5 TIMES THE WINTER OLYMPICS GOT SUPER POLITICAL Invasions, nuclear crises and Nazi propaganda: The Games have seen it all. By SEBASTIAN STARCEVIC Illustration by Natália Delgado /POLITICO The Winter Olympics return to Europe this week, with Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo set to host the world’s greatest athletes against the snowy backdrop of the Italian Alps. But beyond the ice rinks and ski runs, the Games have long doubled as a stage for global alliances, heated political rivalries and diplomatic crises.  “An event like the Olympics is inherently political because it is effectively a competition between nations,” said Madrid’s IE Assistant Professor Andrew Bertoli, who studies the intersection of sport and politics. “So the Games can effectively become an arena where nations compete for prestige, respect and soft power.” If history is any guide, this time won’t be any different. From invasions to the Nazis to nuclear crises, here are five times politics and the Winter Olympics collided. 1980: AMERICA’S “MIRACLE ON ICE” One of the most iconic moments in Olympic history came about amid a resurgence in Cold War tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The USSR had invaded Afghanistan only months earlier, and Washington’s rhetoric toward Moscow had hardened, with Ronald Reagan storming to the presidency a month prior on an aggressive anti-Soviet platform. At the 1980 Winter Games in Lake Placid, New York, that superpower rivalry was on full display on the ice. The U.S. men’s ice hockey team — made up largely of college players and amateurs — faced off against the Soviet squad, a battle-hardened, gold medal-winning machine. The Americans weren’t supposed to stand a chance. Then the impossible happened. In a stunning upset, the U.S. team skated to a 4-3 victory, a win that helped them clinch the gold medal. As the final seconds ticked away, ABC broadcaster Al Michaels famously cried, “Do you believe in miracles? Yes!” The impact echoed far beyond the rink. For many Americans, the victory was a morale boost in a period marked by geopolitical anxiety and division. Reagan later said it was proof “nice guys in a tough world can finish first.” The miracle’s legacy has endured well into the 21st century, with U.S. President Donald Trump awarding members of the hockey team the Congressional Gold Medal in December last year. 2014: RUSSIA INVADES CRIMEA AFTER SOCHI Four days. That’s how long Moscow waited after hosting the Winter Olympics in the Russian resort city of Sochi before sending troops into Crimea, occupying and annexing the Ukrainian peninsula. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych had fled to Moscow days earlier, ousted by protesters demanding democracy and closer integration with the EU. As demonstrators filled Kyiv’s Independence Square, their clashes with government forces played on television screens around the world alongside highlights from the Games, in which Russia dominated the medal tally. Vladimir Putin poses with Russian athletes while visiting the Coastal Cluster Olympic Village ahead of the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics. | Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images No sooner was the Olympic flame extinguished in Sochi on Feb. 23 than on Feb. 27 trucks and tanks rolled into Crimea. Soldiers in unmarked uniforms set up roadblocks, stormed Crimean government buildings and raised the Russian flag high above them. Later that year, Moscow would face allegations of a state-sponsored doping program and many of its athletes were ultimately stripped of their gold medals. 2022: RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE … AGAIN There’s a theme here. Russian President Vladimir Putin made an appearance at the opening ceremony of Beijing’s Winter Games in 2022, meeting on the sidelines with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping and declaring a “no limits” partnership. Four days after the end of the Games, on Feb. 24, Putin announced a “special military operation,” declaring war on Ukraine. Within minutes, Russian troops flooded into Ukraine, and missiles rained down on Kyiv, Kharkiv and other cities across the country. According to U.S. intelligence, The New York Times reported, Chinese officials asked the Kremlin to delay launching its attack until after the Games had wrapped up. Beijing denied it had advance knowledge of the invasion. 2018: KOREAN UNITY ON DISPLAY As South Korea prepared to host the Winter Games in its mountainous Pyeongchang region, just a few hundred kilometers over the border, the North Koreans were conducting nuclear missile tests, sparking global alarm and leading U.S. President Donald Trump to threaten to strike the country. The IOC said it was “closely monitoring” the situation amid concerns about whether the Games could be held safely on the peninsula. South Korean Vice Unification Minister Chun Hae-Sung, shakes hands with the head of North Korean delegation Jon Jong-Su after their meeting on January 17, 2018 in Panmunjom, South Korea. | South Korean Unification Ministry via Getty Images But then in his New Year’s address, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un signaled openness to participating in the Winter Olympics. In the end, North Korean athletes not only participated in the Games, but at the opening ceremony they marched with their South Korean counterparts under a single flag, that of a unified Korea. Pyongyang and Seoul also joined forces in women’s ice hockey, sending a single team to compete — another rare show of unity that helped restart diplomatic talks between the capitals, though tensions ultimately resumed after the Games and continue to this day. 1936: HITLER INVADES THE RHINELAND Much has been said about the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, in which the Nazi regime barred Jewish athletes from participating and used the Games to spread propaganda. But a few months earlier Germany also hosted the Winter Olympics in the town of Garmisch-Partenkirchen, allowing the Nazis to project an image of a peaceful, prosperous Germany and restore its global standing nearly two decades after World War I. A famous photograph from the event even shows Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels signing autographs for the Canadian figure skating team. Weeks after the Games ended, Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, a major violation of the Treaty of Versailles that was met with little pushback from France and Britain, and which some historians argue emboldened the Nazis to eventually invade Poland, triggering World War II.

A group of researchers is suing Elon Musk’s X to gain access to data on Hungary’s upcoming elections to assess the risk of interference, they told POLITICO. Hungary is set to hold a highly contentious election in April as populist nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán faces the toughest challenge yet to his 16-year grip on power. The lawsuit by Democracy Reporting International (DRI) comes after the civil society group, in November, applied for access to X data to study risks to the Hungarian election, including from disinformation. After X rejected their request, the researchers took the case to the Berlin Regional Court, which said it is not competent to rule on the case. DRI — with the support of the Society for Civil Rights and law firm Hausfeld — is now appealing to a higher Berlin court, which has set a hearing date of Feb. 17. Sites including X are obliged to grant researchers access to data under the European Union’s regulatory framework for social media platforms, the Digital Services Act, to allow external scrutiny of how platforms handle major online risks, including election interference. The European Commission fined X €40 million for failing to provide data access in December, as part of a €120 million levy for non-compliance with transparency obligations. The lawsuit is the latest legal challenge to X after the researchers went down a similar path last year to demand access to data related to the German elections in February 2025. A three-month legal drama, which saw a judge on the case dismissed after X successfully claimed they had a conflict of interest, ended with the court throwing out the case. The platform said that was a “comprehensive victory” because “X’s unwavering commitment to protecting user data and defending its fundamental right to due process has prevailed.” The researchers also claimed a win: The court threw the case out on the basis of a lack of urgency, as the elections were well in the past, said DRI. The groups say the ruling sets a legal precedent for civil society groups to take platforms to court where the researchers are located, rather than in the platforms’ legal jurisdictions (which, in X’s case, would be Ireland). X did not respond to POLITICO’s request for comment on Monday.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Keine Brandmauer in München: Nach zwei Jahren sind drei AfD-Politiker wieder auf die Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz eingeladen. MSC-Chef Wolfgang Ischinger setzt auf Dialog statt Ausgrenzung, auch wenn die Entscheidung für Kritik bei den Grünen und Sicherheitsbedenken in der Union sorgt. Pauline von Pezold und Gordon Repinski analysieren die Hintergründe der Einladung und das juristische Tauziehen hinter den Kulissen.  Wahlkampf-Check Mecklenburg-Vorpommern: In Schwerin zeichnet sich ein Zweikampf zwischen SPD und AfD ab, während die CDU in Umfragen bei 13 Prozent stagniert. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview bezieht CDU-Spitzenkandidat Daniel Peters Stellung: Wie viel „Politikwechsel“ ist mit ihm machbar und wo zieht er die Linie gegenüber der AfD?  Eskalation im Iran: Während das Regime in Teheran mit äußerster Brutalität gegen die eigene Bevölkerung vorgeht und die Armeen der EU-Staaten als Terrororganisationen einstuft, stellt sich die Frage nach der Rolle des Westens. Nahost-Experte Daniel-Dylan Böhmer, Korrespondent für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik von  WELT, ordnet ein, warum ein US-Militärschlag unter Donald Trump aktuell unwahrscheinlich bleibt und welche Vermittler jetzt gefragt sind. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

LISBON — To stop the explosive growth of the ultranationalist Chega party, Portugal’s leading conservatives are doing the previously unthinkable: endorsing the center-left candidate for president. Last week, Portugal’s prominent center-right politicians are publicly backing António José Seguro — a former secretary general of the Socialist Party — in the runoff presidential election on Feb. 8. The conservative endorsement is a collective rejection of the opposing candidate, far-right Chega leader André Ventura, who was the runner-up in the first round of voting in January. Although current polls indicate Ventura has no real possibility of winning the second round, the conservatives publicly backing Seguro say they’re doing so to underscore the center-right’s commitment to democratic values. Those who have spoken out include former President and Prime Minister Aníbal Cavaco Silva, former Deputy Prime Minister Paulo Portas, as well as former European Commissioner for Research and current Lisbon Mayor Carlos Moedas. Thousands of electors have also signed an open letter of support for Seguro, which was issued by a group of self-declared “non-socialist” public figures. Ventura secured nearly a quarter of the ballots in the first round of voting, and his performance highlights Chega’s remarkable ascent. By campaigning against minority groups such as the Roma community, increased immigration and denouncing government corruption, the ultranationalist group has gone from having just one lawmaker in parliament to being the country’s leading opposition party in just six years. “We have to draw a red line between liberal and illiberal forces,” said political consultant Henrique Burnay, a signatory of the open letter backing Seguro. “And my center-right democratic and liberal values have no connection with the positions the radical right defends.” André Ventura secured nearly a quarter of the ballots in the first round of voting, and his performance highlights Chega’s remarkable ascent. | Zed Jameson/Anadolu via Getty Images This is a clear choice between “a candidate for whom I may not feel enthusiasm, and one who is bent on polarizing the public, unilaterally deciding who are good or bad citizens, and who earnestly worries me,” he said. Luís Marques Mendes, who ran an unsuccessful presidential campaign on behalf of the governing center-right Social Democratic Party, said he would also commit his vote to Seguro because “he is the only candidate who comes close to the values I have always defended: defense of democracy, guaranteeing space for moderation, respect for the purpose of representing all Portuguese people.” PRIME MINISTER UNDER PRESSURE The avalanche of conservative support for Seguro is a source of discomfort for Prime Minister Luís Montenegro, who is declining to endorse either candidate in the presidential runoff. During a session of the Portuguese parliament, lawmakers lambasted the center-right leader for failing to choose between “a democrat” and someone who wants to “end the democratic regime.” The country’s political analysts interpret the prime minister’s refusal to back Seguro as a tactical decision aimed at not alienating the most conservative wing of his party, which would consider any support for a former socialist leader unacceptable. João Cotrim de Figueiredo, one of the most prominent figures in the economically liberal Liberal Initiative party, was similarly criticized for not explicitly backing the center-left candidate. Last week, however, he tacitly admitted he would vote for Seguro by declaring he’d neither cast a ballot for Ventura nor abstain from voting — a pragmatic approach, as his party’s voter base is made up of right-leaning young men who could defect to Chega. The avalanche of conservative support for António José Seguro is now a source of discomfort for Prime Minister Luís Montenegro, who is declining to endorse either candidate in the presidential runoff. | Rita Franca/LightRocket via Getty Images According to António Costa Pinto, a political scientist at the University of Lisbon’s Institute of Social Sciences, the center-right’s decision to mobilize against Ventura makes sense because of the power accorded to the president, who can veto laws, appoint members of key state and judicial bodies, and dissolve parliament. “In the unlikely scenario that Ventura secured the presidency, there is little doubt that he would use it to do everything to give his party control of the government … and pose a serious threat to the institutional functioning of Portuguese democracy,” he said. But, Costa Pinto explained, the conservatives’ decision to publicly back Seguro could end up paradoxically benefiting Ventura, as he will likely use their endorsements to reaffirm his claim that the country’s center-right and center-left parties are virtually identical mainstream entities. “This allows Ventura to reinforce his image as an anti-establishment leader who represents the people and fights the elites,” he said. “As long as he obtains between 35 and 40 percent of the vote when the runoff is held — which is to say, more than the 32 percent Prime Minister Luís Montenegro secured in last year’s parliamentary elections — he’ll also be able to claim he’s the true leader of the Portuguese right.”

SHANGHAI — As Keir Starmer arrived for the first visit by a British prime minister to China for eight years, he stood next to a TV game show-style wheel of fortune. The arrow pointed at “rise high,” next to “get rich immediately” and “everything will go smoothly.” Not one option on the wheel was negative. Sadly for the U.K. prime minister, reality does not match the wheel — but he gave it a good go. After an almost decade-long British chill toward China, Starmer reveled in three hours of talks and lunch with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday, where he called for a “more sophisticated” relationship and won effusive praise in return. Britain boasted it had secured visa-free travel for British citizens to China for up to 30 days and a cut in Chinese tariffs on Scotch whisky. Xi even said the warming would help “world peace.” His wins so far (many details of which remain vague) are only a tiny sliver of the range of opportunities he claimed Chinese engagement could bring — and do not even touch on the controversies, given Beijing’s record on aggressive trade practices, human rights, espionage, cyber sabotage and transnational repression. But the vibes on the ground are clear — Starmer is loving it, and wants to go much further. POLITICO picks out five takeaways from following the entourage. 1) THERE’S NO TURNING BACK NOW Britain is now rolling inevitably toward greater engagement in a way that will be hard to reverse. Labour’s warming to China has been in train since the party was in opposition, inspired by the U.S. Democrats and Australian Labor, and the lead-up to this meeting took more than a year. No. 10 has bought into China’s reliance on protocol and iterative engagement. Xi is said to have been significantly warmer toward Starmer this week (their second meeting) than the first time they met at the G20 in Rome. Officials say it takes a long time to warm him up. There is no doubt China’s readout of the meeting was deliberately friendlier to Labour than the Conservatives. One person on the last leader-level visit to China, by Conservative PM Theresa May in 2018, recalled that the meetings were “intellectually grueling” because Xi used consecutive translation, speaking for long periods before May could reply. This time officials say he used simultaneous translation. It will not end here — because Starmer can’t afford for it to. Many of the dozen or so deals announced this week are only commitments to investigate options for future cooperation, so Britain will need to now push them into reality, with an array of dialogues planned in the future along with a visit by Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper. As Business Secretary Peter Kyle told a Thursday night reception at the British Embassy: “This trip is just the start.” 2) BRITAIN’S STILL ON THE EASY WINS Deals on whisky tariffs and visa-free travel were top of the No. 10 list but — as standalone wins without national security implications — they were the lowest-hanging fruit. The two sides agreed to explore whether to enter negotiations towards a bilateral services agreement, which would make it easier for lawyers and accountants to use their professional qualifications across the two countries. In return, investment decisions in China were announced by firms including AstraZeneca and Octopus Energy. But many of the other deals are only the start of a dialogue. One U.K. official called them “jam tomorrow deals.” And Luke de Pulford, of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China campaign group, argued that despite Britain having a slight trade surplus in services “it’s tiny compared to the whole.” He added: “This trip to China seems to be based upon the notion that China is part of the solution to our economic woes. It’s not rooted in any evidence. China hasn’t done foreign direct investment in any serious way since 2017. It’s dropped off a cliff.” Then there are areas — particularly wind farms — where officials are more edgy and which weren’t discussed by Starmer and Xi. One industry figure dismissed concerns that China could install “kill switches” in key infrastructure — shutting down a wind turbine would be the equivalent of a windless day — but concerns are real. A second U.K. official said Britain had effectively categorized areas of the economy into three buckets — “slam dunks” to engage with China, “slam dunks” to block China, and everything in between. “We’ve been really clear [with China] about which sectors are accessible,” they said, which had helped smooth the path. Then there are the litany of non-trade areas where China will be reluctant to engage: being challenged on Xi’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the treatment of the Uyghur people and democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai. Britain is still awaiting approval of a major revamp of its embassy in Beijing, which will be expensive with U.K. contractors, materials and tech, all security-cleared, being brought in. 3) STARMER AND HIS TEAM WERE GENUINELY LOVING IT After such a build-up and so much controversy, Starmer has … been having a great time. The prime minister has struggled to peel the smile off his face and told business delegates they were “making history.” Privately, several people around him enthused about the novelty of it all (many have never visited China and Starmer has not done so since before he went into politics). One said they were looking forward to seeing how Xi operates: “He’s very enigmatic.” Briefing journalists in a small ante-room in the Forbidden City, Starmer enthused about Xi’s love of football and Shakespeare. And talking to business leaders, he repeated the president’s line about blind men finding an elephant: “One touches the leg and thinks it’s a pillow, another feels the belly and thinks it’s a wall. Too often this reflects how China is seen.” So into the spirit was Starmer that he even ticked off Kyle for not bowing deeply enough. At the signing ceremony for a string of business deals, Kyle had seen his counterpart bend halfway to the floor — and responded with a polite nod of the head. The vibes were energetic. Britain’s new ambassador to Beijing, Peter Wilson, flitted around ceaselessly and sat along from Starmer in seat 1E. The PM’s No. 10 business adviser, Varun Chandra, jumped from CEO to CEO at the British embassy. The whole delegation was on burner phones and laptops (even leaving Apple Watches at home) but the security fears soon faded to the background for U.K. officials. CEOs on the trip queued up to tell journalists that Starmer was making the right choice. “We risk a technological gulf if we don’t engage,” said one. There is one problem. Carry on like this, and Starmer will struggle to maintain his line that he is not re-entering a “golden era” — like the one controversially pushed by the Tories under David Cameron in the early 2010s — after all. 4) BUSINESS WAS EVERYTHING The trip was a tale of two groups of CEOs. The creatives and arts bosses gave the stardust and human connection that such a controversial visit needed — but business investment was the meat. In his opening speech Starmer name-checked three people: Business Secretary Peter Kyle, City Minister Lucy Rigby and No. 10 business adviser Varun Chandra. It even came through in the seating plan on the chartered British Airways plane, with financial services CEOs in the pricey seats while creatives were in economy — although this was because they were all paying their own way. Everyone knew the bargain. One arts CEO confessed that, while their industry made money too, they knew they were not the uppermost priority. Starmer’s aides insist they are delighted with what they managed to bag from Xi on Thursday, and believe it is at the top end of the expectations they had on the way out. But that will mean the focus back home on the final “big number” of investment that No. 10 produces — and the questions about whether it is worth all the political energy — are even more acute. 5) STARMER’S STILL WALKING A TIGHTROPE British CEOs were taken to see a collection of priceless Ming vases. It was a good metaphor. Starmer and the No. 10 operation were more reticent even than usual on Thursday, refusing to give on-the-record comment about several basic details of what he raised in his meeting with Xi. Journalists were told that he raised the case of democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai, but not whether he called directly for his release. The readout of the meeting from Communist China was more extensive (and poetic) than that from No. 10. Likewise, journalists were given no advance heads-up of deals on tariffs and visas, even in the few hours between the bilateral and the announcements, while the details and protocol were nailed down. There was good reason for the reticence. Not only was Starmer cautious not to offend his hosts; he also did not want to enrage U.S. President Donald Trump, who threatened Canada with new tariffs after PM Mark Carney’s visit to Beijing this month. Even with No. 10 briefing the U.S. on the trip’s objectives beforehand, and Starmer giving a pre-flight interview saying he wouldn’t choose between Xi and Trump, the president called Britain’s engagement “very dangerous” on Friday. And then there’s the EU. The longer Trump’s provocations go on, the more some of Starmer’s more Europhile allies will want him to side not with the U.S. or China, but Brussels. “There’s this huge blind spot in the middle of Europe,” complained one European diplomat. “The U.K. had the advantage of being the Trump whisperer, but that’s gone now.” Starmer leaves China hoping he can whisper to Trump, Xi and Ursula von der Leyen all at the same time.

BEIJING — Britain on Thursday opened the door to an inward visit by Xi Jinping after the Chinese president hailed a thawing of relations between the two nations. Downing Street repeatedly declined to rule out the prospect of welcoming Xi in future after saying that Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s current visit to China would not be a “one-and-done summit.” Asked about the prospect of an inward visit — which would be the first for 11 years — Starmer’s official spokesperson told reporters: “I think the prime minister has been clear that a reset relationship with China, that it’s no longer in an ice age, is beneficial to British people and British business. “I’m not going to get ahead of future engagements. We’ll set those out in the normal way.” Xi paid a full state visit to the U.K. in 2015 and visited a traditional pub with then-Prime Minister David Cameron, during what is now seen as a “golden era” of British-Chinese relations. Critics of China’s stance on human rights and espionage see the trip as one of the worst foreign policy misjudgments of the Cameron era. Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, said: “We should not roll out the red carpet for a state that conducts daily espionage in our country, flouts international trading rules and aids Putin in his senseless war on Ukraine. We need a dialogue with China, we do not need to kowtow to them.” Any state visit invitation would be in the name of King Charles III and be issued by Buckingham Palace. There is no suggestion that a full state visit is being considered at present. Xi did not leave mainland China for more than two years during the Covid-19 pandemic. Starmer and Xi met Thursday in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People and the two nations agreed to look at the “feasibility” of a partnership in the services sector. Britain said it had signed an agreement for China to waive visa rules for British citizens visiting for less than 30 days for business or tourism, bringing the U.K. into line with nations including France, Germany, Italy, Australia and Japan. The two nations also promised to co-operate on conformity assessments, exports, sports, tackling organized crime, vocational training and food safety, though further details were not immediately available. Starmer also hailed “really good progress” on lowering Chinese whisky tariffs. One official familiar with the talks stressed that Starmer had also raised more difficult issues including the ongoing detention of British-Hong Kong democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai, and China’s position on the war in Ukraine — but declined to be drawn on the specifics of the pair’s conversation. The talks steered clear of more difficult topics such as wind farm technology, where critics fear co-operation would leave Britain vulnerable to Chinese influence. Asked if Starmer had come back empty handed, his spokesperson said: “I don’t accept that at all. I think this is a historic trip where you’ve seen for the first time in eight years a PM set foot on Chinese soil, have a meeting at the highest level with the president of the second largest economy in the world. “You should also note that this isn’t a question of a one-and-done summit with China. It is a resetting of a relationship that has been on ice for eight years.”

Women’s tennis has an Alexander Lukashenko problem. The Belarusian autocrat’s ongoing, public celebration of compatriot Aryna Sabalenka — the world No. 1 — has sparked fury in Kyiv, ahead of her crucial Australian Open semifinal against Ukrainian Elina Svitolina. “No matter how much international sports officials and global sports bureaucrats insist that sport is ‘outside politics,’ for regimes like those of Lukashenko and Putin this has never been true,” Heorhii Tykhyi, a spokesperson for Ukraine’s foreign ministry, told POLITICO. “For them, sport is not merely political — it is one of the key instruments of state policy, and more specifically, of state propaganda, including the propaganda of war.” The Ukrainian criticism has put Sabalenka — winner of four grand slams, the most prestigious tournaments on the tennis calendar — and her relationship with the Lukashenko regime back in the spotlight. Belarus, like its close ally Russia, has used sports as a soft power asset on the world stage, even as the West ostracizes Minsk over its support for Moscow’s all-out war on Ukraine. Sabalenka, whose visibility as the world’s best female tennis player has made her a central figure in Belarusian propaganda, faces Svitolina in Melbourne on Thursday morning, in a match that has added geopolitical significance while Russia’s full-scale invasion rages on. A representative for Sabalenka did not respond to POLITICO’s request for comment about the nature of her relationship with authorities in Minsk. At a press conference following a previous match with Svitolina at the French Open in 2023, Sabalenka told POLITICO that she did not support Lukashenko “right now” or Russia’s war in Ukraine. “To those who argue otherwise or repeat the mantra that ‘sport is outside politics,’ I would like to remind them: sport may be outside politics, but it is certainly not outside the war being waged in Europe today,” Tykhyi, the Ukrainian foreign ministry spokesperson, said. “A war that has already killed or injured more than 600 Ukrainian athletes or coaches. Hundreds of Ukrainian sports facilities have been destroyed or damaged, forcing athletes to train under constant threat and in conditions of severe infrastructural deprivation.” “And yet, despite all of this, Ukrainian athletes continue to demonstrate extraordinary resilience and strength of spirit, preparing for and competing in international events even under these circumstances,” the spokesperson added. Sabalenka, who was born in Minsk and now resides in Miami, has links to the Belarusian authorities that date back years.   She met Lukashenko in 2017, shortly after beginning her rise to the top of world tennis. In 2020, during massive anti-government protests over a rigged national election, she signed a pro-Lukashenko letter and — unlike other athletes who later retracted their endorsement — never withdrew her signature. That year, with thousands of protesters jailed and many facing torture at the hands of Belarusian authorities, she celebrated the New Year with Lukashenko, drawing howls of protest from Belarusian dissidents. After Sabalenka’s victory over Ukraine’s Marta Kostyuk in Brisbane earlier this month, Lukashenko’s official website congratulated her on the win, as it did after she won in Miami and New York last year. Lukashenko also mentioned her in his address to the Belarusian People and the National Assembly in 2023. She has even become a tangential character in the U.S. government’s ongoing diplomatic overtures to Minsk. In 2025, U.S. envoy John Coale handed Lukashenko a letter from President Donald Trump acknowledging Sabalenka’s “tremendous win at the US Open” and that she “represents the very best of your country.” Coupled with her new role as an ambassador for iconic fashion house Gucci — which posted “Welcome to the Gucci family, Aryna” in its promotional material on social media — and worldwide popularity with tennis fans, Sabalenka is giving heartburn to Ukraine’s sports establishment. Earlier this month, Ukrainian player Oleksandra Oliynykova criticized the global community for celebrating Sabalenka. “A supporter of a bloody dictator becomes an ambassador for a top brand. What is wrong with this world?” she asked.

LONDON — U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is braced for a meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping — and there’ll be more than a few elephants in the room. Though Britain has improved its relationship with China following the more combative approach of previous Conservative administrations, a litany of concerns over national security and human rights continues to dog Labour’s attempted refresh. Starmer, who will meet the Chinese president in Beijing Thursday morning, told reporters engaging with China means he can discuss “issues where we disagree.”   “You know that in the past, on all the trips I’ve done, I’ve always raised issues that need to be raised,” he said during a huddle with journalists on the British Airways flight to China on Tuesday evening. In a sign of how hard it can be to engage on more tricky subjects, Chinese officials bundled the British press out of the room when Starmer tried to bring up undesirable topics the last time the pair met. From hacking and spying to China’s foreign policy aims, POLITICO has a handy guide to all the ways Starmer could rile up the Chinese president. 1) STATE-SPONSORED HACKING China is one of the biggest offenders in cyberspace and is regarded by the U.K.’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) — part of Britain’s GCHQ intelligence agency — as a “highly sophisticated threat actor.” The Electoral Commission said it has taken three years to recover from a Chinese hack of its systems. The Chinese state, and private companies linked directly or obliquely to its cyber and espionage agencies, have been directly accused by the British government, its intelligence agencies and allies. As recently as last month, the U.K. government sanctioned two Chinese companies — both named by the U.S. as linked to Chinese intelligence — for hacking Britain and its allies. 2) ACTIONS AGAINST BRITISH PARLIAMENTARIANS Politicians in Britain who have spoken out against Chinese human rights abuses and hostile activity have been censured by Beijing in recent years. This includes the sanctioning of 5 British MPs in 2021, including the former security minister Tom Tugendhat, who has been banned from entering the country. Last year, Liberal Democrat MP Wera Hobhouse was refused entry to Hong Kong while attempting to visit her grandson, and was turned back by officials. The government said that the case was raised with Chinese authorities during a visit to China by Douglas Alexander, who was trade minister at the time. 3) JIMMY LAI In 2020, the British-Hong Kong businessman and democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai was arrested under national security laws imposed by Beijing and accused of colluding with a foreign state. Lai — who is in his late 70s — has remained in prison ever since. Last month, a Hong Kong court convicted Lai of three offenses following what his supporters decried as a 156-day show trial. He is currently awaiting the final decisions relating to sentencing — with bodies including the EU parliament warning that a life imprisonment could have severe consequences for Europe’s relationship with China if he is not released. Lai’s son last year called for the U.K. government to make his father’s release a precondition of closer relations with Beijing.  4) REPRESSION OF DISSIDENTS China, like Iran, is involved in the active monitoring and intimidation of those it considers dissidents on foreign soil — known as trans-national repression. China and Hong Kong law enforcement agencies have repeatedly issued arrest warrants for nationals living in Britain and other Western countries.  British police in 2022 were forced to investigate an assault on a protester outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester. The man was beaten by several men after being dragged inside the grounds of the diplomatic building during a demonstration against Xi Jinping. China removed six officials from Britain before they could be questioned. 5) CHINESE SPY SCANDALS Westminster was last year rocked by a major Chinese spying scandal involving two British men accused of monitoring British parliamentarians and passing information back to Beijing. Though the case against the two men collapsed, the MI5 intelligence agency still issued an alert to MPs, peers and their staff, warning Chinese intelligence officers were “attempting to recruit people with access to sensitive information about the British state.” It is not the only China spy allegation to embroil the upper echelons of British society. Yang Tengbo, who in 2024 outed himself as an alleged spy banned from entering the U.K., was a business associate of Andrew Windsor , the` disgraced brother of King Charles. Christine Lee, a lawyer who donated hundreds of thousands of pounds to a Labour MP, was the subject of a security alert from British intelligence. In October, Ken McCallum, the head of MI5, said that his officers had “intervened operationally” against China that month. 6) EMBASSY DING DONG This month — after a protracted political and planning battle — the government approved the construction of a Chinese “super-embassy” in London. This came after a litany of security concerns were raised by MPs and in the media, including the building’s proximity to sensitive cables, which it is alleged could be used to aid Chinese spying. Britain has its own embassy headache in China. Attempts to upgrade the U.K. mission in Beijing were reportedly blocked while China’s own London embassy plan was in limbo. 7) SANCTIONS EVASION China has long been accused of helping facilitate sanctions evasion for countries such as Russia and Iran. Opaque customs and trade arrangements have allegedly allowed prohibited shipments of oil and dual-use technology to flow into countries that are sanctioned by Britain and its allies. Britain has already sanctioned some Chinese companies accused of aiding Russia’s war in Ukraine. China has called for Britain to stop making “groundless accusations” about its involvement in Russia’s war efforts. 8) HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AND GREEN ENERGY U.K. ministers are under pressure from MPs and human rights organizations to get tougher on China over reported human rights abuses in the country’s Xinjiang region — where many of the world’s solar components are sourced. In a meeting with China’s Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang last March, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband raised the issue of forced labor in supply chains, according to a government readout of the meeting. But he also stressed the need for deeper collaboration with China as the U.K.’s lofty clean power goal looms. British academic Laura Murphy — who was researching the risk of forced labor in supply chains — had her work halted by Sheffield Hallam University amid claims of pressure from China. “I know that there are other researchers who don’t feel safe speaking out in public, who are experiencing similar things, although often more subtly,” Murphy said last year. 9) THE FUTURE OF TAIWAN China continues to assert that “Taiwan is a province of China” amid reports it is stepping up preparations for military intervention in the region. In October, the Telegraph newspaper published an op-ed from the Chinese ambassador to Britain, which said: “Taiwan has never been a country. There is but one China, and both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one and the same China.” In a sign of just how sensitive the matter is, Beijing officials reportedly threatened to cancel high-level trade talks between China and the U.K. after Alexander, then a trade minister, travelled to Taipei last June. 10) CHINA POOTLING AROUND THE ARCTIC Britain is pushing for greater European and NATO involvement in the Arctic amid concern that both China and Russia are becoming more active in the strategically important area. There is even more pressure to act, with U.S. President Donald Trump making clear his Greenland aspirations. In October, a Chinese container ship completed a pioneering journey through the Arctic to a U.K. port — halving the usual time it takes to transport electric cars and solar panels destined for Europe.

One month into nationwide protests, the Iranian people are still making history — at the cost of their lives. The free world can no longer credibly claim uncertainty about events on the ground, nor can they claim neutrality in the face of what has occurred. Iranians aren’t asking others to speak for them but to empower them to finish what they’ve started. And the urgency for international action has only intensified. This week, the European debate finally shifted. Italy formally joined calls to condemn the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and with that decision, the EU’s political landscape narrowed. France and Spain are now the only two member countries preventing the bloc from collectively designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. The question for Brussels is no longer whether the conditions for this are met — it’s whether the bloc will act once they are. For decades, the Iranian people have been subject to systematic violence by their own state. This isn’t law enforcement. It’s a unilateral war against a civilian population, marked by extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, confessions, torture, mass censorship and the deliberate use of deprivation as a tool of repression. On one side stands a totalitarian state; on the other, unarmed citizens. As videos and eyewitness testimonies continue to emerge despite severe communications blackouts, the scale of the violence is no longer in doubt. Supported by investigative reporting, sources inside Iran warn that more than 36,500 people may have been killed by regime forces since protests began on Dec. 28. Leading human rights organizations have verified thousands of deaths, cautioning that all available figures are almost certainly undercounts due to access restrictions and internet shutdowns. The scale, organization and intent of this repression meets the legal threshold for crimes against humanity as defined under the 1998 Rome Statute that founded the International Criminal Court. And under the U.N.’s Responsibility to Protect (R2P) — a principle seeking to ensure populations are protected from mass atrocity crimes, which the EU has formally endorsed — this threshold triggers obligation. At this point, inaction ceases to be restraint and becomes moral, political and legal failure. The risks here are immediate. Thousands of detained protesters face the imminent threat of execution. Senior Iranian judicial authorities have warned that continued protest, particularly if citing alleged foreign support, constitutes moharebeh, or “waging war on God” — a charge that carries the death penalty and has historically been used to justify mass executions after unrest. Arbitrary detention and the absence of due process place detainees in clear and foreseeable danger, heightening the international community’s obligations. The Iranian people are bravely tackling the challenge placed before them, demonstrating agency, cohesion and resolve. Under the pillars of R2P, responsibility now shifts outward — first to assist and, where necessary, to take collective action when a state itself is the perpetrator of atrocity crimes. Six actions directly follow from these obligations: First, civilians must be protected by degrading the regime’s capacity to commit atrocities. This requires formally designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization given its central role in systematic violence against civilians both inside and outside of Iran. This is in line with European legal standards. Italy has moved on it. Now France and Spain must follow, so the EU can act as one. France and Spain are now the only two member countries preventing the bloc from collectively designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. | Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA Second, the bloc must impose coordinated and sustained economic measures consistent with the R2P. This includes globally freezing regime assets under EU sanctions frameworks, as well as identifying, seizing and dismantling the shadow fleet of “ghost tankers” that finance repression and evade sanctions. The third obligation is guaranteeing the right to information. Iran’s digital blackout constitutes a grave violation of freedoms protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. Free, secure and continuous internet access needs to be ensured through the large-scale deployment of satellite connectivity and secure communication technologies. Defensive cyber measures should prevent arbitrary shutdowns of civilian networks. Fourth, the EU must move to end state impunity through legal accountability. This means expelling regime representatives implicated in the repression of citizens from European capitals, and initiating legal proceedings against those responsible for crimes against humanity under universal jurisdiction — a principle already recognized by several EU member countries. Fifth, the bloc must demand the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners, who were detained in clear violation of Iran’s international human rights obligations. Finally, Europe must issue a clear ultimatum, demanding that independent nongovernmental humanitarian and human rights organizations be granted immediate, unrestricted and time-bound access on the ground inside Iran. If this access isn’t granted within a defined time frame, it must withdraw diplomatic recognition from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nonrecognition is a lawful response to a regime that has forfeited its legitimacy by systematically attacking its own population. It would also signal unambiguous support for the Iranian people’s right to representative and accountable government. Supporting Iranians is neither charity nor interference. Rather, it is realizing the legal and political commitments the EU has already made. The regime in Tehran has practiced state-sponsored terror, exported violence, destabilized the region and fueled nuclear threats for 47 years. Ending this trajectory isn’t ideological. It’s a matter of European and global security. For the EU, there’s no remaining procedural excuse. The evidence is overwhelming. The legal framework is settled. France and Spain are now all that stand between the bloc and collective action against the IRGC. What’s at stake isn’t diplomacy but Europe’s credibility — and whether it will enforce the principles it invokes when they’re tested by history. Nazenin Ansari Journalist, managing editor of Kayhan-London (Persian) and Kayhan-Life (English) Nazanin Boniadi Human rights activist, actress, board director of Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran, 2023 Sydney Peace Prize Laureate Ladan Boroumand Human rights activist, historian, co-founder of Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran Shirin Ebadi Lawyer, 2003 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Shéhérazade Semsar-de Boisséson Entrepreneur, former CEO of POLITICO Europe, chair of the board at Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran

PARIS — Tech billionaire and early Trump backer Peter Thiel is bringing his Antichrist lecture series across the Atlantic. The famed venture capitalist and right-wing tech icon on Monday delivered an in-depth presentation on the subjects to a small audience inside the wood-paneled halls of one of France’s most prestigious bodies, the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, two attendees told POLITICO. An outline of Thiel’s 23-slide presentation, distributed to attendees by the organizer and shared with POLITICO, delves into the theory of the biblical Antichrist, a deceptive figure in Christian theology who opposes Christ and embodies ultimate evil. The presentation sheds light on the ideology of one of the most influential figures in the United States given his role at the vanguard of Silicon Valley’s ideological shift toward an ideology blending Christian conservatism with a radical libertarianism. Thiel was invited by philosopher and academy member Chantal Delsol. According to the presentation notes seen by POLITICO, which had been translated into French, Thiel said the Antichrist is “not only a medieval fantasy” but that it and the apocalypse are both linked to “the end of modernity,” which he has argued is currently happening. Thiel said the Antichrist would exploit fears of the apocalypse — for example due to nuclear armageddeon, climate change or the threat posed by AI — to control a “frightened population.” He listed, as he has on previous occasions, Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg as a possible example. The 58-year-old self-described “classic liberal” and “moderate Orthodox Christian” had previously spoken about the Antichrist at an even in San Francisco last year and also discussed his thoughts on it with The New York Times. But he called the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences “one of the few places in the world where a conference like this can take place.” The two attendees previously cited told POLITICO they weren’t exactly blown away with the talk. One called it “disjointed.” The other said: “I heard more about the Antichrist during those 45 minutes than during the rest of my life.” “I didn’t understand much,” said a third attendee who did not specify what the talk was about. Despite the 30 or so protesters outside the venue, the event was highly anticipated given Thiel’s status as one of the first major figures in the tech world to back U.S. President Donald Trump. Thiel, who co-founded PayPal with Elon Musk and was an early investor in Facebook, is also a mentor to Vice President JD Vance and donated a record-breaking amount of money to his campaign for U.S. Senate. Thiel is also a co-founder of Palantir, a software and data analysis company that provides services to France’s General Directorate for Internal Security — the French equivalent of the FBI — and the European aircraft-maker Airbus. Thiel also met with French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Noël Barrot during his visit to Paris. “Given the role he has played in shaping the doctrine that drives part of the U.S. administration, Jean-Noël Barrot has invited him for a discussion on our differences of opinion on several major issues: digital regulation, liberal democracy, European civilization, and transatlantic relations in particular,” an aide to Barrot, granted anonymity to adhere to French professional norms, told POLITICO. Giorgio Leali contributed to this report.