Germany appears to have dropped plans to directly procure the larger, Block 3 version of Boeing’s MQ-28 Ghost Bat collaborative combat aircraft (CCA), leaving doubts over Berlin’s ambitions to field uncrewed combat aircraft alongside its crewed fighters before the end of the decade.

Boeing confirmed to Breaking Defense that Germany’s Ministry of Defense had informed the company it would not proceed with a direct acquisition of the drone, which had previously been lined up. The decision, first reported by Politico, represents a setback for Boeing’s effort to position the Ghost Bat as a candidate for Berlin’s planned CCA capability, something that had seen it announce a partnership with Rheinmetall, the largest arms manufacturer in Germany, earlier this year.

NEW: Germany has formally scrapped plans to buy the Ghost Bat combat drones directly from Australia, documents show.

Its air force wanted them by 2029. Now it faces a longer wait.

Behind the decision is a much bigger political dilemma facing Germany as it races to rearm. pic.twitter.com/2fWHPoQOl0

— Chris Lunday (@lundayfunday) October 15, 2026

“With Boeing Defense Australia as a partner, we are laying the groundwork to optimally tailor the MQ-28 to the Bundeswehr’s requirements,” said Armin Papperger, CEO of Rheinmetall AG, in March of this year. “As a system integrator, we ensure that integration, operation, and further development come from a single source while simultaneously strengthening industrial value creation in the form of an industrial hub in Germany and Europe. We see revenue potential for Rheinmetall in the range of three-digit millions of euros.”

#Rheinmetall and #Boeing partner on German MQ-28 #Ghost #Bat
https://t.co/zGEhjQNqqi pic.twitter.com/VLBDQ8EAaV

— Rheinmetall (@RheinmetallAG) March 31, 2026

The move does not necessarily mean the MQ-28 is out of contention for Germany’s wider program. Instead, Berlin appears set to move toward a different acquisition approach, with competing designs potentially having an opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities before a selection is made.

A Boeing spokesperson told Breaking Defense the company “stands ready to support” its German customer on the next steps, while referring questions about the decision to the German Ministry of Defense.

The ministry declined to discuss the specific procurement with the same outlet, citing regulations governing public contracting and the need for such matters to be addressed by parliament.

“[As a] matter of principle — and regardless of the specific case in question — we cannot provide information regarding potential procurement projects,” a ministry spokesperson told Breaking Defense.

Germany has set an ambitious goal of fielding CCAs by 2029. These uncrewed aircraft are intended to operate alongside crewed fighters such as the Eurofighter, extending their reach, adding sensors and weapons, and giving air forces additional options for conducting high-risk missions.

However, the reported change in Berlin’s acquisition plans raises questions about whether that deadline remains achievable.

According to Politico, Germany is now looking toward the early 2030s for the capability to arrive, with flight testing expected to begin in 2027. That would suggest the original target was based around the introduction of the MQ-28, which has already undergone extensive testing, rather than a newer design. The reshuffle could now give prospective suppliers additional time to demonstrate their designs.

The reported new timeline suggests that Germany’s CCA effort could be entering a more competitive and potentially longer development phase.

There is also a question about the degree of operational capability that will initially be fielded by the given date. Getting a CCA into meaningful frontline service is a very significant task, calling for integration with crewed fighters, communications systems, mission-planning networks, weapons, and sensors. Then there is also testing, certification, training, and the establishment of supporting infrastructure. For Germany in particular, getting a military drone, let alone an armed one, cleared to operate routinely in commercial airspace has long been an issue.

If Germany acquired the Ghost Bat directly, it would have offered a route to a CCA capability without having to begin an entirely new aircraft development effort.

However, the MQ-28 was always one of a larger field of candidate aircraft.

A week ago, Airbus and Kratos Defense & Security Solutions announced the first flight of their U740 Valkyrie uncrewed combat aircraft, a Europeanized version of the XQ-58A Valkyrie. Airbus is simultaneously working on its larger U760 Ravenstorm, intended for service in the early 2030s, and the company has previously pitched a stealthy CCA-like concept known as Wingman.

The ride of the Valkyrie
With the successful first flight of the Airbus U740 Valkyrie in Europe, we are one step closer to introducing an operational uncrewed Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) to the German and other European Armed Forces.
The flight achieved all… pic.twitter.com/S2sFrtdmGA

— Airbus Defence (@AirbusDefence) October 12, 2026

Other entrants include Anduril, General Atomics partnered with Germany’s INTEC, as well as Lockheed Martin. Meanwhile, Helsing and Hensoldt are pursuing the homegrown CA-1 Europa, very much an MQ-28 lookalike.

Germany may not be looking for a single drone to do everything, a point we have discussed in the past:

“One option might be a split high-low approach that could pair more capable, longer-range systems for deep-strike missions with cheaper, attritable collaborative combat aircraft that can fly alongside crewed fighters. At this point, it should also be noted that CCAs could also give older fourth-generation fighters a new lease on life, boosting their lethality and survivability by extending their sensor reach, adding weapons capacity, and allowing uncrewed aircraft to take on more dangerous tasks.”

At the same time, Germany continues to define its requirements for a capability described in media reports as a Jagdbomberdrohne, or fighter-bomber drone. Berlin has yet to publicly clarify its intended concept of CCA operations, including whether the Luftwaffe envisions an uncrewed wingman operating alongside crewed fighters, a platform capable of carrying out long-range strike missions independently, or a system designed to perform both roles.

There are signs that the strike mission is being prioritized, at least initially, with a reduced emphasis on air-to-air missions. This is essentially the reverse of the U.S. Air Force’s CCA effort.

Since Germany is set to receive the F-35 stealth fighter, there is also an argument that Berlin could place more orders for the crewed jet. This could have the dual role of filling the gap left by the collapse of the pan-European Future Combat Air System (FCAS), specifically its sixth-generation crewed fighter, and the delayed introduction of the first operational CCAs. Germany is also looking forward to receiving more Eurofighters.

Germany’s evolving CCA plans form part of a broader effort by Western air forces to develop uncrewed aircraft capable of working alongside advanced fighters. These systems are intended to expand the number of available platforms, distribute sensors and weapons across a larger force, and potentially take on missions that would otherwise expose pilots and expensive crewed aircraft to greater risk.

Boeing’s Ghost Bat could still have an opportunity to compete, depending on the structure of the eventual acquisition process and the requirements Berlin establishes.

However, with testing reportedly planned from 2027 and operational fielding potentially slipping into the early 2030s, the original 2029 ambition for an operational German CCA appears increasingly uncertain.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Germany Drops Boeing MQ-28 Ghost Bat Rapid Procurement Plan appeared first on TWZ.

The European Union claims that "the fundamental right to freedom of expression" only applies to journalists "acting in good faith," and that authorities do not have to give due process before freezing people's bank accounts, as these sanctions are "temporary and are not criminal in nature," according to a legal letter shared by a sanctioned journalist.

Last year, the European Union blacklisted 21 people for allegedly spreading Russian propaganda, banning them from doing business in Europe. One of them, Hüseyin Doğru, was falsely listed as a Turkish citizen living in Istanbul. In fact, Doğru is a German journalist in Berlin, making him the first European citizen on European soil to be sanctioned this way.

It was like being sentenced to "civil death," Doğru told American journalist Chris Hedges. He was banned from holding a job in Europe or having a European bank account, and authorities have restricted Doğru to a €506 ($567) per month allowance from his own money. "The sanctions are designed for people outside of Europe, so they don't really know how that should function with me, because I'm a European citizen and I'm living in Europe," Doğru told Hedges.

Last month, the civil libertarian Wau Holland Foundation hired lawyers to contest the sanctions against Doğru. And earlier this month, the Council of the European Union sent a response letter, which Doğru shared on social media, promising to escalate the case to the E.U. General Court. Although the council conceded to Doğru that he is not a Turkish citizen living in Turkey, it still insisted on the authority to punish him for his speech.

The council quoted a 2022 court case between the Russian news outlet RT and several European countries: "The protection of the right of the media and, more particularly, of journalists to impart information on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and provide 'reliable and precise' information in accordance with the ethics of journalism."

Doğru's lawyers insisted that he should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. But the council responded that sanctions fall short of a criminal punishment, so any complaint about a "violation of the presumption of innocence is therefore unfounded." In other words, because he is not accused of a crime, Doğru has fewer rights than a criminal suspect.

"People need to understand sanctions are an extrajudicial measure. They're extrajudicial. There's no court. There is no hearing, no evidence, there is no sentence by the court, nothing," Doğru told Hedges. "When you're sanctioned, you are not informed….The day when I was sanctioned, me and my wife, my wife was pregnant back then, we went to the pharmacy to buy medicine for her, and her cards did not work."

The original blacklisting decision accuses Doğru of supporting "actions by the Government of the Russian Federation which undermine or threaten stability and security in the Union" by spreading "false information on politically controversial subjects with the intent of creating ethnic, political and religious discord amongst its predominantly German target audience."

Doğru and his wife, British journalist Lizzie Phelan, previously worked at the Russian-funded publication Redfish. A few months after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he split off to create a new website called red.media, insisting to The Left Berlin that "we are not Russian. We are not Kremlin. red.media is not funded by Russia or any other state." In the same interview, Doğru called Russia an "imperialist" regime.

But in September 2024, a Biden administration "fact sheet" on Russian propaganda offhandedly mentioned red.media, citing a hit piece on Doğru by the German newspaper Tagesspiegel. Doğru told Hedges that the U.S. fact sheet created a circular logic in German media: "They said red.media is Russian because [U.S. Secretary of State Antony] Blinken said so. But what they never said is that Blinken is referring to your articles where you never say it like that. You say there is a suspicion, it might be so."

Doğru shut down red.media in May 2025 due to the bad press. The European Union sanctioned him a few weeks later. Doğru's lawyer, Alexander Górski, told the Frankfurter Allgemeine earlier this year that the European Union didn't "even attempt to make an evidentiary case" about any ongoing connection to Russia.

The blacklisting decision also claimed that, during a pro-Palestinian student protest at Humboldt University in Berlin, red.media "coordinated with the occupiers to disseminate images of their vandalism—which included the use of Hamas symbols." Doğru told Hedges that these accusations are an attack on journalists' freedom to do their jobs.

The European Union does not have the same protections for the freedom of the press as the U.S. Constitution. Earlier this year, the Curia of the European Union ruled that simply reposting clips from Russian media could be a violation of European sanctions, even if no money changes hands, something that is explicitly exempted from U.S. sanctions under the Berman Amendment.

Still, U.S. authorities have tried to push the limits of international sanctions to censor speech. The Biden administration told an American nonprofit that "the provision of a platform for [the sanctioned individuals] to speak" was illegal, backing down after the nonprofit sued.

And the Trump administration sanctioned Italian academic Francesca Albanese for her "lawfare" calling for the prosecution of Israeli leaders and a boycott of Israeli industries. In addition to freezing her bank accounts, the sanctions forced Columbia University researchers to cut off their relationship with Albanese, and Georgetown University to close her email account. 

In the same statement accusing red.stream of being a Russian front, the Biden administration announced sanctions on two Russian news agencies. "We encourage dissent, open debate, and free discourse. But we will not stand for attempts by state actors to carry out covert activities with the goal of hijacking that discourse," the statement insisted. "The ultimate goal of sanctions is not to punish, but to bring about a positive change in behavior."

The post The European Union Wants To Punish People for Their Speech—Without Even a Trial appeared first on Reason Magazine.

In a video uploaded by German content creator Johanna Pauline Steiner, who is a solo travel influencer and model, she repeatedly asked a foreign man to stop following her in an indoor public space in Munich. Steiner quickly lost her temper as the man relentlessly followed her.

During the clip, Steiner, who also describes herself as an actress and yoga teacher, declined an invitation to talk with the foreign man and said she is busy and has to work. When he persists and keeps following her, she tells him multiple times, “Please stop following me.”

Near the end of the footage she says, “F*ck… Oh God, now I have no idea which direction I need to go.”

"F*ck, oh God… Can you please stop following me? Thank you." Johanna Pauline Steiner, a German solo traveler, influencer and model, was sexually harassed by a migrant man in Munich. Remarkably, she wrote on her video that she gets asked: "Are you afraid to travel alone as a woman?" She responded with this video: "Why does it matter where you are? Unfortunately, you get harassed everywhere." She celebrates feminism on her channel, which she says allows her to travel and live alone. Follow: @RMXnews

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) October 20, 2026

Steiner posted two versions of the video, including one where she wrote on text overlaid on the video: “Are you afraid to travel alone as a woman? Why does it matter where you are? Unfortunately, you get harassed everywhere.”

In the video description, she further wrote: “It just occurred to me that I’m trying to play off this very serious topic with a joke. But somehow, whenever this question is asked, or whenever I’m told that it’s so dangerous when you go to this country, that exact sentence comes to mind. It’s not about different countries or cultures. Unfortunately, people with bad intentions exist everywhere.”

Germany has 68,000 female genital mutilation victims and migration is to blame: German family minister

Steiner does not appear to connect the fact that, even in Germany, she is being confronted by a man who is in the country as a guest, presumably through mass migration.

The threats facing women in countries outside Europe have been well-documented, yet many of these same women support mass immigration from countries where women are at risk of sexual violence and harassment at a far higher level than in Europe.

While many women continue to promote solo travel, there have been troubling incidents and footage over the years.

“Do you like to have sex?” A man from Kyrgyzstan sexually harassed a German travel influencer, Valerie Kraus, who was traveling solo in the country. When he demanded they go to his yurt, she responded, “You said sex, I said no.” He asked her if she had a husband and if her tent “sleeps 1 person or 2.” “I’m so glad I filmed this. It just shows the reality sometimes,” she said afterwards. In Muslim countries, Western women traveling solo can face harassment, and in some cases, it has also led to sexual assault. The Instagram user “journeyious” noted that Instagram removed her video when she first posted it for reasons that were never explained. She subsequently reposted the encounter. Follow: @RMXnews

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) October 11, 2026

"What do you want, you dirty whore?!" Famed Korean streamer "Jinnytty" was brutally attacked by a man reportedly of North African origin on the streets of Toulouse. The Korean streamer has 1.1 million Twitch followers, and is one of the biggest streamers in South Korea. She had a rude welcome to multicultural France, where you can be attacked randomly on the streets at nearly all times. She likes to travel the world, sharing her adventures with her very large community, but in this case, she got punched in the face. This was broadcast live to thousands of Koreans.

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) May 9, 2025

A Portuguese tourist, Ines Faria, was harassed in Mumbai, India. The video shows her being followed by 2 men for over 15 minutes, who insist on selfies. The video went viral and the two men were reportedly arrested via facial recognition. https://t.co/9Qj8N7nCyb

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) March 10, 2026

Steiner has also expressed support for feminism in other videos for enabling her to travel and live alone. However, even within Germany, the importation of foreign cultures has led to incredibly anti-feminist policies, including forced marriage and female genital mutilation. These concepts are entirely foreign to German culture and exclusively practiced by migrants who have moved to Germany.

Germany: 358 recorded child marriages since 2012, including an 11-year-old Iraqi girl

The post German solo travel influencer sexually harassed in Munich, claims the incident proves women can be harassed anywhere and ‘it’s not about different countries or cultures’ appeared first on Remix News.

A 21-year-old German Erasmus student reported being raped by two men in the early hours of Oct. 15 while walking home from a night out in the NoLo neighborhood, police said. She told police she believed the men were likely North African.

The woman told investigators that she was attacked from behind near Parco Trotter, around the intersection of Via Crespi and Via Giacosa, shortly before 5:00 a.m. She said the men restrained her, prevented her from screaming or escaping, and assaulted her in a secluded spot before fleeing.

“He attacked me from behind and knocked me to the ground. Then he took off my pants,” said the victim.

Italy: German woman found beheaded near Florence, North African suspect arrested

An Italian couple visiting the city on vacation encountered her distressed and in shock. She told them in English that two men had attacked her from behind and raped her. The pair called emergency services. Carabinieri and medical responders arrived, noted bruising, and took her first to a hospital and then to the Mangiagalli clinic, which specializes in sexual-violence cases. She received medical examinations and psychological support.

The student, in Milan through the European Erasmus exchange program, had spent the evening in a local club before heading toward her student housing. According to Italian news outlet Il Giornale, she may have crossed paths with one of the men earlier that night.

After the rape, her parents arrived from Germany.

‘Maybe I was raped’ – Italian police open investigation after 17-year-old German tourist woke up in Turkish man’s bed with no memory

Investigators are reviewing public and private surveillance footage from the area, which captured two male figures near the scene around the time of the reported assault, along with cell-phone data and other technical evidence.

No suspects have been publicly identified or arrested. One Italian newspaper, Il Giorno MIlano, described an attacker pulling down her pants after throwing her to the ground and then briefly pretending to comfort her when passersby appeared nearby.

‘This is the first femicide our city has seen’ – Tunisian migrant arrested for stabbing his Polish wife 4 times in the throat near Rome

Descriptions varied slightly across reports, including references to olive skin and an age range of roughly 30 to 40 for one man.

Remix News has covered a number of stories involving German tourists being victimized in Italy by Middle-Eastern males over the last year, including a 17-year-old German student who said she was raped by a Turkish man just last month. In addition, a German woman was beheaded near Florence earlier this year, with Italian police arresting a North African suspect.

The post ‘He attacked me from behind’ – 21-year-old German student allegedly raped by 2 North African men in Italy appeared first on Remix News.

Deutschland steht vor einer sicherheitspolitischen Frage, die weit über den Krieg in der Ukraine hinausreicht: Wie viel militärische Stärke braucht das Land – und welches politische Ziel soll mit dieser Stärke eigentlich verfolgt werden?

Der frühere Brigadegeneral und langjährige militärpolitische Berater Angela Merkels, Erich Vad, stellt dabei eine Position zur Diskussion, die in Berlin inzwischen beinahe ungewöhnlich klingt. Er bestreitet nicht die Notwendigkeit von Verteidigungsfähigkeit. Im Gegenteil. Aber er warnt davor, Aufrüstung mit einer Politik dauerhafter Konfrontation gegenüber Russland gleichzusetzen. Deutschlands Interesse, so seine Argumentation, müsse vor allem darin bestehen, einen großen Krieg in Europa zu verhindern und deshalb die politischen Gesprächskanäle nach Moskau wieder ernsthaft zu öffnen.

Gerade dieser Unterschied ist entscheidend. Ein Staat kann militärisch stark sein und dennoch Diplomatie betreiben. Er kann seine Verteidigungsfähigkeit erhöhen, ohne daraus die politische Doktrin abzuleiten, dass Sicherheit nur noch gegen einen bestimmten Gegner organisiert werden könne. Genau darin liegt der Kern der von Vad geforderten Neuorientierung: Deutschland müsse seine eigenen Interessen definieren, statt sich immer tiefer in eine Eskalationslogik hineinziehen zu lassen, deren Endpunkt niemand seriös benennen kann.

Vad verweist dabei ausdrücklich auf deutsche historische Erfahrungen. Das ist keineswegs nostalgische Rückschau. Konrad Adenauer war alles andere als ein russlandfreundlicher Romantiker. Er band die junge Bundesrepublik fest an den Westen, setzte auf NATO-Mitgliedschaft und transatlantische Partnerschaft. Und dennoch reiste derselbe Adenauer 1955 nach Moskau. Die Verhandlungen waren hart, die politischen Gegensätze fundamental, und doch nahmen die Bundesrepublik und die Sowjetunion diplomatische Beziehungen auf. Zugleich erreichte die deutsche Delegation die Zusage zur Heimkehr Tausender noch in sowjetischem Gewahrsam befindlicher Deutscher.

Gerade dieser Vorgang zeigt, wie verkürzt die heutige Vorstellung ist, Dialog sei automatisch ein Zeichen von Schwäche.

Adenauer hatte wenige Monate zuvor die Westbindung der Bundesrepublik institutionell gefestigt. Trotzdem behandelte er den Gesprächskanal nach Moskau nicht als Verrat am eigenen Bündnis, sondern als Teil verantwortlicher deutscher Außenpolitik. Stärke und Verständigung waren für ihn keine Gegensätze.

Noch deutlicher wurde diese Logik später unter Willy Brandt. Die neue Ostpolitik entstand nicht aus der Illusion, alle Konflikte mit der Sowjetunion seien verschwunden. Sie entstand gerade deshalb, weil sie existierten. Brandt und Egon Bahr gingen davon aus, dass dauerhafte Blockkonfrontation Europa nicht sicherer machte und dass Veränderung nur durch Kontakte, Verhandlungen und schrittweise Entspannung möglich war. Die Bundesregierung setzte auf Gewaltverzicht, geregelte Beziehungen und politische Kommunikation über die Blockgrenzen hinweg. Der Bundestag erinnert bis heute daran, dass die Ostpolitik ausdrücklich darauf zielte, die starre Konfrontation zwischen Ost und West aufzubrechen.

Man muss diese Politik nicht idealisieren, um ihre strategische Bedeutung zu erkennen. Weder Adenauer noch Brandt bauten ihre Außenpolitik auf Vertrauen im naiven Sinn. Sie handelten aus Interessen. Sie wussten, dass Deutschland geografisch in der Mitte Europas lag und dass eine stabile Friedensordnung auf diesem Kontinent nicht allein durch militärische Abschreckung geschaffen werden konnte.

Genau hier setzt Vads Kritik am heutigen Kurs an. Dass Außenminister Johann Wadephul erklärt, Deutschland sei grundsätzlich weiterhin offen für Gespräche mit Russland, reicht aus seiner Sicht nicht. Das jüngste Treffen Wadephuls mit Sergej Lawrow bezeichnete er als eine Art widerwillige Pflichtübung. Formale Gesprächsbereitschaft ersetzt eben keine Diplomatie, wenn beide Seiten im Grunde nur noch ihre bekannten Positionen vortragen und anschließend auseinandergehen.

Das Problem ist größer. In Deutschland hat sich seit Beginn des Ukraine-Krieges ein politisches Verständnis etabliert, in dem militärische Stärke und politische Härte immer stärker miteinander verschmelzen. Wer mehr Verteidigungsfähigkeit fordert, landet fast automatisch bei der Forderung nach noch härterer Konfrontation mit Moskau. Wer für Verhandlungen plädiert, gerät umgekehrt schnell unter Rechtfertigungsdruck, als müsse Diplomatie zwangsläufig Kapitulation bedeuten.

Historisch war deutsche Außenpolitik gerade dann erfolgreich, wenn sie solche falschen Gegensätze vermied. Adenauer konnte NATO-Kanzler sein und nach Moskau fahren. Brandt konnte fest im westlichen Bündnis verankert bleiben und gleichzeitig eine Politik der Entspannung beginnen. Das eine schloss das andere nicht aus.

Auch heute müsste eine eigenständigere deutsche Politik nicht bedeuten, auf Verteidigungsfähigkeit zu verzichten. Vad fordert das ausdrücklich nicht. Sein Argument ist vielmehr, dass Aufrüstung ohne politische Strategie am Ende selbst zum Risiko werden kann. Wenn jede Seite nur noch militärisch denkt, jede Bewegung des Gegners als Vorbereitung auf den nächsten Angriff interpretiert und Gesprächskanäle verkümmern lässt, entsteht Sicherheit irgendwann nur noch auf dem Papier.

Deutschland hat dabei besondere Interessen. Ein großer europäischer Krieg würde nicht in Washington geführt. Wie Vad zugespitzt formuliert, würde in den Vereinigten Staaten dabei keine Fensterscheibe zu Bruch gehen. Deutschland dagegen läge mitten im Zentrum einer solchen Eskalation. Es wäre logistischer Knotenpunkt, wirtschaftlicher Hauptbetroffener und im Ernstfall selbst Kriegsschauplatz. Genau deshalb müsste Berlin ein größeres Interesse an Deeskalation haben als weit entfernte Mächte, die ihre eigenen geopolitischen und wirtschaftlichen Ziele verfolgen.

Das bedeutet auch, die amerikanische Politik nüchtern zu betrachten. Vad beschreibt Trumps Außenpolitik als „doppelzüngig“ und weist darauf hin, dass Washington keineswegs ausschließlich das Ende des Krieges im Blick habe. Die USA verfolgen gegenüber Russland, China und der Ukraine eigene strategische und wirtschaftliche Interessen. Für eine deutsche Politik wäre es daher fahrlässig, die eigenen Sicherheitsinteressen einfach mit denen Washingtons gleichzusetzen.

Die eigentliche Frage lautet deshalb nicht, ob Deutschland stark oder schwach sein soll. Natürlich braucht ein souveräner Staat Streitkräfte, die zur Verteidigung fähig sind. Die Frage lautet vielmehr, wofür diese Stärke eingesetzt wird.

Dient sie dazu, politische Handlungsspielräume zu schaffen und aus einer Position der Sicherheit heraus wieder verhandeln zu können? Oder wird sie selbst zum Ersatz für Politik?

Die Geschichte der Bundesrepublik liefert zumindest genügend Beispiele dafür, dass militärische Einbindung in den Westen und Verständigung mit Moskau gleichzeitig möglich waren.

Gerade verantwortliche deutsche Politiker des Kalten Krieges wussten, dass man sich seine Gesprächspartner nicht aussuchen kann. Diplomatie beginnt nicht dort, wo ohnehin Einigkeit herrscht. Sie wird dort notwendig, wo Interessen aufeinanderprallen.

Eine künftige europäische Sicherheitsordnung wird deshalb auf Dauer kaum stabil sein, wenn sie ausschließlich auf Abschreckung und gegenseitiger Isolation beruht. Sie muss die Sicherheitsinteressen aller beteiligten Staaten berücksichtigen, ohne deren politische Systeme oder Entscheidungen deshalb gutzuheißen.

Das wäre keine Rückkehr zu irgendeiner romantisierten Vergangenheit und auch kein Verzicht auf deutsche Stärke. Es wäre vielmehr die Rückkehr zu einem Prinzip, das Adenauer, Brandt und andere deutsche Staatsmänner in sehr unterschiedlichen historischen Situationen verstanden haben: Sicherheit in Europa entsteht langfristig nicht dadurch, dass man Russland aus Europa hinausdefiniert.

Sie entsteht durch eine Ordnung, in der Verteidigungsfähigkeit und Diplomatie einander ergänzen – und in der Sicherheit gemeinsam organisiert wird, nicht dauerhaft gegeneinander.

Europe is supposed to be financing its defence together. It barely is.

Of the €800bn announced under ReArm Europe in March 2025, €650bn is not common money. It is an estimate of the extra room governments get under the national escape clause to spend up to 1.5 percent of GDP more on defence for four years.

Each country still pays for that spending itself.

The room is also temporary: EU Commission simulations suggest that maintaining higher defence spending after 2028 could require additional annual fiscal adjustment of 0.25 to 0.4 percentage points of GDP from 2029.

The other €150bn is SAFE, and it is loans, not grants.

The EU borrows and lends the money on, and each country repays its share. Grants are small: €1.5bn from the European Defence Industry Programme for 2025-2027, plus the European Defence Fund for joint research.

Not every country has used these tools, as Table 1 shows. The Netherlands and Sweden have used neither. Like Germany, which has taken only the clause, they can borrow at least as cheaply as the EU, so SAFE gets them nothing.

France has taken SAFE but not the clause, to protect the credibility of its budget plans.

Table 1. Who uses SAFE and the national escape clause

Source: Council of the EU, European Commission. Data as of 17 October 2026. * Hungary: allocated €16.2bn, now requesting €5.4bn; still pending. ** Italy: the Commission backed its request on 8 October 2026; the Council has yet to decide.

Where SAFE does matter is on the eastern flank. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia can borrow the equivalent of five to eight percent of their GDP, and Poland almost five percent.

Graph 1. SAFE loans as a share of GDP, by country (%)

Source: Council of the EU, European Commission, Eurostat. SAFE loans only, as a share of 2025 GDP. Amounts approved by the Council, except Italy and Hungary (* revised requests of €8bn and €5.4bn, September 2026). Data as of 17 October 2026.

That leaves private money.

The European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund are trying to bring in private investors, partly by removing the reputational stigma of financing defence.

But defence is almost a monopsony: the state is nearly the only buyer. Without a clear flow of public orders, private investment will be hard to come by.

So Europe barely borrows together. And it buys alone.

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

by Leo Hohmann, Leo’s Newsletter: Humanity is not ready for what’s coming. Checklist includes several weeks worth of cash, emergency communications, backup power and ‘weeks of food and water’ Arch-technocrat Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, warns that artificial intelligence is advancing faster than society can prepare for, that AI systems are learning to […]

by Milan Adams, Prepp Group: On a January morning off the island of El Hierro, a wooden boat comes in under tow. It sits low and packed, passengers pressed shoulder to shoulder, almost all of them men in their twenties and thirties. Spain’s maritime rescue service brings the hull alongside a patrol vessel; one man […]

by Madge Waggy, Madge Waggy: My grandmother kept a cupboard she called the just-in-case, and for most of my childhood I read it as a harmless eccentricity rather than what it was — a wound made edible. She had been a girl during the Depression, and somewhere in her twenties she had learned to keep […]

from State Of The Nation: …of course we mean the current international order and especially the Global Economic & Financial System Submitted by An Armchair Geopolitical Analyst SOTN Exclusive Chabad vs Chabad But what very few folks are aware of is that there is a Russocentric Chabad and a  Americentric Chabad.  While the overall commitment […]

by Nicolas Hulscher, Global Research: Tumors completely regressed in 67% of mice following just 10 days of oral treatment, alongside a 166% increase in immune-system macrophages. *** A 2026 peer-reviewed study published in BMC Biotechnology reported striking anticancer effects from Flammulina filiformis, commonly known as the enoki mushroom. They investigated a hot-water extract of enoki […]

by Edison Reed, Natural News: The European Union’s anti-money laundering authority has submitted final draft standards for customer due diligence to the European Commission, proposing that electronic identification means, including the bloc’s European Digital Identity (EUDI) wallet, should be used wherever possible for bank identity verification, according to Reclaim The Net [1]. The draft, prepared […]

by Kurt Schlichter, Townhall: Woke 1 died out in the early 2020s when people got sick of the nags, scolds, and harpies trying to pester their way into power. But now these weirdos, losers, and mutations are back, trying to make “Woke 2: Wine Woman Boogaloo” happen. But it’s not going quite the way they want. […]

from Alexander Mercouris Insights: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

from WND: ‘This should be an opt in. This should be a voluntary process, for those who wish to participate’ Maryland will begin taking money out of workers’ paychecks in January 2027 to finance a paid family leave program that will not provide benefits until a full year later, following repeated delays since its creation […]

A Sofia court has cleared European arrest warrants for two 19-year-old Germans charged with setting fire to Starlink antennas south of the Bulgarian capital, a court spokeswoman told dpa. Prosecutors named the pair in court, but both had already left Bulgaria. The case adds Bulgaria to a run of attacks on Starlink sites in Europe, which Poland and Lithuania have linked to Russia.

While Russia presses its assault along the front and strikes Ukraine’s cities, Starlink keeps Ukraine’s drone units and front-line troops connected, and Poland pays about $50 million a year for its terminals. The network’s ground links in Europe are now a target in their own right, and ISW has linked the Polish fire to a wider Russian pattern of sabotage. Each attack on a ground station hits a network whose speed caps already disrupted Ukraine’s drone missions this month.

Two names, a few hours in Bulgaria

Prosecutors identified the suspects as Zeka Islam and Tirpan Beytullah, Bulgaria’s state news agency BTA reported, noting the names may be misspelled. Their whereabouts are unknown, according to German authorities cited by the agency. They were charged in absentia on 14 October and face three to 12 years in prison if convicted.

According to the indictment, the two crossed from Serbia at the Kalotina checkpoint at 17:37 on 9 October and told border officers they were tourists. At about 22:25, wearing gloves and masks, they allegedly set fire to antennas at the Plana teleport, a satellite ground station near the village of Plana. They drove back into Serbia through the same checkpoint at 23:55.

Three antennas burned completely, two were partly damaged, and three more were affected, prosecutors say. The pair traveled in a Volkswagen with German plates, and a national warrant followed two days after the charges, ZDF reported.

The court-appointed lawyers argued that investigators had pinned down the vehicle, not the men in it. The court rejected those objections, finding reasonable grounds to suspect the pair. The lawyers said they would appeal. The ruling can be challenged within three days.

An opposition MP made the fire public three days later

The fire became public only on 12 October, when opposition MP Ivaylo Mirchev of Democratic Bulgaria posted about it on Facebook. He said 11 antennas had been set on fire, more than prosecutors later counted.

In parliament two days later, Prime Minister Rumen Radev asked the head of the State Agency for National Security (DANS) not to reveal details, saying disclosure could harm the investigation. DANS head Plamen Tonchev told lawmakers he believes the fire was sabotage and that more such attacks cannot be ruled out, dpa reported.

After the ruling, Mirchev wrote that Radev personally owes the public an explanation of what has been achieved, BTA reported.

Bulgaria’s case joins attacks Poland and Lithuania tie to Russia

Bulgaria has not said who might be behind the fire. Authorities in Poland and Lithuania have linked similar recent arsons on Starlink equipment to Russia.

In September, fire hit a Starlink ground station south of Warsaw, and Germany later detained two suspects. On 18 October, Lithuania’s prime minister said intruders had tried to burn a company’s Starlink antennas used by Ukraine, calling it part of Russia’s hybrid war. Moscow claims such accusations are baseless, Reuters reported.

Nel Landtag della Sassonia-Anhalt in Germania si è verificato un passaggio politico fondamentale che potrebbe segnare una svolta duratura per l’intero panorama politico tedesco e che, forse, potrebbe insegnare qualcosa anche nel resto d’Europa

Segue nostro Telegram.

Con l’approvazione di una mozione presentata dal BSW insieme all’AfD – rispettivamente il partito della sinistra patriottica fondato da Sahra Wagenknecht e il partito nazionalista di destra accusato di “fascismo” – il parlamento regionale ha formalmente impegnato il governo del Land a farsi promotore nel Bundesrat di una netta svolta strategica: lo stop all’invio di armi al regime golpista di Kiev, la fine delle sanzioni economiche alla Russia e l’avvio immediato di trattative diplomatiche.

SPD, Verdi e CDU per la guerra, contro il buon senso

L’iniziativa ha scatenato la reazione indignata dei partiti tradizionali, soprattutto i socialdemocratici di SPD, i Verdi e i democristiani di CDU, pronti a denunciare la presunta violazione del cosiddetto “Brandmauer”, il cordone sanitario istituzionale eretto verso la destra giudicata “fascista”. Tuttavia, la linea argomentata dalla marxista Sahra Wagenknecht dimostra come questa scelta non rappresenti una provocazione, bensì un atto di responsabilità democratica e di pragmatismo politico. AfD avrà al suo interno anche degli estremisti di destra, ma è un partito di massa votato perlopiù dalla classe operaia, e pur di fermare l’entrata in guerra della Germania contro la Russia, BSW è disposta a tutto.

Le sanzioni anti-russe distruggono l’industria tedesca

Come evidenziato dalla leader del BSW, le decisioni di politica estera prese a Berlino non sono astrazioni teoriche, ma incidono direttamente sulla vita quotidiana dei cittadini e sulla tenuta del tessuto produttivo locale. La Sassonia-Anhalt ospita poli industriali di prim’ordine, come il distretto chimico di Leuna, oggi messi a dura prova dall’esplosione dei costi energetici e dall’interruzione dei rapporti commerciali con l’Est. Le sanzioni contro la Russia hanno già provocato molti fallimenti aziendali, ma non in Russia, bensì in Germania, mettendo a rischio migliaia di posti di lavoro qualificati. A ciò si aggiunge l’invio continuo di ingenti risorse, fra soldi e armi, in Ucraina, a fronte di dolorosi tagli alla sanità, alla scuola, alle pensioni e ai servizi sociali, che rendono i lavoratori tedeschi sempre più insofferenti.

L’anti-fascismo usato come scusa per giustificare la NATO e la guerra

In questo scenario, BSW rifiuta la logica difensiva dell’establishment borghese, appoggiato dalla sinistra egemone, tanto nella sua versione moderata di SPD quanto in quella liberal più massimalista della LINKE. Questi partiti insistono che il pericolo principale non è la guerra voluta dalla NATO, ma i “fascisti” di AfD, che occorre isolare, benché votati democraticamente, impedendo qualsiasi accordo o alleanza. L’analisi di Wagenknecht, retta dal metodo del materialismo dialettico tipicamente marxista, individua invece una profonda frattura nella società tedesca: da un lato il campo di chi intende conservare il potere (“Machterhaltendes Lager”), rappresentato dai partiti di governo e dai ceti più benestanti che difendono la linea dell’escalation militare agli ordini della NATO e dell’UE contro la Russia e domani contro la Cina; dall’altro il campo del dissenso (“Lager der Unzufriedenen”), formato da lavoratori, pensionati e famiglie schiacciate dall’inflazione e preoccupate dal pericolo di un coinvolgimento diretto dei loro figli nel conflitto attraverso il nuovo servizio militare obbligatorio, contro cui i liceali tedeschi continuano regolarmente a scioperare. Per troppo tempo la retorica del “Brandmauer” (il muro anti-fuoco che dovrebbe isolare AfD dal dibattito politico) è servita alle forze governative tedesche per squalificare il dissenso e isolare le proteste popolari sotto l’etichetta dell’estremismo. Per il BSW, il dovere prioritario di una forza politica d’opposizione è rispettare la volontà degli elettori, dialogare nell’alveo delle regole parlamentari e sfruttare ogni maggioranza utile per raggiungere obiettivi concreti: fermare la spirale bellica, proteggere l’industria nazionale e tutelare i redditi dei lavoratori. E per fare questo Wagenknecht vuole superare i veti incrociati e la politica dei blocchi: il BSW dimostra che la vera priorità deve tornare a essere la difesa della pace, della neutralità militare, del lavoro e della sovranità popolare.

La fase storica impone il coraggio di rompere gli schemi

Di fronte all’accusa di agire come gregari del “fascismo”, l’antifascista Wagenknecht risponde che la strategia del “Brandmauer” è fallita nei fatti e ha ottenuto l’effetto opposto, alimentando la rabbia popolare e rafforzando proprio l’AfD. Al contrario BSW vuole dialogare con tutte le forze parlamentari e sfruttare le maggioranze d’azione per mantenere le promesse elettorali (come la pace e la calmierazione dei prezzi). La Wagenknecht spiega che i partiti del sistema, siano essi di destra o di sinistra, usano la retorica dell’antifascismo solo per delegittimare il dissenso, sospendere le regole democratiche e conservare il potere nonostante politiche fallimentari. Questo atteggiamento, secondo la leader del BSW, banalizza in modo irresponsabile la reale tragedia della dittatura nazista. Wagenknecht sottolinea infatti come i diritti democratici fondamentali e la libertà di stampa siano stati compressi negli ultimi anni non dall’AfD, ma dai partiti liberali, democristiani e socialdemocratici al governo, gli stessi che inviano decine di miliardi di euro a un regime ucraino che ha messo al bando i partiti d’opposizione e tollera la glorificazione di collaboratori nazisti.

Basta guerra alla Russia: questa è la sola priorità oggi!

Rispetto alla tesi secondo cui negoziare con Mosca sia impossibile perché l’ultra-demonizzato Vladimir Putin rifiuterebbe il dialogo, Wagenknecht non concorda: il Cremlino si era mostrato disponibile a discutere, ma i tentativi di trattativa sono stati chiusi dalla leadership ucraina e dai governi europei spinti dalla NATO e dall’industria delle armi a continuare la guerra. La narrazione, poi, secondo cui l’invio continuo di armi porterebbe alla vittoria dell’Ucraina è una finzione a cui per BSW “non crede più nessuno” e anzi l’escalation bellica – comprese le incursioni su Mosca condotte con tecnologia e droni tedeschi – è una strategia che rasenta la follia, rischiando di trascinare direttamente la Germania in un conflitto nucleare. Su questo aspetto anche il Partito Comunista Tedesco (DKP) denuncia l’ipocrisia dei partiti di governo (SPD, Verdi, CDU), che sfruttano la retorica del “cordone sanitario” antifascista con la scusa di frenare l’estrema destra eversiva, quando il vero obbiettivo è delegittimare qualsiasi mozione pacifista, indipendentemente da chi la voti in aula, contro l’escalation della NATO e contro le sanzioni.

Articolo originale  politicanuova.ch

Registrations of fully electric cars across 17 European markets increased by 70.3 per cent in September, according to industry figures published on Monday, 19 October, as France and Germany seek to ease the European Union’s emissions requirements for new vehicles.

The data show that 300,202 battery-electric cars were registered during the month, accounting for 32.6 per cent of new passenger-car registrations in the markets surveyed.

The figures emerge three days after Paris and Berlin announced a joint position on the future of Europe’s automotive industry, proposing greater flexibility in the EU’s 2035 emissions regime while introducing measures intended to favour vehicles manufactured in Europe.

Electric vehicles gain market share

The latest figures, compiled by E-Mobility Europe, New Automotive and Fier Automotive, indicate that electric vehicle demand accelerated sharply during September.

According to the industry data published on 19 October, approximately 1.98 million battery-electric cars have been registered across the 17 markets during the first nine months of 2026, an increase of 38.1 per cent compared with the equivalent period last year.

Higher oil prices, government incentives and the introduction of more affordable electric models have all contributed to demand.

The figures represent a substantial change in the composition of European new-car sales, although they cover selected markets rather than constituting a complete statistical account of the EU’s 27 Member States.

France recorded 65,243 battery-electric registrations in September, representing 41.7 per cent of its new-car market. Germany registered 88,724 electric vehicles, giving the technology a market share of 34.6 per cent.

Both countries have substantial automotive manufacturing industries and are directly involved in negotiations over Europe’s future emissions legislation.

Significant differences between European markets

Despite the overall increase, electric vehicle adoption remains uneven across the continent.

Norway retained its position as Europe’s most electrified new-car market, with battery-electric vehicles accounting for 98.8 per cent of registrations in September.

Denmark followed with 88.8 per cent, while Finland recorded 62.7 per cent and Sweden 49 per cent.

Electric models also accounted for approximately half of new-car registrations in Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland and Portugal.

At the other end of the market, battery-electric vehicles represented only 11.2 per cent of registrations in the Czech Republic, 7.6 per cent in Italy and 6.2 per cent in Poland.

These differences illustrate the difficulty of establishing a uniform European transition timetable.

Household incomes, purchase incentives, vehicle prices and charging infrastructure differ substantially between countries. The availability of affordable electric cars is particularly important in markets where buyers are more sensitive to the initial purchase price.

The varying national figures also complicate the EU’s industrial calculations, since manufacturers must operate across markets progressing at different rates.

France and Germany reach automotive compromise

On 16 October, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz agreed on a joint approach to changes in European automotive regulations.

Under the proposed compromise, car manufacturers would be required to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new vehicles by 90 per cent by 2035 compared with the 2021 reference level.

The agreement would also remove a proposed requirement to compensate for the remaining emissions through measures such as the use of low-carbon steel.

The change would create additional opportunities for manufacturers to continue selling vehicles powered by combustion engines beyond 2035, subject to the final legislative framework.

In their joint declaration on the automotive industry’s future, the French and German governments argued that emissions reduction must be combined with industrial competitiveness, investment and European manufacturing capacity.

The agreement also envisages preferential treatment for vehicles produced in Europe under certain public procurement and subsidy arrangements.

Britain could potentially benefit from provisions allowing selected European partners to qualify under the proposed industrial framework.

The Franco-German understanding is not, however, a final EU legislative decision. Changes to the regulatory regime require agreement through the relevant European legislative procedures.

Automotive competitiveness enters the debate

The principal argument advanced by supporters of greater regulatory flexibility is that European manufacturers need additional time to adapt production, protect employment and compete with international rivals.

German manufacturers retain extensive investment in combustion-engine and hybrid technology, while French producers have placed considerable emphasis on electric vehicles and maintaining European supply chains.

The negotiations therefore concern more than emissions limits. They also involve battery production, access to raw materials, manufacturing costs and the ability of European companies to compete with producers in China and other markets.

Supporters of the existing transition timetable argue that weakening long-term requirements could discourage investment in electric manufacturing capacity just as consumer demand is increasing.

Manufacturers seeking greater flexibility maintain that regulatory targets must account for uneven market conditions and the cost of developing new technologies.

September’s sales figures provide evidence that electric vehicle adoption is accelerating, but they do not establish whether the same rate of growth will continue without existing incentives.

The debate now centres on whether regulatory relaxation will preserve Europe’s automotive industry during the transition or slow investment in the technology that is already capturing an increasing share of the market.

In 19th-century Munich, a woman with no formal banking experience began promising ordinary people extraordinary returns on their savings. Workers, servants, craftsmen and farmers flocked to her door, carrying the money they had spent years accumulating. Some mortgaged their homes or sold their land to take advantage of her generosity. For a time, the money flowed so freely that her business appeared almost invincible.

The woman was Adele Spitzeder, a former actress who became one of the most notorious financial swindlers in 19th-century Germany. Her private banking enterprise, popularly known as the Dachauer Bank, promised returns of as much as 10 per cent a month. But behind the apparent prosperity lay a simple deception: much of the money paid to earlier investors came not from profitable investments, but from the deposits of newcomers.

Berlin and Paris spent months negotiating over the future of Europe’s auto industry.

Germany wanted to keep selling new combustion-engine cars beyond 2035. In return, France wanted strict “Made in Europe” rules: public money spent on electric vehicle (EV) purchase incentives, subsidies and government contracts should benefit cars genuinely made in Europe, not simply assembled here. 

One concession in exchange for the other. French president Emmanuel Macron and German chancellor Friedrich Merz have now sealed the deal.

Both can claim victory at home, and both say they want the same thing: to strengthen Europe’s auto industry against Chinese competition. 

But the trade-off undermines that very goal. It rightly pushes for more European production, but pays for it with less ambition for electric vehicles.

For Europe’s automakers to compete, two things need to happen: More of the value generated by car manufacturing must stay in Europe, and the transition to electric vehicles must remain on track. Trading one for the other weakens both. 

Value creation is already moving elsewhere 

On one point, France is right: a growing EV market alone won’t protect European jobs. Many of the most important components in electric cars already come from China, especially batteries.

Meanwhile, Chinese automakers are building factories in Hungary and Spain, securing direct access to the European market. 

The risk is clear: cars assembled in Europe from imported components qualify as European products, benefit from purchase incentives and win public contracts.

Final assembly stays in Europe, but much of the economic value is created elsewhere. European auto suppliers have already cut more than 100,000 jobs in two years, and the European Commission warns that up to 600,000 more could disappear over the next five to 10 years. 

That’s where the proposed Industrial Accelerator Act comes in. It would link public spending on subsidies, purchase incentives and government procurement to production in Europe.

This isn’t just about shutting out foreign competition. It steers demand to where it strengthens Europe’s industrial base.

To work, the rules must target the components that will shape the industry’s future: battery cells, software, electric drivetrains and power electronics.

“Made in Europe” can’t simply mean attaching the wheels here. 

That doesn’t mean every nut and bolt must come from the EU.  The auto industry relies on global supply chains and trusted trading partners.

But a law riddled with exemptions would be little better than no law at all: It would create more red tape without bringing a single new factory to Europe. 

Factories need customers 

Even the best industrial policy will fail without buyers. A battery factory can only make money if it produces enough batteries. Yet Europe’s battery plants are running well below capacity because they don’t have enough orders. Every battery that goes unproduced drives up the cost of those that are made. Factories, machinery and workers still have to be paid for. 

Since 2022, roughly a quarter of announced battery projects in the EU have been canceled or put on hold. 

This is why Germany’s push to delay the phaseout of combustion-engine cars is so damaging. Every combustion-engine car sold instead of an EV means one fewer battery that could be made in Europe. The very factories meant to make “Made in Europe” a reality would lose potential customers. 

The best way to boost demand for European batteries is to build more small, affordable EVs in Europe. That’s where the biggest sales volumes are. Yet German automakers in particular have been slow to embrace this market, despite significant demand potential in Germany itself. Delaying the combustion-engine phaseout would only give them another reason to hold back.  

Slow down, lose out

For European automakers, the stakes go far beyond their home market. Sell fewer EVs at home, and manufacturers will launch fewer new models, produce fewer cars and face higher costs. That will make it harder to compete abroad, too. Giving combustion engines more time won’t close the gap with China. It could make it wider. 

Political uncertainty only makes matters worse. Automakers plan new models, factories and supplier contracts years in advance. Every fresh debate over exemptions gives investors and consumers another reason to hesitate. 

Companies investing billions in EVs and batteries – and consumers considering buying an electric car – need to know that policymakers won’t change direction tomorrow.  

The Franco-German bargain ignores economic reality. The future of the car is electric, and China figured that out long ago.

Beijing is doing everything it can to build an unbeatable lead in EVs, including through unfair practices such as massive government subsidies.

And Europe? It’s haggling over more time for yesterday’s technology. At stake is nothing less than the auto industry – the backbone of Europe’s industrial economy and a major source of jobs.

This deal is not yet law. A better deal would be simple: Europe should pursue electric vehicles with the same determination as China while making sure the jobs, factories and economic benefits stay in Europe.