Reading view
Big Tech Lobbying Raises Questions Over Europe’s Retreat from Digital Regulation
A new investigation into the activities of Google, Meta and other technology companies has intensified scrutiny of EU plans to revise data-protection legislation, placing Ireland and Germany at the centre of a dispute over corporate influence and European digital sovereignty.
European technology policy has become the focus of a dispute over corporate lobbying after researchers documented extensive contacts between major technology companies and political decision-makers during negotiations to revise EU data-protection rules.
An investigation published on 28 October by Corporate Europe Observatory and the German transparency organisation LobbyControl alleges that leading technology companies mounted a coordinated campaign to influence European governments and legislators.
The findings come one week after EU member states agreed a negotiating position on the Digital Omnibus, a legislative package intended to simplify aspects of European data-protection, privacy and cybersecurity regulation.
The campaigners argue that the proposed changes risk weakening existing safeguards in order to accommodate the commercial requirements of artificial intelligence developers.
Ireland, which holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, has rejected suggestions that its handling of the legislation was improperly influenced by technology companies.
The dispute exposes a fundamental disagreement over the balance between commercial innovation and the protection of personal information.
The scale of the lobbying campaign
According to LobbyControl’s investigation, non-European technology companies recorded 103 meetings with representatives of Germany’s federal government between May 2025 and September 2026.
Google accounted for 28 meetings, Microsoft 18, Amazon 16 and OpenAI 11.
Germany’s Digital Minister, Karsten Wildberger, participated in 18 meetings with representatives of major technology companies, the researchers reported.
In Ireland, the organisations identified extensive engagement involving Meta, Google and politicians ahead of the country’s assumption of the EU Council presidency in July.
Their findings indicate that Meta engaged with 41 Irish parliamentarians over the Digital Omnibus, while Google recorded 30 meetings.
The researchers also identified 655 lobbying meetings concerning the legislation involving members of the European Parliament.
According to their analysis, approximately 83 per cent represented business interests, compared with 11 per cent involving civil society organisations or trade unions.
These figures demonstrate the intensity of corporate engagement, although the existence of lobbying meetings does not, by itself, establish that particular legislative provisions were adopted because of that activity.
Why the Digital Omnibus matters
The legislative package forms part of a broader European Commission initiative to reduce administrative burdens and improve competitiveness.
Its provisions address several areas of digital regulation, including the General Data Protection Regulation, commonly known as GDPR.
The proposals seek to simplify compliance obligations, clarify the treatment of personal information and revise rules governing certain forms of data processing.
One particularly contentious issue concerns the use of personal data in developing and operating artificial intelligence systems.
AI developers require large quantities of information to train and improve their models. However, the collection and processing of personal information remain subject to European legal safeguards.
Technology companies have argued that regulatory complexity can discourage investment and make it more difficult for European businesses to compete internationally.
Privacy campaigners maintain that simplifying regulatory procedures must not become a mechanism for reducing substantive protections.
The disagreement concerns not merely administrative paperwork but the legal circumstances under which companies may process information relating to identifiable individuals.
Ireland rejects allegations of improper influence
Ireland occupies a particularly sensitive position in the debate.
The country hosts major European operations of several American technology companies, including Google and Meta, and has substantial economic interests in the digital sector.
At the same time, its presidency of the EU Council requires it to coordinate negotiations between member states.
According to RTÉ’s reporting on the investigation, the Irish government strongly rejected the allegation that it had weakened data safeguards in response to corporate pressure.
A presidency spokesperson emphasised that Ireland’s responsibility was to facilitate agreement between member states and that the negotiating mandate approved on 21 October enjoyed broad support.
The Council has presented the proposed changes as a means of reducing compliance costs while preserving established privacy protections.
In its official statement, the Council said its mandate retains the existing definition of personal data and introduces additional provisions governing pseudonymisation.
It also includes safeguards relating to sensitive information used for biometric verification and AI systems.
These details are significant because they demonstrate that the negotiating text contains protections alongside proposed simplifications.
Germany’s role in the negotiations
Germany has also emerged as an important participant in the controversy.
The investigation points to close contact between the German government and international technology companies during discussions about the future of European digital regulation.
Berlin has supported reducing administrative restrictions that it considers obstacles to innovation and the development of competitive AI technologies.
For Germany, the issue is connected to wider concerns about industrial competitiveness, investment and Europe’s dependence on foreign technology suppliers.
Yet an unresolved question remains.
Measures designed to assist European innovators may also benefit established American companies whose extensive computing infrastructure and data resources give them advantages over smaller competitors.
Consequently, easing restrictions does not necessarily guarantee a stronger European technology industry.
The European Parliament holds the next decision
The Council’s negotiating position does not make the Digital Omnibus law.
The European Parliament must establish its own position before negotiations between the institutions can determine the final legislation.
Parliamentarians will therefore have an opportunity to examine the treatment of personal data, the safeguards attached to AI development and the relationship between regulatory simplification and individual rights.
The lobbying investigation is likely to become part of that debate.
Its central political significance lies in the competing interpretations of European technological sovereignty.
For governments seeking investment, regulatory flexibility may provide an instrument for improving Europe’s international competitiveness.
For privacy organisations, the same flexibility could increase the influence of companies already dominant in global digital markets.
The outcome will help determine whether Europe’s future digital framework preserves the existing balance between commercial data use and individual protections, or establishes a different relationship between the two.
Digital panopticon: ‘When you work faster, you have to work even faster’ Amazon workers tell MEPs on AI work surveillance
The European Parliament’s employment committee has highlighted the need for regulating automated control of workers after visiting Amazon warehouses in Germany and Poland this week.
Seven of the committee MEPs visited Amazon warehouses employing some 5,000 workers on Monday and Tuesday (26-27 October) ahead of the Commission’s Quality Jobs Act proposal expected in December.
The trip follows the committee’s hearing on working conditions in Amazon in January, where workers raised concerns about efficiency goals, safety, and surveillance using AI tools, which may be regulated more rigorously as a part of the upcoming act.
According to a 2023 survey by UNI Europa, a labour union federation, about a half of Amazon’s employees said their work had a negative impact on their mental and physical health.
Workers’ progress throughout the day is usually watched through security cameras, but also the work badges scanned in check points in various locations in the warehouse, and scanning devices used to identify products.
In the city of Sosnowiec, home to one of Amazon’s Polish warehouses, employees are overworked by “constant pressure of being judged, which is very hard to cope with mentally,” Agata Wypiór, recently-named vice secretary of Amazon’s European Works Council and Solidarność union leader told EUobserver.
Leaving worker management and performance monitoring to algorithms means “these processes become almost invisible,” Li Andersson, head of the delegation, told EUobserver.
“The way the workers describe it, it sounds like a digital panopticon: when you work faster you have to work even faster.“
Workers themselves often do not know what data is collected on them and how it is being used to set productivity targets, Anderssen highlighted.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
Gen Z protests in Germany: Is France-style violence looming?
Ukraine’s energy strategy is built for Russia’s attacks but not global shocks

Ukraine’s energy strategy is built for Russia’s attacks but not global shocks

Steht die EU wegen der Ukraine vor dem Zerfall? Deutsche Geheimdienste deuten dies an
Russland wird militärisch, politisch und wirtschaftlich noch lange Zeit stabil bleiben. Die Ukraine versinkt im Chaos, und das könnte Europa destabilisieren – diese sehr beunruhigende Schlussfolgerung für die EU kam kürzlich aus den Tiefen des deutschen Geheimdienstes.
Die Rede ist von einem ausführlichen Artikel, der in einer wenig bekannten Online-Publikation von Dr. Ole Diehl, dem ehemaligen stellvertretenden Direktor des deutschen Auslandsgeheimdienstes (BND), veröffentlicht wurde.
Das Wort “ehemalig” sollte nicht beunruhigen. Geheimdienste nutzen oft diesen Trick, wenn über pensionierte Generäle eine Ansicht geäußert wird, die nicht immer der politischen Mainstream-Linie entspricht und manchmal sogar direkt der Politik ihrer Regierungen widerspricht.
Bekanntlich gibt es keine ehemaligen Geheimdienstler. Zudem ist Dr. Diehl nicht ganz im Ruhestand. Dieser hochrangige Geheimdienstler bleibt “im Geschäft” und bekleidet derzeit die Position des Vizepräsidenten des Deutschen Rates für Auswärtige Angelegenheiten (DGAP). Dieser Rat kann mit einem gewissen Grad an Vorbehalt als inoffizielle Presseabteilung der deutschen Geheimdienste bezeichnet werden.
Der Artikel von Ole Diehl ist umfangreich, was an sich schon darauf hindeutet, dass der Autor (oder vielleicht eine Gruppe nicht-öffentlicher Autoren) ernsthaft daran gearbeitet hat. Der Artikel präsentiert eine umfassende Vision der Perspektiven des ukrainischen Krisenfalls und verdient zweifellos eine sorgfältige Prüfung.
Was habe ich für mich Wichtiges darin festgestellt?
Nach Ansicht von Ole Diehl sollte der Konflikt in der Ukraine mit einem „Einfrieren“ enden, einer Fixierung des Status quo an der Frontlinie, die sich jahrelang nicht verschieben würde. Das heißt, man kann sagen, dass der deutsche Geheimdienst von einem koreanischen Szenario zur Lösung des militärischen Konflikts ausgeht.
Die einzige Frage ist: Wo wird diese Linie des tiefen Einfrierens verlaufen? Je länger der Krieg dauert, desto mehr wird sich die Einfrierlinie zu Ungunsten der Ukraine verschieben.
Ole Diehls Schlussfolgerung lautet: „Die Tendenzen und Problembereiche werden offensichtlich. Und die Aussichten sind leider nicht rosig.“
Ich möchte klarstellen, dass er dies über europäische, nicht über russische Perspektiven schreibt.
Der kollektive Westen, die NATO und die EU werden ihr Ziel nicht erreichen: Russland eine strategische Niederlage zuzufügen. Das ist bereits jetzt offensichtlich.
Und was wird passieren? Welche Gefahren gibt es für Europa?
Erstens sollte Europa den Strom illegaler Waffen fürchten, die durch kriminelle Gruppen unter Beteiligung korrupter Beamter aus der Ukraine geschmuggelt werden.
Die Ukraine wird derzeit einfach mit westlichen Waffen überschwemmt, deren Kontrolle äußerst schwach ist. Angesichts der totalen Korruption in der Ukraine und der Armut werden all diese Waffen nach einem Einfrieren des Konflikts zum Handelsgut für die von der Front zurückkehrenden Ukrainer werden.
Ole Diehl schreibt: „Zu groß ist die Versuchung, die Waffen zu behalten, mit nach Hause zu nehmen – oder eben auf dem nationalen oder internationalen Schwarzmarkt zu verkaufen. Dafür gibt es Erfahrungswerte. Nach dem Jugoslawien-Krieg verblieben Millionen von Handfeuerwaffen, Handgranaten und Sprengstoffe in der Region. Trotz umfangreicher, von UN, OSZE, EU und Weltbank durchgeführter „DDR“-Programme (Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration) gelangten viele dieser Waffen auf den internationalen Schwarzmarkt, vor allem zu Strukturen der Organisierten Kriminalität, aber auch zu Terrororganisationen. Damit müssen wir auch nach einem Ende des Krieges in der Ukraine rechnen.“
Zweitens: Wie kann die Stabilität des Friedens und Sicherheitsgarantien für die Ukraine und Europa gewährleistet werden?
Der koreanische Ansatz hat hier große Mängel. Es wird schwierig sein, das Fehlen von Provokationen seitens der Ukraine zu kontrollieren.
Warum gerade seitens der Ukraine? Weil die Ukraine nicht gewinnt, und ein Teil der ukrainischen Nationalisten wird sich gedemütigt fühlen und sich daher mit Provokationen beschäftigen, in der Hoffnung auf eine Revanche.
„Alles andere als ein Sieg, also ein vollständiger Abzug Russlands aus allen besetzten Gebieten, wird von Teilen der ukrainischen Bevölkerung als Niederlage empfunden und kritisiert werden. Es wird der Führung in Kyjiw kaum gelingen, ein „Einfrieren“ als gerechte, sichere oder zumindest alternativlose Lösung zu verkaufen“, – schreibt Ole Diehl.
Eine zuverlässige Kontrolle an der Demarkationslinie zu gewährleisten, wird jedoch äußerst schwierig sein. Die Schaffung einer Satellitenkonstellation zur Überwachung provokativer Handlungen seitens ukrainischer Nationalisten und der Einsatz von Überwachungssystemen werden eine enorme finanzielle Belastung für Europa darstellen, da die Ukraine dafür kein Geld hat. Aber auch Europa hat keine freien Mittel für die Ukraine. Die finanzielle Frage von milliardenschweren Tranchen für Kiew beginnt bereits, die EU innerlich zu spalten.
Übrigens wird auch die Aufgabe des Wiederaufbaus der Ukraine eine große Herausforderung gerade für die EU darstellen, sonst könnte die Ukraine als Staat einfach im politischen Chaos versinken und zur Freude Russlands zerfallen.
Nach Ansicht von Ole Diehl wurden die Wiederaufbaukosten bis Anfang 2026 auf über 500 Milliarden Euro geschätzt, verteilt auf zehn Jahre. Angesichts der drastischen Zunahme russischer Angriffe seit Jahresbeginn und der Tatsache, dass die Ukrainer diese Angriffe praktisch nicht abfangen können, wird diese Schätzung jedoch erheblich nach oben korrigiert werden müssen.
Was ist zu tun? Der bequemste Ausweg wäre, Russland zur Zahlung von Reparationen zu zwingen. Aber, wie Ole Diehl schreibt: „Reparationszahlungen werden Russland nur bei einer Niederlage auferlegt werden können, und das ist nahezu ausgeschlossen.“
Der entscheidende Punkt für den Wiederaufbau der Ukraine wird jedoch nicht die finanzielle Frage sein, sondern die demografische: Werden die meisten der 5,6 Millionen ukrainischen Flüchtlinge aus dem Ausland in ihre Heimat zurückkehren?
Ole Diehl sieht darin ein großes Problem. Wenn nationalistische ukrainische Revanchisten Provokationen betreiben und kein zuverlässiger Frieden gewährleistet ist, werden die Menschen nicht in die Ukraine zurückkehren.
Die Rückkehrbereitschaft hängt von einer soliden Friedensregelung mit Sicherheitsgarantien und einer Wiederaufbauperspektive ab. Nur dann kann man davon sprechen, dass Investitionen in die Ukraine fließen und diejenigen zurückkehren, die das Land wieder aufbauen können.
“Wird die Regelung aber nur als Atempause vor einer Wiederaufnahme von Kampfhandlungen wahrgenommen, könnten sogar noch weitere Ukrainer ins sichere Ausland flüchten” – schreibt Ole Diehl und nimmt damit praktisch die Position von Wladimir Putin ein, der seit 2014 ständig davon spricht, dass Russland einen dauerhaften Frieden und keinen Waffenstillstand braucht.
Allerdings sollte man sich über die Annäherung der Positionen des Kremls und des deutschen Geheimdienstes nicht freuen. Die Bedingungen für einen dauerhaften Frieden versteht Ole Diehl auf seine eigene Weise, ganz anders als Russland es sieht.
Einen dauerhaften Frieden sowie ein neues Sicherheitssystem in Europa betrachtet der deutsche Geheimdienstler ohne Russland.
Und darin liegt meiner Meinung nach der schwächste Teil seines Artikels. Ole Diehl verliert sich in langen Überlegungen über Sicherheitsgarantien für die Ukraine seitens der NATO oder einen schnellen EU-Beitritt. Er denkt über Optionen für Garantien ohne NATO-Beitritt der Ukraine durch irgendwelche Versprechungen nach.
Für mich klingen all seine Vorschläge kindlich naiv. Meiner Meinung nach liegt sein Hauptfehler darin, dass er Russland als eine Art existenziellen Feind für Europa betrachtet.
Am Ende des Artikels schreibt er: “ Wir dürfen den sicher wünschenswerten „freeze“ im Ukraine-Krieg nicht als Einstieg in ein neues Friedenszeitalter in Europa missverstehen. Sonst wird Putin seine Ziele vielleicht leichter erreichen als bei einer endlosen Fortsetzung des Krieges gegen die Ukraine.
Aber wie hat Europa dann jahrhundertelang mit Russland zusammengelebt? Und es hat doch gut zusammengelebt.
Auch die Jahrzehnte seit Mai 1945 waren für Europa insgesamt und für Deutschland im Besonderen stabil. Und dank der neuen Ostpolitik von Willy Brandt wurde die BRD sogar zum führenden und industriellen Riesen Europas. Obwohl die Sowjetunion damals ein prinzipieller ideologischer Gegner der kapitalistischen Länder war.
Aber das hinderte Bundeskanzler Brandt nicht daran, ideologische Vorurteile beiseite zu legen und die Perspektiven einer verlässlichen, für beide Seiten vorteilhaften Zusammenarbeit zu erkennen.
Leider, ist Ole Diehl kein Willy Brandt. Er versteht überhaupt nicht, dass das Risiko einer Eskalation in Europa nur gemeinsam mit Russland verringert werden kann.
Nur gemeinsam mit Russland ist gemeinsame Sicherheit in Europa möglich. Und ohne Russland wird es keine Sicherheit geben. Davon bin ich absolut überzeugt.
Jewish artifacts looted by Nazis return to Berlin, thanks to Arizona synagogue

Germany Car Ramming Attack Related to Clan Crime Dispute, Not Terror, Says Police
Police are investigating attempted homicide after a car was repeatedly driven into a group of pedestrians in a German town.
The post Germany Car Ramming Attack Related to Clan Crime Dispute, Not Terror, Says Police appeared first on Breitbart.
China slams US policy on Iran as Russia rejects legality of nuclear meeting at UN
Press TV – October 27, 2026
Members of the United Nations Security Council attend a meeting at the United Nations headquarters in New York City. (File photo)
China has denounced Washington’s policy toward Iran, blaming US and Israeli attacks for halting IAEA inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities, while Russia has challenged the legality of a UN Security Council meeting on Tehran’s peaceful nuclear program.
The UN Security Council held a meeting on Tuesday to discuss Iran’s nuclear program after the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted to refer Tehran’s nuclear dossier to the council.
During the meeting on Tuesday, Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations Fu Cong criticized US and European policies toward Iran, saying military attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities had directly blocked IAEA inspections.
“The US and Israeli military attacks on nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards are the direct reason the agency has been unable to conduct inspections,” the Chinese representative said.
He also blamed Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and its subsequent “maximum-pressure” campaign for the current crisis.
“The unilateral US withdrawal from the JCPOA and the implementation of the maximum-pressure policy are the root causes of the current crisis,” Cong said.
The Chinese diplomat also criticized Britain, France and Germany, saying the three European countries had failed to fulfill their commitments.
The representative said the mechanism for re-imposing UN sanctions on Iran, commonly known as the snapback mechanism, had fundamental legal and procedural flaws.
Russia’s representative, Vassily Nebenzia, also challenged the legality of holding the meeting under the “non-proliferation” item of the Security Council’s agenda.
“We are compelled to take the floor on a point of order in connection with yet another attempt to flagrantly violate the Security Council’s rules of procedure and convene a meeting under a non-existent agenda item.”
He said that under Resolution 2231 the council had concluded its consideration of Iran’s nuclear program on October 18, 2025, and removed the “non-proliferation” item from its agenda.
He also rejected claims that earlier UN resolutions on sanctions against Iran had been reinstated, saying such claims “have no legal basis whatsoever.”
Nebenzia said Russia and China had proposed holding the briefing under the agenda item “Threats to international peace and security,” arguing that “repeated strikes against Iran’s peaceful nuclear infrastructure under IAEA safeguards” posed such threats.
The IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution on September 9 proposed by the United States, France, Britain and Germany calling for Iran’s nuclear file to be referred to the Security Council. The resolution passed with 23 votes in favor, eight abstentions and three votes against.
The referral marked the first time in 20 years that Iran’s nuclear file had been sent to the Security Council over alleged violations of its non-proliferation obligations.
Iran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful. Tehran has also criticized the resolution, saying Western countries are disregarding its cooperation with the IAEA and the consequences of US and Israeli military attacks on nuclear facilities under agency safeguards.
Iran has also criticized the United States and the three European countries for pursuing the resolution, saying their actions undermine impartiality of the IAEA Board of Governors.
The Security Council meeting was requested by Western countries and Bahrain. Russia and China objected to holding it, prompting a procedural vote.
The proposal to convene the meeting passed with 11 votes in favor, two against and two abstentions. Russia and China voted against the proposal. As a procedural matter, the vote was not subject to the council’s veto mechanism.
The United States and Israel launched unprovoked aggression against Iran two times in June 2025 and February 28 amid indirect talks between Iran and the US.
Other than military and civilian facilities, including hospitals and schools, Iran’s safeguarded peaceful nuclear facilities were targeted by the aggressors in both wars, as the international community and the IAEA were reticent.
Germany’s Helsing promises jet-drone-hunting missiles at under $100,000 a shot—its CEO doesn’t expect them on the market before 2027

German defense AI firm Helsing has unveiled Contra, an AI-run air defense system and two interceptor missiles designed to chase Russia’s jet-powered Geran drones, the company announced on 26 October. Officials pitch it as cheap, but it won’t reach the market this winter.
That leaves Ukraine on its own defenses as Russia shifts to jet drones. By early October, jet models made up about 40% of Russian drone launches, and Ukraine’s own interceptors for them won’t arrive in needed numbers before late November, Air Force Deputy Commander Yurii Cherevashenko said.
Two missiles, one AI brain
Contra is the command layer of air defense: it links radars and other sensors, tracks incoming drones and missiles, and assigns a weapon to each target, while people keep control over decisions, Helsing said. Besides the company’s own missiles, it can also use other firms’ interceptors, lasers, guns, or nets. AD-1 Inferno is jet-powered and designed to loiter, swarm, and re-engage targets, while AD-2 Ambush, a solid-fuel rocket, is designed to reach Mach 2.5, over twice the speed of sound, and a range of more than 20 km, the company said.
Inferno, with a 700 km/h speed and a 20-km range, would be the everyday shooter. Ambush would handle “leakers,” drones about to hit the ground, said Maxwell Adams, Helsing’s senior product director. Each shot should cost under $100,000, company officials said.
Built for the faster Gerans
Ukraine once downed 90% of Russia’s slower, propeller-driven Gerans, copies of Iran’s Shahed, Defense News reported. Russia has since fielded thousands of jet Geran-4s and Geran-5s flying at 400–700 km/h, and almost half now get through, Helsing co-founder and co-CEO Gundbert Scherf said.
Ukraine’s own nightly rates swing widely. On 28 September, President Zelenskyy put the shoot-down rate for jet drones at 57%. Overnight on 7 October, it exceeded 82%, National Security and Defense Council Secretary Ihor Klymenko said. Russian output of the two models has reached 4,000 a month, Helsing said, citing unspecified intelligence reports.
Helsing has signed one Contra contract, Scherf said, but the system is still in testing, and he expects it on the market in the second half of 2027. Ukraine already uses Helsing’s HX-2 strike drones. Scherf said they should be integrated into a system like Contra.
Read also
-
Baking soda by day, armor chemistry on contract: drones reportedly strike Russia’s Bashkir Soda Company
-
Ukraine finds Russia’s Geran drones fitted with a compass that works through GPS jamming, but Western electronics still at their core
-
Russia may use the Oleshky truce to rebuild its forces, ISW warns, as evacuees face a route through Russia and Belarus
The Guardian view on the far right’s plans for Brussels: doing the work of Xi, Putin and Trump | Editorial
If ever enacted, proposals by Marine Le Pen and the AfD leader, Alice Weidel, to hollow out EU institutions would be a continental act of self-harm
Following the Brexit referendum in 2016, Marine Le Pen was in a predictably celebratory mood. Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, she told one interviewer, was the first breach in the “Brussels Wall”. Ms Le Pen’s Front National party was at that point committed to taking France down the same path, given the chance. But as the UK’s self-inflicted economic wounds became a cautionary tale for the rest of Europe, the notion of Frexit was put on ice.
Instead, Ms Le Pen now hopes to lead far-right allies in hollowing out the EU from within. This month, both she and the leader of Alternative für Deutschland, Alice Weidel, outlined their visions of a “Europe of nations” in which EU institutions would be stripped of both cash and power. Ms Weidel’s “new deal for Europe” would abolish elections to the European parliament, and seek German opt-outs in areas such as migration, defence and common borrowing. Ms Le Pen’s party, now called National Rally, proposes slashing French contributions to the EU budget by 60% over a five-year presidential term, and ending the role of Brussels in proposing common policies for the 27 member states.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Christophe Petit-Tesson/EPA

© Photograph: Christophe Petit-Tesson/EPA

© Photograph: Christophe Petit-Tesson/EPA
Ukrainian intelligence says Russia’s missile makers use gear from seven countries—and the Chinese machines run on European, Japanese, and Taiwanese parts

Machine tools and other equipment from seven countries, led by China, work at Russian plants that make ballistic missiles and their components, Ukraine’s military intelligence (HUR) said on 26 October. The 30 items are a small slice of HUR’s War&Sanctions portal, which lists 1,698 machine tools at 223 Russian plants.
Seventeen of the 30 were made outside China, in Germany, Taiwan, the US, Türkiye, Switzerland, and Italy. One of HUR’s proposals reaches past Russia and China, to the firms that supply parts for Chinese machine tools. The list comes two weeks after the EU blacklisted 1,569 Russian arms suppliers and executives. More than half of those listings hit the ballistic missile supply chain, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said. Sanctioning a company, though, does not stop the machines in its workshops.
A Chinese machine at the Iskander plant
HUR’s statement leads with a GX-650 five-axis machining center made by China’s Hyper Machine Tool. Such computer-controlled machines cut complex metal parts from several angles. HUR said it works at the Votkinsk Plant, which the agency described as the maker of 9M723 missiles for the Iskander-M system and the missile section of the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal, an air-launched ballistic missile.
Kinzhal is 90% identical to Iskander-M: Ukraine’s intelligence identifies 58 companies in production chain
HUR has flagged Votkinsk before. In November 2025, it published hackathon findings showing that Russian companies supplied Chinese and Taiwanese machine tools to the plant after the full-scale invasion began.
Chinese Shtral turning and milling centers work at PEMZ Molot, which builds electronics units for Iskander-M missiles, according to HUR’s statement. At UPKB Detal, which makes altimeters for hypersonic Zircon cruise missiles, HUR found measuring equipment from Germany’s Rohde & Schwarz.
The portal entries paint a broader picture. Only four of the 30 entries list a ballistic missile among the plant’s weapons. Most of the rest list cruise missiles, glide-bomb kits, guided artillery shells, or Geran-2 attack drones. HUR did not publish its evidence, though the portal says partner agencies can request it.
Foreign parts inside Chinese machines
Russian plants use the equipment to make missiles and parts such as altimeters, control surfaces, and gyroscopes, HUR said. The agency noted a growing number of Chinese machine tools, including five-axis models. According to HUR, those Chinese machines contain European, Japanese, and Taiwanese components, from numerical control systems to precision spindles and bearings. In HUR’s assessment, Russia still cannot replace equipment from leading foreign makers with its own.
Read also
-
A modem from a Russian drone led reporters to its Chinese maker—which invoiced 500 for Russia’s drone plant
-
Iskander Russia fired at Kyiv Oblast in July held 62 American parts. Ukraine has now named more than 100 Russian ballistics producers and wants its allies to sanction all of them
-
Russian plant supplying components for Iskander missiles reportedly struck by Ukrainian Storm Shadow missiles
AfD Data Leak Exposes Questions Over Alice Weidel’s Campaign Funding and Party’s Internal Divisions
More than 420,000 leaked emails have reopened a controversy over illegal donations to Germany’s Alternative for Germany party, while newly examined correspondence reveals previously undisclosed disagreements within its leadership. The revelations could also influence the continuing debate over the party’s constitutional status.
Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) is facing renewed scrutiny after hackers published a substantial archive of internal correspondence, exposing details of party finances, political strategy and disputes among senior officials.
The material, released on 19 October 2026, comprises approximately 421,000 emails and nearly 50,000 accompanying documents, amounting to some 281 gigabytes of data. The files cover more than a decade of party activity, including correspondence involving co-leader Alice Weidel, former chairman Alexander Gauland and other senior figures.
The AfD confirmed that its hosting provider had suffered a cyberattack in September. According to the party, the attackers obtained information from a limited number of email accounts, many of which had not been actively used for several years.
The identity of those responsible remains unknown.
The documents are being examined by several investigative teams, including ZDF, Der Spiegel and Austria’s Der Standard, with technical assistance from the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
The Swiss donations controversy returns
The most consequential findings so far concern Weidel’s knowledge of illegal campaign donations received during Germany’s 2017 federal election.
At the time, approximately €132,000 was transferred through Swiss companies into accounts belonging to the AfD’s Bodensee district organisation. The payments were designated for Weidel’s election campaign, particularly its social media activities.
When the transactions became public in 2018, Weidel maintained that she had not known about the money until September 2017 and described the donations as unsolicited.
However, correspondence examined by German investigators and journalists raises questions about that account.
In an email dated 10 July 2017, attributed to Weidel, she told her district treasurer that campaign donations had been promised and requested that the party’s bank account be checked twice weekly.
She also asked to receive confirmation of incoming payments so that campaign expenditure could be planned.
Four days later, the first payment arrived from Switzerland.
Further correspondence indicates that Weidel arranged a separate campaign account and obtained authority to direct expenditure from donations earmarked for her election activities.
The latest investigation, published on 26 October, provides additional details about the account’s management and how the party handled the ensuing controversy.
The leaked correspondence also reportedly includes invoices relating to the purchase of approximately 25,000 Facebook followers for Weidel’s campaign. The extent to which those accounts were automated, and their influence on voters, has not been established.
The AfD was previously ordered to pay approximately €396,000 for accepting the unlawful donations. Criminal proceedings involving Weidel and other district officials were discontinued in September 2021 because prosecutors found insufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
Weidel’s spokesman has rejected suggestions that she misrepresented events. He maintains that she had discussed possible contributions with several potential supporters but had neither anticipated specific amounts nor expected the payments from the Swiss companies concerned.
The new material does not establish that Weidel knew the identity of the ultimate donor or participated in concealing the source of the funds.
Emails reveal divisions over the party’s radical wing
Another development concerns Weidel’s earlier relationship with Björn Höcke, the influential leader of the AfD’s Thuringia organisation.
According to correspondence examined by WELT, Weidel expressed serious reservations between 2015 and 2017 about the influence of nationalist and extremist elements within the party.
She warned colleagues that associations with the anti-Islam Pegida movement and the far-right National Democratic Party risked alienating mainstream conservative voters, particularly in western Germany.
Her private concerns contrast with her subsequent accommodation of Höcke’s influence within the AfD.
The correspondence provides evidence of the internal disagreements that accompanied the party’s transformation from an initially Eurosceptic political movement into one centred increasingly on immigration, national identity and opposition to Germany’s established parties.
The revelations are particularly relevant because Weidel now promotes proposals for substantial changes to Germany’s relationship with the European Union.
As EU Today previously reported, she has advocated withdrawing Germany from the euro and the Schengen passport-free travel area.
Could the material influence an AfD ban?
The leak arrives amid continuing legal and political arguments over whether the AfD threatens Germany’s constitutional democratic order.
In May 2025, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution classified the party as a confirmed right-wing extremist organisation. However, a Cologne court issued an injunction in February 2026, preventing that classification from taking effect pending a final judicial decision.
The court acknowledged evidence of anti-constitutional tendencies within the AfD but found that the material presented was insufficient at that stage to establish that they characterised the party as a whole.
The leaked emails could potentially become relevant to future assessments.
Germany’s Interior Ministry has confirmed that domestic intelligence authorities can, in principle, consider available information when evaluating possible threats to the constitutional order.
Nevertheless, whether unlawfully obtained correspondence could be admitted as evidence, and what weight it would carry, would require separate legal examination.
A party ban can be imposed only by the Federal Constitutional Court. The present disclosures do not themselves establish the legal conditions necessary for such a decision.
Questions over authenticity and data protection
The scale of the archive introduces further complications.
The material reportedly contains bank statements, membership records, personal correspondence and other confidential information involving thousands of individuals.
Journalists have verified portions of the correspondence by comparing messages with independently retained originals. Handelsblatt’s examination, for example, identified previously exchanged emails whose contents matched records held by its own reporters.
However, verification of individual communications does not establish the authenticity of every document in the archive. Fabricated messages have also circulated online.
In an official statement on 21 October, the AfD described the breach as criminal data theft and said it would not authenticate individual documents for journalists.
The party has also reported the incident to the authorities.
For Germany’s political institutions, the affair now presents several distinct questions: whether historical campaign finance arrangements were accurately disclosed, what the correspondence reveals about the party’s internal decision-making, and whether any of the documents provide evidence relevant to ongoing constitutional scrutiny.
Those questions remain open as investigators and journalists continue examining the archive.
Berlin: Schools must prevent political Islam, extremism expert warns incoming left-liberal coalition
Last month, the Left Party took first place in Berlin’s state elections, and the party is seeking a coalition with the SPD and the Greens, both of which are already on board. The Left Party will announce its final decision on Oct. 31.
Now, Michael Hammerbacher, head of the Association for Democracy and Diversity in Schools and Vocational Training, is concerned that the new leadership will cooperate with organizations tied to political Islam and that funding for vital advisory projects, including his own, could be at risk, writes Junge Freiheit.
He is urging the three parties to establish a strict “firewall” against political Islam in schools, as religious extremism is increasingly threatening education policy and school safety.
According to Hammerbacher, schools—particularly those where 90 percent or more of the student body has a Muslim background—are experiencing severe pressure to conform to strict religious guidelines.
Issues include targeted bullying of liberal Muslims, homosexual students, and Alevi students; pressuring students to fast during Ramadan; and the refusal to attend co-ed physical education or swimming classes,
More and more Islamist material is also regularly popping up in class group chats.
And students are increasingly feeling pressure to join in on activities they would normally not consider, such as at Berlin’s Diesterweg Gymnasium, where students even held a large demonstration in the schoolyard, dressed all in black. Hammerbacher also points out that establishing school prayer rooms leads to gender segregation.
Perhaps most worrying is data from the June Berlin Conflict and Violence Barometer study. Out of 14,000 students and 2,500 staff surveyed, 29 percent of ninth-graders believe religious rules trump school rules. Among Muslim ninth-graders, that figure rises to 41 percent.
Some positive news came out of the Berlin Administrative Court earlier this month, when it ruled that Diesterweg Gymnasium in Wedding can legally ban demonstrative religious rituals to maintain school peace. This decision dismissed a lawsuit from the Society for Civil Rights (GFF), which had argued the ban discriminated against Muslim students.
Hammerbacher noted that the Diesterweg Gymnasium had previously faced severe conflicts, including students being pressured to convert to Islam and girls facing verbal abuse if they failed to wear a headscarf. He sharply criticized the GFF for targeting 20 schools with legal warnings over similar rules; 19 of these schools backed down, making Diesterweg Gymnasium the only one to stand its ground.
The expert warned that legal challenges such as by the GFF give political Islamist groups far too much leeway, further calling for the new Berlin government to be on guard against further opening the door to political Islam.
In August, Remix News wrote about one school teacher who bemoaned the impact of mass immigration, with 75 percent of students at her school having a migrant background, including many from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan or Ukraine. “It’s all blowing up in our faces,” she said. “We are happy if we can teach for a few minutes at a time. Sometimes the police have to come several times a week,” she added, due to incidents involving shouting, fights, and even drugs and prostitution.
The post Berlin: Schools must prevent political Islam, extremism expert warns incoming left-liberal coalition appeared first on Remix News.
Ilse Aigner – eine taktische Kandidatin für das Amt der Bundespräsidentin der Bundesrepublik Deutschland?
Am 30. Januar wird von der Bundesversammlung ein neues Staatsoberhaupt gewählt. Diese setzt sich aus 630 Abgeordneten des Bundestags und ebenso vielen Wahlleuten aus den Bundesländern zusammen. Der amtierende Bundespräsident Frank-Walter Steinmeier kann nach zwei Amtszeiten nicht zum dritten Mal kandidieren. In der CSU wird die Präsidentin des Bayerischen Landtags, Ilse Aigner, die dieses Amt seit 2018 innehat, bereits seit Langem als mögliche Kandidatin für das Amt der Bundespräsidentin gehandelt.
«In den 75 Jahren ihres Bestehens hat die CSU noch nie einen Bundeskanzler oder Bundespräsidenten aufgestellt», erklärte CSU-Chef Markus Söder am Rande des CSU-Parteitags. «Im Grunde kann man sogar sagen, dass wir jetzt an der Reihe sind.»
Markus Söder hat sich kürzlich auf dem Parteitag in München erneut für Aigner ausgesprochen und erklärt, er wünsche ihr von ganzem Herzen, das Amt der deutschen Staatschefin zu übernehmen. Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz verlor in seiner Rede auf dem Parteitag hingegen kein Wort über die Frage der Kandidatur. Erst zu Beginn seiner Rede, unmittelbar nach Söder, begrüßte er Aigner namentlich, wofür er von den Delegierten mit Beifall bedacht wurde.
Auch seitens anderer Parteien sind die Stimmen zur Unterstützung der Kandidatur Aigners eher ambivalent. Einerseits unterstützen die Sozialdemokraten und die Grünen als «fortschrittliche» politische Kräfte zweifellos die Kandidatur einer Präsidentin. Andererseits äußern sie Zweifel daran, dass Aigner die ideale Kandidatin für dieses Amt ist. Sie werfen der CSU sogar vor, eine «taktische Kandidatin» aufzustellen.
«Ilse Aigner von der CSU wäre zweifellos eine würdige Kandidatin für die Wahl der ersten weiblichen Staatschefin in der Nachkriegsgeschichte Deutschlands», sagte der Vorsitzende des linken Flügels der SPD, Ralf Stegner.
Auch der parlamentarische Geschäftsführer der SPD-Fraktion, Dirk Wiese, sprach sich für die Wahl einer Frau zur Bundespräsidentin aus.
«Für mich steht außer Frage, dass das höchste Amt im Staat von einer Frau bekleidet werden sollte», erklärte Wiese.
Der Fraktionsvorsitzende der SPD, Matthias Mirsch, sprach sich für Ilse Aigner aus. «Worauf warten wir eigentlich noch? Hat sich Ilse Aigner nicht schon längst die Unterstützung einer Mehrheit gesichert, über Parteigrenzen hinweg? Ich würde sie unterstützen», sagte Mirsch.
Er bezeichnete Aigner als «überzeugte Demokratin, die sich klar gegen Rechtsextremismus ausspricht und unsere demokratischen Werte entschlossen verteidigt». Laut Mirsch habe sich die Politikerin der CSU während der Koalitionsverhandlungen als verlässliche, konstruktive und ehrliche Partnerin erwiesen. Außerdem sei es nach zwölf Männern im Amt des Staatsoberhaupts höchste Zeit für eine Frau. «Ilse Aigner wäre eine Bundespräsidentin, die unser Land vereinen könnte, ohne in Fragen unserer Demokratie auch nur einen Millimeter nachzugeben.»
Der SPD-Vorsitzende Lars Klingbeil bezeichnete Aigner als «Brückenbauerin». Er betonte, dass er sie «sehr» schätze und sich an viele «sehr gute Momente» in der gemeinsamen Arbeit erinnere.
Die Fraktionsvorsitzende der Grünen, Britta Haßelmann, bekräftigte erneut die Forderung ihrer Partei, dass eine Frau das höchste Staatsamt übernehmen solle.
«Selbstverständlich kann und muss endlich eine Frau das höchste Staatsamt übernehmen», erklärte Hasselmann. «Wir brauchen ein Staatsoberhaupt mit klarem Kurs und entschlossenem Engagement für den Schutz unserer Demokratie», betonte die Politikerin.
Für Merz und Söder ist die Kandidatur von Aigner nicht mehr als eine Figur in ihrem eigenen politischen Spiel
Seit Anfang der 1990er Jahre, als der derzeitige bayerische Ministerpräsident Markus Söder und Ilse Aigner erstmals in den Landtag einzogen, galten sie als die talentiertesten Vertreter ihrer Generation in der CSU – und als Rivalen. Im Jahr 2018 galten Aigner und Söder als die aussichtsreichsten Kandidaten für die Nachfolge von Horst Seehofer als Ministerpräsident. Söder setzte sich durch – unter anderem, weil er laut Seehofer ein Meister der «schmutzigen Tricks» und des Machtkampfs mit maßlosen Ambitionen war.
Was Bundeskanzler Merz betrifft, so bringt ihn die Nominierung von Aigner in eine prekäre Lage. Hätte er den Personalvorschlag der Bayern einfach unterstützt, hätte er Probleme mit seinen eigenen Leuten bekommen. Denn auch die Ministerpräsidenten der CDU, die in letzter Zeit ihren Einfluss verstärkt haben, wollen ein Mitspracherecht. Diese Frage wird voraussichtlich auf die Tagesordnung der CDU-Präsidiumssitzung am 9. November gesetzt.
Die Christdemokraten wiederum bezweifeln, dass Markus Söder es mit Ilse Aigner wirklich ernst meint. Sie fragen: Will er sie wirklich im Schloss Bellevue sehen? Denn die Anwesenheit einer Bayernin dort verringert die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass ein weiterer Bayer das Amt des Bundeskanzlers übernimmt, noch weiter. In der CDU kursiert die Theorie, dass Söder die Kandidatur von Aigner gezielt vorgeschlagen habe, um ihre Wahlchancen zu schmälern.
Doch unabhängig davon, aus welchen Gründen Söder seine Parteikollegin unterstützt hat, sollte man Folgendes bedenken:
Wenn die CDU eine eigene Kandidatin aufstellt, muss diese über mehr politisches Gewicht verfügen als Aigner. Schließlich genießt sie als Landtagspräsidentin der CSU seit vielen Jahren hohes Ansehen bei Vertretern aller Parteien.
Aigner genießt breites Ansehen und gilt als Politikerin, die zur Einigung beiträgt. Allerdings ist sie keine begnadete Rednerin. Dabei sind öffentliche Auftritte das wichtigste Machtinstrument des deutschen Staatsoberhaupts. Aigner hat das Amt der Landtagspräsidentin seit 2018 inne, doch es gibt keinen einzigen Satz von ihr, der landesweit große Resonanz gefunden oder gar den Stil öffentlicher Reden beeinflusst hätte.
Sollte sie sich durchsetzen, lässt sich bereits absehen, welche Kritik sie von Anfang an begleiten wird. Braucht man in diesen unruhigen Zeiten an der Spitze des Staates wirklich die Vorsitzende eines CSU-Kreisverbands aus Oberbayern? Oder sollte man nicht besser eine überparteiliche Persönlichkeit suchen, die in der Lage ist, die gespaltene deutsche Gesellschaft zu einen?
War Will Cover Up the Losses: How Europe’s Crises Are Fueling Escalation with Russia
Europe and Russia are entering a phase in which diplomatic expulsions and explosives-laden drones at airports are no longer treated as exceptions. Germany is openly preparing its hospitals for an influx of wounded personnel, while the assessed threat of sabotage has officially been raised. Meanwhile, expensive energy and competition are costing European industry production capacity and jobs. Under these conditions, an external conflict offers a convenient way to blame economic failures on a foreign enemy. The question is no longer whether escalation is taking place, but how far the two sides are prepared to go before it slips beyond their control.
The autumn of 2026 has brought a series of developments that take the confrontation between Russia and Europe beyond the familiar boundaries of ‘hybrid warfare’. In August, drones carrying explosives were discovered at Leipzig/Halle Airport. The German authorities formally blamed Russia, describing the incident as ‘crossing a red line’ with potentially lethal consequences. Berlin closed Russia’s consulate-general in Bonn and its cultural center. Moscow responded by closing the German consulate in St. Petersburg.
In September, another drone carrying explosives was found near Wunstorf airbase. The Bundeswehr subsequently raised its assessment of the threat from Russian sabotage to ‘significant’, the second-highest level, for the first time. German intelligence services warn that further attacks are likely. Meanwhile, arson attacks have been reported at drone manufacturing facilities in Estonia, Poland and Slovakia, alongside drone incidents over military installations and civilian airports across Europe.
German military planners are openly preparing the hospital system to receive up to 1,000 wounded personnel a day in the event of a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia. Underground medical bunkers are being brought back into service, including one in Ulm with capacity for 2,000 people. Civilian surgeons are being trained to treat blast injuries and burns, while coordination between military and civilian hospitals is being strengthened. Diplomatic expulsions, consular closures, accusations of sabotage and preparations for mass casualties together suggest that both sides are already operating according to the logic of an ‘undeclared war’.
Military and diplomatic tensions, however, are only one part of the picture. The economic conditions in which this escalation is unfolding, and the political purpose it serves, are more consequential.
Europe’s economy is facing a deep structural crisis that can no longer be concealed behind reports celebrating the ‘green transition’. TTF benchmark gas prices are hovering around €87–88 per MWh, approximately 174% higher than a year earlier. EU gas storage facilities are just 71–74% full, among the lowest mid-October levels of the past decade, compared with around 83% last year. Germany’s position is even weaker, with storage levels fluctuating around 57–60%.
Electricity and fuel costs are putting pressure on the entire supply chain. Annual energy inflation reached almost 19% in September, while average diesel prices across the EU climbed to €2.14–2.23 per liter. Industrial energy costs are four to five times those faced by American competitors. Chemical plants and metal producers, particularly in Germany and northern Italy, are being forced to cut output or shut down production facilities. Industrial production in the eurozone continues to fall; in Germany, it is already almost 10% below its 2021 level. Industry’s share of EU GDP has declined from 17.4% to 14.3%.
The pressure extends to agriculture. Fertilizer prices have risen by more than 13%, while farmers’ energy costs have increased by around 22%. At the same time, the prices farmers receive for their produce are falling. This raises the risk of a poorer harvest in 2027 and a second wave of food inflation. Farmers in several countries are already warning that their operations are becoming commercially unviable, while transport costs are making many deliveries unprofitable.
The situation resembles a familiar scheme: a warehouse owner who has spent years stealing stock eventually sets fire to the building and tells investigators that everything was destroyed ‘by accident’. European governments have spent years pursuing policies that have made energy expensive, imposed excessive regulation and applied sanctions whose heaviest impact has fallen on their own industry and agriculture. Now, as gas, electricity, diesel and fertilizer bills squeeze businesses and households, and Chinese competitors capture market share, an external conflict offers a convenient excuse.
War, or even the prospect of war, allows rising prices, factory closures, cuts to social spending and budget shortfalls to be blamed on an ‘external aggressor’. Instead of acknowledging mistakes in energy and industrial policy, governments invoke the ‘price of freedom’ and the ‘defense of democracy’. The further tensions escalate, the easier it becomes to explain to the public why housing, food and heating cost more, and why industrial jobs are disappearing.
The current situation brings together two parallel developments. Tensions are rising through sabotage incidents, diplomatic expulsions, higher threat assessments and preparations for hospitals to receive large numbers of wounded personnel. At the same time, European elites need a convenient external explanation for economic failure. High gas and electricity prices, low storage levels, expensive diesel, rising fertilizer costs and shrinking industrial output are already a reality. Escalation creates political capital for those responsible for costly mistakes in energy and industrial policy over recent years. It allows them to shift the discussion from domestic policy failures to an ‘external threat’, postponing accountability.
This logic itself increases the risk of an uncontrolled shift from ‘hybrid’ operations to direct confrontation. As long as European governments prefer preparing hospitals for thousands of casualties to reconsidering their energy and industrial policies, the practice of ‘burning down the warehouse to conceal the missing stock’ continues. The remaining question is how far the two sides are prepared to go before the cost becomes too high for European societies themselves.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
- The Baltic Fuse: How Europe Is Building the Infrastructure for War With Russia
- The US Is Pulling the Plug on International Justice — Does Europe Have Its Own Power Source?
- NATO’s “Theory of Victory”: A War Beyond the Plan
The post War Will Cover Up the Losses: How Europe’s Crises Are Fueling Escalation with Russia appeared first on South Front.
Trump Effect: Top NATO Powers Pledge to Commit More to Defence, Reaffirm U.S. Alliance
Europe's top NATO members are ready to take greater responsibility for the continent's security while standing with the U.S. as an "indispensable ally," the organization affirmed Tuesday.
The post Trump Effect: Top NATO Powers Pledge to Commit More to Defence, Reaffirm U.S. Alliance appeared first on Breitbart.
European Protests Gather Force As Citizens Demand Answers On Public Spending
Written by Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher
What began in September with student protests and social unrest in France over education reforms and rising tensions, alongside months of anti-government actions in Albania targeting Edi Rama’s long rule, has spread to Belgium, Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, and beyond, turning the streets of many European cities into battlegrounds of tear gas, water cannons, and burning barricades.
Early signs suggest Croatia and Austria could join the protests, which some are calling a “European Autumn.” Beyond Albania’s more political confrontation, the protests reflect the anger of ordinary citizens over high living costs, unaffordable housing, squeezed public services, and the belief that governments prioritize other issues, such as the Ukraine War, over household budgets.
In France, hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets in recent days. Authorities report nearly 1,000 detentions nationwide, a heavy deployment of police and gendarmes, and clashes involving water cannons and tear gas. In Rome, authorities detained more than 200 young people during similar confrontations. In Barcelona, demonstrations escalated into riots, resulting in roughly 100 arrests, dozens of fires, and looted shops. In Tirana, thousands have protested with Molotov cocktails and have faced police tear gas. These are not isolated incidents but reflect youth frustration and public exhaustion as prices rise while wages and services lag.
European officials have repeatedly blamed outside actors, particularly Russia, for the unrest. Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto described the violence in Milan and other cities as the result of a “hybrid war” waged through platforms such as TikTok, social media, and YouTube, while Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni ordered intelligence briefings to assess whether foreign actors, including Moscow, had helped amplify the unrest. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said that hostile narratives from Russia, China, Iran, and the MAGA community had exploited high-school student protests in France.
Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed these claims as obvious exaggerations that European citizens can see through.
“To suggest that we are provoking mass protests in major European cities, well, that is clearly going too far, it’s something that, in my view, is obvious to the ordinary citizens of European countries,” Putin said, adding that the accusations reflect “the weakness and inability of certain leaders in European countries to take responsibility for what is happening.”
Leaders and officials blaming Moscow reflect Europe’s long habit of shifting blame outward rather than addressing the rise in energy prices following the cut of cheaper Russian supplies and the redirection of more public funds toward expanding the defense industry since 2022. The protest’s origins in budget cuts to education, housing, and everyday services are evident in the slogans and demands heard on the streets.
In Albania, protests against plans to build a hotel near Vlorë escalated into a broader movement to oust the government. In Spain, anger erupted over the eviction of an elderly resident, whose home was later occupied by migrants. In France, student opposition to enrollment reforms drew in other groups, including people from North African communities. Although each protest had a different trigger, their spread across the continent shows how resistance has inspired youth amid shared economic pressure.
In response to the protests, French authorities are expected to scale back some planned education cuts, which could ease immediate tensions. Yet France has the eurozone’s third-highest debt, behind only Italy and Greece. Without broader social agreement on priorities—including affordable energy, housing supply, and avoiding wasteful defense spending—the protests are likely to continue. Immigration pressures and social divisions further reinforce the sense that resources are being misdirected.
Politically, the unrest accelerates polarization already underway in France. Centrist parties continue to lose ground as voters move toward left- and right-wing alternatives. Some establishment figures try to use the disorder to limit options, including those of the far-right Marine Le Pen’s movement and the far-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s, but this only further erodes the current administration’s legitimacy.
Le Pen has used images of looting, burned vehicles, and street clashes to reinforce a law-and-order message, arguing that the country needs stronger command and that chaos cannot be a governing project. Mélenchon, by contrast, has aligned himself with the underlying student and cost-of-living grievances, criticizing police tactics and framing the protests as a response to years of underfunding in education and public services. Both draw support from different segments of the French public angered by the center’s failure to deliver affordable energy, housing, and stable public services while maintaining high debt and defense commitments.
Unless governments directly address energy prices, debt constraints, and migration, the so-called Autumn Wave will persist and spread across Europe, deepening polarization, as already evident in French politics. Blaming external actors, from Moscow to social media platforms, will not restore public trust or lower household costs, but will deepen the animosity already building.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
- Geography of Losses: Citizens of Eleven Countries Among the Mercenaries Killed in Ukraine
- Putin-Witkoff Talks Expose Broken Western Unity On Ukraine
- Sisi Calls Emergency Session to Authorize Egyptian Defense of Saudi Arabia
The post European Protests Gather Force As Citizens Demand Answers On Public Spending appeared first on South Front.
“I’m simply fed up,” says German state parliament VP and former teacher as she recounts pulling AfD stickers off classroom chairs
Current German law strictly requires teachers to remain politically neutral. However, a recent incident involving Maya Tischler, a 30-year-old Green Party politician, raises questions about whether this neutrality is properly enforced.
Before being elected to the state parliament of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Tischler worked as a history teacher in Ribnitz-Damgarten. Controversial comments she made regarding her former students are now coming to light, highlighting the censorship Germans who do not fall in line with left-liberal ideologies face.
Tischler reportedly stated that she fought daily against discriminatory, racist, and violent rhetoric in her rural school environment. She even openly admitted to frequently removing AfD stickers from classroom furniture and noted that many local parents were involved with the right-wing party.
“I’m simply fed up,” she said at a 2025 Green Party conference, adding that she had “stopped counting how many AfD stickers we unfortunately had to scrape off the chairs in the classrooms,” according to Junge Freiheit.
Tischler also expressed immense relief at being able to openly label the AfD as “definitely far-right” to her students, noting she was exhausted from dealing with the issue, particularly after a tense debate with students during a field trip to the Ravensbrück concentration camp memorial. She also previously confirmed her support for a ban on the AfD.
As vice president of the state parliament in Schwerin, Tischler is expected to remain impartial, a mandate for both teachers and politicians. Her critics are now questioning her suitability for either profession.
Thore Stein, the AfD’s parliamentary manager in the state, condemned her appointment to the parliament’s presidium, telling JF it was “an absolute mockery of the principle of neutrality in office.”
Last year, German influencer Eva Vlaardingerbroek had her shadow ban on X lifted by Elon Musk, in a case where the EU claimed it had restricted her account due to the EU’s Digital Services Act. While her account regained its normal status, many conservatives in Germany and across Europe continue to have their voices muffled. And with teachers like Maya Tischler, this censorship campaign starts early.
The post “I’m simply fed up,” says German state parliament VP and former teacher as she recounts pulling AfD stickers off classroom chairs appeared first on Remix News.

