When Russia sent Georgy Avaliani to fight in Ukraine, he did exactly what German leaders proposed: He ran. A pacifist who fled the front after being forcibly conscripted, he says he survived beatings and mock executions in a “torture basement” before escaping Russia altogether. Last week, Germany told him it would be safe to go back. In a letter, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) rejected the 47-year-old’s asylum application, concluding he was unlikely to face persecution if he returned to Russia — a decision that has alarmed networks helping Russian soldiers flee the war. Advocates for deserters say the ruling reinforces Russian President Vladimir Putin’s message that there is no safe exit for those who flee the front, as European governments harden asylum policies and as peace talks between Russia and Ukraine have stalled. “Even if I could escape death, I’d get sent to the front or face a 15-year prison sentence,” said Avaliani, who is planning to appeal the decision.  The rejection comes at a sensitive time for Russians seeking to rebuild new lives abroad.  The United States last summer began deporting asylum seekers back to Russia, with the latest planeload landing just last week. And in November the EU tightened its visa rules for Russian citizens. “European politicians say that Russians need to fight Putin, that they need to resist,” said Alexei Alshansky, a former sergeant-major turned analyst at A Farewell to Arms, a group that assists Russian deserters.  “At the same time, people who have actually refused to fight for Putin and have gone through a very difficult journey are not receiving any help from those same countries,” he added.  FLEEING THE WAR Avaliani was among tens of thousands of Russians who were served call-up papers in September 2022 as part of Putin’s “partial mobilization” drive. A construction engineer and father of three, Avaliani said he had made it clear from the outset that he wouldn’t fight. “This is not my war. I’m a pacifist,” he told POLITICO. But his appeals for an exemption on health and family grounds were rejected. Tens of thousands of Russians were served call-up papers in 2022. | Alexander Nemenov/AFP via Getty Images “It’s useless to try to fight the system,” he said. “If it wants to devour you, it will devour you. So I decided I had to act.” Within weeks of arriving at the front in eastern Ukraine, Avaliani fled — only to be captured and taken to what he describes as a “torture basement” in Russian-occupied Luhansk. There, he says, he was beaten and subjected to mock executions. The conditions, he said, were “inhumane.”  Returned to the front, he escaped again and was captured a second time. Finally, on his third try, he crossed into Belarus and from there traveled to Uzbekistan. While Avaliani lived in hiding abroad, he said, police visited his home and questioned his wife. In 2025 he and his family were reunited and applied for political asylum in Germany. CHANGE OF TUNE The decision to return Avaliani marks a stark reversal from Germany’s stance at the start of Russia’s full-on invasion of Ukraine. In September 2022, Marco Buschmann, then Germany’s justice minister, hailed the exodus of Russians of fighting age, saying on X that “anyone who hates Putin’s policies and loves liberal democracy is very welcome here in Germany.” The interior minister at the time, Nancy Faeser, echoed that sentiment, telling the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung newspaper that “anyone who courageously opposes President Vladimir Putin’s regime and therefore puts themselves in grave danger can apply for asylum in Germany on grounds of political persecution.”  In 2022 and 2023 about one in 10 Russian men of military age who reached Germany received some form of legal protection from the country. In 2024 and 2025 that number dropped sharply to around 4 percent.  The change coincided with a shift in the political climate. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government, which took office last May, has led a crackdown on migration, hoping to lure voters away from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) — now the largest opposition party in Germany’s Bundestag. The rejection letter that Avaliani received, seen by POLITICO, stated he was unlikely to face persecution in Russia beyond a fine. Russia, it added, is no longer actively mobilizing men. Friedrich Merz’s government has led a crackdown on migration. | Nadja Wohlleben/Getty Images When it comes to defectors like Avaliani, the letter concludes, there is no “considerable likelihood of concrete and sustained interest in them on the part of the Russian state or other actors.”  CARBON COPY Rights activists argue that the assessment of the German authorities denies what is going on in Russia. Many who were mobilized and sent to the front in 2022 have yet to come home. Russia continues to recruit some 30,000 soldiers monthly.  The letter to Avaliani reads like a carbon copy of rejections sent to other defectors, said Artyom Klyga, a lawyer with Connection, an organization that helps conscientious objectors.  “It’s like they [the authorities] use a single Word document, a template that they slightly adapt,” Klyga said.  He argued that German authorities fail to distinguish between draft dodgers — men who fled the country to avoid being mobilized — and defectors like Avaliani, who were actually served call-up papers.   For them, the risk of returning to Russia is not a fine but jail time or a forced return to the front.  Asked for a reaction, Germany’s BAMF migration office said it couldn’t comment on individual cases but noted that every asylum application “involves an examination of each individual case, in which every refugee story presented is carefully reviewed.” The agency added that protection is only granted to applicants with a well-founded fear of persecution. BURDEN OF PROOF In practice, some argue, applicants like Avaliani face an impossible burden of proof.  “Ultimately, [the German authorities] try to talk their way out of [granting asylum] with statistics,” said Peter von Auer, a legal expert at German refugee advocacy organization Pro Asyl.  “They argue that it is statistically unlikely that what asylum seekers suspect or fear will happen, will befall them.” Out of 8,201 Russian men of military age who have applied for asylum in Germany since 2022, just 416 — about 5 percent — were granted some form of protection, such as being given asylum status, according to figures provided by the government in response to a parliamentary question. Deserters presumably comprise a small minority of those cases, given the significant barriers faced by those who have already been drafted to make their way out of Russia and then on to Europe. Alshansky, the A Farewell to Arms co-founder, argued that deporting people like Avaliani undercuts Europe’s promise to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia. The asylum rejection “helps Putin to maintain the idea that it’s useless to run.” In fact, he said, the calculus is simple: “The more deserters there are, the easier it will be to defend Ukraine.”

Thousands of Poles who believed they were long divorced are discovering an unsettling possibility: They may still be legally married. The confusion is an unexpected upshot of Poland’s years-long battle over a politicized judiciary spilling into everyday life, as Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s centrist government tries to undo reforms of the legal system imposed by its nationalist predecessors. The problem surfaced in January in the northeastern town of Giżycko, where a divorced couple went to court expecting routine paperwork to divide their assets. Instead, they were told that in the eyes of the state, they had never been divorced at all. The case boils down to moves by Tusk’s pro-EU administration to reject decisions by some judges appointed under the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) administration that led Poland’s government from 2015 to 2023. The Giżycko judge ruled that the couple’s original divorce judgment was legally “non-existent” because it had been signed off by one of the “neo-judges” appointed under reforms designed by previous Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro. EU courts later ruled that Ziobro’s overhaul had undermined judicial independence, leaving Tusk’s government grappling with how to dismantle the system without undermining legal certainty. It’s unclear how many similar rulings may exist across Poland, but the scale is vast. The country records around 57,000 divorces a year, and tens of thousands of routine cases, including divorces, may have been decided by judges appointed under the disputed system. Kinga Skawińska-Pożyczka, a lawyer at Warsaw-based firm Dubois i Wspólnicy, said the decision was flawed and should be overturned on appeal, arguing that a court handling a property dispute should not have questioned the validity of a final divorce ruling. “The Giżycko ruling should be treated as an exception, not a rule,” she said. But others warned that even isolated rulings can have wider consequences. “A system that starts mass-questioning its own rulings stops being a system,” said Bartosz Stasik, a Wrocław-based lawyer. “Nobody wants to be the one to tell thousands of people their divorces, inheritances or verdicts don’t exist — but every avalanche starts with a single stone.” POLITICAL CLASH At the center of the dispute is the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), a body that nominates judges. In 2017 Ziobro’s Law and Justice government rewrote the rules so that parliament, not judges, chose most of its members.  By the time EU courts weighed in, hundreds of judges had already been appointed or promoted under the new system, including those handling everyday cases like mortgages, inheritance and divorces. Tusk’s government has been trying to limit the fallout from disputes over neo-judges. One proposal making its way through parliament would allow childless couples to divorce administratively at civil registry offices, bypassing the courts altogether. Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek called the Giżycko ruling “very disturbing,” warning that the crisis around neo-judges has entered “the most sensitive areas of citizens’ lives — family matters, finances and basic legal certainty.” He blamed the situation on Ziobro’s reforms. Żurek also pointed to President Karol Nawrocki, a PiS ally, whose repeated veto threats have stalled government legislation aimed at repairing the rule of law. Citizens, he said, “cannot be made to pay the price for political decisions they had no influence over.” Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek called the Giżycko ruling “very disturbing,” warning that the crisis around neo-judges has entered “the most sensitive areas of citizens’ lives — family matters, finances and basic legal certainty.” | Leszek Szymanski/EPA PiS lawmakers and their allies have seized on the ruling as evidence of institutional collapse under Tusk. From Budapest, where he has received political asylum, Ziobro said the ruling showed the government was willing to unleash “real chaos and anarchy” to undermine his reforms, even if it meant destroying ordinary people’s lives. During a heated parliamentary debate, PiS lawmakers branded the government’s proposal for out-of-court divorces an “attack on marriage,” while conservative legal groups and right-wing media also accused the government of admitting the justice system no longer works. With parliamentary elections due next year, PiS have clearly spotted what they think is an effective line of attack. That means the fight over the court system is fast becoming a political gamble over whom voters blame for the chaos — the original authors of the PiS-era reforms, or those trying to undo them. While Tusk’s Civic Coalition still leads in polls, support for its coalition partners has been sliding, raising the prospect he could lose power even if his party finishes first.

The center-right European People’s Party is eyeing “better implementation” of the Lisbon Treaty to better prepare the EU for what it sees as historic shifts in the global balance of power involving the U.S., China and Russia, EPP leader Manfred Weber said on Saturday. Speaking at a press conference on the second day of an EPP Leaders Retreat in Zagreb, Weber highlighted the possibility of broadening the use of qualified majority voting in EU decision-making and developing a practical plan for military response if a member state is attacked. Currently EU leaders can use qualified majority voting on most legislative proposals, from energy and climate issues to research and innovation. But common foreign and security policy, EU finances and membership issues, among other areas, need a unified majority. This means that on issues such as sanctions against Russia, one country can block agreement, as happened last summer when Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico vetoed a package of EU measures against Moscow — a veto that was eventually lifted. Such power in one country’s hands is something that the EPP would like to change.  As for military solidarity, Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty obliges countries to provide “aid and assistance by all the means in their power” if an EU country is attacked. For Weber, the formulation under European law is stronger than NATO’s Article 5 collective defense commitment. However, he stressed that the EU still lacks a clear operational plan for how the clause would work in practice. Article 42.7 was previously used when France requested that other EU countries make additional contributions to the fight against terrorism, following the Paris terrorist attacks in November 2015.  Such ideas were presented as the party with a biggest grouping in the European Parliament — and therefore the power to shape EU political priorities — presented its strategic focus for 2026, with competitiveness as its main priority.  Keeping the pulse on what matters in 2026  The EPP wants to unleash the bloc’s competitiveness through further cutting red tape, “completing” the EU single market, diversifying supply chains, protecting economic independence and security and promoting innovation including in AI, chips and biotech, among other actions, according to its list 2026 priorities unveiled on Saturday. On defense, the EPP is pushing for a “360-degree” security approach to safeguard Europe against growing geopolitical threats, “addressing state and non-state threats from all directions,” according to the document. The EPP is calling for enhanced European defense capabilities, including a stronger defense market, joint procurement of military equipment, and new strategic initiatives to boost readiness. The party also stressed the need for better protection against cyberattacks and hybrid threats, and robust measures to counter disinformation campaigns targeting EU institutions and societies. On migration and border security, the EPP backs tougher asylum admissibility rules, faster returns, and strengthened external borders, including reinforced Frontex operations and improved digital systems like the Entry/Exit System.  The party also urged a Demographic Strategy for Europe amid the continent’s shrinking and aging population. The text, initiated by Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), member of the EPP, wants to see demographic considerations integrated into EU economic governance, cohesion funds, and policymaking, while boosting family support, intergenerational solidarity, labor participation, skills development, mobility and managed immigration.  Demographic change is “the most important issue, which is not really intensively discussed in the public discourse,” Weber said. “That’s why we want to highlight this, we want to underline the importance.” 

Zbigniew Ziobro spent eight years reshaping Poland’s legal system. Now, speaking from political asylum in Hungary, the former justice minister says the same system is being turned against him, and that he can only fight it from abroad. Ziobro, once one of the most powerful figures in Polish politics, ran the justice system under the nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) government from 2015 to 2023. He is now under investigation over the alleged misuse of public funds and the deployment of Pegasus spyware against political opponents — cases pursued by prosecutors under Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s centrist government. “My presence here isn’t an escape of any kind — it’s a form of fighting back,” Ziobro told POLITICO by telephone from Budapest, after Viktor Orbán’s government granted him asylum earlier this month. “Because here I can fight. There, I’d be stripped of any ability to do so.” Prosecutors say investigations linked to Ziobro are part of an effort to unwind decisions taken during his tenure, when sweeping judicial reforms gave ministers broad influence over prosecutors and disciplinary control over judges. Those changes put Poland on a prolonged collision course with Brussels and were later condemned by EU courts. Ziobro rejected those allegations and cast himself as a victim of political revenge. “I wanted to reform Poland’s judiciary — and that was never accepted, including by the EU,” he said. “They had the right to criticize me politically. They did not have the right to falsely accuse me of theft.” He accused prosecutors of using pre-trial detention as a political weapon against figures linked to his former ministry. As an example, Ziobro pointed to the case of two of his former aides and that of Michał Olszewski, a Catholic priest accused of misusing funds from a justice ministry program for crime victims. Olszewski spent months in pre-trial detention, and Poland’s ombudsman later cited instances of improper treatment. Hungary’s decision to grant Ziobro asylum has pushed the dispute beyond Poland’s borders, infuriating Warsaw and raising questions about the EU’s ability to enforce cooperation between member states. Poland’s justice minister, Waldemar Żurek, called the move a “dangerous precedent,” warning it could allow governments to shield political allies from accountability at home. From exile, Ziobro has broadened his attack. He accused the European Commission and its president, Ursula von der Leyen, of hypocrisy for condemning alleged rule-of-law abuses under PiS while tolerating what he called “lawlessness” under the current government in Warsaw. Polish officials reject that. Deputy Foreign Minister Ignacy Niemczycki on Monday pointed to assessments by international organizations showing that rule-of-law standards deteriorated under PiS and have improved since the change of government. “Given Poland’s political situation, not everything we would like to do is possible,” Niemczycki said, responding to a question from POLITICO in Brussels. “But what happens in practice matters far more. And speaking frankly, if Ziobro has fled to Hungary, then what exactly are we debating?” A DIVIDED RECEPTION AT HOME Ziobro’s safe haven in Budapest may not last. Hungary is heading toward a parliamentary election in April, with pro-EU opposition challenger Péter Magyar leading in polls. Asked whether a change of government could jeopardize his asylum status, Ziobro brushed off the question and instead mounted a vigorous defense of Orbán. “Hungarians will choose Orbán,” Ziobro said. “They know that in an unstable world, experience and the ability to protect the country’s security matter.” He rejected claims that Orbán’s ties to Russia reflected an ideological sympathy. Instead, Ziobro argued that Hungary’s reliance on Russian gas left it little room to maneuver. Back in Poland, Ziobro’s asylum has divided opinion. Polls suggest a majority of PiS voters see Ziobro’s stay in Hungary as a liability for the party. President Karol Nawrocki, a PiS ally, has offered only a cautious backing, warning that not everyone in Poland can count on a fair trial. Pro-PiS broadcaster Telewizja Republika has amplified Ziobro’s narrative of a witch-hunt, producing near-constant television coverage on police searches, detentions and court proceedings involving the former minister’s allies. From Budapest, Ziobro said he is writing a book about what he called “Europe’s hypocrisy and Tusk’s dictatorship,” as Polish tabloids chronicle his new life strolling about the Hungarian capital. He insisted his exile is temporary and said he plans to return to Polish politics, staging a comeback ahead of the 2027 parliamentary election. “I am convinced Tusk’s government will fall,” he said. “It will end in failure and he will have to answer for what he has done.”

The leaders of three Dutch political parties said Tuesday they had agreed in principle to form a minority coalition government after months of negotiations.   The centrist D66 party, which took first place in last October’s election, the center-right Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) and the liberal People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) will join forces in a coalition that will only hold 66 seats in the Netherlands’ lower house of parliament, 10 seats short of a majority. Minority governments are rare in the Netherlands. D66’s leader, 38-year-old Rob Jetten, will be the youngest Dutch prime minister in history. He appeared alongside CDA and VVD’s leaders Tuesday night and said the three “still have a few final details” to iron out before their coalition agreement is formally presented Friday, but sounded an optimistic note.   “We’re really looking forward to getting started,” said Jetten. He added the new government’s priorities would be affordable housing, controlling migration and investing in defense. The Cabinet could be sworn in by the Dutch king by the end of February.  VVD’s leader, Dilan Yeşilgöz, who has previously served as a justice minister, said she hadn’t decided whether she will take a post in the new government.  October’s election saw D66 surge to victory, narrowly overtaking Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom (PVV), which previously was the largest party in a coalition government marked by infighting. That coalition eventually collapsed after a dispute over asylum policy saw Wilders withdraw his party’s support. 

BERLIN — As Europe’s traditional Franco-German engine splutters, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is increasingly looking to team up with hard-right Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni as his co-pilot in steering the EU. The two are set to meet at a summit in the opulent Villa Doria Pamphilj in Rome on Friday to double down on their budding alliance. They are both right-wing Atlanticists who want to cool tensions with U.S. President Donald Trump. And they both have their frustrations with French President Emmanuel Macron. In years past, Germany would traditionally have turned to France at decisive moments to map out blueprints for the EU, so it’s significant that Merz is now aligning with Meloni in his attempt to drive forward core European priorities on trade and industry. In part, Merz’s gravitation toward Meloni is driven by annoyance with France. Berlin is irritated that Paris sought to undermine the landmark Mercosur trade deal with South America, which the Germans have long wanted in order to promote industrial exports. Germany is also considering pulling out of a €100 billion joint fighter-jet program over disputes with the French. Against that backdrop, the alignment with Rome has a compelling logic. During Friday’s meeting, Merz and Meloni are expected to sign up to cooperation on defense, according to diplomats involved in the preparations. It’s not clear what that involves, but Germany’s Rheinmetall and Italy’s Leonardo already have a joint venture to build tanks and other military vehicles. Perhaps most ambitiously, Italy and Germany are also teaming up to draft a new game plan to revive EU industry and expand exports in a joint position paper for the Feb. 12 European Council summit. Berlin and Rome style themselves as the “two main industrial European nations” and have condemned delays to the Mercosur agreement. That language will grate in Paris. IN FOR THE LONG HAUL For Giangiacomo Calovini, a lawmaker from Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party, who heads the parliament’s Italian-German friendship group, the Merz-Meloni alliance makes sense given Macron’s impending departure from the European stage after next year’s French election. “[Our] two countries have stable governments, especially if compared with France’s,” he said. “It is clear that Meloni and Merz still probably have a long path ahead of them, during which they can work together.” Safeguarding the relationship with Trump is crucial to both leaders, and both Merz and Meloni have sought to avoid transatlantic blow-ups. They have been supported in their firefighting by their foreign ministers, Johann Wadephul and Antonio Tajani. “Giorgia Meloni and Friedrich Merz have represented the European wing most open to dialogue with President Trump,” said Pietro Benassi, former Italian ambassador to Berlin and the EU. “The somewhat surreal acceleration [of events] driven by the American president is confirming a convergence in the positions of Italy and Germany, rather than between Italy and France, or France and Germany.” In contrast to the softly-softly approach in Rome and Berlin, Calovini accused Macron of unhelpfully “contradictory” behavior toward Trump. “He acts as the one who wants to challenge the United States of America but then sends texts — that Trump has inelegantly published — in which he begs Trump to have dinner,” he complained. GOOD CHEMISTRY Officials in Berlin now privately gush over the growing cooperation with Meloni, describing the relationship with Rome as dependable. “Italy is reliable,” said one senior German government official, granted anonymity to speak candidly. It’s not an adjective authorities in Berlin have often used to describe their French counterparts of late. “France is more verbal, but Italy is much more pragmatic,” said Axel Schäfer, a senior lawmaker in Germany’s Social Democratic Party long focused on German-Italian relations. An Italian official also praised the “good chemistry” between Merz and Meloni personally. That forms a marked contrast with the notoriously strained relations between Meloni and Macron, who have frequently clashed. In their effort to draw closer, Merz and Meloni have at times resorted to hyperbole. During his inaugural visit to Rome as chancellor last year, Merz said there was “practically complete agreement between our two countries on all European policy issues.” Meloni returned the sentiment. “It is simply impossible to cast doubt on the relations between Italy and Germany,” she said at the time. MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE That is overegging it. The two leaders, in fact, have considerable differences. Meloni refused to support an ultimately doomed plan, pushed by Merz, to use frozen Russian assets to finance military aid for Ukraine. Meloni also briefly withheld support for the Mercosur trade deal in order to win concessions for Italian farmers before ultimately backing it. Critically, Rome and Berlin are likely to prove very awkward allies when it comes to public finances. Italy has long pushed for looser European fiscal policy — and been a natural ally of France on this point — while Germany has served as the continent’s iron disciplinarian on spending. But even here there has been some convergence, with Meloni cutting Italy’s spending and Merz presiding over a historic expansion in debt-fueled outlays on infrastructure and defense. Fundamentally, much of the growing alliance between Merz and Meloni is a product of shifts undertaken for their own domestic political survival. Meloni has dragged her nationalist Brothers of Italy party to the center, particularly on foreign policy matters. At the same time, the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in Germany has forced Merz to shift his conservative party sharply to the right on migration.     This ideological merging has allowed for a warming of relations. As Merz has sought partners on the European level to drastically reduce the inflow of asylum seekers coming to Europe, to reduce regulation and to push for more trade — and provide a counterbalance to Macron — Meloni has become an increasingly important figure for the chancellor. Still, Stefano Stefanini, a former senior Italian diplomat and NATO representative, said there would always be limits to the relationship. “It’s very tactical,” he said. “There’s no coordinated strategy. There are a number of issues on which Meloni and Merz find themselves on the same side.” Stefanini also noted that spending commitments — particularly on military projects — would be an area where Rome would once again find itself in a more natural alliance with France. “On defense spending Italy and France are closer, because Germany has the fiscal capacity to spend by itself, while Italy and France need to get as much financial support as they can from the EU,” he said. Despite such differences, Meloni has seized her opening to get closer to Merz. “Meloni has understood that, as there is some tension in the France-Germany relationship, she could infiltrate and get closer to Germany,” said Marc Lazar, an expert on Franco-Italian relations who teaches at the Luiss University in Rome and at Sciences Po in Paris.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is exposing a dangerous weak link in EU law that allows populist governments to shield their allies from jail, Poland’s Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek warned in an interview with POLITICO. Żurek’s concerns focus on the Hungarian government’s decision last month to grant asylum to Zbigniew Ziobro, a justice minister in Warsaw’s former nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) administration. Budapest’s foreign ministry argued that criminal investigations against Ziobro in Poland — into alleged misuse of public funds and deployment of Pegasus spyware against political opponents — amount to political persecution. Żurek, from the liberal, pro-EU government of Donald Tusk, retorted this use of political asylum now poses a massive challenge to the EU’s ability to enforce rule of law. If Hungary’s approach goes unanswered, he warned, others will bypass the courts across the 27-country bloc to protect their political allies. “This is a dangerous precedent for the entire European Union,” Żurek said. “If the EU accepts this, everyone will start citing it … justice will become a political tool.” “An asylum decision is a political decision — not a ruling by an independent court,” he added. “That is what is most worrying, because it circumvents the rules of the European arrest warrant.” Ziobro fled to Hungary after losing parliamentary immunity in November. A Polish court is expected to decide in February whether to order Ziobro’s arrest. Under normal EU practice, such a ruling would trigger swift extradition. But in Orbán’s Hungary, there is a high risk it will hit a dead end. A LOOPHOLE ALREADY IN USE This is not Poland’s first run-in with this loophole. Ziobro’s case follows that of his former deputy, Marcin Romanowski, who was granted asylum by Hungary in 2024 and remains there despite a valid arrest warrant. EU institutions have so far failed to take any step to force Budapest to hand him over. The case exposes a structural flaw in the EU’s justice system, which depends on mutual trust between member states to enforce each other’s court decisions. That reliance means European arrest warrants work only if governments choose to enforce them. And when one refuses, the EU has no clear, effective way to make it comply. At the end of December, Budapest hard-wired that loophole into law by barring courts from applying European arrest warrants once asylum has been granted. Żurek claims that populist governments such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, pictured, are using an EU legal loophole to protect political allies. | Janos Kummer/Getty Images Hungarian officials have defended the decision as necessary to protect Polish politicians from what they describe as political persecution. Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó said Hungary had granted asylum to Polish citizens because “democracy and the rule of law are in crisis” in Poland. Ziobro himself embraced that suggestion. In a statement published from Budapest, he said he had accepted asylum because he was resisting “political banditry” and a “creeping dictatorship” in Poland under Prime Minister Tusk. He thanked Orbán for what he called Hungary’s “courageous leadership” and said he would remain abroad until “genuine guarantees of the rule of law” are restored. Żurek said it matters who is exploiting the loophole. Orbán, he said, is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “closest ally inside the European Union” and a leader prepared to show how far EU law can be pushed without consequence. He said the European Commission should take Hungary to the Court of Justice of the EU, the bloc’s highest court. Only a binding ruling, he added, could stop governments from using asylum as a shield against criminal accountability. The Commission has yet to act. Spokesperson Markus Lammert said last week that EU law presumes all member countries are safe from political persecution, meaning EU citizens should not need asylum elsewhere in the bloc. Poland, he added, does not meet the threshold for an exception to that rule. THE DANGER OF WAITING IT OUT The timing is sensitive as Hungary heads toward an April election. Opposition leader Péter Magyar, a former Orbán ally turned critic, has campaigned on a pledge to ease tensions with Brussels. But Żurek said Poland’s own experience shows why betting on political change would be a mistake for EU institutions. Years of rule-of-law clashes under PiS left damage that has proved hard to undo even after Tusk returned to power in 2023. Despite the change in government, Poland remains locked in an institutional conflict with President Karol Nawrocki, a nationalist ally of PiS whose veto powers have blocked key reforms. Earlier this month, Nawrocki vetoed legislation implementing the EU’s Digital Services Act, attacking the law using rhetoric echoing U.S. President Donald Trump’s criticism of the tech regulation as censorship. “If EU structures react too slowly, this disease can become fatal for democracy,” Żurek said. Zbigniew Ziobro, a former justice minister in Warsaw who is facing a criminal investigation in Poland, was granted asylum in Hungary. | Art Service/EPA From France’s Marine Le Pen and Austria’s Herbert Kickl to the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders, hardline European politicians have long portrayed legal accountability as political persecution. Today this framing also lifts heavily from Trump’s playbook, Żurek said, recasting courts, prosecutors and regulators as partisan enemies to make defying judicial decisions politically acceptable. “These politicians present themselves as conservatives,” he said. “In reality, they are populists and nationalists — and that is extremely dangerous for Europe.” The consequences are already visible inside Poland’s justice system. “I hear prosecutors say in private: ‘I can bring charges today — and become a target of revenge in a few years,’” Żurek said. “Even final convictions can be wiped out by presidential pardons. That sense of futility is deeply destructive. People are simply afraid.”

LONDON — Nigel Farage was beaming about his newest recruit Thursday. But the defection from the Tories of frontbench star Robert Jenrick hints at sizable problems for Farage’s insurgent right-wing party too. By securing his highest-profile defection from the Conservatives yet, Reform UK gains one of its rival party’s best communicators — a pugnacious and energetic hardliner, capable of shaping the narrative in Westminster and beyond. But Jenrick — preemptively kicked out of the Tories earlier on Thursday by Leader Kemi Badenoch after she got wind of his looming defection — presents his own problems for Farage’s insurgent party as it tries to redraw Britain’s political map. Jenrick’s vaulting ambition, eagerness to rebel and to challenge the leadership are now Farage’s problem. And Reform’s critics have been handed more ammunition to claim the party is little more than the Conservatives 2.0, as they embrace a serial minister Tory administrations that crashed to a hefty defeat in the 2024 general election. Farage underlined that problem himself as he unveiled his new acquisition at a chaotic press conference Thursday. The event was hastily repurposed because Badenoch got the jump on their secret plot hours earlier. “Our biggest weakness is we haven’t had people who’ve actually been there in cabinet, in No.10, who understand how these things work,” Farage said —before pausing and backtracking. “Maybe he understands why the system doesn’t work,” Farage clarified. Reform’s critics can now add Jenrick to the long list of high-profile Conservatives to join Farage’s ranks after serving in a government that voters turfed out of power just 18 months ago. Among them are former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi, who joined Reform earlier this week, and former Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries. Jenrick was there in government when Liz Truss detonated the economy, and when Boris Johnson conceived a wave of post-Brexit migration. Jenrick was immigration minister as the number of small boats crossing the Channel carrying asylum seekers surged. He opened many of the asylum hotels that now house them, and which are so hated by Reform voters. Farage himself appears live to the risks posed by adopting former Conservative ministers. At that same late afternoon press conference he set a deadline of the May 7 local elections for any further defections of MPs. Robert Jenrick presents his own problems for Farage’s insurgent party as it tries to redraw Britain’s political map. | Andy Rain/EPA Jenrick counters criticisms by pointing out he resigned from Rishi Sunak’s doomed government in 2023 because of his disagreements over migration policy. Former colleagues still suspect his burning ambition to lead the Conservatives was a factor too. He lost to Badenoch in the leadership election that followed his former party’s crushing 2024 defeat. Despite joining her top team as shadow justice secretary, he never really stopped waging the next leadership battle behind the scenes.  Jenrick would often float different policy positions to Badenoch. He angered Conservative colleagues with what was perceived by some critics to be “racist” rhetoric — an allegation he always strongly denied. If a wave of Tory defections do not rapidly follow Jenrick’s then Badenoch also can argue she’s come out stronger from Thursday’s dramatic departure. She got the march on Farage by preemptively ejecting her great rival from the party, and spoiling the Reform leader’s surprise. She also looked decisive in kicking out her would-be leadership rival. Badenoch’s own personality and policy clash with Jenrick could signal trouble ahead as the ex-Tory competes with Reform’s many egos. Farage has frequently traded barbs with Jenrick, who he has branded a “fraud” and a “hypocrite” —  but the potential rift Jenrick’s former Conservative colleagues are most closely watching is with Reform Head of Policy Zia Yusuf. Jenrick branded him “Zia Useless” during one online slanging match — although he name-checked Yusuf Thursday in a roll-call paying tribute to his new colleagues. “All I would say to Nigel is Rob’s not my problem any more — he’s your problem,” Badenoch quipped in an interview with GB News. While Badenoch has publicly ruled out any pacts with Reform to reunite the right ahead of the next general election, Jenrick was always more ambiguous about a potential deal. With Jenrick out of the Tory tent, an alliance looks less likely. In welcoming Jenrick, Farage has gone for the Conservative jugular, and committed to absorbing and overthrowing the establishment party in his quest to become the dominant force in right-wing politics.  For Keir Starmer’s struggling Labour Party it offers a glimmer of hope. If splits remain on the right, then Starmer — or whoever is prime minister at the the time of the next U.K. general election — is in a far better position to rally the sizable anti-Farage sentiment that counterbalances his popularity.

LONDON — They’re young, full of ideas — and about to be given the vote. Britain’s government has committed to lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 years — a major extension of the electorate that could have big implications for the outcome of the next race, expected by 2029. It means Brits who are just 12 today are in line to vote in the next general election, which is expected to be a fierce battle between incumbent Keir Starmer and his right-wing challenger Nigel Farage. But what do these young people actually think? In a bid to start pinning down the views of this cohort, POLITICO commissioned pollster More in Common to hold an in-depth focus group, grilling eight youngsters from across the country on everything from social media disinformation to what they would do inside No. 10 Downing Street. To protect those taking part in the study, all names used below are pseudonymous. The group all showed an interest in politics, and had strong views on major topics such as immigration and climate change — but the majority were unaware they would get the chance to vote in 2029.  In a bid to prepare the country for the change, the Electoral Commission has recommended that the school curriculum be reformed to ensure compulsory teaching on democracy and government from an early age. GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER There are few better introductions to the weird world of British politics than prime minister’s questions, the weekly House of Commons clash between Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Conservative opponent Kemi Badenoch. Our group of 12-13-year-olds was shown a clip of the clash and asked to rate what they saw. They came away distinctly unimpressed. Hanh, 13, from Surrey, said the pair seemed like children winding each other up. “It seems really disrespectful in how they’re talking to each other,” she commented. “It sounds like they’re actually kids bickering … They were just going at each other, which didn’t seem very professional in my opinion.” Sarah, 13, from Trowbridge in the west of England, said the leading politicians were “acting like a pack of wild animals.” | Clive Brunskill/Getty Images Sarah, 13, from Trowbridge in the west of England, said the leading politicians were “acting like a pack of wild animals.” In the clip, the Commons backbenches roar as Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch quips about Starmer’s MPs wanting a new leader for Christmas. In turn, the PM dismisses the Conservative chief’s performance as a “Muppet’s Christmas Carol.” Twelve-year-old Holly, from Lincolnshire, said the pair were being “really aggressive and really harsh on each other, which was definitely rude.” And she said of the PM: “It weren’t really working out for Keir Starmer.” None of the children knew who Badenoch was, but all knew Starmer — even if they didn’t have particularly high opinions of the prime minister, who is tanking in the polls and struggling to get his administration off the ground. Twelve-year-old Alex said the “promises” Starmer had made were just “lies” to get him into No. 10. Sophie, a 12-year-old from Worcester in the West Midlands, was equally withering, saying she thought the PM is doing a “bad job.” “He keeps making all these promises, but he’s probably not even doing any of them,” she added. “He just wants to show off and try to be cool, but he’s not being cool because he’s breaking all the promises. He just wants all the money and the job to make him look really good.” Sarah said: “I think that it’s quite hard to keep all of those promises, and he’s definitely bitten off more than he can chew with the fact that he’s only made those statements because he wants to be voted for and he wants to be in charge.”  While some of the young people referenced broken promises by Starmer, none offered specifics. THE FARAGE FACTOR Although they didn’t know Badenoch as leader of the opposition, the whole room nodded when asked if they knew who Nigel Farage was. Although they didn’t know Badenoch as leader of the opposition, the whole room nodded when asked if they knew who Nigel Farage was. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images “He’s the leader of the Reform party,” said Alex, whose favorite subject is computing. “He promises lots of things and the opposite of what Starmer wants. Instead of helping immigrants, he wants to kick them out. He wants to lower taxes, wants to stop benefits.” Alex added: “I like him.” Sarah was much less taken. “I’ve heard that he’s the leader of the far right, or he’s part of the far right. I think he’s quite a racist man.” Farage has faced accusations in recent weeks of making racist remarks in his school days. The Reform UK leader replied that he had “never directly racially abused anybody.” Other participants said they’d only heard Farage’s name before. When asked who they would back if they were voting tomorrow, most children shrugged and looked bewildered. Only two of the group could name who they wanted to vote for — both Alex and Sam backed Farage. POLICY WORRIES Politicians have long tried to reach Britain’s youngsters through questionable TikTok videos and cringe memes — but there was much more going on in the minds of this group than simply staring at phones. Climate change, mental health and homelessness were dominant themes of the conversation. Climate change is “dangerous because the polar bears will die,” warned Chris, 13, from Manchester. Sophie, who enjoys horse riding, is worried about habitats being destroyed and animals having to find new homes as a result of climate change, while Sarah is concerned about rising sea levels. Thirteen-year-old Ravi from Liverpool said his main focus was homelessness. “I know [the government is] building houses, but maybe speed the process up and get homeless people off the streets as quick as they can because it’s not nice seeing them on the streets begging,” he said. Sam agreed, saying if he personally made it into No.10, he would make sure “everyone has food, water, all basic survival stuff.” Sarah’s main ask was for better mental health care amid a strained National Health Service. “The NHS is quite busy dealing with mental health, anxiety and things like that,” she said. “Maybe we should try and make an improvement with that so everyone gets a voice and everyone’s heard.” IMMIGRATION DIVISIONS When the conversation moved to the hot-button topic of immigration, views were more sharply divided. Imagining what he’d do in government, Alex said he’d focus on “lowering taxes and stopping illegal immigrants from coming over.” “Because we’re paying France billions just to stop them, but they’re not doing anything,” he said. “And also it’s spending all the tax money on them to give them home meals, stuff like that.” In July, Starmer and France’s Emmanuel Macron unveiled a “one in, one out” pilot program to tackle illegal migration, although it’s enjoyed limited success so far and has generated some embarrassing headlines for the British government. Hanh said she’d been taught at school that it’s important to show empathy, but noted some people are angry about taxes going to support asylum seekers. Chris and Sarah both said asylum seekers are fleeing war, and seemed uneasy at the thought of drawing a hard line. Holly said she wants “racism” — which she believes is tied to conversations about immigration — to end. “I often hear a lot of racism [at school] and prejudice-type stuff … I often hear the N word. People don’t understand how bad that word is and how it can affect people,” she said. “They [migrants] have moved away from something to get safer, and then they get more hate.” Hanh said she is seeing more anti-immigration messages on social media, such as “why are you in my country, get out,” she said. “Then that’s being dragged into school by students who are seeing this … it’s coming into school environment, which is not good for learning.” NEWS SNOOZE Look away now, journalists: The group largely agreed that the news is boring. Some listen in when their parents have the television or radio on, but all said they get most of their news from social media or the odd push alert. Asked why they think the news is so dull, Hanh — who plays field hockey and enjoys art at school — said: “It just looks really boring to look at, there are no cool pictures or any funny things or fun colors. It just doesn’t look like something I’d be interested in.” She said she prefers social media: “With TikTok, you can interact with stuff and look at comments and see other people’s views, [but with the news] you just see evidence and you see all these facts. Sometimes it can be about really disturbing stuff like murder and stuff like that. If it’s going to pop up with that, I don’t really want to watch that.” These children aren’t alone in pointing to social media as their preferred source of news. A 2025 report by communications watchdog Ofcom found that 57 percent of 12-15-year-olds consume news on social media, with TikTok being the most commonly used platform, followed by YouTube and then Instagram. Sophie isn’t convinced that the news is for her. “Sometimes if my parents put it on the TV and it’s about something that’s really bad that’s happened, then I’ll definitely look at it,” she said. “But otherwise, I think it would probably be more for older people because they would like to watch basically whatever’s on the TV because they can’t really be bothered to change the channel.”

A group of 19 EU countries is pushing the European Commission to take a tougher line on migration beyond the bloc’s borders, arguing that last week’s EU deal on asylum and returns has changed the political weather in Brussels. In particular, they want the Commission to increase cooperation with non-EU countries to tackle what they see as unacceptably high levels of migration into the bloc. “The conclusion of the negotiations on the recent legislative proposals … is an important step,” the ministers of home and foreign affairs of the signatory countries write in a joint letter seen exclusively by POLITICO, adding that “the further development of a coherent EU strategy on the external dimension of migration, including new and innovative solutions, is paramount.” The reference to recent proposals refers to the package agreed on Dec. 8, which includes sweeping new rules to reform how the EU deals with migration, including setting up asylum processing centers in non-EU countries. Governments want the EU executive to put even more weight on the external dimension of migration by cooperating with countries of origin and countries they travel through to stop them reaching the EU. That means accelerating what they called “innovative solutions,” a catch-all term for measures such as so-called return hubs and new partnerships with non-EU countries, which supporters say could make EU migration policy more effective. The appeal is set to feature prominently at this week’s informal “migration breakfast” ahead of Thursday’s EU summit. The breakfasts, launched in June 2024 by Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen and the Netherlands’ Dick Schoof, have become highly influential on the narrative around migration in Brussels. In their letter, the ministers call for expanding the use of “new and innovative solutions” to counter irregular migration and for stronger cooperation among EU agencies, international organizations, and EU countries. While the letter avoids naming specific models, it references tools already embedded in EU law, such as “safe third country arrangements and return hubs,” and calls for their operationalization through partnerships along migration routes. The model of “return hubs,” to which individuals whose asylum claims have been rejected can be sent, has been championed by Italy. The country has built and operates — in a different legal context — two such facilities in Albania, which are expected to serve as the first concrete implementation of this model from mid-2026. Money is a central concern. The signatories argue that the innovative solutions will remain theoretical without clearer funding pathways. “The efficient use of financial resources is necessary for the establishment and operationalisation of innovative forms of cooperation,” the letter states, urging the Commission to issue guidelines on how existing and future EU funds can be mobilized. The ministers also want EU agencies to be more deeply involved, including a possible expansion of the role of the border agency Frontex. They call on the Commission and agencies to explore “necessary legislative and policy changes,” including, “where relevant, revision of the mandate and competences of Frontex, to ensure effective support and sufficient capacity” in cooperation with third countries. Beyond institutions and funding, the letter makes a clear political ask for a single EU voice. “A common narrative and joint diplomatic outreach by Member States and the EEAS … is necessary,” the ministers write, urging Brussels to hard-wire migration into summits and dialogues with partner countries.