4h. Zelensky says that Trump forces capitulation of Ukraine

Protests for housing occurred in Lisbon and Porto, with encampments continuing overnight despite police appeals. In Lisbon, protesters engaged in a meeting with the police where they requested tent removal, resulting in a human chain and chants directed at political figures like Carlos Moedas and Prime Minister Luís Montenegro, focusing on rental laws and housing crises. Following this event, police presence dispersed, leading to continued occupation of Praça do Rossio. Simultaneously, in Porto's Praça Dom João I, protesters remained firm against police appeals to vacate the space, leading to a standoff where a vote resulted in the decision to stay overnight, and police subsequently left the area without returning. There is an underlying demand for the reversal of rental laws and measures addressing the housing crisis. Furthermore, political figures have responded by proposing legislative action, such as an emergency package regarding tax benefits and re-evaluating IMI, while other political figures advocate for suspending gold visas.

The situation observed across Porto and Lisbon reveals a persistent tension between demands for immediate material relief (housing costs) and the institutional mechanisms of public order enforcement. The recurring pattern is a strategic use of physical presence—the encampment—as leverage against governmental inaction, even when facing explicit legal warnings from authorities. The negotiation in Lisbon demonstrates an attempt to shift the locus of dispute from illegal occupation to a political demand, focusing chants on specific figures and policies, which successfully channeled attention despite subsequent dispersal. In Porto, the deadlock points to the difficulty of enforcing spatial legality when the collective assertion of a right conflicts with state authority. The response from political actors, like Ventura proposing legislative shifts while Carneiro advocates for policy changes regarding residency status, suggests that the core conflict is being managed through legislative maneuvering rather than immediate physical resolution. The pattern of uncertainty—protesters equipping themselves with protective gear and fear of police return—indicates a profound lack of trust in procedural guarantees. The underlying implication is that when material needs are acute, adherence to established law becomes secondary to existential necessity, forcing an exploration of what constitutes 'public space' and the boundaries of state security.