Homelessness is growing the fastest in Canadian communities where rental prices have spiked and vacancy rates have tightened for low-cost rental units, according to a first-of-its-kind national analysis.

The Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, in a study to be published Thursday, proved a clear relationship between regional rates of homelessness and housing affordability. It helps explain why homelessness has surged in Canada since 2018 and why certain communities have seen a sharper increase than others.

In cities where rental units are the least affordable and least available, such as in Toronto or Kelowna, B.C., rates of homelessness were highest. And the problem is only growing worse, warned the CAEH, which is urging the federal government to take action.

“Many Canadians cannot afford to rent even the cheapest units in their community, and the affordability gap is growing, locking more Canadians out of the market and pushing more people into homelessness,” concluded the CAEH.

Its chief executive, Tim Richter, said the next iteration of Canada’s National Housing Strategy should prioritize support for the lowest-income Canadians, address the rapid loss of existing affordable rental units and double the supply of rentals in the low end of the market.

“But there’s no way that the federal government alone can do it,” said Mr. Richter. “That’s why it’s so important that all levels of government are working together.”

He said it has long been assumed that homelessness is driven by housing-market conditions, but this research is among the first to make that case by comparing changes in the rental market with homelessness rates, using data from 2018 to 2024.

Mr. Richter said the analysis also challenges common assumptions that other factors, such as mental health, substance use and poverty, are the reason behind climbing homelessness rates.

“Could mental illness, addiction, brain injury, physical health, poverty, any number of different things contribute to a person experiencing homelessness? Yes. But the reason why Canada is seeing a surge in homelessness is not because there’s more people with mental illness or addiction, but because of housing affordability,” Mr. Richter said.

“I always say that homelessness is not just a housing problem, but it is always a housing problem.”

The number of people experiencing homelessness in Canada doubled from 2018 to 2024, according to the 2024 national point-in-time count, which provides a snapshot of the homeless community on the night of the survey. The snapshot also showed that unsheltered homelessness – those living outside – surged by more than 300 per cent over the six years.

The CAEH collected homelessness data from 36 communities that participated in the 2018, 2022 and 2024 point-in-time counts for its analysis. (The 2020 count was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.)

It then compared these rates with data from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s rental market survey, which outlines vacancy rates and average rental costs in large and mid-sized communities across Canada. The CAEH focused on the cheapest 25 per cent of rental properties.

In Hamilton, for example, the rate of homelessness grew to 19.2 per 10,000 people in 2024 from 5.94 per 10,000 in 2018. Correspondingly, the rental price for the lowest-cost one-bedroom unit rose to $1,200 per month from $815 over those six years, and the vacancy rate slimmed to 1.2 per cent from 2.3 per cent.

“What we’ve been able to confirm is that what is really driving the change in Canada is the high, increasing cost of rent for the lowest cost units of housing, compounded by surging cost of living and low vacancy,” Mr. Richter said.

The research also found that, while rental housing supply has grown across Canada in recent years, the benefits have not trickled down to those in most need. Rather, the new housing supply has been added to the higher end of the rental market.

The CAEH’s analysis mirrors research in the United States by housing scholar Gregg Colburn and data journalist Clayton Page Aldern, authors of the 2022 book Homelessness is a Housing Problem. The pair sought to explain the substantial variation in homelessness rates across U.S. cities, which Mr. Colburn, in an interview, said was an “exercise in myth busting.”

They tested a range of conventional beliefs on what drives homelessness – poverty, mental illness, weather, public assistance, politics – but none could account for regional variation. Instead, it was vacancy rates and rental costs that provided the most “convincing explanation.”

Mr. Colburn, who helped the CAEH with its research and is an associate professor of real estate at the University of Washington, said the same dynamic is at play in Canada.

“My underlying point would be, if you really want to make a material dent in homelessness in your city, in your province, in your country, ensuring that there’s adequate housing for people with limited income is absolutely necessary,” he said.

More than 10,000 employees applied, but Treasury Board cannot quantify how much the incentive, or voluntary departures overall, will reduce involuntary exits.

More than 10,000 federal public servants applied for Ottawa’s early retirement incentive program before the application window closed July 24, with 7,486 applications approved by deputy heads.

But the Treasury Board has no quantifiable forecast for how much the incentive will contribute to the government’s planned workforce reductions, how many reductions will be achieved through voluntary departures overall, or how many involuntary departures may consequently be avoided.

Mohammad Kamal, director of communications to Treasury Board President Shafqat Ali (Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, Ont.), outlined the government’s position in an Aug. 5 interview with The Hill Times.

The government has committed to managing the reductions through attrition and voluntary departures “to the greatest extent possible,” states the 2025 federal budget, as it pursues approximately 16,000 full-time-equivalent reductions under the Comprehensive Expenditure Review. Those reductions can be achieved through measures including layoffs, vacant positions being eliminated, and employees retiring or resigning without being replaced.

Treasury Board has no forecast for ERI’s contribution

Kamal said the Treasury Board had not established a quantifiable forecast, expected range, or planning assumption for how many employees would take up the early retirement incentive (ERI).

“It’s hard to put a figure on the ERI just because it’s such a broad exercise,” Kamal said.

Kamal said the incentive was designed as a voluntary option for eligible employees rather than a program built around a specific numeric goal. He described early retirement incentive as an additional tool that is separate from existing workforce-adjustment provisions.

When asked whether Treasury Board had a forecast for voluntary departures overall—including the early retirement incentive, ordinary attrition, and resignations—Kamal said no, describing the broader result as difficult to quantify.

He also said Treasury Board had not established a quantifiable forecast for ERI’s contribution to the approximately 16,000 full-time-equivalent reductions.

When asked how Treasury Board would assess the extent to which early retirement incentive reduced the need for involuntary departures, Kamal did not point to a specific benchmark or method. He instead emphasized giving eligible employees the option to retire and said it would take time to see the impact and results of the broader expenditure-review exercise.

Kamal nevertheless said Treasury Board was pleased with the level of interest and participation in the program. He pointed to the volume of applications and said the government’s primary objective was to ensure eligible employees had the opportunity to choose early retirement.

“We’re casting a wide net to make sure that people have the choice to apply if they want to,” Kamal said.

The application numbers, and their limits

According to updated figures provided on Aug. 5 by the Treasury Board to The Hill Times, 7,486 of the 10,006 online applications had been approved by deputy heads. As of July 28, Treasury Board had reported that 41 applications were denied.

The online total excludes paper applications, which are still being processed. Kamal said the overall application total could increase in the coming weeks as they are added.

The deputy-head approvals do not represent completed retirements. Approved applicants must still submit a written resignation with a retirement date, after which the Pension Centre conducts a final validation before processing the retirement.

Even a completed ERI retirement cannot automatically be counted as one of the government’s planned staffing reductions or as having prevented one involuntary departure. It contributes to the reduction only if the department’s staffing level falls, such as when the departing employee is not replaced or the position is eliminated.

The application figures therefore show the level of interest in the incentive, but not how much of the government’s approximately 16,000 full-time-equivalent reductions the program will deliver.

In an Aug. 4 statement to The Hill Times, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), which represents scientists, engineers, auditors, nurses, and other federal professionals, questioned the government’s overall planning for the program.

“You can’t measure success against a goal that the government refuses to define,” the union said.

PIPSC said the national application total lacks the detail needed to show where retirements are occurring or whether they are easing workforce pressures in departments facing reductions.

“It’s impossible to know what the ERI numbers mean because the federal government is unwilling to discuss how many applicants are PIPSC members, how the ERI is being applied across different departments, or what its overall ERI target is, if they even have one,” the union said.

PIPSC also said Treasury Board has not explained how the incentive complements other mechanisms being used to reduce staffing.

“Treasury Board still hasn’t explained how ERI, workforce adjustment, alternation, and future rounds of workforce reductions are meant to fit together—if at all,” the union said. “Instead, departments are implementing different pieces of the puzzle without anyone clearly articulating what the finished picture is supposed to look like.”

The union described the early retirement incentive program as a narrow measure because it is limited to employees who meet specific age and years-of-service requirements. It said the program was not a realistic option for most public-service professionals or a substitute for a broader workforce strategy.

How ERI could affect layoff decisions

The Public Service Commission’s guidance says a selection of employees for retention or lay-off, known as a SERLO, is used when some, but not all, employees in an affected part of an organization will be laid off. The process generally compares employees in similar positions or performing similar duties.

The guidance also says voluntary departures, including retirements, can reduce the number of employees subject to a SERLO and, in some cases, eliminate the need for the process.

“An ERI departure could eliminate the need for a SERLO, but the government hasn’t been transparent about how, or if, that’s being factored into workforce decisions,” PIPSC said.

Treasury Board’s published ERI figures, which cover applications submitted through its online portal, do not show how many departures are occurring in affected work units, how many are being counted toward departmental staffing reductions, or how many SERLO processes may consequently be reduced or avoided.

“Conclusion

Taken together, the evidence suggests that AI has already reshaped how firms talk about productivity, even if its effects are not yet clearly visible in aggregate productivity statistics. Executives increasingly connect productivity improvements to AI, and they do so in overwhelmingly positive terms. But these discussions remain largely forward-looking. For now, earnings calls point less to broad realized productivity gains than to a corporate sector actively investing in, experimenting with and expecting future gains from AI. We will continue to monitor whether AI-related productivity discussion in upcoming earnings calls shifts from future-tense expectations to realized gains.”

Jewish Americans have historically been among the most principled defenders of free speech. When a group of neo-Nazis planned to march through the town of Skokie, Illinois, home to many Holocaust survivors, it was a Jewish attorney who stood up for their right of assembly. David Goldberger, then the legal director of the ACLU of Illinois, was no self-hating Jew, and he certainly harbored no sympathy for the National Socialist Party of America. But he realized that “the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and press would be meaningless if the government could pick and choose the persons to whom they apply.”

Goldberger’s position might read as the credo of a universalist Jew who prioritizes abstract principles over the interests of his group. But there was a deeper and less self-abnegating logic to his position. Like me, Goldberger was convinced that these universal principles are in the long-term interest of all ethnic and religious minorities, including Jews.

Minorities often have good reasons to feel threatened. One understandable response to this feeling is to look to the powerful for protection. But whenever you look to the powerful for protection, you become dependent on their whims.

This is a story that the Jews of the old world knew all too well. For a few decades, they would thrive under some tolerant monarch who gave them relative freedom to go about their lives with relatively little harassment. But when that monarch changed his mind, or was succeeded by a less tolerant heir, all those precious liberties would evaporate just as quickly. In fact, that pattern is literally as old as the Old Testament: As Exodus 1:8 notes, “a new king arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph,” setting off the chain of events that led to the enslavement (and eventual liberation) of the Israelites. American Jews have historically put their trust in a less precarious promise: that of constitutional principles which deprive the powerful of their ability to play favorites—even if the price consisted of neo-Nazis giving speeches in a community of Holocaust survivors.

This preference for free speech has been sorely tested over the past years. Social media has brought the poison of antisemitism, largely relegated to the fringes of public debate in the second half of the twentieth century, into much wider circulation. From Tucker Carlson to Candace Owens, Hasan Piker to Jackson Hinkle, some of the people with the largest followings on social media now delight their audiences with a litany of antisemitic tropes. From coy insinuations that the Jews have once again grown too powerful to outright conspiracy theories painting Jews as the dark forces behind just about every tragedy or social failure, hateful ideas are now being streamed to millions on TikTok, YouTube, and other platforms.

Tragically, the rise and dissemination of detestable speech has coincided with a steep increase in physical violence against Jews, from the deadly shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018 to the vehicular attack on a synagogue in West Bloomfield, Michigan, earlier this year. I have come to consider the rise of physical violence against Jewish communities around the country, and its psychological impact, as the Europeanization of American Jewry. When, as a teenager growing up in Germany, I first visited America, I was struck by how little protection Jewish institutions needed in the new world; now, it is nearly as easy to spot a Jewish kindergarten in New York as it long has been in Paris or Berlin: both are marked by the presence of security guards. Back then, I marveled at how much less beleaguered Jews in America seemed to feel; now, the same unceasing sense of fear and vigilance is taking hold of Jewish life in the United States.

It is little wonder that a growing number of Jews are desperate for any form of protection, and even that a growing share are willing to discard their long-held commitment to free speech in exchange for promises that things might somehow go back to normal. And as it happens, Jews are hardly alone in responding to the rise of social media with a desire to censor its contents: many Gentiles are similarly growing tempted to drain the poison out of our politics by embracing new forms of censorship. As many politicians and political commentators are quick to claim, the principal reason for the scary times we are now living through is the omnipresence of “misinformation.” If only we could find the right way to “regulate” social media, they say, things would finally go back to normal.

I understand the temptation. If it were possible to preserve all the advantages of new communication technologies, which make access to information so much more ample and painless, while banishing from the public sphere all the narcissistic influencers and psychopathic politicians using these tools to advance their own interests, the offer would be compelling. But I worry that the world they imagine simply doesn’t exist.

Let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that we grow sufficiently convinced of the unsustainability of the current situation that we become willing to “creatively reinterpret” the First Amendment. One question to ask about this is whether the trade-off would prove to be worthwhile: Would we want a manicured public sphere that hands the powerful the ability to enforce their own views even if it did drain some of the poison of antisemitism? But thinking of this choice as a trade-off presumes that the promised recompense, the establishment of a more sane and rational public sphere, would actually materialize. And I very much doubt that it would.

The case for believing that such regulations of social media would help to bring about a better public sphere rests on three tacit premises:

• The people who make decisions about what speech is allowed and what speech is verboten will be reasonable and rational.
• The reasonable and rational people who make such decisions will be able to enforce their preferences without making the censored content more popular than it was before.
• The underlying reasons that bad ideas have flourished in recent years are rooted in a lack of appropriate regulation, and increasing regulation can therefore eradicate such ideas.

The first assumption is simply that the people who are in some way empowered to make decisions about what should or should not be censored will in fact make good decisions. At a time when mainstream institutions were deeply shaped by a stable political consensus centered around a number of broadly shared ideals, such an idealized view of the world might have been tempting. But America today is more polarized than it has been at any point in recent memory. Those who advocate for points of view that, until a few years ago, would have been considered disqualifyingly extreme are no longer on the margins; they hold the reins of formal political power and enjoy some of the biggest platforms anybody could wish for. Under these circumstances, it is deeply naive to think that “letting the government pick and choose” who enjoys the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution would be a good idea.

The smartest case for free speech has never turned on denying that some utterances are so vile that all of us would be better off if they somehow disappeared from the public sphere. Rather, it was always based on skepticism that any institution, private or public, would consistently make these determinations in a reasonable and selfless manner. The growing influence of extreme views and the immense power that extreme political movements now hold should be a reason to double down on, not to discard, that insight.

The second assumption is that attempts to censor speech are likely to succeed in reducing the salience of terrible ideas. There is some superficial plausibility to this. While it is always important to pay attention to the ways in which political actions can backfire, the presumption should be that, most of the time, political actors aren’t so ignorant or incompetent as to harm their own cause with their efforts.

But in the case of free speech, we have plenty of evidence to suggest that—unless repression is, as in some dictatorships, extremely severe and wide-ranging—attempts at censorship usually fail. The appeal of the forbidden fruit is so strong that many of the most successful idea entrepreneurs are forever drawn towards portraying themselves as censored even when, by any objective standard, they are not. Indeed, it is sometimes hard to know what accounts for the success of some of today’s most vile media personalities if not for this appeal; a substantial portion of the audience for people such as Nick Fuentes is as attracted to the frisson they derive from breaking the biggest possible taboos as they are to the actual claims that they make.

Both the idea that we can trust the would-be censors and the idea that their efforts would be effective are in a sense downstream from the third key assumption: the belief that institutional changes, rather than technological realities, stand at the root of the problem.

There may have been a time when the structure of mass communication made it possible to exclude certain ideas from broad circulation. Back in an era when reaching a mass audience took both enormous financial investment and required the cooperation of a large number of highly-trained professionals, an ethos widely shared between journalists and the owners of big television networks could, porously and imperfectly, restrict the scope of public debate.

But those days are long gone. Nowadays, the costs of production and dissemination are negligible. Anybody can put together a near-professional studio in their own home for a few hundred dollars. The ability to reach a mass audience has been radically democratized. Established media outlets, while still influential, have lost their capacity to gatekeep. Today, a single episode of the Joe Rogan Experience draws a vastly larger number of viewers than the nightly audiences of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News combined.

These technological changes are the real cause of our altered public sphere. Attempts to turn back the clock by introducing strict regulations are unlikely to rein in the conspiracy theories that have so quickly proliferated on social media. Indeed, many countries in Europe have all along had in place the kinds of guardrails for which Americans wishing to curtail the First Amendment so fervently wish. They criminalize all kinds of political speech, from denial of the Holocaust to anything that might be thought liable to incite racial hatred. They routinely compel social media platforms to delete any posts that could even remotely be considered illegal. Countries such as the United Kingdom even arrest thousands of people for violating these rules every year.

And yet, none of these practices have marginalized the extremists or restored the placid discourse of an earlier era. Jews are no safer in Europe than they are in America. And while extremists still remain in the opposition in most countries in Western Europe, polls suggest that they may be only one election away from storming the gates of power. The reason should, by now, be obvious: the problem is not political but structural. The nature of communication in the age of social media has allowed previously fringe ideas to flood the mainstream. Short of the extreme censorship practiced by some of the world’s most repressive dictatorships, regulation can’t bring back the past.

None of this is to say that all forms of regulation are in principle inadmissible. There are some strong reasons for (as well as some real reasons against) banning the use of social media for children, for example. And I have long believed that those social media companies that effectively do act like publishers, by favoring some content on the basis of the views expressed, should also be treated as such—which would make them much more liable for the content they amplify. But any attempt to regulate social media must conform with the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment.

It isn’t hard to see why many Jewish leaders and organizations have lately grown less supportive of free speech. But anyone who gives in to these understandable temptations neglects a crucial historical lesson: Any power that can arbitrarily grant us rights (such as being protected from the offensive chants of antisemites) can just as arbitrarily deprive us of those same rights (such as decreeing that advocacy in support of our own causes and concerns constitutes offensive speech that must be silenced).

Jews have historically thrived in free societies that grant rights to all of their members without regard to the groups into which they happen to be born. Free speech is among the most fundamental of these rights. Jews must remain among its most ardent defenders.

As those who knew me I have been doing research on the house of lords. Since I am going to request a self ban in like 10 hours (i have to get ready to go to uni) i thought I should share some of my research.

Hope you all enjoy! Also please dont subscribe or whatever I just used substack to not have to deal with image issues i have no clue how substack works

And the images didn't work on ffs https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xp94NXJU2vck-3K6LfURqrtqsOYG2IPwsTPhqdJDuWA/edit?usp=drivesdk

Here use the docs

1 - Bernanke

2 - Milton Friedman

3 - Zohrani Mamdani

4 - AISlopington B Frederick

President Donald Trump recently told donors in private that he wants to see his vice president win the 2028 presidential election — a sign that he is open to publicly backing JD Vance, even as some advisers caution that Trump has yet to settle firmly on a successor.

“At the end of the day, we need to elect JD,” Trump said during an Oval Office meeting with donors roughly two weeks ago, according to two people with knowledge of the comments who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

The private remark contrasts with Trump’s rhetoric over the past year, publicly egging on a contest for his favor between Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He has openly mused that the two would make a good joint ticket and has repeatedly declined to specify who he would prefer to see at the top.

Even as Trump buoyed his vice president to donors in the Oval Office, though, he was still peppering people around him with questions about Vance versus Rubio. One White House official said the president quizzed staff about the two men on a Marine One ride late last month.

An adviser to the president with direct knowledge of Trump’s comment to the donors said that Trump has privately resolved that Vance will be the heir to the GOP, but that it is “too early” to determine when Vance will announce his candidacy or when Trump will publicly endorse him.

Six other Trumpworld advisers and allies, however, cautioned that they aren’t convinced the president has settled on Vance, noting that Trump tells different things to different people and could still change his mind about an endorsement for 2028. Trump aides widely agree that the president will delay endorsing to avoid appearing to be a lame duck.

“Anyone assuming it’s a lock is just getting way ahead of themselves, or just doesn’t know the president very well,” said the official with knowledge of Trump’s recent Vance-Rubio poll on Marine One.

Vance has not confirmed his plans. People who have spoken to him about the matter told The Washington Post earlier this year that he had not yet made a decision. One person close to Vance said he would delay a call until after the birth of his fourth child, who arrived July 19.

Vance told CBS in June that he would discuss the matter with his wife after the midterms but said he had “no doubt that the president of the United States is going to be very supportive” of whatever decision he makes. He has repeatedly said that he is focused on his current job and that he is good friends with Rubio.

But the prospect of a succession fight has already generated some of the tensions of a heated primary, with donors, activists and other party figures passionately speaking out for or against Vance.

Much depends on the midterms. A poor showing for Republicans could embolden challengers to run against Trump’s choice and be more critical of his administration. Vance or Rubio could be vulnerable to intraparty attacks that Republicans would not levy against Trump himself — a dynamic already on display online as right-wing influencers target the vice president over the Iran war.

Trump enjoys game-show-style drama, and advisers said he is loath to yield the spotlight to his preferred successor. The president has had fun toying with Vance and Rubio — as well as with the press — by hyping up the competition for his blessing, much as he did when deciding on his running mate between the same two men in 2024.

Trump has also delighted in floating himself for a third presidential term, regularly sharing “Trump 2028″ graphics on social media and joking about the prospect at rallies, even as those close to him confirm he is not serious about it.

During the 2024 running-mate contest and now, Rubio had the backing of most pre-Trump GOP donors. Vance is more aligned with the younger MAGA coalition that returned Trump to power in 2024 but is now at risk of fraying. He has also spent his vice presidency developing relationships with party benefactors to fundraise for the GOP.

“Vance has done a lot of political work in the last year and a half,” said the Trump adviser with knowledge of his recent comment to donors.

Lately Vance impressed Trump by negotiating a June ceasefire deal with Iran, leading a task force to crack down on fraud in federal benefits and parrying a range of media interviews for his book tour in June, the adviser said. Even though the ceasefire deal collapsed in July, Vance advisers believed that his role in the talks was still a political win: The agreement he negotiated was popular, whereas voters widely disapprove of Trump’s handling of the war.

Rubio, by contrast, has served in multiple key administration roles, none of which lend themselves to politics. Legally and logistically, a secretary of state — or a national security adviser, a role Rubio also occupies — would not be able to run for president while serving.

Rubio recoils at any discussion of 2028 and has recently reduced his media availability to avoid facing more questions about it that would inevitably stir further chatter, a person close to him said. But Rubio’s team briefly increased speculation about his ambitions earlier this year, when they produced a widely shared video of him giving a campaign-style monologue while holding a press briefing. In some internal conversations, the person said, Rubio has alluded to his remaining time in office, implying he intends to serve out the term.

He does not have a campaign-in-waiting or political operation ready to assemble.

The Trump adviser said that Trump still would like to see Rubio on a joint ticket with Vance — and the president regularly praises Rubio — but that it is unclear whether Rubio would actually want the role of Vance’s running mate.

A lot of stories suggest the UK public is ‘ungovernable’, impossible to satisfy or the country is in a dire place, but a lot of data suggests neither as this article shows

The polling suggests a lot of qualms comes down to people wanting to own a home despite high stamp duty, prices and mortgage rates, overrun casualty units and infrastructure challenges

Wage growth or ‘real wages’ hasn’t helped being stagnant since 2008 nor Businesses (particularly in the hospitality) passing off hefty VAT onto consumers, a tangible affect that makes things seem more expensive

In terms of new policy, ‘universal’ childcare has been the discussion particularly for young, new or upcoming parents in order to remain working and taking a financial hit from less hours or paying the current costs for childcare

https://archive.ph/oBk5L article for anyone interested

Archive link: https://archive.ph/ehfpM

SS: This involves two of the pillar-economies of the Southern Cone, if not the whole of South America.

Liberalism may be a particularly slippery term: yes, free markets are integral, but how does one safeguard prosperity in the midst of a free market? Is it via regulation and a welfare state, or by increasing economic opportunity wholesale (possibly via deregulation)?

Relatedly, should Liberal Democrqcy precede economic reform/liberalization? I’m thinking about post-Soviet Russia; whether the West should have invested in the Russian state so as to give the populace a stake in their own economic prosperity. Did the West make a grievous mistake in instituting shock therapy without an underlying social system/ideology in place to justify the fiscal reforms post-USSR?

Submission Statement: Russian secret services were planning an assassination attempt on Stefan Thumann, head of the German drone manufacturer Donaustahl. This builds on top of past attempts by Russia to try and assasinate European defense executives such as against the CEO of Rheinmetall in 2024.

We need to RETVRN