) between German and Serbian authorities to coordinate the arrest of one of the suspects residing in Serbia. Through the JIT, judicial authorities shared information and evidence and executed the European Arrest Warrant on behalf of the German authorities.  

The following authorities took part in the action day:

• Germany: German Federal Police (Bundespolizei – BPOLI KB M; BPOLI WAI); Traunstein Public Prosecutor’s Office (Staatsanwaltschaft Traunstein); Landshut Public Prosecutor’s Office (Staatsanwaltschaft Landshut); Weiden in der Oberpfalz Public Prosecutor’s Office (Staatsanwaltschaft Weiden i.d.Opf)
• Serbia: Criminal Investigation Directorate – Service for Combating Organised Crime, (Управа криминалистичке полиције – Служба за борбу против организованог криминала)

Empact

The European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats (EMPACT) tackles the most important threats posed by organised and serious international crime affecting the EU. EMPACT strengthens intelligence, strategic and operational cooperation between national authorities, EU institutions and bodies, and international partners. EMPACT runs in four-year cycles focusing on common EU crime priorities.

Indigenous Peoples’ Day turns attention from recorded injustice to enforceable change across the Nordic north

Europe’s Sámi communities enter this year’s International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples with an unusually direct message for Nordic governments: documenting historical injustice is no longer enough. Truth and reconciliation processes have gathered testimony and acknowledged the lasting effects of assimilation, but their credibility will depend on whether they change decisions about land, public services, language and traditional livelihoods.

Observed on 9 August, the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples marks the anniversary of the first meeting of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations in Geneva in 1982. The 2026 observance highlights Indigenous midwives and their contribution to life, health and community well-being, placing culturally grounded care and Indigenous knowledge at the centre of the global discussion.

For Europe, the day also raises a broader question. Can states recognise Indigenous culture ceremonially while continuing to make consequential decisions without giving Indigenous communities sufficient influence over the outcome?

Truth has been recorded

The Sámi homeland, Sápmi, extends across northern Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. National borders divide communities whose languages, family relationships, migration routes and traditional livelihoods long predate the modern states governing the region.

Norway, Finland and Sweden have each established processes to examine the treatment of Sámi people and other affected communities. These inquiries have documented assimilation policies, discrimination, the weakening of Indigenous languages and interference with cultural practices.

Norway’s commission has completed its work. Finland presented its report in December 2025, while Sweden’s commission is expected to report later in 2026. Together, the processes have heard testimony from hundreds of people whose experiences show that assimilation is not merely a closed historical chapter.

In a joint statement to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in April, the Sámi parliaments in Norway, Sweden and Finland, together with the Saami Council, said the findings reveal continuing effects on language, identity, livelihoods and well-being. They called for adequately funded, long-term mechanisms capable of measuring whether governments implement the recommendations.

That demand defines the next stage of reconciliation. A report can establish an official record and give overdue public recognition to people whose experiences were dismissed. It cannot, by itself, alter a planning decision, fund a Sámi-language service or protect access to traditional land.

Land decisions remain decisive

Across Sápmi, pressure on land comes from energy projects, mining, forestry, transport infrastructure, tourism and climate change. Each development may be presented as serving a national economic or environmental objective. Their cumulative effect, however, can fragment grazing areas, disrupt migration routes and make traditional livelihoods progressively harder to sustain.

This creates a particularly difficult question for Europe’s green transition. Renewable energy and lower emissions are essential, but climate policy loses legitimacy when Indigenous communities are asked to bear disproportionate costs without meaningful participation.

Consultation should begin while alternatives remain possible. A process conducted after locations, permits or investments have effectively been decided may satisfy an administrative timetable without giving the affected community real influence.

Governments also need to assess cumulative pressure rather than treating each project as an isolated proposal. A road, mine or energy installation may appear manageable on its own while becoming damaging when added to existing infrastructure and changing seasonal conditions.

Health, language and dignity

The UN’s focus on Indigenous midwives draws attention to another dimension of self-determination: the right to receive care that is accessible, trusted and culturally appropriate.

Language is central to that right. Patients must be able to describe pain, distress, pregnancy, family circumstances and cultural practices without depending on improvised translation. Health professionals, meanwhile, need an understanding of how discrimination, displacement and the loss of language can affect well-being across generations.

Culturally grounded care is not a request for lower medical standards or separate evidence. It is a demand that public services recognise the people they are intended to serve. The same principle applies in education, mental-health provision, elder care and social security.

Small pilot programmes can demonstrate better approaches, but equal access cannot depend permanently on temporary funding or a limited number of specialists. Sustainable provision requires trained staff, reliable interpretation, community participation and public accountability.

From recognition to shared authority

Europe often treats Indigenous rights as an issue located elsewhere. The experience of the Sámi shows that questions of land, language, participation and cultural survival are also part of Europe’s own democratic record.

As earlier reporting on Indigenous participation has underlined, exclusion from decisions about land and resources is not a procedural inconvenience. It affects self-determination, food security and the ability of communities to maintain their identity.

The Nordic reconciliation processes therefore matter beyond their final reports. They offer a measure of whether states are willing to share decision-making power after acknowledging that power was previously used to suppress Indigenous culture.

Credible follow-up would include published implementation plans, clear deadlines, stable funding and independent monitoring developed with Sámi institutions. Communities should be able to see which recommendations have been accepted, which have been delayed and who is responsible for delivery.

On Indigenous Peoples’ Day, commemoration has value. But the harder work begins after the speeches: protecting land before it is fragmented, providing services in the languages people use, and ensuring that consultation can genuinely change a decision. Reconciliation will be judged not by how carefully Europe records injustice, but by how decisively it prevents that injustice from continuing.

Extreme heat and a rare solar eclipse are putting Europe’s electricity systems under unusual pressure, as lower river levels, reduced power production and a temporary fall in solar generation force grid operators to manage one of the most complex balancing moments of the summer.

Europe’s electricity networks are preparing for an exceptional week, with heatwave conditions already affecting power production and a total solar eclipse on 12 August 2026 expected to temporarily reduce solar output across parts of the continent. Energy authorities do not expect widespread blackouts, but the convergence of extreme weather and an astronomical event is exposing the growing operational demands of Europe’s changing energy system.

The challenge is not only about producing enough electricity. It is about keeping supply and demand balanced hour by hour, at a time when climate stress, renewable energy variability and cross-border electricity flows are becoming central to Europe’s energy security.

Heat cuts into Europe’s power supply

The current heatwave has affected several types of electricity generation at the same time. In France, high temperatures have already forced adjustments at some nuclear plants, where reactors depend on river water for cooling. Rising river temperatures can limit how much water can be used and returned to the environment without harming ecosystems.

Similar pressures have been reported in central and south-eastern Europe. Low water levels on the Danube have affected nuclear generation in the region, including Romania, where low Danube river levels forced temporary shutdowns at Cernavodă. Bulgaria’s Kozloduy nuclear plant has also reported emergency monitoring measures because of record-low Danube levels.

Hydropower is also under pressure. Reservoirs and rivers across parts of Europe have been strained by long dry periods, while electricity demand rises as homes, hospitals, offices and public transport systems depend more heavily on cooling during extreme heat.

The eclipse brings a sharp solar dip

The solar eclipse on 12 August will add a different kind of pressure. According to NASA, the path of totality will cross Greenland, Iceland, northern Russia, the Atlantic Ocean, Spain and a small part of Portugal, while much of Europe will experience a partial eclipse.

For the public, the eclipse will be a rare spectacle. For grid operators, it will be a carefully modelled drop in solar generation followed by a rapid return of power as sunlight comes back. The Financial Times reported that the eclipse could reduce Spain’s solar generation by up to 5 gigawatts, citing the country’s grid operator Red Eléctrica. Spain, France, Italy and the United Kingdom are among the countries where solar output is expected to be closely watched.

The event is predictable, which helps. Unlike a storm, a sudden plant failure or a market shock, the eclipse can be forecast to the minute. Operators can prepare reserve generation, battery storage, imports and demand-response measures in advance. But the speed of the solar decline and recovery still requires close coordination.

Europe’s connected grid is part of the answer

Europe’s electricity system is one of the most interconnected in the world. Countries routinely exchange power across borders, allowing surplus electricity in one region to help cover shortages elsewhere. That cross-border structure is expected to play an important role during the eclipse and the heatwave.

The strength of this system lies in flexibility. When solar output falls, grid managers can draw on other sources, including hydropower where available, gas-fired generation, nuclear power, storage, imports and demand management. When solar output returns, they must avoid oversupply and maintain frequency stability.

This balancing act is becoming more important as Europe expands renewable electricity. Solar and wind power are central to the European energy transition, but they require smarter forecasting, stronger grids and more storage. The issue is not whether renewables can work. It is whether infrastructure, markets and policy can move fast enough to support them reliably.

Climate adaptation reaches the energy sector

The heatwave is a reminder that climate adaptation is no longer only a question of emergency services, agriculture or urban planning. It is also an energy issue.

Nuclear power plants need cooling water. Hydropower depends on rivers and reservoirs. Thermal plants can be restricted by water temperature and availability. Solar output can be interrupted by cloud cover, storms or, in this rare case, an eclipse. At the same time, demand rises sharply during extreme heat, especially in cities where vulnerable people depend on cooling to stay safe.

Europe has made major progress in clean energy deployment, but the coming years will demand more investment in storage, interconnectors, grid upgrades and local resilience. The European Environment Agency has repeatedly warned that climate impacts are already affecting European infrastructure and public health, making adaptation a central part of long-term security.

For readers following The European Times’ reporting on climate and public-interest policy, the pressure on the grid also connects with wider questions of Europe’s climate resilience, social protection and the cost of the energy transition.

A visible eclipse, an invisible operation

If the system works as planned, most Europeans will see only the eclipse. Behind the scenes, grid operators will be managing reserves, forecasts, flows and market signals in real time.

That quiet success would still carry an important message. Europe’s energy future will depend not only on producing cleaner electricity, but on building systems capable of withstanding heat, drought, sudden demand peaks and rapid changes in renewable output.

The eclipse will pass in hours. The deeper challenge will remain: adapting Europe’s power system to a hotter, more volatile and more electrified century.

Sources