Destinus has completed 1,750 Ruta B1 cruise missiles and reached monthly output of nearly 300, the company said on 29 October, telling Reuters this exceeds Europe’s annual cruise-missile production before Russia’s full-scale invasion.
That gives a date for easing a shortage. A looming shortage of mini jet engines threatened to hold back Ukraine’s deep-strike drones, Reuters reported in April. Czech maker ZofiTech was then producing about 200 a month, nearly all for Ukraine, and expected demand to reach thousands within months. Both Ruta versions use the 1.5-kN engines Destinus is promising. Ukraine plans to build more jet drones and cruise missiles, so engine output next year will have to keep up, Defense Express notes.
Destinus builds its own engines, but hasn’t said how many
Destinus CEO Mikhail Kokorich said the company already produces turbojets in the roughly 1.5-kilonewton class in series, supplying them both for its own missiles and to other manufacturers. The Ruta B1 runs on the company’s own T150 engine. In June, Destinus announced its 1,000th T150 and said the line was designed to sustain production of thousands of missile systems a year. The company has not disclosed its current engine output.
Block 2 enters production, Block 3 is due to fly in 2027
Meanwhile, Destinus said it has begun production of the larger Ruta Block 2, designed to carry a 250-kg payload more than 700 km. Unlike the roughly 300-km Block 1, Block 2 is designed to be stored, transported, and launched from the same container. A third version, Block 3, is planned with a 2,000-km range, with flight tests scheduled for 2027.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy acknowledged the Ruta’s combat use in October 2025. Days later, he said Ukraine expected mass production of Ruta and Flamingo missiles by the end of that year. In June 2026, then-Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov said the Netherlands was ready to finance about 700 Rutas for Ukraine, without specifying the version.
Deterrence takes “tens of thousands of missiles”
At the same time, Kokorich said Europe’s problem is shifting from production to integration.
“To have sufficient deterrence, you need to have tens of thousands of missiles,” he said.
European customers, he added, still need to build the military units and logistics to operate missiles in such numbers. Those arsenals would also need storage, transport, maintenance, and targeting infrastructure, he said, and European militaries would need to rethink how they stockpile and deploy precision-strike weapons.
No Chinese parts, and a bet on cheaper, shorter-range missiles
Kokorich said Destinus uses no Chinese components, unlike wartime production in Ukraine, and said access to Chinese suppliers would make manufacturing cheaper, faster, and easier.
Kokorich also argued that cheaper missiles with ranges under 1,000 km would make up most future demand. Separately, Destinus is working with Rheinmetall on cruise missiles and ammunition for multiple-launch rocket systems, including a planned European equivalent of the GMLRS rockets fired by HIMARS.
The Rotterdam band are a riot of sound, look and attitude led by Eva Kah, who is as much a living artwork as she is a phenomenal live performer
From Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Recommended if you like Gnod, Discharge, Gwar Up next
Debut album Big Enemy out now via Tartarus, playing Le Guess Who festival
Rotterdam’s Bombstrap are a riotous and theatrical fusion of sound, look and attitude. An embodied version of John Milton’s Pandæmonium with the amp turned up to 11, the band revel in hardcore alternative living, internet wormholes, art-school pretensions and a gungy form of hardcore. Based in and drawing succour from one of the most famous squatted centres in the city, Het Poortgebouw, Bombstrap are a noisy counterblast to the increasing and overwhelmingly witless “circuses-and-bread” gentrification of Rotterdam.
"In developing drones and counter-drone systems, Europe has one significant advantage: our partnership with Ukraine," said European Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis.
Brussels is considering unprecedented restrictions on the rights of future EU members, including the possible suspension of voting rights for serious breaches of European values. France and the Netherlands favour stronger safeguards, while Italy and Austria warn that excessive conditions could undermine enlargement.
European Union governments have begun negotiations over proposals that would allow Brussels to impose additional restrictions on future member states, exposing divisions over how to prevent democratic backsliding without discouraging countries seeking accession.
The discussions, held among EU ambassadors on 28 October, concern draft safeguards proposed by the European Commission for inclusion in future accession treaties.
Montenegro, currently the most advanced candidate in the Western Balkans, is expected to become the first country subject to the proposed arrangements.
The measures would potentially allow the EU to suspend certain membership rights, including voting rights, during a transitional period lasting up to 15 years after accession.
However, the negotiations have revealed disagreement not only over the duration of the safeguards but also over the powers that should be granted to the Commission and the legal thresholds for intervention.
The controversy raises a broader question about the nature of EU membership: whether countries that have completed accession negotiations should immediately enjoy the same institutional rights as existing members.
France and the Netherlands seek stronger guarantees
According to Euronews’ reporting on the ambassadors’ discussions, France and the Netherlands have pressed for stronger guarantees that newly admitted states will continue respecting the rule of law and other EU obligations.
Their position reflects concern that the Union’s existing procedures have proved difficult to enforce against governments accused of undermining judicial independence or democratic institutions.
Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union already provides for sanctions, including suspension of certain membership rights, where a serious breach of European values is established.
However, the procedure involves demanding political and voting requirements.
The Commission’s proposed safeguards are intended to provide an additional instrument specifically applicable to newly admitted members.
They would operate during a defined period after accession and could be activated in response to serious breaches of EU values or the principle of sincere cooperation.
For governments supporting the proposal, the objective is to ensure that reforms undertaken during accession negotiations remain effective after membership has been secured.
Italy and Austria warn against excessive restrictions
Not all member states share this approach.
Italy and Austria, among countries supporting faster integration of the Western Balkans, have warned against imposing conditions that could make EU membership appear provisional or unequal.
Their concern is that candidate countries may face an increasingly complicated accession process even after meeting the formal requirements.
The credibility of EU enlargement depends partly on the proposition that successful reforms will eventually lead to full membership.
If new members are subjected to extensive additional restrictions, political leaders in candidate countries could find it more difficult to justify the domestic compromises required by accession negotiations.
The debate is particularly sensitive in the Western Balkans, where prolonged delays have already generated frustration over the pace of integration.
The challenge for Brussels is to strengthen safeguards without creating a permanent distinction between established and newly admitted members.
A proposed 15-year period
The Commission’s draft institutional safeguard would remain available for 15 years following accession.
This period is intended to permit intervention if a new member reverses reforms after joining the Union.
Yet ambassadors have questioned whether such an extended period can reasonably be described as temporary.
The proposed decision-making mechanism has also attracted criticism.
Under the draft, the Commission could propose restrictive measures that would take effect unless a qualified majority of member states rejected or amended them within two weeks.
This would reverse the usual political dynamic by requiring governments to assemble a blocking majority rather than actively secure support for sanctions.
The proposal could therefore make intervention easier than under the existing Article 7 mechanism.
Critics are concerned that the arrangement would give the Commission excessive influence over the institutional rights of newly admitted countries.
Supporters argue that a more effective enforcement mechanism is necessary precisely because existing procedures have proved difficult to use.
Monitoring could begin before accession
The proposed safeguards are not confined to the period following membership.
The Commission also wants stronger monitoring between the signing of an accession treaty and the date on which a country formally joins.
This period can last several years, during which a candidate government may change and reform commitments may weaken.
Under the draft arrangements, monitoring could include regular assessments, reviews involving existing member states and formal warnings.
As a last resort, accession could be postponed if there were clear evidence that a candidate would not meet the required conditions.
The voting procedure for such a postponement remains unresolved.
These provisions would add another stage of oversight to an accession process that already requires extensive negotiations and the implementation of EU legislation.
Montenegro faces a new uncertainty
Montenegro began accession negotiations in June 2012.
Its progress has made the country a leading candidate for the next round of enlargement.
However, its accession treaty may now become the vehicle through which the EU establishes a new framework for future entrants.
The implications extend beyond Montenegro.
Albania, Moldova and Ukraine are also pursuing accession, although they are at different stages of the process.
Any safeguards introduced for Montenegro could influence the terms eventually offered to those countries.
Enlargement becomes a test of EU governance
The Commission’s proposals reflect a wider debate over whether the EU’s institutions can function effectively with substantially more members.
New entrants would participate in decisions concerning the budget, sanctions, foreign policy and the internal market.
Their admission could also affect areas where unanimity remains necessary, potentially increasing the risk of institutional deadlock.
The European Parliament’s research service has identified the proposed safeguards as part of a broader programme addressing decision-making and governance ahead of enlargement.
Negotiations over the draft clauses will continue at the technical level, with ambassadors expected to revisit the matter in November.
The central disagreement remains unresolved.
The EU wants future members to maintain democratic and legal standards, but it must also decide whether those guarantees can be enforced without creating a separate class of membership.
Montenegro’s accession negotiations will provide the first practical test of that approach.
Ahead of a harsh winter, the Netherlands is giving Ukraine €1.2 billion to keep the lights and water on under Russian strikes. Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation Sjoerd Sjoerdsma announced the aid during a visit to Kyiv on 28 October.
The package comes as Russia targets Ukraine’s energy system every winter. Last winter’s strikes damaged or destroyed roughly 80% of the grid, and Moscow’s next target is Ukraine’s water supply.
“Ukraine is under heavy fire and faces a very harsh winter,” Sjoerdsma said.
That, he stated, is why the government is taking additional steps now. The funds will be distributed over the next three years.
Earlier, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy said Kyiv needed $8-10 billion to get through winter, TSN reported.
The Netherlands shores up Ukraine’s power and water
Also, the Netherlands is fast-tracking €40 million this year to Ukraine’s Energy Support Fund for urgent repairs to power and water facilities, which are increasingly targeted by Russian strikes.
Another €55 million goes to in-kind support: energy equipment supplied by Dutch companies to Ukrainian partners through the Netherlands Enterprise Agency.
The money will also help build emergency reserves and train staff in the energy and water sectors.
Dutch business steps into Ukraine’s reconstruction
Most of the rest goes to business. Some €136 million will go to the Partnership Facility with Ukraine and other programs, and a further €19.5 million is added to export credit insurance, on top of an existing €60 million line, to lower the risk for Dutch companies entering the Ukrainian market.
Separately, the Netherlands signed a letter of intent to contribute €10 million to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s “Industrial Ramstein” initiative, which aims to restore and modernize the production capacity of Ukrainian companies. Sjoerdsma traveled to Kyiv with Koen van Oostrom, chair of the business association VNO-NCW.
The support also covers the search for Ukrainian children abducted by Russia, through the UN, as well as housing, humanitarian aid, healthcare, demining, and the restoration of cultural heritage.
In all, the Netherlands is confirming the previously promised €878 million in non-military aid and an additional €327 million, much of it delivered through the EBRD, the World Bank, and the European Investment Bank.
The same day, President Zelenskyy said he had arrived in the Netherlands on an official visit. The two sides plan to discuss defense and economic cooperation, strengthening Ukraine’s air defenses, and further support for Ukraine. Zelenskyy is also set to have an audience with King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands.
EU enlargement has become a trap in which political intentions collide with economic reality; Eastern and Southern Europe will bear the brunt of the impact if Ukraine joins the European Union. Ukraine is a war‑torn country, and EU citizens are already footing the bill for its reconstruction and the support of its refugees. The EU’s cohesion policy would collapse: Ukraine would become the largest and poorest member state, absorbing virtually all available development funds. Current beneficiaries – such as Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Spain, and Greece – would lose 80% to 100% of their cohesion funding and, overnight, become net contributors.
Compared to Western European countries, nations such as Greece, Spain, and Hungary are “poor countries.” To illustrate: the minimum monthly wage for an employee in Greece is around €900, whereas in the Netherlands it is approximately €2,300 for a 40‑hour workweek.
In the planning for the next seven‑year EU budget, starting in 2028, the potential accession of Ukraine must be taken into account – at least according to the rhetoric of key EU figures, such as Ursula von der Leyen and her political elites.
Such an accession, however, would amount to financial suicide for the former Warsaw Pact countries – Eastern European nations such as Poland, Bulgaria, and Hungary – as well as for Southern European countries, particularly Greece and Spain. Furthermore, it would spell disaster for France, a Western European nation currently grappling with large‑scale demonstrations fueled by the state’s insolvency. Some economic experts are already warning that France could become a second Greece – a country that, in 2015, faced extremely harsh austerity measures, endured the eurozone crisis, and remains a financial burden to this day, especially for its own citizens. We are currently witnessing a clash between the political ambitions of Western European figures – such as Ursula von der Leyen and her entourage, as well as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte – and economic reality. It is Eastern and Southern Europe that stand to bear the brunt of the consequences.
The problem with Ukraine is not just the issue of reconstruction and the funding required for the many refugees – who, in theory, could return home, though in practice this rarely happens (consider the case of Syria, where tens of thousands remain in the EU, either unwilling or unable to return). There is also the matter of the devastation of the agricultural sector: Ukraine’s vast, fertile farmlands and massive agribusinesses would consume roughly one‑third of the EU’s entire agricultural budget.
To prevent a collapse, Brussels would either have to increase contributions from member states – a move likely to be blocked by Western nations – or drastically cut per‑hectare subsidies for farmers in countries like France, Germany, Poland, and Hungary. Such a move would risk an agricultural breakdown, potentially leading to tractor blockades across Europe.
In reality, an agricultural collapse is already underway within the EU – not because of Ukraine, but due to the EU’s utopian policies. The Netherlands, in particular, has implemented strict EU nitrogen‑reduction directives in an extreme manner, leading to the buyout of hundreds of farms and the departure of many farmers to countries outside the EU (notably Canada). Agricultural enterprises that have existed for centuries – and which once formed the backbone of the economy in the Netherlands – are now disappearing to make way for defense interests; after all, the military requires ammunition depots and training grounds for an imagined war against Russia. Under the guise of nitrogen reduction and climate change, the state is effectively securing farmers’ land for military use, and the accession of Ukraine will only exacerbate the situation.
Since 2022 (the year of what the EU refers to as the Russian invasion), the European Union has largely suspended import tariffs on Ukrainian agricultural products to provide economic support to the country. As a result, imports of inexpensive Ukrainian poultry and eggs into the EU have risen exponentially. In 2025, the Dutch poultry sector, which was the largest in Europe, expressed concern regarding the renewed trade deal between Europe and Ukraine. Under this new agreement, the quotas – within which Ukraine is permitted to export to Europe duty‑free – have been significantly increased for a number of agricultural products. For instance, the quota for chicken meat entering Europe has been raised from 90,000 tonnes to 120,000 tonnes, and for eggs from 6,000 tonnes to 18,000 tonnes.
This points toward the “death” of the poultry industry in Western Europe (the Netherlands) and an increase in the emigration of Western European businesses. Some refer to this as “depopulation” – a sensitive term in Europe – but I would describe it more accurately as “depopulation of businesses” coupled with the “expropriation of farmers and businesses.”
However, the Brussels elites face another major problem: they have promised Ukraine a swift accession to the European Union. These elites make almost monthly “unexpected” visits to Kiev to assure their “hero,” Zelensky, of their support – in the form of money (from EU taxpayers), weapons, and the prospect of EU membership. Yet a rapid accession would be suicidal for the European Union (and for the elites themselves).
The most likely solution is that Ukraine will not be granted full membership in terms of the distribution of funds. A transitional period of 10–15 years could be introduced – much like the way Albania, Turkey, and North Macedonia have been kept on a string for years – during which Kiev would have only minimal access to funds, and its participation in the agricultural market would also be restricted. Yet this would expose the European political elites (such as former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte) as liars – though, in fairness, that is nothing new.
Almost every year, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, visits Albania, North Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Montenegro to assure them of her support (and that of the EU) – a practice that has continued for more than 15 years. Meanwhile, the citizens of these countries have largely grown completely fed up with the empty promises. We are now also seeing unrest emerge in Albania, where Prime Minister Edi Rama – a good friend of Mark Rutte, who also visits the country regularly – has been in power for years but is currently facing significant resistance from his own population; an opposition that has reached an unprecedented level, fueled in part by the so‑called “Flamingo Revolution.”
Take Turkey, for example, which has been waiting 39 years to join the European Union. It first submitted an application for membership in 1987 – to what was then called the European Economic Community – and it has been 27 years since it was officially recognized as an EU candidate country in 1999. This has only served to distance Turkey further from Europe, especially when contrasted with the almost obsessive rhetoric from the EU regarding its unwavering, unconditional support for Ukraine in its war against Russia – or, as they term it, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Other countries in and around Europe – such as Montenegro – are also involved in the so‑called accession process, with active negotiations and a projected timeline pointing toward potential membership around 2028. As with Ukraine, however, it is unlikely that they will meet the requirements regarding corruption. Serbia finds itself in a similar position, and Georgia is also a potential candidate – a fact that causes displeasure in Russia. After all, the majority of Georgian territory lies just south of the Greater Caucasus, which is traditionally considered the boundary between Europe and Asia; a situation comparable to that of Turkey. Armenia (in Western Asia) intends to submit a formal application for EU membership in the near future, though it has not yet done so. Armenia is not a European country; the EU views such nations primarily as geopolitical, strategic tools to help encircle Russia, even though, in reality, these countries remain far removed from Europe.
For Ukraine, and for Zelensky in particular, this would be a slap in the face if they could not join in 2028, as they are not fighting for second‑class membership or to be kept waiting like the above‑mentioned countries, and in particular Turkey. Consequently, EU enlargement has turned into a trap for the European Union, whereas said political will collides with harsh economic reality.
In 2016, a referendum was held in the Netherlands regarding Ukraine’s accession and its association agreement with the EU – the first and, to date, only referendum to take place in the Netherlands, a country that considers itself a democracy! The outcome was unwelcome to Dutch politicians and the EU (it should be noted that the Netherlands is one of the EU’s founding member states); consequently, no further referendums have been held in the Netherlands, and the mechanism itself has even been abolished. The Dutch public voted “NO” to Ukraine’s accession; the primary reason for this “NO” vote was the widespread corruption in Ukraine.
Moreover, many (Dutch) citizens feared even then that this would lead to problems with Russia and that Europe might ultimately have to fight on behalf of Ukraine – pointing to the European Union’s mutual assistance clause (Article 42, paragraph 7). This clause stipulates that if an EU country becomes the victim of armed aggression on its own territory, the other EU member states are obligated to provide all the aid and assistance within their power. It now appears that this obligation is effectively being acted upon, even though Ukraine is not an EU member state; the public and EU citizens have, in effect, been misled by their own politicians and are now paying a high price in the form of arms shipments, the loss of gas supplies, and the deployment of weaponry.
"We will discuss defense and economic cooperation, strengthening Ukrainian air defense, and new steps to support Ukraine," Zelensky said on X upon his arrival.
"Support for recovery and reconstruction can't wait for a ceasefire. Ukraine needs our help right now: military support, but also social and economic assistance," Dutch Foreign Trade Minister Sjoerd Sjoerdsma said during his visit to Kyiv.
Restrictions on suppliers, changes in procurement policies and replacement of existing ICT infrastructure affect supply chains.
On Tuesday, SEO Amsterdam Economics reported that a proposed revision of the European Union’s Cybersecurity Act, known as CSA2, could lead to losses ranging from 290 million euros (US$324 million) to 2.2 billion euros (US$2.46 billion dollars) for Dutch businesses in the first year of implementation.
The report, titled The Price of Security and commissioned by the Netherlands China Business Council (NCBC), cautions that the impact could extend beyond businesses directly affected by the restrictions, spreading through supply chains and hitting firms in other sectors of the Dutch economy.
The legislation was proposed by the European Commission at the beginning of this year. The draft introduced “non-technical risks” in the name of cybersecurity and supply chain security.
In particular, the draft would identify “countries posing cybersecurity concerns” and “high-risk suppliers,” and exclude listed countries and suppliers from relevant EU supply chains across 18 sectors, including energy, transport, and information and communications technology.
However, the economic implications of restricting suppliers could be substantial, particularly for businesses that rely on existing information and communications technology infrastructure and have limited short-term alternatives, according to the report.
🚨🇪🇺 BREAKING: Critical software vulnerabilities trigger government website shutdowns across at least SIX European countries, affecting public authorities, hospitals, schools and critical infrastructure.
Companies may also need to modify existing systems, adjust production processes and reorganize supply chains to accommodate replacement products. These changes could generate additional costs beyond the losses estimated in the report.
“Security measures do not exist in an economic vacuum,” NCBC Chairman Jochum Haakma said at a seminar on the report on Monday, adding that restrictions on suppliers, changes in procurement policies and the replacement of existing ICT infrastructure can affect entire supply chains, investment decisions and ultimately the competitiveness of the European economy.
In a letter to parliament on June 19, Dutch Minister of Justice and Security David van Weel said the government was concerned about the European Commission’s proposed power to designate entire countries and suppliers as high-risk, citing potentially far-reaching economic, legal and geopolitical consequences, as well as insufficiently clear and detailed criteria and procedures.
The report notes that restrictions on supplier choice could also yield other adverse consequences, as diminished competitive pressure may result in higher prices, lower quality and reduced innovation.
“Strategic autonomy is an important European ambition, but autonomy should not lead to isolation,” Haakma noted.
The Hague -- The Netherlands will not participate in next year's Eurovision Song Contest, its public broadcaster NPO said Tuesday, citing "sensitivities" over Israel's participation.
After saying in September it would not boycott 2027 song contest, Dutch broadcaster NPO declares it won't join as Israeli participation 'elicits various reactions'
In 1977, amateur archaeologists digging at the site of an old Roman fort in Velsen, on the coast of North Holland, uncovered a well. At the bottom lay the almost complete skeleton of a man who was still wearing his military belt. Beside him were a dagger, a ring, a fibula (the brooch Romans used […]
Leslie Hodgin and her husband moved to the Netherlands in January 2026.
Leslie Hodgin
Leslie Hodgin and her husband had dreamed of moving abroad.
They finally took the leap in January, deciding not to waste time in their 50s.
Hodgin said the move was expensive and time-consuming, but she's been happy with their relocation.
This story is based on an interview with Leslie Hodgin, a 55-year-old marketing consultant who moved from the US to the Netherlands with her husband, John Lyman, 52. It has been edited for length and clarity.
Until 2026, I was living in Richmond, Virginia, with my husband and our cat.
My dad was in the Army, so I grew up all over the world, but Richmond is my adopted home. I lived there for about 10 years.
During that time, I got an offer to move to Seoul, South Korea, for my marketing job. My husband, John, and I were dating at the time. We got married one week before moving to Seoul for two years.
After the contract ended, we returned to the States. I love Richmond, but it did feel small after I had been in Korea.
Some events happened in both of our families that made us want to move abroad again sooner rather than later. My dad died. My husband's mom died. We had a couple of dear friends pass away. It was all very quick. And it made me think, "What are we waiting for? We don't have promises for tomorrow. Now is the time."
We don't have kids, so that wasn't holding us back. We had some money in the bank to move, which I know is a privilege. It was like, "Let's just go and live our lives. We shouldn't just keep hoping for someday because there may not be someday."
Moving to the Netherlands
John had gone to graduate school in the Netherlands, so we'd visited before. Through my work in advertising, I also had a fairly large network of people living there.
There's a visa for Americans called the Dutch-American Friendship Treaty (DAFT) that allows freelancers and entrepreneurs to live in the Netherlands. It made the country seem like a great choice for us.
The couple moved in January 2026.
Leslie Hodgin
My husband works for himself, so it was easier for him to pick up and go anywhere. I started my own consulting business and left my agency. I knew there was an advertising community in the Netherlands, and I planned to freelance if my consulting business wasn't doing well.
My husband's dad is in his 90s, and my mom just turned 80. Moving far from them was probably the hardest part of the decision. I have a little guilt for that, but they're excited for us. I've promised my mom that I'll be home for any big family and important events.
That's a hard thing to do, but we felt it was right for us not to put our lives on hold.
Downsizing our lives
We moved in January. We did it in six months. We'd sold our house about a year before moving and were living in an apartment.
We decided to sell almost everything we owned to keep costs as low as possible. We shipped a half-crate over, which is quite small, so we had to get rid of a lot of stuff. We made close to $12,000 selling everything and used it to pay for the visas and help with some of the moving costs.
When we moved, we had nine suitcases, including a large piece of art. It was the largest oversize item that would fit on an airplane, and we had a special museum-packing company pack it. And our cat, of course, came on the plane with us.
They sold most of their belongings before moving.
Leslie Hodgin
We live in a two-bedroom apartment. It's an old, old building, but the apartment is newly renovated and has a patio.
We do feel lucky that we found a place because there is a housing shortage, and it's quite hard to find housing, particularly if you're American or from another country and you don't have Dutch income. We had to pay six months' rent upfront to secure our rental.
Life in Europe
It still feels surreal that we live here. My husband and I will frequently look at each other and say, "Oh my God, I can't believe that we're here." I never want to lose that feeling.
Business seems to be going really well. I also already knew some friends, but I've met so many amazing people through social media and made some great friends with our neighbors.
They love life in the Netherlands.
Leslie Hodgin
We love the sense of community. I appreciate the social contract that people afford each other in the Netherlands, from the opportunities the government provides to the respect and trust they show each other in general.
Recently, there was Open Monumentendag, or Open Monuments Day, with over a thousand monuments, churches, houses, farms, and historic places across the Netherlands open to the public for free. They do that every year, and it feels so special. It seems like every other weekend there's a festival.
There are always challenges. I'm very slow to pick up the language. Most people speak English, but I feel like I need to be better.
Moving also costs a lot more than you plan for. Even if you've tried to pad all the numbers, it still costs more than anticipated. Because our work was quite slow earlier in the year, we were like, "Gosh, what have we done?"
Our cost of living is fairly similar to what it was in the US. We don't have a car, so we don't have that expense. We would be paying double the rent in New York City for this same apartment.
A fresh start
I feel alive again. I felt a little stagnant in Richmond after living overseas, and moving has opened a lot of doors for my creativity.
On social media, I've documented trying one new thing a week. It's gotten us out to meet people and have some interesting experiences.
It's a new chapter.
Leslie Hodgin
There's a risk in moving abroad. You have to get yourself over the hump, and you have to be brave.
Believe in yourself. If there's something you want to try, like moving overseas, going on a solo trip, or taking a cooking class, take a chance on yourself. You're never going to regret trying it if it doesn't work out. If you don't ever put yourself out there, you're going to look back in 20 years and be like, "That would have been great. Why didn't I give that a shot?"
We encountered lots of surprises, like the lengthy Dutch application process.
Although we love our apartment, we've had to get used to a few cultural differences.
After living as digital nomads for nearly two years, my husband and I decided to move from the US to the Netherlands.
We'd visited several times and fell in love with the walkability and bike culture. Plus, I have a connection to the country, since my great-grandparents were Dutch.
With the help of a real-estate agent, we found an apartment remotely from the US, signing a yearlong lease in the city of Utrecht before ever setting foot in the home.
We encountered some surprises while looking for an apartment
Since we couldn't physically be in the Netherlands, our real-estate agent went to walkthroughs for us.
Emily Pogue
Since the process of finding an apartment abroad can often take months, we chose to search remotely from the US. To make things easier, we hired a Dutch real-estate agent with local connections who could view apartments for us in person.
The prep work was much more intense than I was used to. In the US, I've leased apartments in three different states, and the extent of the application typically included filling out a basic form and sometimes completing a background check.
That wasn't going to cut it in the Netherlands.
Our agent gave us a long list of materials to prepare, from 12 months of bank statements and links to our LinkedIn profiles, to a "get to know us" letter, which included our hobbies and photos of us. Then she went looking.
Rentals often get snatched up within a few hours or days, so my husband and I were regularly waking up at 4 a.m. in Colorado to read our agent's emails about the new listings each day.
When we finally found one that checked all our boxes, we asked her to schedule a walkthrough. Luckily, she recorded a video for us to review, so we didn't need to wake up early for this part of the process.
It was during the walkthrough, however, that we learned Dutch apartment listings aren't as detailed as the ones we were used to in the US. When our agent arrived, we discovered the listing had omitted several important pieces of information.
I was surprised that our beautiful back garden wasn't mentioned in the listing.
Emily Pogue
For example, there was a fully fenced-in back garden, complete with a shed, picnic table, and blackberry and rose bushes. The kitchen had a dishwasher. And there was a washing machine hidden away behind a cabinet door — and a dryer (which is not as common in Europe).
Score, right? So we jumped at the opportunity, put in our bid, and jumped for joy when our offer was accepted.
Despite a few setbacks, we fell in love with our apartment
Thankfully, we ended up loving our apartment once we saw it in person.
Emily Pogue
We arrived in the Netherlands a few weeks later, traveling directly from the airport to our rental. When we unlocked the door for the first time, hoping we'd fall in love with our new home, it was … freezing.
Turns out, the heat had stopped working, and the rental company couldn't send someone to fix it until the next day. So, we spent our first night in the Netherlands at a hotel.
Thankfully, the heat was fixed the following day, and then we could start unpacking. This is when we began to notice some of the more nuanced differences of a Dutch house compared to an American one.
The first thing to get used to? The alarmingly steep stairs (a hallmark of skinny, tall Dutch houses) which made moving furniture up to our second-floor office feel like a Herculean feat.
We also learned to accept moths and gnats as houseguests, since Dutch windows don't typically have screens. However, with no air conditioning and a 100-year-old house that was built to retain heat, we definitely want to keep those windows open.
Overall, aside from a few stowaway insects and some hot days, we've been very fortunate with our rental. I particularly love the neighborhood and how we can walk to a grocery store, bakery, or park within five minutes.
The biggest lessons have come from being part of a Dutch neighborhood
I love being part of the community in Utrecht.
Emily Pogue
Although finding our rental was a whirlwind process, I've found the most interesting parts of living here have come from the cultural differences between American and Dutch neighborhoods.
For example, shortly after arriving, our neighbor invited us to the neighborhood WhatsApp group. If you need to borrow a drill or lose your cat, you send a message to the group.
It's very active, and joining the group helped me feel like I was part of a community before knowing anyone here. Although I've heard of similar groups in the US, I've never been invited to join one.
Ordering packages is also very different. Back in the States, packages would be left by my door. In the Netherlands, however, they aren't left unattended.
Instead, the delivery driver will start ringing the neighbors' doorbells until someone is home. Then, they'll leave a digital note about which house has your package.
One place I didn't expect to feel such a contrast is the sidewalk. On sunny days, my Dutch neighbors bring out their dining room chairs, park them on the bricks outside their front door, and enjoy a cold drink. Sometimes, it'll feel like an impromptu block party — and I couldn't be happier to join in the festivities.
After leasing an apartment across the world, sight unseen, would I do it again? I sure would — especially if I could hire a real-estate agent to check out the home in person.
The quirks of our apartment and neighborhood are all part of the experience of living abroad, and although I may not have expected them, I've now grown attached to these cultural differences.
orchestrating the pandemic to help usher in the “Great Reset,” a global economic, political and social system promoted by the World Economic Forum.
During oral arguments Thursday, attorney Peter Stassen told a packed courtroom that the COVID-19 vaccines were akin to a bioweapon, developed as part of a broader global effort to strip democratic and individual rights.
Speaking outside the courthouse in Leeuwarden, Netherlands, Stassen said Thursday’s hearing “was about publicly telling what is happening in this courtroom and what is the real case. The real case is that COVID-19 was not a disease but was a project.”
He accused Gates and Bourla of participating in that project, which he said was coordinated and undemocratic. He also accused the defendants of using censorship and propaganda to hide their intentions while promoting the COVID-19 vaccines as “safe and effective.”
COVID-19vaccines were developed and procured as military countermeasures, bypassing the standard development and approval pipeline for such products. By developing the shots as military countermeasures, they bypassed traditional safety regulations, leading to widespread injury, Stassen said.
Stassen said that while this is a civil case, he believes the defendants’ actions constitute serious criminal offenses that violate global treaties and the Nuremberg Code.
“They basically said, like a parrot, that all of Stassen’s accusations were either conspiracy theory or based on medical reports that are from people who are not neutral in this case,” said Ido Dijkstra, a Dutch journalist and the editor-in-chief of De Andere Krant, who attended the hearing.
Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst said the defense did not respond to Stassen’s assertions that COVID-19 was a project. “There was no response to that at all, nothing.”
Journalist Penny Marie, who has reported on the case, told The Defender that Stassen’s arguments “mirror what so many people worldwide say and have experienced and investigated.”
The defendants’ legal team did acknowledge that they were “touched” by the suffering of the vaccine-injured plaintiffs. Terhorst said the five living plaintiffs face “immense problems” with their health.
Dijkstra said the presiding judge on the three-judge panel appeared to “support the mainstream narrative,” but “gave the impression that she wanted to understand Stassen’s reasoning.”
Thursday’s hearing stemmed from a lawsuit filed in 2023 by seven people injured by COVID-19 vaccines — including two who have since died — against Gates, Bourla and 15 other defendants, including former Dutch prime minister and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Dutch state, and several Dutch public health officials and journalists.
According to Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst, who is not connected to the case but attended the hearing, none of the defendants appeared in court.
A ruling is expected as early as December but may be delayed until February 2027.
Expert witnesses barred from testifying in person
During oral arguments, Stassen addressed the court’s refusal to allow his team’s expert witnesses to testify in person. Earlier this week, the court limited the witnesses to video statements presenting their arguments.
Defense attorneys attacked the credentials of some of the witnesses. For instance, they claimed that Sasha Latypova — a former pharmaceutical research and development executive — has only a bachelor’s degree and is unqualified to provide testimony on scientific and medical matters.
Latypova disputed the claims, telling those gathered outside the courthouse that she has a “graduate degree from Dartmouth College and 25 years of pharmaceutical R&D and regulatory experience” — including interacting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency and Japanese regulators “on behalf of my clients.”
Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and another of the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs, told The Defender that Bourla’s attorneys questioned the credentials of another witness — Mike Yeadon, Ph.D. Fitts said she was “surprised” by their claims.
“Yeadon served as vice-president of Pfizer’s allergy and respiratory research unit and worked for many years at Pfizer. Does Pfizer make it a practice to staff the company with unqualified people in senior positions? Does this explain why Pfizer appointed a veterinarian to be the CEO?” Fitts asked, referring to Bourla.
Terhorst said it is “very strange” for Dutch courts to not allow oral testimony by plaintiffs’ witnesses, as otherwise, “it is not easy to substantiate your claims.”
Despite the limitation, Terhorst said the witnesses bolstered the plaintiffs’ case. “The case is important based on the evidence provided by key witnesses,” she said.
“I think we [gave] a very clear sign to the court that there can be not justice if the court is not willing to look further at this expert evidence, because you can come to a judgment based on truth and a real discussion between the parties,” Stassen said during the press conference.
Vaccine-injured were ‘misled’ about safety of COVID shots
In an interview with journalist Fiona Rose Diamond earlier this week, Stassen said the plaintiffs “felt misled” by the Dutch government and by those who promoted the COVID-19 shots in the media.
“They felt misled by the whole system … And they were misled because they were told that this was a safe and effective vaccine, and in fact, the only way out of [the] crisis,” Stassen said.
At Thursday’s press conference, Stassen added that the plaintiffs sued not just because of their injuries, but because “they want the truth.”
Fitts highlighted the significance of the case, noting that under the Dutch legal system, the vaccine-injured can file lawsuits in response to their injuries — contrasting this with legal restrictions the injured face in the U.S.
Terhorst noted that the vaccine-injured in the Netherlands face other obstacles.
“Vaccine injury is not even recognized in the Netherlands,” she said. She noted that some vaccine-injured people briefly received treatment under public health programs that the Dutch state earmarked for long COVID patients. However, this treatment was later “terminated.”
Terhorst said lawyers for the Dutch state “said nothing” during the hearing about offering compensation to these victims, including the plaintiffs and their families.
This is one of several obstacles the plaintiffs have faced as this case has progressed. Last year, another attorney for the plaintiffs, Arno van Kessel, was arrested “with considerable force,” as part of a nationwide sweep by Dutch police against alleged members of a “sovereign citizen” movement with a “potential intent to use violence” against the Dutch state.
Terhorst said van Kessel spent seven months imprisoned in a high-security prison, lost his license to practice law, is not allowed to leave the country and was fitted with an ankle monitor — which was removed Thursday, in parallel with the hearing.
by The Narrative On Trial, Global Research: The Case at a Glance A definitive, historic legal proceeding marking an unprecedented confrontation over global pharmaceutical and institutional accountability. The historic civil lawsuit in the Netherlands is brought by seven Pfizer “vaccine”-injured individuals, represented by attorney Peter W.H. Stassen, seeking individual accountability from global figures like Bill […]
The body of 29-year-old Hajar was discovered on the morning of Oct.16 inside a suitcase in the Amstel River along the Amsteldijk in Amsterdam-Zuid, near Martin Luther Kingpark. She had been missing since Oct. 4, when she was last seen cycling away from the RAI convention center toward the Buitenveldert neighborhood with an unidentified man.
Hajar disappeared after sending a series of alarming text messages to a family member. According to reporting by De Telegraaf, one message read: “Help me. Now. He is killing me.”
The messages arrived around 11:15 a.m. on Oct. 4. Her family reported her missing that evening, but police initially classified the case as non-urgent. A public appeal for information was not issued until Oct. 13, nine days later.
Women in the Netherlands and Germany are now trying to defend themselves with "Smurf spray" after an asylum seeker raped and murdered 17-year-old Lisa.
"Since Lisa’s death, many of (self-defense) products have been sold out, including the Smurf spray."
Pepper spray is illegal in both Germany and the Netherlands, which means women are desperate for self-defense options.
Smurf spray paints a potential rapist’s face blue for days, making a suspect easy to identify. But can it really stop a determined rapist?
"After the death of 17-year-old Lisa, practically every woman in Holland wants to carry it."
17-year-old Lisa was not the only victim. The asylum seeker had previously raped and sexually assaulted other women.
(Video source: RTL)
On Oct. 20, Amsterdam police arrested a 23-year-old Somali national identified in reports as Abdi A. (or Abdi Anan). He has lived in the Netherlands since the age of six, holds permanent residency, and has no fixed address.
Authorities said he was first questioned as a witness after CCTV footage placed him with Hajar near the RAI on the day she vanished. He was arrested the following day after a separate violent incident at a home in Koggenland, Noord-Holland, in which a man, later identified as his foster father, was injured.
Police Chief Peter Holla told a press conference that “Hajar died fairly soon after her disappearance” and that “as far as is known, the suspect has no connection to the victim.”
First, a Dutch woman was raped and beaten. It was all caught on surveillance camera, but police never released the footage or an image of the suspect.
A few days later, the African migrant Chris Jude raped and murdered 17-year-old Lisa.
A complete failure of the Dutch police and larger immigration system.
@rblommestijn : “The police and judiciary simply did not do their job properly.”
Investigators later searched an empty school building on De Klencke in Buitenveldert, where police believe Hajar was killed.
Holla described the circumstances of the disposal as “inhumane.”
Family members expressed anger that police did not treat the case as urgent sooner despite the text messages, telling LINDA.nl: “We already knew she had been murdered. That is what she messaged.”
Login
