Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Organizers are opening up about the strategy—and what they call the “miracle”—behind their stunning victory in Slovenia’s November 23 euthanasia referendum, which saw 53% of citizens who participated vote against the government’s law legalizing physician-assisted suicide. The ‘no’ voters in the euthanasia referendum represented over 20% of Slovenia’s 1.7 million eligible voters, ensuring that the results were valid.

“I am convinced that a miracle happened,” Aleš Primc, the campaign head and leader of the Voice for the Children and Family party, told europeanconservative.com. “In recent years, the media has very often published manipulative emotional stories in support of poisoning patients and published polls in the last week that claimed less than 30% of people are against poisoning people. We won the referendum with 53.46%.”

Slovenia’s leftist government had legalized assisted suicide on July 18 and, after the State Council (the upper house) vetoed the bill, the National Assembly overrode the veto on July 24. Conservative activists submitted the first 15,000 of the required 40,000 verified signatures the following day. The 40,000 signatures had to be collected within two months, and organizers immediately were in a race against time.

Primc, however, is perhaps the most successful social conservative activist in Europe. The 52-year-old politician, publisher, and activist is a leading figure in Slovenia’s pro-life and pro-family movements, and this victory is his fourth referendum win.

In 2001, Primc led a referendum against a law permitting artificial insemination for single women, winning 72.4% of the vote. In 2012, he led the campaign against the 2011 Family Code, which introduced same-sex marriage and adoption rights for same-sex couples; 54.6% voted against the changes. In March 2015, Parliament passed a law that redefined marriage as a union of two persons; again, 63.5% voted against the law. (The Constitutional Court overruled the people in 2022.)

This referendum brought particular challenges. “We had to collect at least 40,000 certified signatures in administrative units,” Primc told me.

This is a lot for a nation with a population of two million. For comparison, 4 deputies out of 88 in the Slovenian National Assembly were elected with 40,000 votes. Collecting signatures was more difficult for us than we expected; we only managed to get them in the last week. We saw God’s will in this, as we had to build a wide range of civil society organizations that joined during the signature collection, which was decisive for the referendum campaign. From the day we collected the signatures to the start of the referendum was only fourteen days.

According  to journalist and human rights activist Nejc Povirk, a wide range of factors contributed to the victory. Religious communities—Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and even Muslim—were united, and “made a joint statement opposing the termination of human life.” Many Catholics were very active to ensure local debates and speeches. Many physicians were also opposed to assisted suicide and were willing to be vocal.

“Activity on social media, especially via short stories, speeches, cases, and arguments, broke the general silence in the media,” Povirk said. “There were several accounts campaigning from different angles to reach as many undecided voters as possible—social media reach was approximately three to one for opponents of the law. Stories were powerful: outrage cases from abroad, stories of pressure on the vulnerable, and positive stories of people working with the vulnerable and disabled that love to live.”

“The campaign was carried out extremely quickly,” Primc told me. “Around 100 public events were organized throughout Slovenia. The media confrontations were substantive on our part, while the representatives of the poisoning lobby constantly lied and manipulated. The confrontations were quite demanding and harsh, but it was crucial that we exposed the lies of the poisoning lobby. Even though the poisoning lobby had been preparing the ground for over 20 years, most people realized what a dangerous law it was and resisted.”

Povirk concurred, noting that the campaign relentlessly hammered on a range of lies, including that “safeguards” would be adequate to protect the vulnerable and that opponents of assisted suicide simply do not care for the suffering. Campaigners highlighted the need for palliative care and emphasized the cynicism of the government pushing assisted suicide rather than improving healthcare, noting that assisted suicide would cost 1,542 euros; thirty days of palliative care, between 3,000 and 4,500. Looking to other countries like Canada, the “slippery slope” was a demonstrable inevitability.

“We determined the main content emphases of the campaign back in 2024,” Primc told me. “We decided not to speak the manipulative language of the poisoning lobby.”

We formed our own language and broad civil society support. Additionally, it was important that all umbrella medical organizations, all major religious communities, and the entire opposition were against the poisoning of patients. It was especially important that a large public debate developed on social networks.

The poisoning of patients was promoted by all the largest media outlet, covering more than 85% of the media space; the Government; all government parties; the extremely influential Milan Kučan, the last president of the Communist Party of Slovenia and former president of Slovenia; state-funded left-wing government satellites that declare themselves civil society. The poisoning lobby banned the sponsorship of our posts on social networks, while they could sponsor their posts without limit. Nevertheless, we defeated them on social networks, as well.

The victory may have been a miracle, but Primc has advice for those battling euthanasia and assisted suicide in their own countries. “Prepare your language,” he advised. “Do not use any of the words used by the poisoning lobby. The global poisoning lobby has created a manipulative language of patient poisoning designed to completely manipulate people. When opponents of patient poisoning use this language, despite their best intentions, they are unwittingly working in the interests of the poisoning lobby.”

Other human rights campaigners would be wise to take notes. The assisted suicide debate is ongoing in the UK, France, Italy, Portugal, and Malta, where a public consultation has just been launched. Slovenian activists have just proven that defeat is not inevitable.

Original article:  europeanconservative.com

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

(Click on the image to enlarge)

Slovenia offered to host a Russia-US summit in its capital Ljubljana. President Putin welcomed the idea. «Ljubljana — and Slovenia in general — is of course a great place to hold such dialogue», he said at a press conference with the visiting Slovenian counterpart. Slovenia’s Prime Minister Miro Cerar first raised the prospect of a US-Russia summit in his country as far back as November, saying his country «could become a bridge between the two superpowers».

The Russian president noted that the Russian-American relations have degraded especially hard. He expects them to be fully restored. Putin welcomes Trump's statements about his intentions to revive the strained Russia-US ties. According to him, a summit could help solve various international conflicts and strengthen the fight against terrorism. The Russian and US presidents agreed about the need to meet soon during their phone call on January 28.

Slovenia is the birthplace of US First Lady Melania Trump. Ljubljana was the site of a meeting between Putin and President George W. Bush in 2001. Slovenia is among a select group of countries, including Germany, Greece, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Austria and Italy, whose leaders have advocated an end to the anti-Russian economic penalties imposed by the EU.

Russia was a big export market for Slovenian food products before the EU sanctions were imposed. The country remains keen to be a transit country for Russian gas supplies to Southern Europe. As a NATO and EU member enjoying special relationship with Moscow, Slovenia is well-positioned to act as a bridge to narrow the gap between Russia and the West in general.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said he was looking forward to an opportunity to meet US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in Germany, where they both will attend a security conference and a meeting of the G-20 foreign ministers next week.

On January 28, Russian and US presidents spoke on the phone – their first official contact since Trump's inauguration on January 20. The two leaders agreed to establish «partner-like cooperation» on international issues and vowed to join forces to fight terrorism in Syria and elsewhere. The event signaled a potential shift in Russian-US relations. Russia and the US have many points of shared mutual interest. Former US State Secretary Henry Kissinger believes a bad relationship with Russia makes it harder to solve problems.

Now the prospect hinges on the US. In his telephone call with Trump, Pahor proposed Slovenia as the venue for the American leader’s first summit with the Russian leader. The White House has not yet commented on the possibility of such an event. Many experts had believed that it would take months to arrange such a meeting, but Slovenia’s proposal could expedite the events.

The opportunity should not be missed at a time when the overall political relationship between Washington and Moscow has tumbled to a nadir. Donald Trump’s victory provides a good chance to improve the bilateral relations and start addressing burning issues of international security. Russia and the US have not had meaningful negotiations for almost three years, much like it was in the days of the Cold War when there were no contacts to discuss it in the period from 1983 to 1985.

The events in Syria and the fight against terrorists should be urgently addressed. There is a big probability the two powers will have to coordinate policies on Libya, and, probably, Algeria. Joining together to address the situation in Afghanistan would also be a step in the right direction.

The future of arms control is the biggest challenge. If the parties fail to prolong or replace the New START as well as iron out the differences over the INF Treaty, the world will witness an unfettered arms race for the first time since SALT-I was signed in 1972.

The recently increased military presence of US-led NATO forces in Eastern Europe, the Baltic States and the Black Sea could increase Russia’s emphasis on tactical nuclear weapons (TNW), sending the Russia-NATO security relationship into a downward cycle. The ballistic missile defense (BMD) is a threatening global stability. This issue cannot be shelved; it needs to be urgently addressed. The B61-12 upgraded warheads deployed in Europe and the future of the plutonium agreement are also the problems to be addressed without delay in a constructive way.

Military activities and conventional forces is another burning issue to grapple with. Germany has recently come up with an initiative  to launch talks on a new Russia-NATO arms control agreement. Russia and the US could join together convening a conference under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to address the arms control and European security agenda. The two powers could scope out the issues and agree on how formal negotiations should be conducted. Ukraine and Syria could be discussed as separate problems. The NATO-Russia Council could make an important contribution into a dialogue.

Donald Trump has said he is ready to ally with Russia in the fight against Islamic State. This is a key area where both countries could be allies as they are fighting the same enemy. It’s worth noting that President Trump’s top «defense priorities» list does not include Russia. The absence of Russia on his threats list is a symbolic sign to indicate the advent of new thinking and new approaches. The president’s calls for better relations with Russia have influenced public opinion in Moscow’s favor.

Neither side appears to be prone to drag it out. Before the election, Donald Trump had made known his desire to meet the Russian leader even prior to the inauguration. It’s reasonable to hold a top level meeting before the G20 Hamburg summit in July to exchange the views before the major multinational event.

If the Russian and US leaders hit it off in Slovenia, it could provide a strong impulse to normalize the relations. After all, the two have a common enemy – the Islamic State (IS). The two countries have not fought a common enemy since WWII.

The Eastern Europe unanimously placed its bet on the South Stream. Plain fact is that the new Europeans chose to protect their national interests in spite of all temptations and threats from Brussels and Washington. Now it is not an overstatement to say: the South Stream business blueprint is complete and it is entering construction stage. By the end of 2018 the pipeline is planned to reach a transport capacity of 63 billion cubic meters per year – enough gigajoules to supply energy needs of 38 million households. What has encouraged the pro-South Stream choice of Eastern European political elites presuming their frosty relations with Russia? Why did they not resort to broadly advertised alternatives?

The not-so-obvious answers to these geopolitical riddles are conditioned by cold math and economic forecasting. Independent economic feasibility studies show that expensive and bulky South Stream is the only realistic way to guarantee safe and reliable natural gas supplies to Europe. It will play a pivotal role in the regional energy security up to 2030-es. Other sources like nuclear power or renewable sources are nothing more than perspective alternatives. Sovereign national leaders in Budapest and Belgrade understand very well: overoptimistic advertisements of wind energy on Euronews TV channel will not power heating networks in their countries. And the notorious Cyprus affair ruined the last remnants of their belief in «European solidarity».

Let’s have a look at energy statistics. The primary production of renewable energy within the EU in 2010 was 166.6 million tonnes of oil equivalent – a 20.1 % share of total primary energy production from all sources. EU renewable energy targets 2020 are very ambitious in times of financial turmoil. But even if the European Commission completes this costly energy program, the total share of alternatives will reach only 30%. It means that today the end users in the Eastern Europe are in urgent need of stable fossil fuel source. Brussels understands it very well, but puts a brave face on a sorry business. Now the EU officials are presenting paper-and-pencil pipelines trying to lure Azerbaijanian businessmen into their controversial Nabucco West project. Although even the main US lobbyist for the Nabucco West, former US Ambassador to Baku Matthew Bryza admits: «the chances [of the South Stream] are excellent. When the leader of Russia puts his mind to a pipeline it happens».

It is often claimed, that nuclear energy can be a solution. But Germany, the industrial powerhouse of Europe, has recently banned the use of nuclear power. Influential Green party in Berlin took advantage of overwhelming popular support after the Fukushima incident. Therefore, in the mid-term Germany’s energy demand will be satisfied by supplies via the completed Nord Stream and the emerging South Stream. A country-by-country survey of the South Stream milestones may shed some light on the key motives behind the strategic decision of the Eastern European countries to opt for this pipeline.

Bulgaria will develop both the South Stream and the atomic engineering. Sofiais planning to construct a new 1,000-megawatt (MW) reactor at the existing Kozloduy NPP with the help of the Russian company «Atomstroyexport». In 2012 Bulgarian officials broke the deadlock in negotiations with Gazprom and signed a protocol of the final investment decision on the South Stream. The construction of gas receiving facilities will start in Bulgaria in 2013. «A 538-kilometer section of the gas pipeline will provide Bulgarian consumers with continuous and uninterrupted natural gas supplies over a long term», said Alexey Miller, the CEO of Gazprom. As early as 2009, Sasho Dontchev, Executive Director of Bulgaria’s Overgas explained why his country stands with Russia: «We mostly have to discuss real opportunities. Nabucco would be very fine as it assures an alternative supplier and an alternative route, but the project hasn’t been sustained by the sufficient amount of gas. Therefore, the South Stream seems more preferable to me now.»

Serbia was the first South Stream member country to adopt the pipeline’s final investment decision. South Stream's first facility – the Banatski Dvor underground gas storage – shaved gas consumption peaks in Serbia during the 2011/2012 cold winter season. Early 2013 Sebian government promised to grant the South Stream national significance status. Managing Director of state-owned Srbijagas Dusan Bajatovic confirmed that the construction of South Stream in Serbia will begin by the end of 2013. Now project implementation is going according to plan despite all sorts of speculation in a number of Serbian media outlets. In March, 2013 Mr. Bajatovic explained that some international «business groups» attempted to lobby against the South Stream, but failed. If we take into account US intrigues in Bulgaria against the Kozloduy NPP, this assumption doesn’t seem improbable.

Croatia gave a final nod to the South Stream in January 2013. Environmental impact assessment procedures required by national law are currently at their final stage. Gazprom and Croatia’s Plinacro inked an Action Plan to implement the South Stream project between 2013 and 2016. The document envisages that a joint project company for building a gas branch to Croatia will be set up at the beginning of the second half of 2013.

Hungary performed a feasibility study for the Hungarian section of the South Stream in 2011. It resulted in the approval of the final investment decision on building of a 229 kilometers long pipeline section. Moreover, Budapest granted the South Stream the status of a national significance project. Csaba Baji, CEO of the MVM Group, the largest Hungarian power company, favors the deal: «With the Hungarian Government's support, we are committed to increasing energy security and diversifying the routes of natural gas supply to the European Union. The South Stream project is an important part of our long-term strategy».

Slovenia teamed up with Gazprom for the South Stream on November 13, 2012. Slovenian stakeholders including energy company Plinovodi signed the final investment decision on construction of the gas pipeline section in this country. Priority is given to environmentally friendly construction schemes and economic efficiency. The Russian investors entrusted the majority of technical and operational work to the state-owned Slovenian natural gas company Geoplin for the purpose of carrying out the joint enterprise.

If we consider strategic agreements, economic feasibility studies and environmental assessments completed by the sovereign Eastern European energy companies, we can predict, that the South Stream project will be completed by 2018-2020, but with estimated cost overrun (approximately $39 billion – see fact sheet below). The rival consortium Nabucco West targets the same market as the South Stream. Although today these projects do not complete on equal terms. The South Stream boasts fixed construction schedule and a plethora of bilateral agreements with transit states, while the Nabucco West still undergoes negotiation process. Given the geopolitical importance of energy supplies to Europe, it is very probable that in the long term Nabucco West will eventually be completed, although the South Stream being a large-scale project may by that time capture lion’s share of the market.

________________________

The South Stream Fact Sheet

• Gas pipeline will be 1455 km long in Southern and Central Europe;
• 8500 people will be employed in its construction, with 770 at the operational level;
• Eight compression stations are to be set up in the main transit countries;
• The South Stream planned transport capacity may reach 63 billion cubic meters;
• The overall cost of the project is approximately $39 billion.