Volt Slovensko has won its first-ever seats in the municipal elections, making Slovakia the 11th country with Volt in office.

Four seats. Two women, two men. All in small towns and villages - proof that Volt's ideas work far beyond the capital.

Hey everyone! We're EUobserver, an independent European newsroom.

Our colleague Andrew Rettman has been investigating something quite serious involving former EU justice commissioner Didier Reynders and a senior Belgian intelligence official, Hugues Brulin.

We've obtained WhatsApp exchanges between the two, including messages discussing internal intelligence-service matters and how to respond to a whistleblower raising concerns about Reynders' possible links to Russia.

Five current and former Belgian intelligence officers told us that Brulin had worked to prevent the intelligence service from investigating those allegations.

The messages are now also part of a Belgian police investigation into Reynders over alleged money laundering.

What makes this particularly important is that Reynders previously served as the EU's justice commissioner and had access to highly sensitive information.

How should European institutions respond when serious allegations emerge involving officials who have held positions of such trust?

We've published the messages as part of our investigation, so people can examine the reporting and evidence themselves.

Englisch below:

Europas eigenes Satelliteninternet, zuerst für die Ukraine. Europa sollte ein eigenes, unabhängiges Satellitennetz aufbauen. Die Ukraine sollte Vorrang haben, damit sie ihre Kommunikation im Krieg zuverlässig sichern kann. Warum ist das wichtig? Die Ukraine ist bei wichtigen Kommunikationsverbindungen unter anderem auf Starlink von SpaceX angewiesen. Wenn ein Land von der Infrastruktur eines privaten Unternehmens abhängt, kann das in einer Krise zum Problem werden. Europa sollte deshalb handeln: Unabhängigkeit durch ein eigenes Satellitennetz, Solidarität durch Vorrang für die Ukraine, Zusammenarbeit Schritt für Schritt mit allen europäischen Staaten und zuverlässige Kommunikation auch in Krisen. Europa sollte nicht warten, bis eine wichtige Kommunikationsverbindung ausfällt, sondern heute die Grundlagen für eine unabhängige digitale Zukunft schaffen und der Ukraine helfen, wenn sie am dringendsten Unterstützung braucht. Was denkt ihr darüber? Sollte Europa ein eigenes Satelliteninternet aufbauen und der Ukraine Vorrang geben?

Europe's own satellite internet, Ukraine first. Europe should build its own independent satellite communication network. Ukraine should be given priority access to this network so that it can maintain reliable communications during Russia's war of aggression. Why is this important? Ukraine relies on Starlink, owned by SpaceX, for some of its important communication links. When a country depends on infrastructure controlled by a single private company, this can become a problem during a crisis. Europe should build an independent satellite network and give Ukraine priority access, so its communications remain reliable throughout the conflict. What do you think? Should Europe build its own satellite internet and prioritize Ukraine?

It seems to me that whenever the topic of a European Federation comes up, there is little talk about the actual structure of it and I think this is because everyone assumes that everyone else envisions a federation in the same way as them, but I don’t think that’s an accurate assumption. It seems that there isn’t even much agreement as to what makes a federation different from a supranational union like the modern EU. So, what do each of you picture when you imagine a federation?

How might it come about (via amendments to the EU treaties or via the establishment of a constitution)? What is/are the major difference(s) between the federation and the EU which make(s) you classify it as a federation instead of a supranational union? How would the balance of power differ from the status quo?

Would there be freedom to secede? Would all members be on an equal footing regardless of size or commitment to the federation or would it be a tiered system (I.e. an asymmetric federation like the Russian Federation)?

By Victor Bohman Lind, member of the executive committee of Volt Sweden

It is not enough to simply state that a European federation is needed in theory, writes a representative of the Volt party. When liberal representatives continue to narrow the scope of politics to Swedish domestic affairs, they are playing into the hands of nationalism.

In April, Eric Luth, editor-in-chief of Liberal Debatt, wrote that Europe had reached a point where a European federation must replace the nation states. Luth’s analysis was spot on, but it left the bigger question unanswered: why does mainstream liberalism lack the courage to put this analysis into practice?

Far to the right and left, parties rarely hesitate. Today’s political success stories belong to those movements that set out a clear, uncompromising direction and offer an ideological alternative to the status quo. Voters are rarely persuaded by reactivity and compromise; they seek visions for the future and clear narratives when existing solutions fail to deliver.

The problem is that liberal parties all too often meet nationalism on its own terms. When nationalist movements offer a narrative of national belonging and independence, they respond by defending the status quo: European cooperation is important and Sweden should take responsibility. This is certainly true, but it is no vision. The political centre cannot win by merely managing the status quo and defending current institutional norms whilst nationalism formulates visions for the future.

That is why federalism is needed.

Today’s EU resembles a reverse confederation, where Member States are transferring more and more issues to the European level, but without at the same time providing that level with the tools required to implement decisions effectively enough. Federalism would allow the principle of subsidiarity to function fully by making it just as natural for power to move between the national and European levels as it is between local authority, region and state.

Within the pan-European Volt party, we see from our steady growth that there is a clear demand for an uncompromising European direction. Many are turning to us out of disappointment at the established parties’ lack of vision. But fighting back against nationalism is not a single-party project; it requires a broad political coalition.

Let us therefore do this together. Take these principles back to your parties, put federalism on the agenda – and join us in building the counter-narrative to nationalism that our Europe needs!

This thought just occurred to me while reading another thread, and I'd be curious what my fellow Federalists think about this.

Let's say that member state A has a strong Industry X.

The EF wants to implement market changes that would lead to Industry X in A shrinking by some %, which would lead to a certain amount of layoffs, GDP decrease etc., but would increase the overall well-being of the entire federation.

That should be possible only if the EF at the same time grants A some other benefit of equal value.

Note that I would limit it to only measures that would drop the country below the EF *average*, specifically because if we're all in this EF project in good faith, we all want the entire EF to prosper together and to equalize as much as possible, not just for our member state to pull ahead.

The protests across Europe expose genuine failures: unaffordable living costs, deteriorating public services and governments that people increasingly feel do not represent them.

The anger is justified.

But I believe Russian bot networks and influence operations are deliberately inflaming that anger, encouraging escalation and turning legitimate grievances into burned down government buildings.

These smaller dominoes if not stopped with lead to the collapse of western liberalism.

This is an existential threat to Western liberal democracies. A democracy can survive protests. It can survive unpopular governments. What it cannot indefinitely survive is the collapse of public belief that peaceful political change is possible.

France’s VIGINUM identified 77 information operations associated with the Russian Storm-1516 network.

Investigations have also exposed Kremlin-connected physical provocations designed to manufacture outrage and discredit French authorities. These are organised efforts deployed on a scale that only a nation state could produce.

Moscow doesn’t need to go to war with Europe. It needs us to distrust one another, abandon our institutions and become incapable of acting together. A divided Europe won't defend itself or support Ukraine.

Every failure to deliver gives those operations something real to exploit. You cannot fact-check people out of being unable to afford a decent life.

My fear is that this confrontation continues until European unity breaks or the Putin and his lap dogs loose power. We should not assume it will exhaust itself. Destabilising Europe serves a strategic purpose, and Moscow has no reason to voluntarily abandon it.

Defending democracy is a core responsibility of government. We can no longer afford to not treat these attacks as what they are: organized attacks on your countries by a foreign dictatorship.

Does that mean boots on the ground in Ukraine? I'm afraid that yes. It won't stop otherwise we face Putin head-on

As things stand, I’m worried the forces pulling Europe apart are moving faster than the institutions trying to hold it together.

edit: formating

Interview with Astra Europa conducted by the First Domino. On Astra Europas positions, views on european federalism and goals.