Search

Kövesi pleacă. Întrebările rămân. Cine face bilanțul din spatele aplauzelor? Editorial Laura Codruța Kövesi își încheie mandatul la conducerea Parchetului European. Începând cu 1 noiembrie 2026, funcția este preluată de Andrés Ritter. Este încheierea mandatului de șapte ani, nu o destituire, iar acest lucru trebuie spus corect chiar și într-un editorial critic. Dar încheierea mandatului este și momentul în care aplauzele ar trebui să lase locul întrebărilor. Pentru că un procuror cu o asemenea putere nu poate fi evaluat ca o vedetă. Nu după numărul interviurilor, după admirația politicienilor sau după cât de bine sună discursurile despre curaj și independență. Bilanțul trebuie să cuprindă rezultate definitive, bani recuperați și respectarea drepturilor celor anchetați. Nimeni nu are monopol pe dreptate Cea mai toxică idee care poate însoți lupta anticorupție este aceea că procurorul devine, prin simpla funcție, întruchiparea binelui. Din acel moment, orice critică este tratată ca o complicitate, orice întrebare devine o diversiune, iar orice solicitare de răspundere este prezentată drept un atac împotriva justiției. O asemenea logică este inacceptabilă. Procurorii exercită puterea statului. Pot declanșa proceduri care schimbă vieți, afectează reputații și pun presiune asupra unor companii. Tocmai de aceea, trebuie supuși unei examinări exigente. Dosarul penal nu este o condamnare. Conferința de presă nu este o sentință. Iar suspiciunea, oricât de spectaculos ar fi prezentată, nu ține loc de probă. Când aceste diferențe dispar din dezbaterea publică, justiția riscă să devină un tribunal al reputațiilor, în care pedeapsa începe înainte ca judecătorul să se pronunțe. Cine răspunde pentru eșecuri? O evaluare serioasă a perioadei Kövesi trebuie să urmărească fiecare categorie de rezultate: condamări, achitări, clasări, durata procedurilor și motivele pentru care anumite acuzații nu au fost confirmate. O achitare nu dovedește automat un abuz. Dar nici nu poate fi măturată sub covor, mai ales când omul anchetat a purtat ani întregi eticheta publică a vinovăției. Cine îi restituie timpul? Cine îi repară reputația? Cine explică diferența dintre gravitatea acuzației inițiale și ceea ce a putut fi demonstrat în instanță? Aceste întrebări nu apără corupția. Ele apără cetățeanul în fața puterii. Iar cine pretinde că apărarea drepturilor încurcă anticorupția a înțeles profund greșit rostul justiției. Bilanțul european trebuie citit până la capăt Nici activitatea europeană nu poate fi redusă la sloganuri. Afirmația că Parchetul European ar fi anchetat numai firme din România și Bulgaria este contrazisă de propriile comunicări ale instituției. În octombrie 2025, de exemplu, EPPO anunța o anchetă coordonată din München privind o presupusă fraudă de TVA de 48 de milioane de euro, cu peste o sută de percheziții și șapte arestări. Acestea erau măsuri într-o anchetă, nu condamnări. Dar existența unor operațiuni spectaculoase nu închide discuția despre eficiență. Raportul EPPO pentru 2025 prezintă 3.602 investigații active, prejudicii estimate de peste 67 de miliarde de euro și 275 de acte de trimitere în judecată. Același raport distinge între ordinele de indisponibilizare, de 1,13 miliarde de euro, și activele efectiv indisponibilizate în cursul anului, de 288,93 milioane de euro. Sunt indicatori diferiți. Prejudiciul estimat nu este prejudiciu confirmat definitiv. Bunurile indisponibilizate nu sunt automat bani recuperați. Trimiterea în judecată nu este condamnare. Cine prezintă aceste cifre publicului are obligația să explice diferențele. Altfel, miliardele din comunicate riscă să devină decorul unei povești de succes pe care cetățeanul nu o poate verifica până la capăt. Anticorupția nu este proprietatea unui om Susținătorii Laurei Codruța Kövesi au dreptul să îi apere activitatea. Nu au însă dreptul să transforme admirația într-o scutire de răspundere publică. Nici sprijinul politic, nici prestigiul internațional și nici imaginea de simbol nu pot înlocui examinarea critică a unui mandat. O instituție matură trebuie să poată vorbi despre propriile greșeli cu aceeași claritate cu care vorbește despre suspecții săi. Moștenirea unui procuror nu se măsoară în câtă teamă a produs și nici în cât de zgomotos a fost aplaudat. Se măsoară în ceea ce a demonstrat legal, în prejudiciile recuperate și în capacitatea de a exercita puterea fără să strivească drepturile cetățenilor. Kövesi își încheie mandatul. Cultul personalității poate continua în cercurile admiratorilor. Publicul are însă dreptul la ceva mult mai serios: un bilanț complet, verificabil, în care reușitele să nu ascundă eșecurile, iar întrebările incomode să primească răspunsuri. Cine a cerut răspundere tuturor trebuie să accepte aceeași exigență pentru propriul mandat. Fără piedestal. Fără imunitate la critică. Fără aplauze folosite în loc de explicații. (translated)

A heated clash between Savino Balzano and Fabio Dragoni on Battitori liberi on Radio Cusano, in which Balzano compares the Israelis' choice to re-vote for Netanyahu to the possibility that the Germans might have voted for Hitler in 1945, while Dragoni defends the logic of the Israeli electorate in a wartime context. #Israele #Netanyahu #Elezioni (translated)

Renate Holzeisen argued that the World Health Organization was heavily influenced by Bill Gates, who, after the United States' exit from the WHO, would have been, through his foundation, along with GAVI, the main financier of the organization. She described GAVI as a powerful lobbying organization for the vaccine industry. According to Holzeisen, the WHO's European Immunization Agenda 2030 aimed to promote support for vaccination campaigns among healthcare personnel and politicians, also by identifying or creating "champions" and "heroes" of immunization. She also criticized the proposal to use result-based incentives to motivate healthcare workers to promote immunization, labeling these measures as illegitimate forms of corruption. Referring to statements made by representatives of Italian politics and institutions, which she deemed illogical and lacking scientific and legal ethics, Holzeisen asked what the advantage was for politicians chosen as "champions of immunization" by Gates and his allies. #Vaccini #Immunizzazione #OMS (translated)

The author stated that the price of land played a decisive role in the formation of house prices and argued that public land could increase the supply of affordable housing, outside the speculative logic of the market. He added that Moedas, PSD, CDS, IL, and Chega wanted to sell 10 plots of land which, according to him, would allow for the construction of around 500 houses. #habitação #preços #terrenos #PT (translated)

The author wrote that the Vucic era in Serbia might be nearing its end, creating an opportunity to reconsider the country’s international orientation. They said a European path was the logical choice, but would bring concrete benefits only if pursued in earnest, adding that remaining undecided was no longer viable. #Srbija #Evropa #Politika #RS #EU

The article reflects on the popular uprisings in France, highlighting that they have their own logic and that the response of President Emmanuel Macron to the student and social protests has increased tension and conflict, in a context of growing debt and economic crisis. #RevoluciónFrancesa #MovilizaciónPopular #HistoriaDesdeAbajo (translated)

The author wrote that the government was already distributing resources to truckers and the fishing industry. He urged not to succumb to what he described as the logic of extortion by a clan leader, accused of wanting to limit the freedom of the productive world and final consumers. #Governo #Autotrasportatori #Pesca #IT (translated)

The author argued that anti-system leftist groups and Islamists sought to weaken liberal democracy and that, despite their different ideologies, they acted as allies against the democratic state. He wrote that the Marxist left viewed it as a bourgeois state, while the Islamists saw the West as wicked. https://t.co/tLpSHPBUWa #Democracia #Izquierda #Islamismo #ES #US (translated)

Marmitta criticized Paolo Maldini, claiming that from his million-euro house he had invited young people to remain silent and endure, citing Sergio Marchionne. He stated that Maldini would have opposed protests against the cost of living, low wages, and rents, and sarcastically referred to him as a "man of the people." https://t.co/km63mno0xS #Maldini #Stipendi #Protesta (translated)

Heather Parisi criticized a BBC interview with Defense Minister Guido Crosetto, who described himself as the former president of the federation of Italian arms manufacturers. She also referred to the BBC as the broadcaster of the most warmongering country in Europe. Parisi recalled Crosetto's statement that one could not follow public opinion when, in his opinion, it was wrong. She argued that the government had thus admitted to knowing that the majority of Italians opposed aid to Ukraine, but still wanted to proceed. She summarized the position as a choice in which citizens voted and paid, while the government decided and provided weapons. She deemed it cynical that those words were spoken by a former president of the arms manufacturers' federation and stated that the government had shown it did not consider citizens' objections. #Ucraina #Guerrafondismo #Politica (translated)

Javier Milei criticized the journalists who questioned his response to the claim that people run out of money on the 20th of the month. He said they had repeated a phrase he considered nonsensical and accused them of resorting to fallacies, such as appealing to what pollsters say or responding with personal mockery. Milei asked them to explain how a person could go ten days without eating or drinking. Regarding the argument about the use of credit cards, he suggested that one should consider what happens the following month and said that would help understand the intertemporal logic of credit. He also claimed that he had refuted the arguments about delinquency several times. He maintained that it was necessary to understand the changes in credit, low amount loans with high rates, and the dynamics following a political shock that halted credit. Additionally, he disqualified the intellectual capacity of the journalists and recommended they listen to his explanations until they understood them. #Economía #Finanzas #Periodismo (translated)

João Maria Jonet questioned the political logic of dispersing peaceful demonstrations with the police during the night, stating that his doubt was not legal. He asked who benefited from this action, how it could be justified, and what impact it would have on people's rights. #DireitosHumanos #LiberdadeDeExpressão #ProtestoPúblico (translated)

Simón Levy argued that those claiming that the governor of Chihuahua, Maru Campos, had betrayed her prosecutor, César Jáuregui, overlooked the political and legal risk. According to Levy, if Jáuregui accused her of having ordered the operation involving CIA agents, Campos would be directly exposed, making it nonsensical for her to have sacrificed him. Levy suggested that Jáuregui would have betrayed Campos and the United States, and asserted that, according to his interpretation, it was the United States—not the prosecutor—who protected the governor from Sheinbaum. He added that Campos would be facing the consequences of Jáuregui's alleged betrayal. #PolíticaMéxicana #Chihuahua #MaruCampos (translated)

**Putin wants Trump and Xi to help him divide Ukraine.** **Putin proposes a summit with Trump and Xi to discuss an agreement on Ukraine** *Zelensky would not be included in the proposed negotiations, as the Russian leader seeks to negotiate an end to the war on terms favorable to Moscow.* The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, proposed that he, President Trump, and Chinese leader Xi Jinping meet next month to talk about Ukraine, in an attempt to negotiate an end to the four-year conflict on terms favorable to Moscow, according to people familiar with the discussions. The plan represents Putin's effort to capitalize on the rapprochement between Trump and the Russian leader, which has alarmed Ukraine and its allies in Washington and Europe. A summit of this kind — without the participation of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — would be unprecedented and trigger alarms in European capitals and elsewhere. ## What's at stake The proposal would reportedly take place on the sidelines of the APEC summit in Shenzhen, China, on November 18–19. Putin is said to have floated the idea in a phone call with Trump on October 9; Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that talks about a possible meeting are underway, but without an agenda or agreement defined. The central point is not just "ending the war": it's **who decides the future of Ukraine**. Excluding Zelensky — and, implicitly, the European Union — would transform peace into an agreement among powers over territory, security, and spheres of influence, rather than negotiations with the invaded country. ## Critique of Putin Putin is trying to convert the invasion into a negotiation of great powers. By proposing a sort of "new Yalta," he seeks three gains: to legitimize Russia's territorial gains, to divide Western allies, and to present Russia as an equal partner to the U.S. and China. His logic is cynical: a country that launched an aggressive war wants the victims and European neighbors to be mere objects of decision. Any "peace" shaped without Kyiv will have little legitimacy and low chances of lasting because Ukraine will continue to have the capacity and will to resist. ## Critique of Trump Trump may not have accepted the summit yet, but his reluctance to immediately refuse is dangerous. By leaving the door open for a meeting without Zelensky, he risks validating Putin's premise: that Ukraine's fate can be resolved by Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. There is also a serious contradiction: Trump presents himself as the man capable of "ending the war," but a hasty peace that rewards aggression would not be peace — it would be a pause that encourages the next invasion. And the report of a potential agreement on Russian diesel, arising in the same conversation, reinforces the perception that economic and personal interests may weigh more than European security. ## Critique of Xi Xi stands to gain a lot by accepting to host or mediate: it places China at the center of the reorganization of European security without bearing the cost of war. However, his neutrality is fictitious; Beijing maintained close economic and political ties with Moscow during the invasion and has an interest in weakening American influence in Europe. If Xi participates in a format that excludes Ukraine, he will cease to be a mediator and become a co-author of a geopolitical arrangement. This would be especially serious for Central and Eastern European countries, which view the defense of Ukraine as a matter of principle and their own security. ## The decisive test A conference can only be legitimate if it includes Ukraine as a participant with full veto rights and involves the European partners who finance and support its defense. Without this, it is not diplomacy: it is an attempt to **divide influence at the expense of a sovereign country**. https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/putin-floats-a-summit-with-trump-and-xi-to-de (translated)

Pascal stated that Jáuregui was detained for being the head of the state prosecutor's office when the operation occurred in the Sierra de Chihuahua, not because it was established that he had invited CIA agents. He added that, in his opinion, the same criterion was not applied to Garduño for the fire at the migration station. #Justicia #Chihuahua #Migración (translated)

Dawisson Belém Lopes wrote that research results could appear as 50/50 on PoderData or 52/48 on Nexus, but they would be statistically equivalent. Therefore, he stated, it was important to observe the trend: Nexus would be closer to the average, while PoderData would be going in the opposite direction. #Pesquisas #Estatística #Tendências (translated)