The wise people say, “the last honor the first.” In politics, this can be translated as follows: you say one thing when you are a protest party, and do exactly the opposite when you are a party of power or in the anteroom of it.
The discussion concerns the parties of the supposed “patriotic” right in Europe, which are on a trajectory of rise and strengthening and are ready to assume government responsibilities.
However, assuming power requires credentials: and in Europe of 2025, these are nothing other than positioning on the “right side of history,” that is, against Russia and in favor of NATO and Euro-Atlanticism.
There are many examples: Nigel Farage in Britain, Georgia Meloni in Italy, and Alice Weidel (AfD) in Germany reveal the flip-flops of their leaders in order to become acceptable to the system and to the dominant Brussels elites.
Farage “the Russia-hater”
The most recent example is the leader of Reform UK, Nigel Farage, who in an attempt to appear more royal than the king, crudely attacked Russian President Vladimir Putin while simultaneously supporting the shooting down of Russian aircraft entering NATO airspace and the use of frozen Russian assets to aid Ukraine!
With his party rising in the polls, opponents tried to project the image that he and his party were “soft” on Moscow, reminding the public of an earlier statement of his expressing admiration for the Russian president.
Attempting to harden his line, he said on Thursday (16/10) on his Bloomberg show, “The Mishal Husain Show”:
“It is obvious that Putin is not a reasonable man. The idea that I am lenient on this matter is simply nonsense.” “Obviously, Putin is a very bad guy,” Farage added, and continued: “I really hoped that Trump would bring Putin into submission, that some compromise could be achieved, like the one recently achieved between Gaza and Israel. It is clear that this will not happen.”
More than ten years ago, when asked which world leader he admired, Farage had answered: “As a statesman, but not as a person, I would say Putin. The way he handled the Syria issue. Brilliant. Not that I approve of him politically. How many journalists are now in prison?”
The leader of Reform repeatedly expressed displeasure that this old 2014 statement had been “misrepresented”!
At the same time, when asked what he would do if Russian aircraft crossed the airspace of allies, Farage, in a crescendo of warmongering and Russophobia, answered unequivocally: “We have to shoot them down”!
He also said that frozen Russian assets should be used to provide loans to Ukraine “if they are there illegally.”
He added that, in the event of a ceasefire, he could support the presence of British forces in Ukraine as part of a UN peacekeeping force if he became prime minister.
However, Farage reiterated his view that “the endless eastern expansion of NATO and the European Union” contributed to Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine.
AfD and statements of repentance
Recently, two scandals broke involving members of the parliament of Alternative for Germany (AfD), a party characterized as “pro-Russian” in the West.
The scandals were nearly identical, had almost identical outcomes, and raise the question: is AfD truly pro-Russian?
The first scandal: three members of the Saxony-Anhalt state parliament attended the Russian embassy in Berlin for the birthday celebration of Russian President Putin.
The second scandal: the member of the Hamburg state parliament, Robert Rees, participated in an anti-globalization forum in Saint Petersburg.
Both events are, broadly speaking, insignificant.
It is like in Greece, if parliamentarians appeared in Turkey and the entire national press heralded it as national betrayal. But this is exactly what happens in Germany.
The stories have been disproportionately inflated, if not universally, then certainly across European dimensions, because the “moral character” of AfD parliamentarians is discussed by politicians and media in other EU countries.
However, all of these are minor details, a typical political battle.
The issue could have been ignored by the general public if it weren’t for the reaction of Alternative for Germany itself.
In both cases, Germany’s first opposition party — and first in the polls — chose to denounce its parliamentarians!
In the case of Saxony, this was done in a milder way.
The AfD leadership stated that the presence of their colleagues at the Russian embassy party was their personal matter (!) and that they did not represent the party there, as the party is not involved in such matters, does not wish Putin happy birthday, and does not wish him happiness or health.
In the case of Robert Rees, things became serious: the parliamentarian was immediately expelled from the AfD faction and the next day from the party.
The leadership stated that the Russian event was “anti-democratic” and that participating in it was “incompatible with the values” of the German right!
The man was persecuted to the point that Robert Rees himself began to make excuses, claiming he had ended up at the Saint Petersburg forum by mistake.
It was a classic example: he entered the wrong door by accident and accidentally gave a speech.
In reality, what happened from AfD’s side is a stunning display of weakness from a political force that is currently in first place and should be demonstrating strength.
Its approval rating currently reaches 26% and is steadily increasing.
Approval ratings of governing systemic parties are steadily declining: if elections were held today, the CDU/CSU and Social Democrats (SPD) would not be able to secure a majority between them and form a government.
And with such trends, should they succumb to their opponents, intimidated by a story that is disproportionately inflated? Even though AfD voters genuinely love the ideas of dialogue and normalizing relations with Russia.
There is, however, a simple explanation: AfD will co-govern!
The higher the Alternative’s poll ratings, the greater the likelihood that systemic parties will be forced to include it in a coalition after the next elections.
But to achieve this, Alternative for Germany itself must appear to belong to the system. And in modern Europe, this primarily means being anti-Russian.
Meloni, the master of flip-flops
The most striking and blatant example is Italian Prime Minister Meloni.
During the struggle to rise to power, Meloni’s platform was Eurosceptic and anti-immigration, and she was characterized as pro-Russian simply because she had no interest in “restraining the Kremlin” or supporting Ukraine.
When she became Italy’s prime minister, Meloni transformed and joined the “coalition of the willing,” supplied weapons to Kyiv, met regularly with Zelensky, and dutifully said everything she was supposed to about Russia.
It is true, however, that she lacked passion and initiative: she categorically refused to immediately send Italian troops to Ukraine.
And many others as well…
There are many more such examples.
Jordan Bardella, head of the National Rally, saw the prospect of becoming France’s prime minister in 2024 and supported supplying weapons to Kyiv’s regime.
Of course, Greece would not be an exception to the rule, with Aphrodite Latinopoulou’s Voice of Reason never missing an opportunity to slavishly support the Ukrainians in the European Parliament.
The only exception in Greece is Ilias Kasidiaris, the only political prisoner in modern history, who is clearly pro-Russian and does not sign statements of repentance to become acceptable to the elites.
It therefore appears that certain patriotic parties today want to integrate into the system. Their so-called rebellion against it, supported by the votes of dissatisfied voters, quickly gave way to acceptance of its rules, including European unity in the fight against Russia.
But one of the fundamental frameworks of this Western system is that Russia is the adversary, a threat, and something entirely different.
If a patriotic party is genuine, it should be pro-Russian… all else is flip-flopping and empty talk.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών