By Leonid Ragozin | The American Conservative | September 30, 2026

Britain’s Labour Party is not traditionally thought of as a bastion of militarism or authoritarianism. Yet listening to some of what its top figures have been saying recently might cause one to doubt the conventional wisdom on that.

Consider what Labour Party strategist Paul Richards said in a GB News interview earlier this month. Asked how the UK might respond to an increased Russian threat, Richards—who has worked for two Labour governments—gave a disturbing answer. “We’d have to lock some people up,” he said, “some of the pro-Russian voices, people who say there isn’t a threat, [and say] ‘Don’t fight for your country, don’t go to war for Burnham.’”

His comments are not a one-off. They reflect a worrying trend among Britain’s political mainstream—the old parties, media, and think tanks—which has increasingly adopted a siege mentality informed by the far-fetched expectation of imminent war with Russia.

Nor is the trend restricted to Britain. It spans the entire Western world. And it helps explain why the centrist political forces previously seen as “reasonable” are losing ground to the supposed “fringe.” Apocalyptic millenarianism is no longer the domain of radical obscurantists, but of people like NATO’s secretary-general Mark Rutte, who in 2025 seemed to foretell with relish a conflict between Europe and Russia on the scale of  the Second World War. “Imagine it,” he said, “a conflict reaching every home, every workplace, destruction, mass mobilisation, millions displaced, widespread suffering and extreme losses.”

It is politicians branded as far right or far left radicals who, surprisingly, have emerged as the main opposition to this unhinged bellicosity.

What’s largely prompting this trend is the very logic of the liberals competing with the populists. Western societies display a demand for performative “toughness,” which caters both to the infantilism of their political classes and the gamification of war in far off countries.

Things seem to have begun in earnest in 2016, when the prospect of liberals losing to rivals like Donald Trump led the former to embrace conspiracy theories like Russiagate and double down on foreign policy hawkishness as a way of evading responsibility for their own failures. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine served a similar function, providing a theater for “toughness” even as the West has gotten bogged down in what has increasingly turned into a proxy conflict.

Trying to outdo the populists along a different axis, rather than doing the hard work of opposing them with value-based positions, has led the centrists into a trap. It left a vacuum in the center, into which the populists—ever alert to political opportunities—have deftly stepped.

Here is how it plays out in Germany. When the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) suffered an embarrassing defeat in Saxony-Anhalt earlier this month, the party’s leader and premier in North Rhine-Westphalia, Hendrik Wüst, said the government should consider banning the AfD (which won the election by a landslide). Wüst is eyed as a potential replacement for the unpopular chancellor Friedrich Merz.

The CDU went on to suffer additional defeats in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and in Berlin. The former is particularly symbolic, because this is where the Nord Stream gas pipelines make landfall—a fact that makes this state a direct beneficiary of the German-Russian joint venture to supply cheap Russian gas to the German economy.

When Nord Stream 2 was blown up in September 2022, the immediate consensus in the West was that Moscow was responsible. Yet the culprits turned out not to be Russian, but Ukrainian. German police investigators eventually charged individuals associated with Ukraine’s military intelligence service for the attack. (It’s worth noting that this Ukrainian spy agency was rebuilt in 2015 with considerable assistance from America’s CIA.)

Germany’s rejection of Russian gas supplies after Putin’s all-out invasion in Ukraine can be seen as a noble gesture, perhaps, but it had dire consequences for the country’s economy, which contracted in 2023 and 2024 before showing anemic growth in 2025. Even more importantly, it hit every household in Germany with skyrocketing heating and power bills. Interestingly, Germany wasn’t receiving Russian gas at the time of the explosion, which means the attack was aimed at preventing the resumption of supplies after the end of war rather than interrupting ongoing exports.

The German government has never properly addressed the issue at the federal level. On the eve of September elections, Merz’s sharp reaction to the Leipzig drone incident, which he instantly blamed on Russia, contrasted sharply with the virtual absence of a response to the perpetrators of the Nord Stream attack.

Voters in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania slaughtered Merz’s party, excluding it entirely from the state’s legislature for the first time in nearly 80 years. The big winner was the AfD—a party unafraid to ask questions about Nord Stream and which muses about restoring gas supplies after the Ukraine War ends. Voters also largely spared the Social Democrats, under whose leadership Nord Stream was built in the first place (although they had to disown it after Russia’s invasion).

The early days of tension between post-Soviet Russia and the West, which culminated in the war in Ukraine, were marked by squabbles over pipeline projects delivering gas to Europe (remember South Stream or Nabucco?). The unyielding opposition of centrist politicians to such projects has led voters to wonder whether their political establishment is more interested in catering to armsmakers and shale gas producers than in providing for its citizens. It’s hard to think of a better illustration of NATO’s unofficial mission to “keep the Germans down and the Russians out” than the fate of Nord Stream.

The perception of abandonment is what fuels the popularity of the AfD’s sovereigntist stance. And despite accusations of extremism, it is the AfD who sounds the most moderate and reasonable on the vital issues of war and peace.

Indeed, their foreign policy stance provides AfD leaders with one bulletproof rebuttal to accusations of fascism. A defining component of the fascist ideology is aggressive militarism—a trait exhibited by the German political establishment, not its hard-right challengers. The AfD fills the shoes of the old-school left-wing peaceniks when it comes to Ukraine, while the Merz government staunchly supports further escalation while discreetly undermining Trump’s efforts to bring the conflict to a close. The AfD also condemns the war on Iran (which Merz initially supported, before making a U-turn under public pressure).

(Ex-)centrists also advocate an enormous defense spending hike Germany can ill afford, as well as compulsory military service (this latter move has sparked youth protests across the country). The way mainstream German politicians are courting the far right in Ukraine—members of Azov movement prominently featured at the prestigious Munich Security Conference this year, for example—make the charges of nazism levelled against the AfD look especially lame.

Opposing Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which the AfD does, is one thing. Supporting an endless proxy war with a nuclear-armed great power—and committing to fight this “to the last Ukrainian”—is quite another.

And the polls suggest German voters have little appetite for risking their country’s future in such a gambit.

The AfD and other insurgent parties thrive when their opponents lean into hawkishness and authoritarianism, but so far there is little evidence the establishment understands this. Indeed, European political elites are doubling down. They recently invited Zelensky’s former press secretary, Iulia Mendel, to speak in front of the European Parliament. But Mendel is a vocal critic of her former boss, and so the parliament’s centrist leadership banned her from entering after Zelensky’s government imposed sanctions on her (an extrajudicial punishment he is routinely applying to political rivals). By banning Mendel from speaking and turning a blind eye on Zelensky’s abuse of power, the center once again chooses delusion and bellicosity over a genuine commitment to democracy.

Meanwhile, alternatives like the AfD will continue to fill the vacant space left in the middle of the political spectrum.

A regional German court sentenced a 29-year-old Syrian man to four years and 10 months in prison for attempted manslaughter after he stabbed a man in the neck during a dispute at a Cologne drug hotspot, slightly reducing an earlier five-year term after Germany’s highest criminal court ordered a resentencing.

The Cologne Regional Court imposed the penalty Friday following a brief retrial, the Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger reported. The Federal Court of Justice had largely upheld the original findings but ruled that the first chamber had improperly double-counted an aggravating factor.

The stabbing occurred on April 27, 2025, at the Josef-Haubrich-Hof near Neumarkt, an area known for heroin and cocaine dealing. The defendant intervened in an argument within the drug scene and was struck during the altercation between the two men, possibly with brass knuckles. In anger, he then drew a folding knife and stabbed one of the men in the neck, severing his jugular vein, the court findings stated.

Berlin bus passenger in critical condition after Syrian suspect stabbed him in the neck for refusing cigarette

Blood sprayed from the stab wound immediately. The 47-year-old victim dragged himself to a stairwell in the Neumarkt passage and collapsed.

Prosecutors said in the first trial that the attacker recognized the victim would die without help but was indifferent to whether he survived.

The victim lost about 1.5 liters of blood, spent three days in a medically induced coma after emergency surgery at the university clinic, later suffered a pulmonary embolism, and continues to experience pain, shortness of breath, anxiety and sleep problems, the Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger reported. A scar also remains on his neck.

Germany: Indian migrant stabs supermarket employee to death in Hamburg in front of shocked customers

The victim told the court he has been living on the street.

Defense lawyer Mario Geuenich described the convicted man as “peace-loving” but said that day he was “surely not in control of his senses” and that the act stemmed “from affective agitation.”

The defendant said, “I really regret it,” and told the court he had stopped using alcohol, drugs and methadone while in custody. He also told the court he wants to bring his wife and children from Syria to Germany and lead a normal life.

‘We have imported knife violence’ – Wave of knife attacks shakes Germany once again

The victim addressed the defendant directly: “I forgive you. But my life is fucked up and shitty.” He added, “God bless you. I ask for a mild sentence,” and said, “God is his judge, not me.”

Presiding Judge Achim Hengstenberg replied, “But we still exist.”

Mitigating factors included the apology, expressed remorse and the victim’s forgiveness. Aggravating factors were the dangerous knife wound and the defendant’s prior convictions. The new sentence is two months shorter than the original. The victim’s lawyer, Eva Kuhn, said she was satisfied with the sentence and plans to seek compensation from the convicted Syrian.

The verdict is final.

Germany: Knife crime reaches 10-year high in Berlin as immigration soars

The post Germany: ‘Peace-loving’ Syrian migrant sentenced for stabbing man in the neck, now wants to bring his wife and child to Germany appeared first on Remix News.

On 30.09.1965, the Indonesian army and its militias, backed by West Germany and the United States, used a failed coup as a pretext to murder up to three million suspected communists. This documentary uses the West German government’s own files to expose Bonn’s role in the genocide.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The files show that Bonn knew of the massacres from the first week. Its ambassador called the slaughter “a cleansing entirely in our interest” and called the killers “our friends in the army”. West Germany spread the army’s propaganda, held out money to the army’s side and cleared weapons for it, to keep Inadonesia out of communist hands and away from recognising the GDR. Six of the first seven West German ambassadors in Jakarta had been Nazi party members or Nazi propagandists. To this day, Berlin rejects what it calls “the hypothesis of support”.

Original article:  braveneweurope.com

Merz is a dead man walking. Fear and warmongering don’t win votes.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Having found out the hard way what it means to get slapped in the face at election time in Saxony-Anhalt, the CDU really got pulled backwards through the hedge on the 20th of September in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (Meck/Pomm) and Berlin.

Looking at Meck/Pomm first, voter turnout was 78.1% – about the same as in Saxony-Anhalt with 77.8%.

The official, though still provisional, final result can be classed as a mini-bombshell compared to Saxony-Anhalt, but eye-opening nonetheless. There will be four parties taking seats in the state parliament.

AfD 38.2% = 32 seats
SPD 35.5%, with the incumbent state minister-president looking to stay in office = 29 seats
Die Linke (Left) 6.5% = 5 seats
Die Grüne (Greens) 5.7% = 5 seats

The state parliament has a total of 71 seats.

Now the interesting part: CDU 4.9%, zero seats thanks to the 5% hurdle; as also the FDP 1.0%, also zero seats.

Now let’s bring in a bit of perspective.

The AfD have won the next election, though not with such a large margin as in Saxony-Anhalt, but still a victory.

The incumbent minister-president since 2017, Manuela Schwesig, belongs to the top echelon of the SPD. She previously held the post of Minister for Education, Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth on a federal level from 2013–2017, and had held a similar post in the state parliament of Meck/Pomm from 2008–2013. She had a difficult time when the SPD moved away from being a working-man’s party and followed the so-called social reforms that drastically cut into the social security system, Schwesig trying to cushion the hard cuts as far as possible. Her role in politics has always come across as sincere and caring, giving the impression of being honest.

She belongs to the few SPD politicians expected to bring the ailing SPD back into a brighter future, but appears to want to stay in her position in Meck/Pomm, at least for the time being.

The Greens and the Left achieved what was expected of them: the Greens struggling, and the Left still trying to gain strength again after a period of internal turmoil after Sahra Wagenknecht walked out and started her own movement, BSW, taking some left-wing voters with her.

The Greens started out as a pacifist party, against military build-up and environmental degradation. Since 2022, they have become one of the foremost supporters of the regime in Ukraine and of a German and European rearmament, sometimes outdoing the established conservatives. This has cost them a lot of support from the environmental wing, mainly young voters. The anti-war supporters have turned to the AfD, and to some extent to the Left, the only parties propagating a more peaceful and diplomatic solution.

The big bang here in this election is not the FDP. They are of no real significance at the moment, having been in many coalition governments since 1949, always helping the two main parties to necessary majorities. They seem to have lost their own profile, trying to be partner to their campaign opponents and losing their way.

The big thing is the CDU, the governing party nationally, getting a measly 4.9% and thus being kicked out of the state parliament. This is massive. Mr. Merz is basically a dead man walking, and the writing is on the wall for all to see.

The once East German states still feel left behind and cheated after reunification. The programs set up to modernise and repair the old GDR benefited mostly Western German companies and institutions. Tenders were fixed and hundreds of enterprises went into receivership, only to be sold for a song to Western investors.

This is one of the underlying issues still in the minds of ex-GDR citizens and is trotted out as an explanation for just such election results. This is, however, valid only as an excuse to paste over the shortcomings of the established parties, ignoring the real issues such as de-population of the villages with missing infrastructure to care for an ageing population, low employment opportunities, migrant issues, and mistrust of the established parties. The driving power at the time of reunification was the CDU, whose promises did not come to pass. So a socialistic and an alternatively conservative platform were the choices of the day.

The elections in Berlin did not, at first glance, hit the CDU as badly as in the other two German states. Being Berlin, the capital city does, however, put another emphasis on the results. And here too the governing parties lost significantly to the parties on the wings, AfD and Linke. The results are as follows, with gains and losses added for clarification:

Die Linke        25.7%             47 seats          +13.5%
CDU                18.8%             34 seats          −9.4%
AfD                 16.3%             29 seats          +0.1%
Grüne             14.3%             26 seats          −4.1%
SPD                 12.1%             22 seats          −10.1%
BSW                4.7%               under 5% hurdle, no seats
FDP                2.5%               under 5% hurdle, no seats

The participation was 74.2%.

The state parliament has 158 seats and the majority starts at 80 seats. This means there will definitely be a coalition government. All the signs at the moment point to a coalition between the Linke (Left), SPD and Greens.

The AfD have not been able to gain on the same scale as in the other elections. This is due mainly to two factors.

Berlin has an urban environment, and as such a more concentrated electorate with a younger population, and one that has many newcomers from other German states.

The second being massive problems unique to such environments. Affordable accommodation being one of the central issues. The AfD has no track record of city management and no real new concepts on offer that are different enough to entice voters to take the plunge in the direction of the AfD.

It still is surprising that parties with such losses as the SPD can still come into power. Putting the CDU aside, the biggest losers in this election come to power regardless. That is the beauty of a coalition.

The Linke, the Left Party, are not really trusted by the established parties and conservative voters, as there is still an aura of communism surrounding them. Regardless of this, the election results are clear, and it will be interesting to see how the Linke will be able to carry through their campaign themes, mainly focusing on the housing problem, into reality. The other coalition partners will do their best, so no too-radical changes are to be expected.

Here again one can see the ruling parties on the federal level have been given a clear message, and the losses paint a grim picture. It will be an uphill task to change the opinion of the population in time for the upcoming April elections. When hearing the comments coming out of these parties, it seems more than likely that these results will be repeated in the spring of 2027, and then governing Germany will become a next-to-impossible undertaking.

Come what may, one thing has been made abundantly clear. A policy of fear and warmongering, in the face of a future with drastic cuts in the social systems, in health care and pensions, and an economic situation that looks to be getting steadily worse, will not bring voters into the fold. In particular when there is no new vision to face and solve, but only the slash and cut, calling that reforms.

The German Chancellor, just after the polling finished, stood before the press and stated: the election season 2026 is now over. He looked relieved.

At the end of the day, the CDU have few options. If Merz walks back his “reforms”, it will look as if he is weak and giving in to the SPD, making them stronger.

If he aligns himself nearer to the AfD, vote-poaching, that will not help, as the AfD initially devolved out of disgruntled CDU members.

If he continues as before, it is absolutely clear that there is no way Merz and the CDU will win the next federal election, and Merz will have a hell of a job to keep the government toeing the CDU line. If the SPD fails to show how really different they are to the CDU, they too will face disaster. The dangers of being a junior partner in coalitions. A lesson the FDP learned the hard way.

Covering up the fact of having no vision or even a clear plan for the future has never done any ruling party any good the moment alternative ideas are brought forward by a strong opposition party, gaining ground at each election.

Should the next elections in April 2027 go the way these last two did, inside the CDU fear will turn into panic, and there may possibly be federal elections at the end of spring. The outcome of that is anybody’s guess. Trying to get the AfD banned, however, will be the death-knell of a once great political party and the end of democracy as Germany knows it.

By Leonid RAGOZIN

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

It falls to alternative parties like Germany’s AfD to push for peace.

Britain’s Labour Party is not traditionally thought of as a bastion of militarism or authoritarianism. Yet listening to some of what its top figures have been saying recently might cause one to doubt the conventional wisdom on that.

Consider what Labour Party strategist Paul Richards said in a GB News interview earlier this month. Asked how the UK might respond to an increased Russian threat, Richards—who has worked for two Labour governments—gave a disturbing answer. “We’d have to lock some people up,” he said, “some of the pro-Russian voices, people who say there isn’t a threat, [and say] ‘Don’t fight for your country, don’t go to war for Burnham.’”

His comments are not a one-off. They reflect a worrying trend among Britain’s political mainstream—the old parties, media, and think tanks—which has increasingly adopted a siege mentality informed by the far-fetched expectation of imminent war with Russia.

Nor is the trend restricted to Britain. It spans the entire Western world. And it helps explain why the centrist political forces previously seen as “reasonable” are losing ground to the supposed “fringe.” Apocalyptic millenarianism is no longer the domain of radical obscurantists, but of people like NATO’s secretary-general Mark Rutte, who in 2025 seemed to foretell with relish a conflict between Europe and Russia on the scale of  the SecondWorld War. “Imagine it,” he said, “a conflict reaching every home, every workplace, destruction, mass mobilisation, millions displaced, widespread suffering and extreme losses.”

It is politicians branded as far right or far left radicals who, surprisingly, have emerged as the main opposition to this unhinged bellicosity.

What’s largely prompting this trend is the very logic of the liberals competing with the populists. Western societies display a demand for performative “toughness,” which caters both to the infantilism of their political classes and the gamification of war in faroff countries.

Things seem to have begun in earnest in 2016, when the prospect of liberals losing to rivals like Donald Trump led the former to embrace conspiracy theories like Russiagate and double down on foreign policy hawkishness as a way of evading responsibility for their own failures. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine served a similar function, providing a theater for “toughness” even as the West has gotten bogged down in what has increasingly turned into a proxy conflict.

Trying to outdo the populists along a different axis, rather than doing the hard work of opposing them with value-based positions, has led the centrists into a trap. It left a vacuum in the center, into which the populists—ever alert to political opportunities—have deftly stepped.

Here is how it plays out in Germany. When the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) suffered an embarrassing defeat in Saxony-Anhalt earlier this month, the party’s leader and premier in North Rhine-Westphalia, Hendrik Wüst, said the government should consider banning the AfD (which won the election by a landslide). Wüst is eyed as a potential replacement for the unpopular chancellor Friedrich Merz.

The CDU went on to suffer additional defeats in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and in Berlin. The former is particularly symbolic, because this is where the Nord Stream gas pipelines make landfall—a fact that makes this state a direct beneficiary of the German-Russian joint venture to supply cheap Russian gas to the German economy.

When Nord Stream 2 was blown up in September 2022, the immediate consensus in the West was that Moscow was responsible. Yet the culprits turned out not to be Russian, but Ukrainian. German police investigators eventually charged individuals associated with Ukraine’s military intelligence service for the attack. (It’s worth noting that this Ukrainian spy agency was rebuilt in 2015 with considerable assistance from America’s CIA.)

Germany’s rejection of Russian gas supplies after Putin’s all-out invasion in Ukraine can be seen as a noble gesture, perhaps, but it had dire consequences for the country’s economy, which contracted in 2023 and 2024 before showing anemic growth in 2025. Even more importantly, it hit every household in Germany with skyrocketing heating and power bills. Interestingly, Germany wasn’t receiving Russian gas at the time of the explosion, which means the attack was aimed at preventing the resumption of supplies after the end of war rather than interrupting ongoing exports.

The German government has never properly addressed the issue at the federal level. On the eve of September elections, Merz’s sharp reaction to the Leipzig drone incident, which he instantly blamed on Russia, contrasted sharply with the virtual absence of a response to the perpetrators of the Nord Stream attack.

Voters in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania slaughtered Merz’s party, excluding it entirely from the state’s legislature for the first time in nearly 80 years. The big winner was the AfD—a party unafraid to ask questions about Nord Stream and which muses about restoring gas supplies after the Ukraine War ends. Voters also largely spared the Social Democrats, under whose leadership Nord Stream was built in the first place (although they had to disown it after Russia’s invasion).

The early days of tension between post-Soviet Russia and the West, which culminated in the war in Ukraine, were marked by squabbles over pipeline projects delivering gas to Europe (remember South Stream or Nabucco?). The unyielding opposition of centrist politicians to such projects has led voters to wonder whether their political establishment is more interested in catering to armsmakers and shale gas producers than in providing for its citizens. It’s hard to think of a better illustration of NATO’s unofficial mission to “keep the Germans down and the Russians out” than the fate of Nord Stream.

The perception of abandonment is what fuels the popularity of the AfD’s sovereigntist stance. And despite accusations of extremism, it is the AfD who sounds the most moderate and reasonable on the vital issues of war and peace.

Indeed, their foreign policy stance provides AfD leaders with one bulletproof rebuttal to accusations of fascism. A defining component of the fascist ideology is aggressive militarism—a trait exhibited by the German political establishment, not its hard-right challengers. The AfD fills the shoes of the old-school left-wing peaceniks when it comes to Ukraine, while the Merz government staunchly supports further escalation while discreetly undermining Trump’s efforts to bring the conflict to a close. The AfD also condemns the war on Iran (which Merz initially supported, before making a U-turn under public pressure).

(Ex-)centrists also advocate an enormous defense spending hike Germany can ill afford, as well as compulsory military service (this latter move has sparked youth protests across the country). The way mainstream German politicians are courting the far right in Ukraine—members of Azov movement prominently featured at the prestigious Munich Security Conference this year, for example—make the charges of nazism levelled against the AfD look especially lame.

Opposing Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which the AfD does, is one thing. Supporting an endless proxy war with a nuclear-armed great power—and committing to fight this “to the last Ukrainian”—is quite another.

And the polls suggest German voters have little appetite for risking their country’s future in such a gambit.

The AfD and other insurgent parties thrive when their opponents lean into hawkishness and authoritarianism, but so far there is little evidence the establishment understands this. Indeed, European political elites are doubling down. They recently invited Zelensky’s former press secretary, Iulia Mendel, to speak in front of the European Parliament. But Mendel is a vocal critic of her former boss, and so the parliament’s centrist leadership banned her from entering after Zelensky’s government imposed sanctions on her (an extrajudicial punishment he is routinely applying to political rivals). By banning Mendel from speaking and turning a blind eye on Zelensky’s abuse of power, the center once again chooses delusion and bellicosity over a genuine commitment to democracy.

Meanwhile, alternatives like the AfD will continue to fill the vacant space left in the middle of the political spectrum.

Original article:  www.theamericanconservative.com

Fino a che punto si spingeranno i leader europei e, in particolare, quelli tedeschi, di fronte alla minaccia concreta di perdere il potere per la prima volta in 80 anni?

Segue nostro Telegram.

Dunque, punto della situazione: tra l’inizio e la fine del mese ha rimbalzato per tutto l’etere la notizie che provengono dai lander più orientali della Germania. Iniziamo con i dati dalla Sassonia-Anhalt: per la prima volta nella storia della democrazia tedesca post-guerra mondiale, una singola formazione politica – lo AFD, ovvero “Alternativa per la Germania” – raccoglie alle consultazioni elettorali una percentuale di voto che equivale quasi a metà dei votanti: il fatto è che nella cultura politica della Germania contemporanea nemmeno la CDU (centro cristiano-democratico) ha raccolto tale risultato, su scala nazionale, ad una generazione dalla riunificazione. Ma a pensarci – questo è ancor più eclatante – nemmeno il NSDP nazista ha mai raccolto tale proporzione di voti, persino alle ultime elezioni (svoltesi non in un clima ordinario) del 1933. Un grattacapo vero e proprio per la democrazia tedesca che impone di esporre alcune considerazioni lucide al netto di panico ed isterie.

A monte di tutto, rammentiamo che di un’elezione regionale si parla e il lander in questione è demograficamente piccolo: un paio di milioni di abitanti appena, come a dire il 2,5% della popolazione della Repubblica federale. Regione dell’ex Germania orientale, storicamente feudo di correnti antitetiche al liberalismo occidentale (vetero-comunisti ed ultraconservatori). Detto questo, è altrettanto vero che il consenso elettorale all’AFD – già molto consistente nella precedente consultazione (oltre il 20% ossia il secondo partito) – si è di fatto raddoppiato diventando una specie di gigante tra i partiti, il che non è del tutto ordinario.  Considerando il tutto, si può concludere che è assai improbabile che si replichi un risultato del genere su scala nazionale, quanto d’altra parte si deve riconoscere che si è di fronte ad un segnale e di quelli importanti: un messaggio che l’intera società sta esprimendo traverso i canali della democrazia consultiva (perchè a giudicare dai risultati raggiunti è un partito di massa che tocca i gangli nevralgici di ogni strato sociale: anche la fascia istruita della pop. , usualmente orientata in senso progressista, ha concesso circa il 30% del proprio voto, stando alle rilevazioni più specifiche, elemento che amplia il punto interrogativo). Un dato del tutto analogo si è rilevato in Pomerania nella seconda metà del mese che vede il partito sfiorare il 40% ai danni della più tradizionale Cdu. Se proprio si vuole una valutazione, l’Afd probabilmente raggiungerà alle prossime consultazioni di livello nazionale un qualcosa che sta nella forbice 30-35%, che significa grossmodo 1/3 dei suffragi di tutta la Germania.

Fatte salve le considerazioni “tecniche” di flusso elettorale esposte sopra, ce n’è una assai più rilevante che concerne il principio: nel corso delle settimane i commentari in merito ai risultati elettorali in questione si sono propagati come un sisma lungo la rete e altri mezzi di informazione per mezzo di titoli sensazionalistici, finalizzati ad esasperare le perplessità già presenti nell’opinione pubblica tedesca: questo rende da subito difficile affrontare la questione in modo equilibrato, prendendo vita un campo di opinioni polarizzato alle stelle che non permette la riflessione. Responsabile di questo il sistema medesimo (complici i media) che sembra non puntare ad un confronto responsabile bensì fomentare l’isteria collettiva, la divisione. Ecco, la verità è che l’elemento più eclatante di queste elezioni regionali in Sassonia Anhalt, al di là del risultato che vediamo sugli schermi in queste ore, è la reazione ad esso: una reazione ai limiti del senso di responsabilità che vede la parte “moderata” evocare ed invocare la guerra civile, con scenari apocalittici, frasario estremo, esternazioni senza più logica se non quella del panico. In breve le forze che si dicono “democratiche” vistesi sconfitte sul campo per la prima volta, hanno cessato di essere democratiche, riversando un mare di ostilità tale da intaccare l’ordine costituito. Un capovolgimento bizzarro: vediamo una forza considerata estremista conquistare legalmente il governo di una regione, mentre le forze teoreticamente democratiche reagire ai limiti del lecito (invocare in primo luogo la messa al bando di AFD come formazione non conforme alla costituzione tedesca).

Su quest’ultimo punto deve vertere il cuore della riflessione. Rispondere con cieca intolleranza nei confronti dell’avversario vincente mostra purtroppo i limiti del sistema democratico tedesco (la facciata insomma) il quale incapace di fornire risposte ai problemi che affliggono la propria società allora non riesce a fare altro che replicare con l’intolleranza, con il non accettare il risultato delle urne. Il nodo di fondo è che quando un partito – considerato estremista – raccoglie da solo quasi la metà dei consensi come accaduto in Sassonia o in Pomerania è un chiaro messaggio che le cose non vanno come dovrebbero, che vi sono profondi problemi in seno alla società di riferimento: non si può bollare semplicemente tutto come istigazione di una minoranza estremistica quando i suffragi sono pari al 44%, che piaccia o meno. Non è possibile ignorare un messaggio così potente, ricorrende semplicisticamente ad appellativi come “estremista” o “fascista “ : no, in questi casi occorre farsi un esame di coscienza molto serio, partendo dalla ridefinizione degli stessi termini che si utilizzano. Ci si riferisce in primissimo luogo agli appellativi che in modo scontato vengono attribuiti ad AFD (come se fosse una premessa data per certa): lo si definisce “estremista”, lo si definisce “nazista”, ma chi ha deciso tali definizioni ? Il sistema post-bellico/europeista 1945-2025 evidentemente, ma è solo una prospettiva delle cose che si impone come verità: Afd è “nazista” solamente da un punto vista europeista e se si dovesse accettare tale parametro dovremmo quindi concludere che quasi la metà degli elettori di Sassonia e Pomerania sono estremisti (irresponsabile crederlo e comoda via di fuga per giustificare la sconfitta elettorale). La verità è che quando una formazione politica raggiunge tali risultati non è più una cricca di estremisti, ma rappresenta il nerbo della società: un nerbo della società che soffre che ha bisogno di una sponda cui aggrapparsi e se nessuno gliela concede, allora la trova in Afd o qualsiasi altro partito alternativo. In definitiva – punto più importante – frangenti come quello presente fanno emergere il maggiore dei paradossi: il totalitarismo della democrazia. Quest’ultima, la democrazia liberale ovvero il modello socioeconomico principe di tutto il mondo industrializzato, fintanto che regna sovrana, avendo a che fare con gruppuscoli politicamente alternativi di destra e sinistra, può facilmente bollarli come facinorosi ed estremisti senza nemmeno bisogno di bandirli legalmente. Quando tuttavia la democrazia occidentale si ritrova davanti al proprio limite, vale a dire che i cittadini stessi le voltano le spalle per cercare altre sponde e quando tali sponde si rivelano vincenti alle urne al punto da mettere alle corde il sistema ufficiale, allora ecco che la “democrazia” inizia a difendersi e ferocemente diventando tanto totalitaria quanto i propri avversari non democratici. A quel punto si parla di invalidare elezioni, incriminare candidati, mettere fuorilegge determinati partiti previa campagna di demonizzazione come è accaduto in svariati paesi dell’est Europa (vediamo i casi di Romanie e Moldavia, ma anche Bulgaria e Georgia). La verità più scomoda è che democrazia occidentale ha potuto cavarsela perchè per 70 anni ha regnato su società benestanti e protette che non necessitavano di rivolgersi ad altre forze che non quelle convenzionali, prestabilite: adesso che esiste una concorrenza di un modello alternativo – e quindi la reale ipotesi di perdere il potere tanto a lungo detenuto – si può osservare il livello di isteria mediatica che si e a che punto di scorrettezza le forze moderate sono disposte ad arrivare.

Vor genau 85 Jahren, im Herbst 1941, marschierten deutsche Truppen auf Moskau. Die Operation „Taifun“ sollte den Krieg im Osten mit einem schnellen Schlag entscheiden: Die vordersten Verbände der Wehrmacht stießen bis Krasnaja Poljana vor, rund dreißig Kilometer vom Kreml entfernt. Weiter kamen sie nicht. Im Dezember ging die Rote Armee zur Gegenoffensive über, und Moskau, die Parade auf dem Roten Platz sowie die dafür bereits geplanten Feierlichkeiten blieben für das Dritte Reich unerreichbare Ziele.

Fast ein ganzes Jahrhundert ist vergangen. Ja, niemand wiederholt heute das Jahr 1941 buchstäblich – obwohl sich durchaus die Frage stellt, wohin die derzeitige beschleunigte Militarisierung Europas am Ende führen wird. Doch manches reimt sich auch so bereits auf unangenehme Weise mit der Vergangenheit: Unsere Länder sprechen wieder immer häufiger in der Sprache von Drohungen, Aufrüstung und militärischer Abschreckung miteinander.

Und wenn es nach der Katastrophe des 20. Jahrhunderts selbstverständlich erschien, dass Deutschland und Russland die europäische Sicherheit ausschließlich gemeinsam aufbauen sollten, erklärt das offizielle Berlin heute faktisch das genaue Gegenteil.

Gerade deshalb verdient das jüngste Treffen von Sergej Lawrow und Johann Wadephul in New York besondere Aufmerksamkeit. Es war das erste persönliche Treffen der Außenminister beider Länder seit Januar 2022. Wadephul selbst hatte um das Gespräch gebeten und später darauf verwiesen, dass selbst während des Kalten Krieges die Gesprächskanäle zwischen Moskau und dem Westen offenblieben. Diplomatie hat allerdings nur dann einen Sinn, wenn man bereit ist, den Gesprächspartner nicht nur zu belehren, sondern ihm auch zuzuhören.

Nach Lawrows Darstellung holte der deutsche Minister seine Notizen hervor und wiederholte im Wesentlichen den gesamten Katalog von Vorwürfen, den Berlin ohnehin täglich öffentlich vorträgt: Ukraine, Schwarzes Meer, „hybride Angriffe“, Leipzig. Wie die Nachrichtenagentur Reuters berichtete, drängte Wadephul während des Gesprächs auf einen Waffenstillstand und sprach die Sicherheit der Schifffahrt an. Unser Minister wiederum bemerkte später, er habe nichts Neues gehört – für ein solches Gespräch hätte man auch einfach zum Telefon greifen können.

Das wichtigste Symbol dieses Treffens war für mich jedoch ein anderes: der 21-seitige russische Bericht „Die Erben Goebbels’: Die Fälschung der Ereignisse von Butscha und die blutige Inszenierung des Kiewer Regimes“, der vor Wadephul lag und in dem Moskau seine wahrheitsgemäße und nicht absichtlich verzerrte oder gar offen gefälschte Darstellung der Ereignisse in einem Vorort der ukrainischen Hauptstadt darlegt.

Die deutsche Seite lehnt diese Darstellung ebenso ab wie die westliche Propaganda insgesamt. Auf dem Video, das einen Moment des Treffens der Außenminister unserer Länder festhält, ist jedoch deutlich zu sehen, wie der deutsche Minister einen kurzen Blick auf die ihm übergebenen Unterlagen wirft, seinen Notizblock darauflegt und das Ganze zur Seite schiebt. Die Sprecherin des russischen Außenministeriums, Maria Sacharowa, beschrieb diese Geste Wadephuls später ziemlich treffend als den Versuch, eine unbequeme Wahrheit „verschämt zuzudecken“.

Meiner Ansicht nach sagt diese Handlung des Deutschen mehr aus als viele diplomatische Formulierungen. Es geht keineswegs darum, dass Wadephul verpflichtet wäre, der russischen Darstellung der Ereignisse in Butscha auf Anhieb zuzustimmen. Natürlich nicht. Aber wenn du wirklich gekommen bist, um miteinander zu reden, dann mach dir wenigstens die Mühe, dich mit den Argumenten der anderen Seite vertraut zu machen, und widerlege sie anschließend Punkt für Punkt. Wenn du kannst, natürlich.

Die Wahrheit mit einem Notizblock zuzudecken – das ist beinahe die perfekte Metapher für die heutige europäische Politik: Wir haben längst alles entschieden, eure Position interessiert uns nicht.

Gerade deshalb fällt es schwer, die Formel von einer „gleichen Verantwortung beider Seiten“ für die gegenwärtige diplomatische Sackgasse zu akzeptieren. Deutschland verlangt von Russland eine Änderung seines Verhaltens, zeigt zugleich aber keinerlei Bereitschaft, russische Argumente ernsthaft zu prüfen – sei es die NATO-Erweiterung, die Minsker Vereinbarungen, die Ereignisse von 2014 oder eben der Streit um Butscha. Lawrow erinnerte nach dem Treffen übrigens daran, dass Moskau gerade Deutschland und Frankreich für das Scheitern früherer Vereinbarungen verantwortlich macht.

Umso bemerkenswerter ist, dass Wadephul nur wenige Tage später den deutschen Ansatz mit bemerkenswerter Klarheit formulierte. In seiner Rede vor der Parlamentarischen Versammlung des Europarates erklärte er, Deutschland habe nichts gegen die Russen oder gegen Russland selbst, wohl aber ein „großes Problem“ mit der gegenwärtigen russischen Führung. Dann fügte er das Entscheidende hinzu: „Zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt – und wahrscheinlich auch auf absehbare Zeit – werden wir in Europa keine Sicherheit gemeinsam mit Russland haben, sondern nur gegen Russland.“

Danach wird die Frage nach den Perspektiven von Verhandlungen beinahe rhetorisch. Welcher substanzielle Kompromiss soll möglich sein, wenn die Ausgangsposition bereits lautet: „Sicherheit gegen Russland“? Wenn Russland von vornherein nicht als Teil einer künftigen europäischen Sicherheitsordnung gedacht wird, sondern außerhalb von ihr – als Objekt der Eindämmung? Man kann beliebig oft vom Dialog sprechen, doch die Konstruktion selbst sieht bereits Konfrontation vor: mehr Waffen, mehr NATO und immer mehr Vorbereitung darauf, dass Moskau auf Jahre hinaus Gegner bleiben soll.

Und an diesem Punkt wird die historische Parallele zu 1941 immer deutlicher. Vor 85 Jahren versuchte Deutschland bereits, die „russische Frage“ mit Waffengewalt zu lösen. Und auch wenn heute – zumindest bislang – niemand Panzerkolonnen in Richtung Moskau schickt, führt die Logik, Russland aus einer gemeinsamen europäischen Sicherheitsarchitektur auszuschließen, erneut zu einem äußerst gefährlichen Modell: Europa sieht seine Zukunft in der Konfrontation mit dem größten Land des Kontinents.

Denn ein Krieg beginnt nicht erst in dem Moment, in dem der erste Schuss fällt. Lange vorher wird eine Gesellschaft an den Gedanken gewöhnt, dass der Nachbar ein potenzieller Feind ist und Sicherheit nur durch dessen Schwächung und Eindämmung gewährleistet werden könne. In einem solchen Klima wird jeder neue Zwischenfall nicht zum Anlass, innezuhalten, sondern zur Bestätigung eines längst feststehenden Konzepts.

Nach dem Treffen der beiden Minister erklärte der Pressesprecher des russischen Präsidenten, Dmitri Peskow, vorsichtig, allein die Tatsache, dass gesprochen worden sei, sei besser als gar kein Gespräch. Formal stimmt das. Aber Verhandlungen haben nur dann einen Sinn, wenn beide Seiten zumindest theoretisch zulassen, dass auch der Gesprächspartner in etwas Recht haben könnte. Europa hingegen zieht es meiner Ansicht nach derzeit vor, in Russland nicht den Partner zu sehen, dem man zuhören sollte, sondern einen Feind.

Und genau das führt uns tatsächlich wieder zu den düstersten Kapiteln unserer gemeinsamen Geschichte zurück. 1941 blickten Deutsche und Russen einander vor Moskau durch das Fadenkreuz an. 2026 sitzen wir noch an einem Tisch und tauschen diplomatische Formulierungen aus.

Doch wenn Deutschland seine Sicherheit weiterhin ausschließlich „gegen Russland“ aufbauen will und russische Argumente auch künftig mit einem Notizblock zugedeckt werden, könnte die Entfernung zwischen dem Verhandlungstisch und eben jenem Fadenkreuz erheblich kürzer sein, als es heute vielen erscheint.

China has warned that it will respond if the European Union introduces new trade restrictions targeting Chinese companies or products, as France and Germany push for stronger European instruments to address what they regard as unfair commercial practices.

China’s Ministry of Commerce issued the warning after reports that several EU governments were discussing a mechanism modelled partly on Section 301 of US trade law, which allows Washington to investigate foreign trade practices and impose countermeasures.

Beijing described such an approach as protectionist and unilateral and warned that it could damage continuing negotiations between China and the EU.

“If the European side insists on introducing discriminatory restrictive measures against Chinese companies or products,” the ministry said, China would “resolutely respond” to defend the interests of its industries.

The warning comes as Europe’s trade relationship with China is moving further up the political agenda.

According to the European Commission’s latest EU-China trade figures, EU exports to China were worth €199.5 billion in 2025 while imports reached €559.5 billion.

The goods deficit stood at €359.9 billion, compared with €312.2 billion in 2024.

China remained the EU’s largest source of goods imports and its fourth-largest export market.

Brussels argues that the scale of the imbalance is connected not only to competitiveness but also to state support, market-access restrictions and other structural differences between the two economies.

China disputes that assessment and has repeatedly accused the EU of using industrial and security arguments to justify protectionism.

The argument is already visible in several industries.

The EU imposed countervailing duties on Chinese battery electric vehicles after an investigation concluded that state subsidies were giving Chinese manufacturers an unfair advantage in the European market.

Brussels has subsequently widened its attention to other parts of the automotive industry. Earlier this month, EU Today reported that the EU was considering restrictions affecting Chinese hybrid cars as policymakers looked for ways to contain the growing trade imbalance.

The automotive dispute is important because Europe is simultaneously trying to attract Chinese manufacturing investment.

France and Spain addressed that question during President Emmanuel Macron’s state visit to Madrid.

Macron and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez agreed on the need for greater European unity in responding to Chinese competition. They also discussed whether Chinese investors entering strategically important European industries should be required to provide stronger commitments on issues such as technology transfer.

Macron said that companies on both sides of the Pyrenees needed protection when they faced unfair competition and argued that “the only response that works is European.”

France has generally favoured stronger European trade defences.

Germany has traditionally approached the issue more cautiously because major German manufacturers have substantial commercial exposure to China. Increasing competition from Chinese producers, particularly in industrial sectors where German companies were once dominant, has altered the debate.

Reports that Berlin and Paris are now working together on a stronger trade instrument therefore suggest a potentially important shift.

The two countries are said to be considering a European mechanism inspired by the American Section 301 process, although no final proposal has yet been adopted by the European Commission.

EU trade law already provides several instruments.

Brussels can impose anti-dumping or anti-subsidy duties following investigations, use the Foreign Subsidies Regulation to examine state-backed investment and procurement, and deploy the Anti-Coercion Instrument where another country uses economic pressure against the EU or a member state.

The discussion now concerns whether those instruments are sufficient when governments believe a problem extends across industries rather than affecting an individual product.

The debate comes only weeks after EU Today reported that Brussels was preparing additional pressure on Chinese hybrid-car imports, demonstrating how quickly EU-China trade disputes are expanding beyond the original electric-vehicle case.

At the same time, Brussels and Beijing have established a Trade and Investment Consultations mechanism, with workstreams covering trade balances, export controls, intellectual property and World Trade Organisation reform.

China’s Commerce Ministry has warned that introducing tougher measures while those talks continue would damage trust.

That leaves the EU facing two parallel choices: continue negotiations intended to narrow the trade dispute while also developing stronger instruments in case those negotiations fail.

France and Germany are increasingly arguing that Europe needs greater leverage.

Beijing’s response is that using that leverage against Chinese companies would bring countermeasures.

The next stage will depend on whether the Franco-German proposal develops into a formal EU initiative. If it does, the dispute will move beyond duties on particular products towards a broader argument over how Europe intends to manage its economic relationship with China.

Some lakes give up shipwrecks, and Arendsee, in northern Germany, has already given up one. What archaeologists brought to light in 2026 is something else: wood carved by Mesolithic hunter-gatherers up to 10,500 years ago. (The Mesolithic, or Middle Stone Age, is the stretch of European prehistory after the last Ice Age and before farming.) […]

In southwestern Germany, an open-air museum and a website present the Heuneburg as the “Celtic city of Pyrene”, a settlement already thriving when Rome was still a small village on the Tiber. The name comes from Herodotus. The problem, according to a study published in The Antiquaries Journal, is that the Greek historian was almost […]

Across the West, native Europeans are dying out but rental prices continue to go up every year. While the left would like to point the finger at capitalists and greedy landlords, the primary factor driving the housing affordability crisis is mass immigration.

Berlin is a prime example of this trend, as German journalist and author Jens Winter pointed out on X using clear population and housing data.

“Rental prices on the market have more than doubled in Berlin since 2011—plenty of money for corporations. But where is the increased demand coming from? While the native population of the capital has declined by 260,000 since 2011, the number of foreigners and people with a migration background has risen by 650,000 over the same period. That means: Without migration, there would be less demand for housing in Berlin today than in 2011,” he wrote.

In a follow-up post, he wrote that the German “conservative” party is just as guilty as the left.

“The CDU-aligned real estate lobby is raking in big money with migration in Berlin. The Germans have a choice: dying out in the CDU’s multikulti capitalism or in the Left’s multikulti socialism. Understandable response: If we’re going to disappear anyway, why bust our asses for it?” he wrote.

Die CDU-nahe Immobilien-Lobby scheffelt mit Migration in Berlin mächtig Geld. Die Deutschen haben die Wahl: Aussterben im Multikulti-Kapitalismus der CDU oder im Multikulti-Sozialismus der Linken. Verständliche Antwort: Wenn schon verschwinden, warum dafür dann hart arbeiten? https://t.co/GPrTp62SXO

— Jens Winter (@mr_jenswinter) September 26, 2026

While the doubling of rents is real, there is a basic supply and demand reality that the left would like to deny. It is indeed true that predatory property owners, major institutional players, and money printing have played contributing roles to the housing crisis, but no matter how many greedy property owners are involved, if the population of a city falls, rental and housing prices are almost inevitably going to fall.

Mass immigration means that population numbers never fall. Any breathing space for German families to repopulate, have more children, and fill in the gaps left by older generations passing away is immediately filled by hundreds of thousands of foreigners.

The data shows that the population of native Germans fell by 260,000 people. In a system that rejects mass immigration and foreign real estate investors, this could have been a boon for birthrates and increasing home ownership. For one, Germans who already lived in Berlin, and those looking to move to Berlin, would have been more easily able to afford rents and housing due to less competition on the housing market. Secondly, more native Germans would have had a chance to start families — and those who already had families could have afforded an extra child or two — by securing affordable housing.

However, Germany does not reject mass immigration.

Instead, 650,000 foreigners arrived in the same period of time and housing and rental prices soared. The left, however, refuses to do simple math.

There is of course another solution, but it is far more complicated than simply allowing population levels to fall in a country that has never had so many people living in it. Instead of ending mass immigration, left-wing parties, along with the CDU, demand more housing is built.

However, there are myriad reasons why the required housing is not being built, including high construction and material costs, red tape, zoning, and a lack of skilled workers. The same parties have been making the same demands for years now, but construction cannot keep pace with demand in Berlin or other major cities across Germany.

The Left Party may promise to build more, but the reality is that it will not happen. Nothing the left offers will lead to the necessary building. Before Olaf Scholz of the far-left Social Democrats (SPD) won the chancellorship, he promised that his “goal” was to create 400,000 new apartments per year, which would include 100,000 units of social housing, saying, “That’s not witchcraft, we just have to want to do it.” 

Germany buckles under pressure of mass immigration as housing and rental prices soar

It never happened under Scholz and it won’t happen under a left-wing government in Berlin either.

Should more housing even be built?

As Western cities race to replace their native European populations, the question becomes whether life really becomes better in a crowded multicultural city when it means more traffic, longer waiting times at hospitals, crowded classrooms, and imported crime — just to name a few ills.

The newcomers also did not fix the skilled worker shortage that could potentially build all the homes and apartments politicians and lobbyists claim Europe needs. While a certain number of new houses and apartments always need to be built, the question then becomes should Western civilization really be involved in endless building to accommodate millions of foreigners.

On top of all of these questions, the buildings developers managed to build are now in fact uglier than ever, more expensive than ever, and are built more slowly than ever.

In fact, data shows that the time from start to completion for a project is longer than it has been in decades. Again, where are all these young migrants from Africa and the Middle East to fuel a new construction boom with their master artisan and building skills?

The reality is they largely do not exist. Many skilled builders who are immigrants are from neighboring European countries, such as Poland, and they increasingly see fewer reasons to work in Germany.

Poles are moving back to Poland, as Germany becomes a ‘failed state’

The pro-migration left is making housing worse

Winter’s X post is especially relevant given that the Left Party recently won a first place finish in Berlin elections, securing over 25 percent of the vote. Commentators and analysts have contributed the rise of the party in Germany’s capital due a variety of factors, but two major components are the party’s ability to secure the vote of German citizens with a migration background and young voters.

The second factor is Berlin’s housing crisis, which helped drive support from groups like non-voters, the young, and foreigners.

German taxpayer-funded Deutsche Welle, wrote: “That makes sense to 17-year-old Liska, who voted for the socialists: ‘The Left Party did appeal to me, especially because of the social issues — getting prices down, making rents more affordable.’ Rents in Berlin are indeed rising at a massive pace — by some 7% in the last two years alone — and first-time tenants are likely to be the hardest hit. Polls also showed that by far the biggest proportion of Berlin voters — 37% — thought that the Left Party was the most likely to create affordable housing.”

The Left Party and various other left-wing parties have convinced young people that there are easy fixes to the housing crisis. The problem is not relegated to Berlin, as all of Germany has seen tight vacancies as more and more migrants arrive, as Remix News previously reported.

Barely any empty apartments left in Germany as mass migration fuels housing crisis

In the end, the left and its voters are choosing a path where more and more building only leads to overcrowding and environmental degradation.

Mass immigration and higher housing costs hurt birthrates

Numerous studies have shown that immigration has helped drive soaring rental and housing prices across the Western world — not just in Germany. In turn, studies have also shown that soaring housing prices have depressed birthrates, including in countries like the Netherlands, according to the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI).

Again, the same story is taking place in the Netherlands, with the natural population increase for the Dutch at near zero or negative. Nevertheless, the population rose from about 16.8 million in 2013 to 18.1 million in 2025, with net migration accounting for virtually all of the recent increase.

It must also be remembered that just like in Germany, most of these migrants want to head to the major cities, such as Amsterdam.

Official housing-need forecasts in the Netherlands also attribute a large share of future extra demand, often 45 percent or more of the extra dwellings required, to population growth that is itself 95 percent migration-driven.

Great for landlords, bad for the citizens.

Of course, the Alternative for Germany has tried to tie the housing crisis to mass immigration, and they have successfully made this case to some extent.

WATCH: Mass immigration is fueling the West's housing crisis.

Here's how it's happening in Germany.

In a powerful speech in the German Bundestag, @AfD politician Carolin Bachmann slams the ruling government for allowing 2 million migrants into the country while families… pic.twitter.com/DMEqiV316S

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) February 15, 2024

The problem is that as more and more of the population becomes foreign, this argument holds less and less sway. Immigration may raise housing prices but if immigration brought a person to a country in the first place, and if more immigration might also enable more and more of their family members and fellow countrymen to arrive, then these voters have every incentive to keep immigration levels high regardless of housing costs.

Germany spent over €17 billion on housing support in 2024, with nearly half going to foreigners

Many of these migrants are not paying for rent anyway. There are millions of foreigners on social welfare, which means not only are they taking housing places of native Germans, but they are being paid to do it. They then often have far higher birthrates than native Germans, even with limited space, which entitles them to larger spaces.

The cycle is self-reinforcing and relentless. That means unless dramatic action is taken against mass immigration, housing and rental prices may never truly come down.

63% of all welfare recipients in Germany have a migration background

The post Europe’s housing crisis is an immigration crisis, as Berlin data confirms appeared first on Remix News.

A 22-year-old Syrian man is accused of seriously assaulting several rail passengers in Cologne in June during a rampage attack. However, details have now emerged of just how serious this man’s criminal history is after a parliamentary request from politician Markus Wagner of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.

Currently, the Syrian remains in a psychiatric hospital while prosecutors investigate, but the man’s long history of criminal offenses is truly remarkable.

The North Rhine-Westphalia Justice Ministry outlined the case in an answer published Sept. 25.

Federal police said the attacks began about 3:10 p.m. on June 21 at the Cologne-Trimbornstrasse stop. A police spokeswoman said a 22-year-old man “grabbed a traveler and tried to pull him toward the tracks.” Both fell to the ground. Bystanders pulled them apart, but the victim suffered bruises and abrasions.

German public transport nightmare: Foreigners committed 44% of the 27,800 violent crimes on trains last year

Police told Westdeutscher Rundfunk that the witnesses “behaved correctly” by acting together and separating the attacker from the victim.

The suspect then boarded an S19 train toward Cologne Central Station, police said. Near the Cologne Messe/Deutz stop he suddenly punched two passengers in the face, according to witnesses and video.

At the main station, in a fast-food restaurant, he punched and kicked a 47-year-old man and continued striking him on the ground after federal officers arrived.

Chancellor Merz: A ‘considerable proportion’ of violence in Germany comes ‘from immigrant groups’

Officers managed to detain the man and later said he was under the influence of narcotics.

He was taken to a psychiatric facility. The Justice Ministry said he “is currently provisionally accommodated in a psychiatric hospital” under Section 126a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a measure used when investigators believe a suspect may have acted without full criminal responsibility.

Cologne prosecutors are investigating, among other counts, intentional bodily harm, attempted dangerous bodily harm and attempted dangerous interference with rail traffic, the ministry said.

Germany: Husband-wife duo Mohammad and Israa beat Berlin ticket inspector until he went blind in one eye, called him ‘dirty n****r’ during attack

Asked what police already knew about the suspect, the government listed suspected prior offenses that had led to complaints or investigations: five thefts, one case of receiving stolen goods, one robbery, one insult, three threats, 11 assaults, 13 dangerous assaults, 11 narcotics violations, one rape allegation, one count of resisting officers, two property-damage cases and two fraud cases.

However, none of these arrests have resulted in convictions. The ministry stressed that police records “rest on suspicion” and “do not allow a conclusion on the correctness of the allegation.”

Regarding formal prior sentences, the government said the man’s Federal Central Register extract “shows solely sanctions under youth criminal law that are not entered in the certificate of good conduct.”

"Since the attack, he wakes up every night screaming."

An African migrant randomly attacked a 14-year-old German boy inside Freiburg’s central train station and tried to gouge out his eye.

The victim’s father, Roland H., also believes the attacker may have tried to carve a… pic.twitter.com/Go55W2g9KC

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) September 21, 2026

In other words, most of these offenses were either handled in juvenile court or were never formally tried in court due to the man’s psychological state. German youth-court measures often do not appear on the clearance certificate employers and agencies commonly request, meaning these criminal entries would not be available to potential employers.

Asked about citizenship, the ministry wrote that, “as far as known,” the suspect has Syrian nationality.

Notably, he has never been deported despite the trail of mayhem he has left behind him.

The post Germany: Despite Syrian’s long history of violent rampages, assaults, robbery, fraud, and rape, he has never been deported appeared first on Remix News.

Guy Katz, a German professor, is a leading figure in German politics on the subject of Israel and anti-Semitism. It is almost never disclosed in the widespread coverage and amplification he receives in German and international media that he is a former Mossad spy

German authorities have frozen €5.9 million ($6.5 million) in assets of an operator of a fast-growing intensive-care nursing service. She is now in custody over allegations that the company billed public health insurers for services that were never fully provided or were performed by unqualified staff, causing an estimated €11 million in damage.

Zeynep C., 39, a Turkish national who rose from supermarket work to run White Angels Intensive Care, was arrested Sept. 17 during coordinated raids involving more than 200 officers from police, customs and financial crime units. The case is making major headlines, also in part due to the luxury lifestyle she was living.

Her 44-year-old German husband was also detained. Both remain in pretrial custody.

Thirteen people ages 20 to 54 — of Turkish, Moroccan, Egyptian and German nationality, some with dual citizenship — are also under investigation.

Europe’s multicultural paradise: Europol reveals 400,000-strong organized crime network spanning 118 nationalities

The Wuppertal public prosecutor’s office, which specializes in health-care billing fraud, said investigations began in December 2025 after anonymous tips. Over eight months, detectives examined a network of companies centered in the Düsseldorf and Mettmann area that provided outpatient intensive care, including home ventilation and palliative services, to severely ill patients.

Prosecutors allege the group billed statutory health insurers for intensive-care hours that were not delivered or were incomplete, and that some care was given by staff lacking the required qualifications. 

Germany: Nationwide fraud scheme in naturalization language tests uncovered, Iraqi ringleader arrested

“They must keep qualified personnel available around the clock for seriously ill patients. Those are considerable wage costs that an employer also has to bear,” Chief Prosecutor Wolf-Tilman Baumert told WDR. Using unqualified workers or billing for nonexistent care made “huge profits” possible, he said.

Company records reviewed by investigators showed explosive growth. After roughly eight months of operation under its current name, the service posted about €1 million in profit by the end of 2023. Profit rose to nearly €3 million in 2024, with €11 million in revenue projected for 2025 — a figure that now matches the estimated total loss to insurers. The firm, previously called CAN-Vefa GmbH, marketed itself as offering “culturally sensitive care” with a multilingual team.

Taleb al-Abdulmohsen: Saudi doctor who killed 6 at a German Christmas market is one of many foreign doctors who should’ve never received a medical license

During the searches of 31 homes, offices and practices across North Rhine-Westphalia and one site in Hesse, officers found a care-dependent child in a Düsseldorf apartment in “very poor health.” The child was taken by ambulance to a hospital for inpatient treatment; child-protection officials were notified. Authorities said any proven neglect of patients would be an aggravating factor in the case.

Seized items included several luxury vehicles registered as company cars — a Maybach, Mercedes-AMG models and a purple Lamborghini — plus €51,000 in cash, jewelry valued at €265,000, gold worth about €10,000, designer handbags and watches totaling more than €150,000. Mortgages totaling €3.3 million were placed on properties. At the couple’s home in Mettmann, police also recovered a loaded firearm, marijuana and anabolic steroids. A doctor’s stamp, which investigators believe used to forge prescriptions, was among the documents seized.

Zeynep C. had cultivated a public image of success. Photos circulated in German media showed her wearing Chanel-branded clothing and accessories alongside images of the seized Lamborghini being towed. Prosecutors are examining whether the luxury spending was financed by the alleged fraud.

Surge of Indian students in Germany faces scrutiny over placement scams and private degree programs

The Düsseldorf-based nursing company itself has not been shut down and continues under a different manager, according to local reports. No charges have been filed yet, and the investigation is still underway. 

Billing fraud of this scale, if proven as commercial and organized, can carry prison terms of up to 10 years under German law. If prosecutors discover children and other patients were left untreated or poorly treated due to fictional or inadequate care services, the length of potential prison sentences could expand significantly.

The post Germany: Turkish national went from working in supermarket to buying purple Lamborghini and gold watches through €11 million healthcare fraud scheme appeared first on Remix News.

The EU’s delisting of two Russian oligarchs last week despite multiplying sabotage attacks in Europe was “regrettable”, while German-Russian talks at the UN ended in “ridicule”, EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas has said.

“It is regrettable that this [delisting] was the decision,” said Kallas on Monday (28 September) in Brussels at a defence ministers’ meeting.

“We are putting forward more listings, targeting their military-industrial complex, also targeting the finances of Russia, because we want this war to stop,” she added, referring to the 22nd round of Russia sanctions, due on 12 October.

Lithuania’s defence minister Robertas Kaunas also called the delistings a “step backwards”, adding: “This is not the time to reduce sanctions. We have to strengthen the pressure on Russia and [Russian president Vladimir] Putin’s environs”.

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

EU migrant return hubs became the subject of a summit held in Munich on Saturday (26 September) as interior ministers from member and associate states met the European Commission to advance projects aimed at offshoring rejected asylum seekers. 

But the meeting made little progress, partly because many of the attendees met in Copenhagen on 4 September, where leaders had announced an expected start to the policy by 2027. 

Instead, the main takeaways from Munich included rehashed commitments on improved emergency responses as well as broadened use of Frontex, the EU’s border control agency, and migration diplomacy with third states. 

The EU’s return regulation, approved in June, expects to fly rejected asylum seekers out of Europe and into migrant facilities to be hosted by third countries, for which Rwanda and Uganda are reportedly at the top of the queue.

Though the mass border crossing into Ceuta, the Spanish enclave in North Africa, was a subject of discussion, the 18 EU and non-EU interior ministers present in Munich did not include a representative from Spain, possibly due to Pedro Sánchez’s opposition to the return hubs policy. 

But the UK’s home secretary Shabana Mahmood was present, talking of the need for close cooperation within Europe on migration issues,” Germany’s interior minister and meeting host, Alexander Dobrindt, told reporters on Saturday.  

Despite Donrindt’s focus on “innovative solutions” for those with no right to stay in Europe but no way or returning, Berlin’s migration response would also be significantly dependent on expanded powers for Europe’s border agency, Frontex. 

“We are seeing that the Pact is working. The number of irregular arrivals is dropping across the EU while at the same time the numbers of returns to third countries are increasing. That said, we cannot become complacent,” Jim O’Callaghan, Irish interior minister, told the press before the meeting. 

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

Water levels in the Rhine River plummeted to record lows over the weekend, threatening transport on a key shipping corridor for energy and industrial commodities across central Europe.

Tens of thousands of autoworkers in Germany protested last week against the car giant’s drastic cuts – spanning job losses and plant closures – even as Volkswagen benefited from some €1.48bn in state subsidies to entice people to buy their brand of electric cars.

The figure, released to EUobserver via a parliamentary demand tabled by German Green MP Julian Joswig, revealed that the German state has doled out €10.1bn in environmental bonuses between 2020 to 2026 to lure people into purchasing electric cars.

As an individual named brand, Volkswagen received the most, followed by Tesla with €889m ahead of other brands like Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi, Renault, Hyundai, Opel, SEAT and Kia.

“When more than €10bn in public funding is involved, it must be possible to trace where the money goes and what economic impact it generates,” said Joswig, in a statement.

German domestic interest in electric cars has shown a steady increase over the years. Last month, over 30-percent of all new cars registered in Germany were electric. That is a new record, according to Germany’s Federal Motor Transport Authority.

Even so, the German car industry, including Volkswagen, are shedding workers amid plans to cut plants after being caught off guard by US tariffs and China, whose own industry is now pushing into the European market.

On Monday (21 September), Volkswagen was removed from the Euro Stoxx 50 index given its shrinking market valuation.

Volkswagen, which is a state-owned company, recently announced plans to repurpose its Osnabrück factory in north-west Germany in order to manufacture weapons for Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems.

The irony is not lost given that Volkswagen was founded by Hitler largely on the back of Jewish slave labour, which is now set to produce arms for an Israel accused of having itself committed a genocide.

“I haven’t seen that being discussed here. Certainly not in the media. People do discuss it, but it’s not anywhere out in the public debate,” said Holger Görg, a professor of International Economics at the University of Kiel.

The car company also announced plans to close its plants in Emden, Hanover, Zwickau and Neckarsulm amid discussions of massive layoffs, potentially affecting some 100,000 people as well as job losses among numerous suppliers.

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

First published in Deník N.

In Berlin, you can be whoever you want to be – as long as you can afford it. By some estimates, the city is short of 100,000 flats. Economist Alexander Kritikos of the German Institute for Economic Research explains how the housing crisis contributed to support for radical political parties.

Over the past 10 years, rent has risen 75 percent to €15.78 per square metre excluding energy and other services. Germany as a whole is short of around 1.4 million lower and middle-priced homes.

The housing crisis is one manifestation of wider discontent that is also reflected in support for political parties at opposite ends of the spectrum, from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) to the far-left Die Linke (The Left).

Find out:

• Why so few new homes have been built in Berlin.

• Will the Left’s plans to purchase homes from private owners work?

• What lies behind growing support for the AfD?

• How Germany can get back on track with digitisation.

Germany is one of Europe’s richest countries, but it suffers major housing shortages. How come?

The housing crisis is a problem in three or four large cities. Berlin is one of them, and it is a truly major issue here, especially after an influx of tens of thousands of people from within and outside the country.

What happened in 2003?

2003 was a turning point when Berlin became a city of start-ups. Before then, the people were unable to rent out their flats due to an oversupply.

When in the 1990s Berlin was restored as the capital, people expected that many would move here. But the calculations at the time overlooked one thing: the city [West Berlin] had been surrounded by a wall, and its residents could not move to the suburbs.

In the 10 to 15 years following the fall of the Berlin Wall, when rents were at their lowest, more people left the city than arrived. Developments were therefore exactly the opposite of what had been expected. The trend did not stop until 2003, when the last major wave of residents left.

Berlin’s mayor at the time began promoting the slogan that Berlin was “poor but sexy”.

The city began attracting start-ups. It had an excellent environment for their development and outstanding research institutions. From then until today, more people have been arriving in Berlin than leaving it.

It is therefore clear that, from a certain point onwards, we no longer had any additional flats or houses available to offer.

“When you expropriate something, no new homes are built. It does not solve the housing shortage; you merely shift it from one owner to another”

With so many people arriving, why were more homes not being built?

Building new homes became a bureaucratic nightmare. Obtaining all the permits and dealing with administrative matters took a great deal of time.

And construction became exceptionally expensive while politicians regulated rent levels. Many investors concluded that building homes was not worth their while. For them, costs were too high, bureaucracy too complex and income too low.

Doubts over Left’s proposed flat buy-backs

The Left plans to buy back 220,000 flats from corporate landlords. In 2021, 58 percent of Berliners voted in a referendum in favour of expropriation. Now, the Left wants to fulfil this mandate. What do you think?

When you expropriate something, no new homes are built. It does not solve the housing shortage; you merely shift it from one owner to another.

The Left also promise the number of flats will increase, but it will not. It cannot increase in this way.

Historically, Berlin’s housing stock was managed by public institutions, who offered lower rents. And we saw that those who benefited were people with good connections to those allocating the flats.

Whenever demand exceeds supply, other ways of allocating resources emerge, whether through personal connections, under-the-table payments or otherwise.

Germany has the highest number of foreign-born residents in the EU. Does immigration play a role in the housing crisis?

It does, insofar as migrants also come to Berlin. But we must really distinguish between refugees and highly educated people who come here to establish their own businesses. They too are immigrants. So I would not say that migration is the problem. Rather, more people are arriving in Berlin than leaving, and that creates excess demand for housing.

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

The HQ of the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) in Berlin, Germany. © Global Look Press / Michael Kuenne

RT | September 24, 2026

Germany’s opposition lawmakers have accused Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government of seeking to create a “secret police” by dramatically expanding the powers of the country’s intelligence agencies.

The accusations came during the first parliamentary debate on the reform on Thursday, with lawmakers from the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the Left and the Greens raising concerns over surveillance and fundamental rights. The government argues that the changes are needed to counter growing security threats.

Under a reform approved by the cabinet last month, the BND foreign intelligence agency and the BfV domestic security service would gain broader operational powers, allowing them to move beyond primarily gathering and analyzing information.

Among the proposed changes, the BND could sabotage foreign companies, penetrate foreign IT systems and disable weapons deemed a threat to Germany. The BfV, meanwhile, could secretly enter homes and access computers and mobile phones under certain circumstances.

German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said the reform would usher in a “new era” by turning the country’s intelligence services into “genuine intelligence agencies” capable of actively countering threats. He said Germany must bring its services to the level of its European partners.

AfD MP Gottfried Curio branded the proposed overhaul of the BfV “Stasi 2.0,” referring to East Germany’s notorious secret police, and called the reform a “coup against the rule of law.” The AfD, however, supports granting the BND greater operational powers.

The BfV has itself been locked in a legal battle with the AfD. In 2025, the agency designated Germany’s most popular party a “confirmed right-wing extremist” organization, but a Cologne court in February barred it from applying that classification while the case proceeds.

The ruling came months before the AfD scored major gains in regional elections. It won 43.8% in Saxony-Anhalt earlier this month and 38.3% in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania on Sunday.

Green MP Konstantin von Notz said granting the BfV such extensive powers would be a “grave mistake” and questioned whether parts of the reform would survive scrutiny by the Constitutional Court. He nevertheless backed giving the BND greater powers.

Left Party MP Clara Buenger went further, warning that the BfV could become a “new German secret police.”

“Fundamental rights are being trampled on here,” she said, arguing that the agency would gain powers traditionally reserved for police.

The debate comes as Merz’s government braces for growing AfD influence at the regional level. The Telegraph and Die Welt reported in July that Berlin was developing a “secret plan” to counter potential “obstructionism” by regional authorities, allowing the federal government to bypass them in a crisis.

The German government wants the intelligence reform to take effect at the beginning of 2027. It still requires approval from both the Bundestag and Bundesrat.