https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/22/geert-wilders-profile-netherlands-elections-far-right

In Kyiv, which has faced growing western war fatigue, the results will be met with worry. Like other far-right leaders on the continent, Wilders has praised Vladimir Putin’s rule, rallying against what he has described as “hysterical Russophobia” in Europe.

Four years after Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula, Wilders travelled to Moscow and met senior Russian officials in the Duma, a trip that was fiercely condemned by relatives of Dutch victims of the shooting-down of flight MH17, who blamed him for ignoring Moscow’s part in the disaster.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Wilders has somewhat distanced himself from the Kremlin, calling the invasion a mistake.

But a government under Wilders is unlikely to play the same role in aiding Ukraine as seen under longtime prime minister Mark Rutte, who led the effort to deliver F-16 combat aircraft to Ukraine.

In one of the last debates prior to the elections, Wilders said he would not support sending Ukraine more weapons, a statement that will send a chill through Ukraine, as military aid already appears to be faltering.

Wilders is a fascist. He probably lies a dozen times between waking up and his first coffee.

Looking at his actions it is clear, that he changed rhetoric on the current sentiment to get elected, but he aims to undermine Ukraine support.

Sure, but ties with Russia is not BS and not a "broke discourse", there definitely is something there. And we need more discourse about it.

Oh, so rating agencies approved it. I almost have trouble believing it. Next you're gonna tell me that foxes approve of a ban on fences around chicken coops.

Maybe I'm missing nuances here, not being Italian and all, but the press reports I found say it's all single unemployed people unter 60 that were cut down to 350€ a month total, limited to 12 months. Some 160.000 people.

the government took away unemployment payment to people that would have been able to work but don't.

That's always the rethoric, but it's a) highly debatable in each individual case. See above. If your metric for "could work" is "single under 59" that's flawed by design.

b) By trying to hit the small minority of people that actually are just lazy you always hit people that are unemployed for entirely other reasons that may be well outside their control as collateral.

c) Trying to force people to take almost any job just helps companies that pay poverty wages to keep doing that and prevents market forces from doing their thing (if one side can't say no, the other can demand whatever).

d) Even if none of this were true, there's an existential minimum and letting people starve with less than that is just vile and a shame for any country calling itself civilized.

e) It's only the beginning, and by not being solidaric with your fellow humans you show them they can pick and target the next minority the next time they need publicity. First they came for the socialists... Of course they're going step by step.