read between the li(n)es | Winter Edition 2016/17 by Maastricht Diplomat

winter 2016

The Diplomat read between the li(n)es

Meet our team The Team in no Specific Order: Jakub, Eszter, Miriam, Paddy, Kamelija, Gaby, Fiona, Giovanni, Timothy, Elsa, Kristina, Gaia, Bill, Greta, Lize, Kate, Rod, Tara, Belle, Cristina, Wiktor, Sara, Lena

visit us at diplomat.unsamaastricht.org

The Diplomat Table of Contents 7 10 12 15 18 23 27 30 30

Maastrichtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s BEST KEPT SECRETS What does post-truth mean to you? A scary thing: How to rule the world Dangerous Freedom When fiction becomes conviction linking fiction to reality Quo Vadis, Turkey Letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s show brussels the hungarian referendum a tribute to a true maverick of our time

Note from the Editor

Dear Reader,

success of these campaigns was built on lies and understatements of their Around two months ago the team of leaders. The Diplomat had to come up with an idea for the main theme of the first Just last month, when we were already printed edition in this academic year. working on the winter issue that you With copious unpredictable political are holding in your hands, the Oxford events of recent months, we simply Dictionaries announced a word of the had to answer one question – what do year 2016 – “post-truth”. Some of our journalists reflect on what this word these phenomena have in common? means to them on the following pages. Various statements have been made in regards to unforeseen results of pres- But in this issue, we decided to go even idential elections in the United States further and analyze the presence of or referendum on Brexit in the Unit- lies in our daily routines, from a press ed Kingdom, as well as other political that we read to memes that we browse. events such as the quota referendum With this edition of The Diplomat, in Hungary. And while one may prob- we aim at providing you with articles ably come up with at least a couple of that will make you reconsider political characteristics shared by the afore- events of last year. You can trust me mentioned events, in this issue of The when I say that each of the articles that Diplomat we decided to focus on one you may find in this issue of our magaof the most evident – the tremendous zine is worth your time. Enjoy!

Jakub Biernacki 5

Maastricht’s best kept secrets In a world where King Half-Lie and Queen Semi-Truth seemingly are the reigning monarchs, some things luckily remain indisputably certain. Leggings aren’t pants, Facebook seems to know more about our lives than we ourselves do, and Chanel Westcoast has the most annoying laugh in television history. But most importantly, the fact that The Diplomat will once again try its utmost best at luring you, dear unadventurous reader, out of your safe, but frankly deadly boring, Maastricht comfort zone. Enough overpriced and under-spiked drinks at the Vrijthof, and cut the mushy sandwiches at the library, it’s time to get off the beaten track! Under the rubric ‘Maastricht’s best kept secrets’, The Diplomat does exactly that, introducing you to our beloved city’s hidden gems and upcoming hotspots.

New and nifty

Lize de Potter

3rd Year European Law

SAP Bagel & Juice Bar

Cinema Lumière

In a hurry to catch your train, but in need of a snack for the journey? Finally say goodbye to soggy train station AH sandwiches, and opt for a hipster-approved bagel instead! Or release your inner weirdo and munch away on some bugs (yes, as in scrawny six-legged insects and a variety of worms), which SAP sometimes serves as a side-dish. The little buggers (get it?) apparently taste like popcorn.

Under the same motto as its predecessor at Capucijnengang, Cinema Lumière continues to provide Maastricht with the qualitative alternative films you won’t see at Euroscoop or Pathé. It's especially nice during Oscar season, as Lumière usually shows the extraordinary contenders for Best Foreign Language Film. But, if you’re part of the non-Dutch speaking student population, then make sure to check whether your film of choice is subtitled in English. Bassin 88

Stationsstraat 8

With Love Burrito These guys never miss a Double Trouble party, and when the night’s gotten a bit too hazy but you would like to be able to more or less function in your 8.30 tutorial the next morning, their burritos are an absolute gift from the gods above. And guess what? You can now enjoy their finger-licking Tex-Mex food in an utterly sober state, as they’ve recently opened their very own establishment. Priced lower than at DT, too! Markt 4

Old but gold Café Sjiek Your parents are paying you a visit, but you’ve no idea where to take them for dinner, as you’ve survived the last month on a worrying diet of Dr. Oetker pizzas, ramen noodles and Big Macs? We’ve all been there. But worry not, for Café Sjiek is that classy-butfun restaurant you’ve been looking for! Your fellow restaurant-goers will be Dutch (honestly, where do they hide during the day?), your food ridiculously delicious, and your waiters helpful wine-connoisseurs. Café Sjiek does not take reservations however, so you might have to hang out at the elegant wine-bar for a while, until a table clears up. Sint Pieterstraat 13

Piano B The only pizzeria approved of by Italian students, and voted 2nd Best Pizzeria in the Netherlands. Also known to deliver to the library during peak-exam times. Enough said. Tongersestraat 25

Piece of Cake Reward yourself for getting out of bed and attending your excruciatingly early 8.30 tutorial with a rather gigantic breakfast at Piece of Cake. Both the sweet-tooth and the sucker for all things savoury will most definitely find what their tummy desires most. Bredestraat 28

WIN! Christmas break is around the corner, thank the gods, and most of us cannot wait to hop on the plane/ bus/train to flee Maastricht and check into Hotel Mama. Wherever your home may be, do not forget to take this edition of The Diplomat with you and participate in our selfie contest! Snap a shot with you holding this edition while youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re standing in front of the most famous landmark your hometown has to offer. Then submit your best pics to The Diplomat Facebook page, either by pm or on our timeline. The coolest of prizes for the coolest of pics! Happy snapping and good luck!

What does post-truth mean to YOU? prepared by Kristina Haarbeck

Each year the Oxford dictionaries choses one word that reflects the past year best. This year the editors decided for the word “post-truth” which describes the trend of basing opinions and politics on emotions, and not on facts. The usage of the word “post-truth” increased by 2000% in 2016. Indeed, “post-truth” seems to be omnipresent. One could actually make a funny drinking game out of it: one shot each time a news presenter or politician uses the word. Unfortunately the events connected to the rise of “post-truth” are no reason to party. At least not for those of us who are in favor of politics that is based on common sense and liberty, and not driven by frustration. This year´s peaks of the post-truth era´s upswing were clearly the Brexit referendum and the US election. However, the word “posttruth” is one with many more facets. Some of the journal committee members would like to share their personal associations with the word “post-truth” with you…

“In an era in which truth is slowly dying and hypocrisy and deception are winning, I can only feel frustration, anger, uncertainty. Nothing to rely on, nothing to believe in, nothing to take for granted. Just doubt.”

Gaia Lisi

“In the word: Post-truth, I see the end of journalism we remembered. Journalist always had to invent a catchy title or lead that brought an attention of readers. However, in today’s reality, we see that writing went a step further and journalist nowadays does not have concerns anymore whether this title, lead or even content of its message is misleading. Fact and fiction have crossed its line because of the number of messages we receive every day. Therefore, the competition is much tougher and its players have to rival by illegal or immoral means if they wish to survive. We always listened and read the content we wanted to receive either from the left or right side, however, messages lost even their assumption of objectivity. Therefore, we live in times which require from us more and more skill of reading between the li(n)es. Good luck with that for all readers of our winter Diplomat!”

Wiktor Pinkwart

“politics as entertainment gradual disengagement screaming at the news feed silent at the holiday dinner”

Rod Abhari

“The first time the idea of post-truth appeared for me was in 2014. Back then, I did not even know that there is a word for people who just believe what they want to believe – averting their eyes from any facts that could be evidence against their personal opinion. In 2014 an extreme right-wing organization called “Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the West” initiated demonstrations in my hometown Dresden in the eastern part of Germany. It was the year the refugee crisis picked up speed and became the perfect occasion for populists to fish new members out of the middle of society. The demonstrations´ head organization was extremely right – promoting racist and radical ideals. Up to 15000 people not only from my hometown, but from all over Germany went their way to Dresden once a week to show how angry they were. The most shocking point to me: not all of these 15000 people were right extremists you could just have dismissed as mad. No – suddenly there were friends telling me that they thought the idea behind the demonstration was actually “not too bad” and some would add a little shamefacedly that they were actually thinking about going there next week. The people who went to those demonstrations were not interested in some rightwing idealism – the only thing they were interested in were their own little lives. Do I get a place to train? Does my sister get a job or are all the refugees going to steal them from us? Is my rent going to increase? Why is everything getting more expensive? Those were the questions the demonstrators actually cared about. The refugees just were the perfect scapegoat for all the problems and frustrations people had with their own lives. In 2014 the share of foreigners was with 0.2% extremely low in Dresden – but this statistic simply did not interest any of the participants. Week in, week out, they just went to the demonstration to let out their fear, frustration and anger under cover of the crowd. The number of participants of the demonstrations in my hometown Dresden has already decreased immensely but the phenomenon of people blindly following extremists driven by their emotions is still on the rise. The only way we can stop it, is to not laugh at people who do so, but to take care of them and listen to their fears. To restore these people´s trust in society is essential for the survival of democracy.”

Kristina Haarbeck

A Scary Thing How to Rule the World

Lena Bunselmeyer

2nd Year European Studies

Generally, he was described as charming, polite and soft in personal conversations. He was very charismatic, a leader, but even though he could have lived a life full of luxuries, he preferred a modest lifestyle. Already throughout his studies, he had founded a charity organization, and he had written numerous books about his altruistic ethics, stemming from his deep commitment to religion, which is one of unity and acceptance. People truly were mesmerized by Osama bin Laden, former leader of the Islamist group Al Qaida, most known in the West for the terrorist attacks of 11th September 2001, causing the death of 3000 people.

Charisma – It truly is a scary thing. Hard to define, and a type of character trait – “A special power that some people have naturally which makes them able to influence other people and attract their attention and admiration”, according to Cambridge dictionary. On the big scale however, charisma is not just a character trait, but a broader concept. “Charismatic leadership” it is called, a term coined by Max Weber, and a proper system of justification for leadership, besides legitimacy through tradition or legislative principles. While it is crystal-clear for most people since seventh grade that charismatic people definitely received an unfair advantage in life by God himself, it is the scary kind of charisma, the one relevant in world politics, that is worth further investigation: How do you build up a glorified image around yourself and your vision, to an extent that people are willing to follow your craziest and most inhumane orders? More precisely, at what point does charisma matter more than facts, more than ethics? How about that you, dear reader, want to establish yourself as a such a leader for any reason? Let’s say, I don’t know, you’re an American billionaire (that way you can afford the campaign!) who has endured several ups and downs, the usual, several ruinous bankruptcies, a number of lawsuits for a fake university you built, an orange-looking spray-tan accident that you weren’t able to fix, and the common problem of baldness, which, due to your cover-up attempts, absolutely no one has not noticed yet. Now, in the Western democratic world, it might be difficult to become a charismatic leader in Weber’s sense, since you would probably foremost have to gain your legitimacy through legislative principles. However, you could try to establish certain characteristics of such a leader that might help you push through some terrible, unrealistic plans you might have, despite the facts being against you. Screw the facts, here you come!

The basis here is a binary of good and evil, as well as a narrative of salvation: One has to present oneself as a divine leader against a threatening person or force of any kind. Such “evil” could be poverty, capitalism or injustice of some sort, or it could be a person, an opponent embodying the evil, taking on a picture of “negative charisma”. You’re especially lucky if you’re opponent happens to be a woman, since they very much struggle with being perceived as “charismatic” at all. Researchers collectively confirm this – they are just not exactly sure why. Leading theory says that it’s the fault of the media, judging women according to their conformity to gender roles. This entails for instance concentrating on women’s appearance, their clothing and hair. Women are perceived as competent, but they’re also called “cold”, “calculated” and “unlikeable” in the same sentence, since their power doesn’t comply with the role they’re supposed to embody. Plus, dude, come on, a woman? She’s having blood come out of her wherever once a month and is totally just as close to pressing the red button in a hormonal breakdown as you are to accidentally posting the nuclear code on Twitter. But back to the topic, you need an evil force. There are plenty of examples in history: Hitler had the Jews, Churchill had the Nazis, and Martin Luther King had the Racists. You’ll notice that these examples are in absolutely no correlation when it comes to outcome, and I must say that at this point the time has come to decide what kind of charismatic leader you want to be. From a relativist’s perspective, with no regard to morals or political position, there is one key difference to be aware of: Non-toxic leaders have noble visions, realistic yet difficult achievements to benefit to humankind. Toxic leaders have grand illusions, nirvanas sort of; a purifying yet unrealistic vision. They do not fulfil their promises, because they can’t, and some of them promise all kinds of things to maintain maximum personal discretion to their party’s policy strategy. You know what – let’s go for the toxic option. The fun of these things is kind of to see just how far you can take them, right?

Let’s do a fun combination of evils. See with how many we can come up, and how we can link them to a collective, evil force. We need to go against the system, meaning there must be something already fundamentally wrong. Churchill has shown that this impulse must not necessarily come from the left: It is possible to be a conservative charismatic leader, if you stage yourself as the national defiant against an apocalyptic spiral. Since we have Obama to go against, this is what we’ll work with. Now, your opponent, preferably female, must be put in the same narrative, as the personification of what is already going wrong. In addition, the common fears of the 21st century will be an excellent help: Globalization can be met with “national defiance” and terror attacks will serve to target Muslims as a huge aggression luring at the border. Speaking of borders – Mexicans! There you have it. No one has ever seen Canadians as threatening, but the drug and criminality problem of smuggling over the border could easily be projected on every immigrant to give a simplified picture appearing as coherent to the common voter. Then there is climate change, but that is a tough one. Maybe you’ll be more creative than me. Now the trick is to elevate routine troubles into world history troubles, an art perfected by Hitler. It’s all about the grand narrative, and you need to have your following ready to jump up and shout “I knew it!” whenever a singular occurrence or crisis happens which benefits your views. You also can’t get too precise, of course, because let’s face it, the facts will be against you. Propaganda, to quote Hitler (Wow, this is getting darker and darker), is to break your message down so that the most uninformed, uncomprehending person in the country is just educated enough to comprehend your message. An image-based rhetoric, as well as directness and great passion are suggested by contemporary research to appeal to masses in this way. Charisma in the sense of personality, by the way, is to be treated as a soft skill in this

case: Definitely helpful, it cannot be overrated, but, at last, it is not required to achieve a classical charismatic leadership. Some scholars even suggest that figures perceived as having mesmerizing personal charisma such as Martin Luther King or Hitler were only perceived as such after their vision had already found support. In the end, however, there is still no guarantee that this will work out: Whether there is an opening for a charismatic leader to step up and be successful in their vision depends profoundly on the structural and cultural conditions of the people being addressed – a perceived crisis sparking the psychological need for an authority figure in uncertain times is crucial for this. Different aspects can play into this, for instance you can promise to the people to restore their learned worldviews which have been challenged in the past couple of years. Promising transcendence to humans is a crucial method as well, especially to those who feel left out from the important issues in the world. Make them think they will be celebrated by their grandchildren and they will follow you recklessly, according to psychology. Brooding resentment needs to be translated into a more or less coherent world view, and I think, taking an educated guess at the current state of the Union, there is a good chance that this might actually work. So you see, my dear reader, that there are lots of aspects to be considered in your evil plan, and you’ll need a bit of luck to catch the right moment of societal upheaval. So my last advice, as in every tacky manual, is to have fun with it – propose ridiculous legislation, make another reality TV show out of choosing your staff, insult a couple of people and straight up lie at official events; maybe introduce mandatory spray tanning to make yourself appear more attractive compared to others? The world is crazy out there, who knows how far you might get.

Dangerous Freedom

Fiona O’Hara

2nd Year Arts and Culture

The freedom of the press; a fundamental right of the modern democratic society. Championed as the ideal of progress, the more freedom granted to the press, the more progressive the government. But how progressive is the free media? As we have seen throughout 2016, the free press has influenced some of the biggest political decisions of recent years, arguably becoming the most influential industry in the world. Would Britain have left the European Union? Would a reality TV star have been voted the 45th President of the United States of America? Obviously there are many complicated, intertwined reasons as to why these events occurred, but we can not ignore that trust in our media has impacted world events greatly. We hold our press on such a high pillar of integrity that we are inclined to believe what we are told, well, at least enough of us are. But when we look at the Leave campaign in the lead up to the EU referendum, we can see the immense amount of false information being spread by the mainstream tabloid press. “We send 350million to the EU every year, let’s spend it on our NHS instead!” All anyone needed to do was a quick Google search to know that this statement is based on no real evidence, and that actually the EU helps the UK fund the NHS in the first place. The British press is infamous for its click-bate headlines, bigotry, and lack of evidence to support said bigotry. Tabloid journalists have had an influential hand in demonising child refugees (and refugees in general), Muslims, Eastern Europeans, Middle-Eastern people, people who rely on benefits, working mothers, the working class, Jeremy Corbyn, Ed Miliband, gay people, anyone who thinks climate change is real...the list is endless. The press has created a new-age state of paranoia, and for what? Boosting the egos of butt-hurt alcoholics who don’t want Romanian neighbours?

Despite these obvious crimes, any calls for censorship are fought with great force. "We can’t be told what to say! We can’t let the government control us!" Any attempts at some form of regulation in the press is seen as a direct attack on our democratic freedoms from a totalitarian dictatorship. It takes the phone-tapping of a murdered teenager's phone by the News of the World to convince people that something is not quite right…

The press, I believe, has a duty to us; yet our individualistic society doesn’t like being told it has a responsibility to anything but itself.

But as we have seen time and time again, the truth doesn’t sell for top dollar. Journalism is so important, but money and power has corrupted the profession. We let Murdoch and his minions wreck havoc on the British psych, we have let our ignorance be turned into their profit. And we, in For this behaviour to flourish and thrive, we have turn, do not challenge their words as aggressively to look at ourselves as a society. How have we let as we should. The truth isn’t always scandalous, or the tabloids convince us that we should be afraid? shocking, or even very interesting, but is essential. Because we are susceptible to it, we have become Essential to keeping the peace, to bringing comeasy targets. Any news that doesn’t terrify us is au- munities together, to challenging as well as suptomatically boring to us. We need to be shocked porting the government, to empowering the peoto show any kind of interest, and the press know ple and giving them a voice. this. They know that an audience that can easily be distracted by celebrity scandals and funny cat There is no clear solution that I aim to present in this article. The point I would like to get across videos can be convinced of anything. is the belief that censorship is not necessarily a In the immortal words of Uncle Ben, “With great bad thing. Censorship already exists in the UK power, comes great responsibility,” and I think as hate-speech is banned, which is crucial for the that’s what many of us have forgotten. Just because safety and security of minority groups. But I am we have the freedom to do something doesn’t not calling for censorship of beliefs and opinions, mean that we should. The media is the main but rather censorship of bullshit. With a regulated source of information for the majority of people in media then we will be better informed and smartwestern countries, making it an incredibly power- er as a result, and will not tolerate being lied to. ful force. This power has been instrumental in the Although I believe we are becoming wiser to Murmass enfranchisement of the working people, but doch’s scams, I don’t see an enlightenment at the has also lead to the alienation of racial, religious end of the tunnel, as long as they are in the money. So I can say to readers now is this warning: don’t and ethnic groups. believe everything you read in the papers.

When Fiction becomes conviction Greta Koch

Kristina Haarbeck 1st year Econonomics and Business Economics

2nd Year European Studies

Fake news spread on the internet in just a few seconds – but determine political outcomes for a lifetime Kermit the Frog standing in front of himself wearing a black coat, reminding us of every situation where our inner voices prevented us from reacting appropriately – Me: “I’m sure there is a logical explanation for this”. Also me: “Overreact!”. A video of Joe Biden asking for ice cream or wearing shades. A list of names for people who are likely to be the worst drivers or who will get pregnant next year. Mannequin Challenges. A picture of a cat with a Hitler mustache. A video of another cat helplessly throwing hits at a keyboard with the headline “Me trying to finish my assignment on time”. Or a video of a grandma rapping all the ingredients to a Thanksgiving dinner… YOU NAME IT! At least one of these things will be familiar to you if you opened Facebook in the last four weeks. Whether on the phone or on the laptop, before going to sleep or even during a lecture, almost every student scrolls through Facebook’s newsfeed to see what their friends are doing, which events will take place this weekend or to watch a fast cooking video. But apart from entertaining us and giving us a platform to socialize, Facebook is also bringing in the news, because we liked the page of Obama, of the BBC or because one of our friends shared an interesting article.

According to studies that were made in the US, Germany and the UK this summer, around 61% of the millennial generation see Facebook as their main news source, followed by Google with 33% and Twitter with 14%. This means that social networks have replaced what the TV has been for the “baby boomer” generation: their source for entertainment, but also news and political knowledge. The difference: before an anchor reads out the news on TV, whether it is CNN, RaiNews or the Tagesschau, they have been checked for whether their content is correct. Surely, that can be said for what these news channels posted on Facebook as well. However, those are definitely not the only things being shared. Anyone can blurt out his or her opinion and share articles from less professional networks, that might be as truthful as the mentioned list of girls getting pregnant in 2017 because they are called Laura – the advantage of living in a free society using a free platform, but surely also a problem. What we see on Facebook

does not only affect our opinions that might be based on wrong facts, but can also determine whole political outcomes of our time, as they are shared and shared and shared until thousands have seen it. This can be most clearly observed in the US presidential campaign of this year. Donald Trump is surely the most famous Facebook and Twitter user of this year, because he posts a lot, and because it is likely to be false. Coming for the first time on the political stage by claiming that Barack Obama was born outside the US, this statement was loud enough to force Obama to actually release his official birth certificate to oppose these news. Since then, Donald Trump has posted that climate change is “an expensive hoax” and “created for and by the Chinese,” that Canadians should be called “snow Mexicans,” and claimed that “crooked” Hillary Clinton should be in jail. With every new post,article and video, it seemed more and more absurd that this man, who blurts out so many statements that were clearly false or at least offensive, could really become president.

But he actually won and after Brexit, for the second time in 2016, many people in Europe, among them many millennials, woke up and were shocked or at least surprised by the outcome of the vote. And it was so surprising for many people of this millennial generation because they had only seen posts and articles and videos against Trumps campaign on Facebook. However, seeing only one side of the story is a phenomenon that does not reflect general public opinion, but is calculated by Facebook. Hence, you only see the opinion of your friends who are, as far as age, social class and education is concerned, likely to share your opinion on the big issues like Brexit and the US election. Nevertheless, what you see is still organized in the way that you only selectively see things that are similar to the things that you previously liked or shared. For instance, every time you liked a video of John Oliver saying that time-travelers will come back and stop Trump from becoming president, you saw only further posts that were also campaigning against Donald Trump. Here again, completely false news pop up that are shared among thousands, also a quote of Donald Trump saying â&#x20AC;&#x153;If I were to run as president, I would run as a Republican. They are the dumbest group of voters in the country. I could lie and theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d still eat it up.â&#x20AC;? This certainly is a great quote, but he never actually said it. And the same happened to the other side: everyone who liked the video that tries to prove that Hillary Clinton was responsible for the attack in Bengasi will probably see another Clinton image afterwards, portraying her as heartless or corrupt. Hence, the use of Facebook creates two distinctive opinion bubbles. So far, Facebook campaigning did not have a comparable effect on the elections in Europe, but it is what the political parties of Italy, Austria, France or Germany certainly will have to face in the course of the next months in the coming elections. To the question on how to react to this challenge, politicians from Germany were sure that propagating against other false news would only have a backfiring effect. The only thing that would work is to keep political matters as transparent as possible, to prevent false news to be shared franticly and suppress right wing propaganda. It further strengthens the position of those being against further referenda, as their outcome is the most obvious political tool that is manipulated through false news. However, competent use of media will surely be a challenge that will need to be advocated in the coming years.

While Facebook still insists on not being a media company and is not taking any responsibility, Google launched a fact-check feature in Great Britain and the USA in October. In these times in which conspiracy theories, rumors, lies and hoax seem to spread like wildfire, Google celebrates itself as the new defender of the truth on the internet. Recently new fact-check sites are springing up like mushrooms on the market. Google now wants to link its news stories to such a fact-check site chosen on the basis of criteria the world´s biggest search engine sets. Google´s users shall have the ability to check if news are true or not right away. Indeed, it seems as if Google takes a step forward in order to ban fictional news. This seems to be the solution we were looking for. No more airbrushed, manipulating, incendiary fairytale stories. Finally, the internet takes its role as populism´s fuel seriously and defends itself against it. No more truth cherry-picking. Finally, a higher authority makes it hard for those who give themselves air by spreading emotionalized conspiracies. However, it creeps up the question if of all possibilities Google should be that higher authority? What often is neglected is that Google is not only distributing information selflessly. Google attaches advertisement to the information provided and earns money by user interaction. Of course the company has quite a big interest in promoting exciting, click-worthy news. Google is – similarly to Facebook – the main source of the majority of the society. We rely on what our Google search spews out. Being widely acknowledged as a trustworthy source is what makes Google successful. Voices that claim Google is promoting fake stories represent an immense threat for Google´s image and consequently, economic success. This is why we really should consider critically if it is the noble motive of fighting the internet´s development to a rumor-monger that drives Google, or rather a business strategy. The search for truth has always driven mankind. Shall we really leave it now to a non-transparent Google algorithm? In fact, Google fact check lets the company´s power to influence their users´ perception of what is true or not become terribly immense. It is a frightening thought to debate on a topic and have to deal with arguments such as: “Well, Google said it´s true!” What to reply? Google is not a moral authority, neither is it fully independent. Anyway, if people are not sure about something, they just google it and accept the result as pure truth they can refer to. In a time when emotions and opinions of those who cry the loudest are more important than scientifically proven data, it is dangerous to allow such an influential company as Google to have the monopoly on the truth.

To avoid reproaches of manipulation, Google announced that the relevant linked fact-check sites will be checked against “commonly accepted criteria”. However, these criteria are selected by Google and not an official institution. This fact raises the question what these fact-check sites chosen will be like. How independent are they actually? How are they financed? By who are they controlled? Each of these fact-check sites pretends to know where the border between spin and wisdom is. No doubt – there are sites that work absolutely reliably and seriously. Anyway, in the end Google criteria will decide who will be the apostle of truth. Truth is not simply a good that can be consumed. Truth develops through critical analysis and comparison of sources and facts. Do not trust anyone before you got your own idea of what is going on would be a pretty dramatized statement to conclude with. In contrary, it is definitely not too much trust rather than undisturbed consumption of what the internet spews out that made it initially possible to let the post-truth phenomenon to become as dominant. The magic formula is awareness. Awareness of what Google says is true is not necessarily wrong but neither necessarily right. Awareness that Facebook is confirming us in our opinions and is therefore not suitable as journalistic source. Not the whole internet is a conspiracy in itself, but it is a place where lies have the possibility to spread freely, or more importantly, rapidly. That leaves us with the duty to reflect on our beliefs, to question critically what the internet sells us as true. This is a responsibility no one can take from us – not even a Google fact check.

Tara Kuijpers

Masters of International Laws, Criminology, Forensics and Law

Lies, half truths and omissions surround us from childhood to death, and somehow we suffer once they are uncovered. Be it the inhabitants of Troy who died and lost their city after falsely believing the Wooden Horse was a peace offering of the Greeks, the general shock and disbelief at Armstrong’s admittance of having used performance enhancing drugs after all, somewhere sometime we have all been duped. There is however another form of fiction, which is one many of us love to be swept away by: novels. How many young (and not so young) women have swooned at the lives of Jane Austin’s female leads? How many young men fought Sauron alongside Frodo and his friends? How large is the worldwide community who felt Harry’s pain when Sirius Black fell through the veil after only just having started to get to know his godfather, as if it were their own?

The Wizarding World of Harry Potter (attraction theme park) is a mere confirmation of how much we love the idea of pretending, if only for moments, that the magical world of books is real and that we are a part of it. One of the reasons Harry Potter and his friends and foes have taken such a place in our minds, hearts and lives is the fact that even though the magic and most of the events are impossible in our real world (like flying on broomsticks), almost everything other than the actual magic can in its essence be related to our world! Quidditch, can somewhat be compared to our Basketball and Handball, though the rules are more complex of course; even the World Cup of Quidditch can be translated to our Football World Championship. The O.W.L. and N.E.W.T. exams can be compared to the GCSE, SAT, A levels or IB exams taken in our reality. The wizard community even has their own Ministry of Magic with various departments and a Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries. Unfortunately, the world of Harry Potter also has less enjoyable phenomena and history that are very similar to ours. I will analyse some of the most relevant issues that appear in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix relatable to our world. First of all, I will discuss the topic of unity versus segregation, which I will relate to the topic of refugees and asylum seekers. Harry Potter and his friends creating Dumbledoreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Army is a display of unity within a school divided into 4 houses. Indeed, even though the students are

split based on the ideology of the four founders, separated by dormitories based on their houses and even a highly competitive Quidditch Cup, members from not only Gryffindor but also students from Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw signed up for the extracurricular activity. At the start of the year, the Sorting Hat had warned the school that especially in times of imminent danger, unity from within was of the utmost importance to stand a fighting chance against evil. The shabby old enchanted hat was aware of the coming rift that would occur within the wizarding community, between those who believe all non pure blood wizards are unworthy, and those who donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t. In our world, even though we know that scientifically speaking there is no difference between a human being with light skin and one with dark skin, nor between a person who believes in God and Jesus or someone who believes in Allah or even somebody who does not believe in any deity, we still fear and even hate each other based on those differences.

People, who used to have lives just like ours with jobs, school, joy and dignity, have been forced to flee their homes and country to avoid death in a conflict they have neither chosen for nor caused, only to come to a country they hope will treat them with respect and show them mercy and give them safety and instead be treated like pariahs, thrown together in small quarters under questionable circumstances.

Refugees and asylum seekers are treated like criminals instead of victims, forced to be outcasts, to whom it is made obvious that they are not welcome and not wanted. Instead of standing together with these people, helping them grow strong enough to return to their homes and reclaim them, they are kept weak, hurt and angry. A parallel can be made to Dean Thomas, a muggle born wizard, forced into hiding, or the countless other mudbloods arrested and detained purely based on their blood status. Fortunately, just like the D.A. and the Order of the Phoenix in Harry Potter, various NGOs and organisations fight to improve the lives and situations of refugees and asylum seekers, persecuted by their home countries.

This persona bears a striking resemblance to Adolf Hitler, who made himself Chancellor of Germany and waged a war on the whole of Europe and eventually the world, because he wanted territory and resources to ensure the proliferation of what he called the “Arian race” (tall, blond hair and blue eyes being characteristic traits), and to rid the western society of all Jews (and disabled people, homosexuals, political opponents and gypsies) by means of killing them or throwing them all in concentration camps. Ironically, Adolf himself was a short man with black hair and dark eyes who was not German but Austrian and, to top it off, had a Jewish grandmother. Enough said.

Secondly, and very much linked to the first issue, is discrimination and the subsequent rise of evil leaders. The very idea that pure-bloods are supposed to rule over the rest of the world leads to Tom Riddle a.k.a. Lord Voldemort being able to gain power and followers (that and his ability to charm, curse or scare people into doing his bidding). Indeed, he is not the first wizard (Salazar Slytherin and Gellert Grindelwald), and probably won’t be the last, to have considered anything less than a pure-blood wizard unworthy and beneath them. Ironically, Voldemort is a half-blood himself, his pure-blood mother having fallen in love with a muggle. Tom Riddle desired to reign over the wizarding community and make all muggle servants to wizards. All those who stood in his way were to be killed, tortured into madness, or put under a spell to control their thoughts and actions for as long as the person was useful.

The third issue that is clearly written between the lines of J.K. Rowling’s 5th book are minority rights. Several, if not all, minorities are mocked, insulted, ostracized, persecuted, mistreated or killed and at least not given the same rights as wizards. The giants have come to be very wary of wizards and even loathe them, because the latter have frequently used their magic upon the former. Moreover, the giants have seen their numbers drastically reduced by wizards and by being forced to all live together despite being from different tribes. Centaurs, by most wizards, are considered by most wizards to not have right to land (or any other right for that matter), and in consequence, those in the Forbidden Forest at Hogwarts are known to force humans out of the Forest, if they do not kill them.

Goblins have had their riches stolen by wizards and work for them grudgingly but at least they enjoy freedom, unlike house elves. The house elves are enslaved to either a family or an establishment, and can only be released if given clothing. They are so deep in their subservience that they punish themselves if they even think of disobeying their masters. Hermione, one of the three protagonists, creates an association resembling an NGO to fight for their rights. Obviously, this can very easily be related to discrimination and refusal of minority rights based on skin colour or religion in our world, as well as the fight for human rights like the right to be free of slavery.

Finally, the lies published in the prominent Daily Prophet of the Wizard world can be assimilated to those of our own media. Articles were published about the Ministry of Magic claiming that Harry and Dumbledore were lying about Voldemorts return, as well as countless discrediting articles and snide comments about the two men. In our world, CNN has created fictional reports of conflicts zones, newspapers have printed assurances of the NSA that they were not spying on US citizens via email and telephone records, and lies concerning the effects of Brexit were printed. Stories are spinned so that they will sell, even if the truth must be twisted into a lie. Journalists criticize Trump for expecting them to check their facts, even though traditionally it is up to journalists to uncover the truth before printing their story. Whether the media prints lies knowingly or are themselves duped by scientists, politicians, or businessmen who each have their own agenda, it is nearly impossible nowadays to know what is true and what isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t. To conclude, J.K. Rowling has written a book of fiction that bewitches us with its magic and yet opens our eyes and minds to the issues of our world. Concerning the few topics I discussed above, I can only add in conclusion that even though books of fiction are one big lie, told to allow our minds to escape our own lives and worries, the beauty of such stories is to allow them to leave an imprint in our minds that will affect our actions in our world. The possibility that reading a book or a series like the Harry Potter franchise may open the eyes, hearts and minds of its readers and perhaps bring them to display the courage, cunning, wisdom, loyalty and humanity that they felt when following the protagonist in his adventures.

Quo Vadis, Turkey?

Miriam Goldschmitt 2nd Year European Studies

Footballer for “Amed SK”. Prosecuted due to promoting the forbidden Kurdish PKK terrorist organization. After an important victory of the Turkish third division team “Amed SK”, Naki, 27, posted on Facebook and Twitter that he would dedicate the victory to all these people who “were killed or injured during 50 days of oppression”. Naki alluded to the armed conflicts in the Kurdish southeast of Turkey and to the many civilian victims, as he emphasized. The club is situated in the southeastern Kurdish metropolis Diyarbakir. As a consequence of his post, Naki was suspended for 12 matches without having had a hearing. And now he has to stand trial. Naki expects an imprisonment of one to five years. The case of Deniz Naki is no exception. 110,000 judges, teachers, police officers and civil servants suspended, 9 representatives of the opposition and 142 journalists arrested, 130 media businesses closed, more than 36,000 people taken into custody.

This has been Turkish reality since July 15, 2016. Since the attempted military coup in Turkey failed, the Turkish government has passed anti-terrorism legislation to take action against presumed supporters of the coup and terrorists. The Turkish government accuses them of having connections with the movement of the preacher Fethullah Gülen, who is held responsible for the coup d’état. The European Union criticises the anti-terrorism legislation as contradicting European fundamental rights, such as the right of free speech, the freedom of media and the separation of powers with the establishment of independent courts. On November 24, the European Parliament therefore voted to suspend talks with Turkey on European Union membership, which started in 2005, until the “disproportionality repressive measures” are stopped. The Resolution passed with 479 votes in favour, 37 against and 107 abstentions. The members of the European Parliament furthermore demanded that the possible reintroduction of the capital punishment by the Turkish government should automatically result in a deadlock in the accession negotiations. Even if the European Commission and the Member States are not bound by the Resolution, it has great symbolic significance.

The Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim reacted to the Resolution by pointing out a contradiction in the EU’s actions: On the one hand, the EU states the important role of Turkey regarding Europe’s security, while on the other hand, the EU takes decisions such as the Resolution. Yildirim hinted thereby at the migration agreement between Turkey and the EU, which the President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, threatened to dissolve after the Resolution. The EU-Turkey agreement aims to address the flow of refugees and migrants coming from Turkey to the Greek islands via the Aegean. Greece can return to Turkey “all new irregular migrants” arriving after March 20, 2016. Turkey must take back refugees, which do not seek asylum in Greece, whose application for asylum is unfounded or not permissible. In exchange, EU Member States resettle up to 72,000 Syrian refugees residing in Turkey, accelerate visa liberalization for Turkish nationals and support the Turkish government financially with regards to refugees. Erdogan’s strategy to use the migration agreement as means of bringing pressure to bear is nothing new. He had already threatened to dissolve the agreement several times: For instance in June, after the German Bundestag had passed the Resolution on Armenia, which acknowledged the 1915 massacre of Turkey on Armenia as genocide.

The EU’s permanent “no” to passing the complete visa liberalization of Turkish residents when coming to the EU had equally triggered threats on the side of the Turkish government. The migration agreement is, however, not only useful for the EU, but also for Turkey itself. The EU is the most important trade partner for Turkey and the EU promised Turkey to provide financial support of six billion euros until 2018 for accommodating refugees. Both are important aspects for Turkey, which currently faces a weakened economy. Moreover, it is possible that even after a Turkish denunciation of the agreement, the number of refugees arriving in Greece would stay limited due to the closure of the Balkan route. It could, however, also be possible that the already instable Greece would become a gigantic refugee reception camp, exactly because of the closure of the Balkan route.

the EU have the legitimacy to define democracy as opposed to dictatorship? Turkey accommodates more than three million migrants and refugees. As the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, told the station “Euronews”, Turkey would do far more than the EU, as well as Jordan and the Lebanon. The EU should thus not teach Turkey how to deal with refugees. Moreover, the migration agreement does not necessarily represent Europe as a community of solidarity and of shared values. Especially the nonobservance of fundamental human rights is denounced.

A rise of right-wing and national conservative parties is an increasing phenomenon in the EU with reforms in Member States, such as Poland, where new legal and media laws might infringe European fundamental rights. Juncker concedes that the EU has relationships with all dictatorships because the EU must contribute to organising the world. One criticizes Turkey with good The European Parliament stated explicitly that the reason, but nobody talks about Saudi Arabia. This Resolution would be a temporary claim and that does, however, not excuse the direction, which the it would re-examine its position as soon as Turkey Turkish government took after the military coup. would declare the end of the state of emergency. It would then be decisive to what extent Turkey Deniz Naki was acquitted on November 8. Jan van would have taken reforms and would have come Aken, member of the German Bundestag, rated back to constitutional conditions and to the re- the unexpected outcome of the trial as a case where “international pressure worked for once”. It spect of human rights. was a positive sign for the Turkish constitutionThere is no doubt that Turkey’s anti-terrorism legal state. The outcome of the trial took, however, islation does not respect fundamental rights and place before the Resolution of the European Parpaves the way to an authoritarian regime. But is liament and before Turkey’s reactions on it. the EU in a position to dictate to Turkey how to behave, which values and rights to respect? Does t One step in the right direction could thus be followed by two steps back again.

Let's show Brussels! What exactly? The Hungarian Referendum Sometimes referenda are stupid. And no, for once, I am not talking about Brexit. See, it is not the only referendum that had people voting without thinking about the outcome or without knowing what the question was even about. Obviously, it was not the first one twisting the truth. It was probably one of many. To provide you with an adequate representation of #uselessreferenda, I would like to introduce you to Hungary’s recent referendum, and more precisely, to 7+1 sins of stupidity it has committed. The referendum was held on the 2nd of October, and I am not suprised if you have not heard about it, even though the country has been in the news exactly because of the refugee crisis. Nevertheless, the referendum is an embarrassment, really. Enjoy: 1. The question “Do you approve of the EU’s power to potentially relocate non-Hungarian citizens into Hungary, even without consent of Parliament?” – Just read the question again and think. Not that it matters, but personally, I would have voted with no, though not for the reasons the government has stated (protecting Hungary’s culture, showing the strength of the country etc..). I would have voted with no because the country simply can not tackle an issue like this, even with EU funding. The country needs to sort out its spending towards healthcare and education first. But I guess that is something my vote will never be able to tell.

Eszter Sailer

2nd Year European Studies

Because I never voted. This referendum, about this issue, is just a trap. If you vote(d) yes, the majority of the country will tell you that you are the reason why Hungary is failing. Even though, you could say that you just want an approprite solution to relocating refugees, you voted yes about no consent of Parliament. How even dare you? Go and migrate somewhere else, for example to London, where every second waitor/waitress is Hungarian. If you vote no, however, you just feed the government’s already huge ego and anti-EU reputation, even though voting no could also mean something else (see above). 2. The measure it referred to While in 2015, it was agreed to relocate around 150.000+ refugees from Italy, Greece, and Hungary, the original proposal to include a mandatory distribution key, obliging reluctant Member States to house refugees, was dropped. The agreement in the end was to relocate the refugees and to not punish Member States that refused to host them.

Therefore, this referendum was already irrelevant. The EU’s mandate did not even include forcing a quota on reluctant countries. Hungary had nothing to fear. (Yet?)

seed of hatred into citizens’ mind. Look at the result! They obviously did a good job. After the Paris attacks, the billboards changed. “Did you know? The Paris attacks were committed by refugees.” “Did you know? Nearly a million refugees want to come to Europe, from Lybia alone.”

Another issue with the contested measure was, that a referendum would have changed nothing about it. A referendum, let alone, average voters of Hungary, can not change the decision-making system of the European Union. So what if we At least we got good memes out of it. Even the Kétfarkú Kutyapárt (Twotailed Dogvote no? Nothing. Nothing happens.

party), a party founded to make fun of the political elite and using parody to comment 3. The Prime Minister’s ideology on the corrupt working system of other parties, made new billboards and put them over Orbán said this referendum was not the originals: “If you’re Hungary’s Minister necessarily about the refugee quota President, you have to obey our laws!” “Did but about Hungary as a nation and the you know? An average Hungarian sees more country’s position in the world. For his aliens in their life than refugees.”

information, referenda are yes or no questions. Imagine if the question would have asked: “What do you think about Hungary as a nation?”Yes. “Furthermore, what do you feel is the role of the country in the world?” No.

I was riding around Hungary last summer with my grandmother, freshly out of first year of university, and was appalled by the same billboards. Idealistic me asked her grandmother why the campaign has to be like this. The question itself puts the answer into your mouth. The billboards do not pro4. The campaign – hold tight, please vide the voter with information, or even with a reference point for further informaIt was August 2015, when I first saw the tion. It basically just uses tweets to convince giant billboards spread around Buda- the country.

pest. “If you come to Hungary, you have to respect our laws!” “If you come to Hungary, you can not take away Hungarians’ jobs!” “If you come to Hungary, you have to respect our culture!” I did not understand. Why do they write these signs in Hungarian? Are these signs not meant for refugees? Do they not want refugees to know what they expect? I remember asking my father why the signs were written in Hungarian. It made no sense. In his words it was ‘simply the satanic government’. Oh, I was so naive. The purpose of these signs was not to warn refugees. It was to put the

The campaign also raised the question of legality in me. I asked myself if it was allowed to even advertise the referendum in such a way. Plus, given the fact that I had been looking at the same signs a year ago, was it even legal to start so early? Well, there is no concrete answer to that. It is vague what Hungarian law says about it. A number of days have been specified, but surely not 365+. However, so many changes have been made to Hungarian laws, that it is hard to determine what is legal and what is not. Orbán would argue against it anyway. Apparently, as long as it is financed, the government does not care.

5. The budget of the campaign The government has spent at least 10 billion forints (31.95 million euros) on the campaign. It would be fair to ask why the country has spent so much on a referendum that is not even binding nor is it relevant, when teachers do not get paid enough and hospitals are in an unhuman state, with poor meals and overcrowded rooms. How does a country want to prove a point, claiming that they are taking care of their people, when it can not even provide adequate healthcare or education, but keeps on building football stadiums? How does a country want to convince their citizens that they are providing them with a better life if the constitution has been changed to Hungary ‘doing its best to provide every citizen with a living situation that fits human needs’ from ‘guaranteeing’ it?

“Not really.”/”I don’t even know what the outcome is.” “So it was only important to you to vote with no and that’s it?” –“Basically.” • “Who lives here? It’s a nice house.” – “Zoltán Mága’s (a famous Hungarian violin player) father.” I guess he is friends with Vik. That makes it clear why the town voted no. 7. The irony One of the campaign signs said ‘WE ARE GOING TO SHOW BRUSSELS!’ What are you going to show Brussels? The country basically lives off EU money. Do you want to show how you spend it? No, you do not. +1. A personal one – social media

6. Corruption Some of you might have expected this. Well, you were right. Corruption has escaped few matters in Hungarian politics. A little (irrelevant) town called Tiszabő received great attention after the elections, because the whole town voted no. Naturally, dear Viktor used it as a sign of triumph of the ‘sensible people of Hungary’. The news video that emerged after it, was more interesting, though. Reporters riding around the little town asked people if they voted, and why they voted no. Among the answers was: “They told me that if you do not vote, you should not come to work tomorrow!” and conversations such as: • “I guess everyone agreed on not wanting to have migrants coming in.” – then the riporter asked “Do you remember the last time you saw a migrant?” – no answer. • “Did you vote with no?” – “I think. I don’t remember.” • “Do you know what the question was about?” –

Whereas I have enjoyed the countless jokes that emerged about the referendum, there was one sad thing. I realized how many people I had to delete off Facebook, and how many people just reposted articles they only read the title of, without checking their facts. The most heartbreaking surprise was my elementary school teacher. She called ‘yes’ voters the reason why the country is failing. The only people that begged to differ were me and my old classmates. I guess it was the young ones against the seniors, a never ending discussion. I wonder where I’ve seen that phenomenon before… This example is just one of the many failed, unreasonable and truth-twisting referenda that have been conducted over the years. However, what better way is there to demonstrate the (sometimes) idiocy that concerns referenda than elaborating on your own country’s actions? We will have to forget about this one, right Viktor? #absolutebro

A tribute to a true maverick of our time. Vladislav Surkov, Putin’s very special advisor

Bill Pemberton-Bennetts 1st year European Law

One may have noticed on social media, a growing trend of gay couples holding hands whilst walking through whilst being shouted at and shoved around in the middle of the street. This sheds on growing neo-nationalist and pro-Kremlin youth organisations that are becoming popular within Russia, marking a strange turn towards violent political organisations in a country where Post Soviet rule had left citizens ambivalent towards politics. These groups included Nashi, an anti-nazi group who’s leader Vasily Yakemenko promised that he would tackle skinheads in the streets. Despite this, new members are taken to military style training camps; leading to members being accused of targeting non-ethically Russian citizens for attacks via hiring skinheads to do the job for them. This confused people over whether these were peaceful (peaceful what?) or the very thugs they were protesting against. However, the most intriguing conduct of this group is that they reportedly receive 200m Rubles (USD $3m) from the Russian government, but more on that later. On the other side of the political spectrum are “anti-Putin” campaigners. This includes the Motherland Party, the Party of Life and the Party of Pensioners, who in 2006 formed an “opposition” coalition. Putin was involved in the talks concerning this merger and Motherland leader Mikhail Delyagin said “Putin simply gave the order” to merge. An apt question to ask here would be: why is Putin involved in talks concerning the amalgamation of opposition parties?

The answer: Russia’s opposition parties aren’t real. They are funded via the Kremlin and only after receiving authorisation from Putin himself. Even in Russia, politics needs money, so all true opposition parties lack funding and die a quick death; it has got to a point where the Kremlin manufacture political dissents within the State Duma (Parliament). In 2010, Putin’s budget was defeated, after Putin reportedly asked the Duma to vote against it. This combined with the fact that the Duma at the same time authorised Putin’s wish for South Ossetia and Abkhazia to be independent, voting 447-0. This strategy only creates confusion - is the government authoritarian or not? Why are they being defeated over their budget one minute, but winning 100% support of their foreign policy the next?

the artist can critique a system that he himself is part of. Bringing this back to Surkov; he deliberately funded pro-Kremlin groups like Nashi and created fake opposition from within the State Duma. But none of this was real! The confusion aimed to hide what was really going on within Russia. The political revolts weren’t real, nor were the Kremlin funded opposition parties. It was all a plan to create political apathy within Russia, as citizens didn’t know who the real and fake political parties are. Surkov’s whole idea is to leave the public bewildered towards the politics of their country, nothing is fixed, a constantly shifting state of pure animation and theatrics. The strangest bit of all this? Surkov confirmed that this was his plan all along, authoring a book called Close to Zero. The novel is written in the form of satire, telling the story of a PR agent, who uses the same tactics as Surkov himself. The book describes to a key, exactly what Surkov is doing but this is part of the whole strategy. Once citizens know that some parts of their society isn’t real, what can they trust? Why get involved at all?

This confusion ties into the funding of groups like Nashi and the Motherland coalition, where a rather obscure man named Vladislav Surkov comes into play. Surkov partly trained as a theatre director at the Moscow Institute of culture before serving in Soviet military intelligence. After his service, Surkov gained a Masters degree in economics and went into the world of PR for now disgraced Russian businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky, where Surkov He also authored a short story called Withstarted to develop media strategy. out Sky, in which he openly stated his Surkov applied theories of abstract art to plan concerning Russian involvement in Russian politics from his own experience Ukraine. Without Sky is incredibly short, it in theatre, especially those of Jean François is told from a first person perspective and Lyotard. In The Postmodern Condition: A describes a concept of Non-linear warfare. report on knowledge, Lyotard argues that It talks about how in the 19th and 20th centhe artist must create works that cannot be tury, wars were fought between two sides communicated and cannot be processed for very simple reasons. Non-linear warby conventional information systems. This fare involves multiple armies and factions fighting for their own ends. developed on Jenny Holzer’s theory that

The real life scenario that Surkov alludes to is the ongoing conflict in Donbass, Eastern Ukraine. In the Donbass conflict, there are 11 different pro-Russian groups fighting against the Ukrainian defence Ministry with no clear goal. The majority of these groups are comprised of Russian nationals or ethnic Russians from the Donbass region, with several of them receiving Kremlin funding or equipment. The evidence for this includes the fact rebels have been seen with state of the art Russian military equipment, despite saying that they took them from Ukranian rebels, this amongst other evidence shows that Russia has been directly funding rebels. The point being shown here is that the Kremlin aimed to do this in order to keep the conflict going, but at the same time confuse the world scene over their involvement in the crisis as there is never solid evidence of their involvement. Were they funding these pro-Russian groups or were the groups just loyal to their country? This tactic of non-linear warfare via creating numerous militia groups with varying links to the Russian government shows that Russia’s foreign policy now employs this tactic in order to confuse foreign governments about the situation in Eastern Ukraine.

Despite Surkov being sacked as deputy-Prime Minister in 2013, he still remains a key advisor to Putin. A recent demonstration of this is Putin directly contradicting himself on the world stage. In 2013 he stated “Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force”. Despite this, in 2015 he opted not to take part in peace talks concerning Daesh in Syria, but opted to conduct airstrikes upon rebel positions in Aleppo. In 2016, he warned the United States and its allies over civilian casualties in Mosul while at the same time Russian air forces bomb hospitals and UN food trucks killing even more civilians. The clear game here is for Putin to appear like a grey and confusing figure, not immoral by caring about civilian life, but certainly not righteous by committing the same acts he warns against. Surkov is genius agent of chaos, he dared to think outside the box to create a world of make believe, in a system that has been exported to even our political spheres. He hides in the shadows that he created, in order to conceal what’s really going on in our world.