The German government has announced plans to terminate the agreement governing the activities of the Russian House in Berlin and to close Russia’s Consulate General in Bonn by September 18. The German Foreign Office has cited security concerns as the reason for the decision.

The announcement follows the discovery of an unidentified drone carrying explosives near Leipzig Airport. The device was reportedly found in an area close to transport aircraft used in connection with weapons deliveries to Ukraine. Moscow has rejected the allegations, describing them as unsupported by evidence.

Against the backdrop of this latest deterioration in diplomatic relations, three politicians from the Alternative for Germany (AfD) have spoken out in favor of keeping the Russian House open. They argue that the institution should primarily be regarded as a venue for cultural exchange rather than as an arena for political confrontation.

Ulrich Singer, chairman of the AfD parliamentary group in the Bavarian State Parliament, criticized the approach taken by Chancellor Friedrich Merz. In Singer’s view, sanctions are placing an additional burden on the German economy. He also considers the proposed closure of both the Russian House and the consulate in Bonn to be based on allegations of suspected subversive activity that are being used as a pretext.

Singer stressed that for decades the Russian House has provided opportunities for people to learn about the Russian language, culture and history. Any potential violations of the law, he argued, should be investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted through the courts. Suspicions, Singer said, “cannot replace proceedings conducted under the rule of law,” while assessments made by foreign intelligence agencies “must not lead to political prejudgment.”

Precisely because relations between Germany and Russia are strained, Singer believes there should be more dialogue rather than less. In his assessment, dismantling cultural bridges would only deepen the breakdown in communication.

He also called for sanctions to be reviewed, arguing that they should not become an end in themselves. According to Singer, they impose costs on German companies and, when directed against individuals, must comply with the principles of legality, transparency and proportionality.

Singer additionally warned of possible reciprocal measures. Closing the Russian House could have consequences for German cultural institutions operating in Russia, particularly the Goethe-Institut. Commentators cited by klamm.de have noted that the two institutions are connected through a longstanding reciprocal arrangement.

Singer concluded that “the true strength of a state” does not lie in constant escalation but in its ability to prevent wars. In his words, peace is achieved not by closing doors, but by keeping them open.

Andreas Jurca, another AfD member of the Bavarian State Parliament, expressed a similar position. He argues that during a period of worsening relations between Berlin and Moscow, channels for cultural, social and humanitarian exchange are particularly important and should be preserved.

“If such places of encounter disappear, the distance between the two societies will continue to grow,” Jurca said.

He also maintained that allegations concerning possible intelligence activities should be based on evidence that can be verified and publicly scrutinized rather than solely on political assessments. New-facts.eu notes that Jurca’s statements, like those made by Sahra Wagenknecht, represent political assessments rather than the findings of official investigations.

AfD Bundestag member Rainer Rothfuß, who has previously organized so-called “peace trips” to Moscow, also criticized the planned measures. He described the proposed closure of the Russian House and the consulate in Bad Godesberg as “disastrous.”

Rothfuß claimed that “the government is carrying out an agenda dictated by globalists” and is taking steps that, in his view, “were avoided even during the Cold War.”

“Good and peaceful relations between Germany and Russia are in Germany’s interest,” Rothfuß said.

According to him, the AfD has defended this position for years. He also criticized mainstream media outlets, accusing them of contributing to the further “destruction” of German-Russian relations.

Klamm.de and new-facts.eu have also reported criticism voiced by Sahra Wagenknecht. She argues that Merz is intensifying tensions with Russia while failing to demonstrate the same determination in his approach toward Ukraine. In this context, she pointed to the arrests of Ukrainian citizens suspected of involvement in the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines.

“Merz is bringing us ever closer to a war with Russia,” Wagenknecht wrote on her blog.

The future of the Russian House and the Russian consulate in Bonn now rests with the German government and the diplomatic process. Singer, Jurca and Rothfuß are calling for a clear distinction between suspected violations of the law—which, they argue, should be investigated and dealt with through the courts—and cultural channels, which they believe should remain open.

The German government, meanwhile, has linked the planned closures to national-security concerns following the incident near Leipzig. Moscow continues to reject the allegations.

Dear Mark, it is always a pleasure to welcome you.

We meet today to discuss Russia's attack in Leipzig. The German government has identified Russia as behind an attempt to attack cargo planes at Leipzig/Halle Airport. Had this attack succeeded, this would have resulted in enormous damage and possibly even loss of life. So I want to be very clear about what this was. This was an attack using military-grade material, carried out by Russian operatives on EU soil. And we will not tolerate it. We stand in full solidarity with Germany. And If the intention was to make us think twice about supporting Ukraine, I can tell you, it has only strengthened my resolve. Intimidation will not work. And this is why I am meeting with NATO's Secretary-General today. We are united. Europe and NATO will not just maintain our pressure on Russia. We will increase it. And we will not stop. Not until Russia stops bombing and killing innocent children, men and women in Ukraine.

Leipzig marks a new escalation on European soil, directly attributed to Russia. But it is part of a broader pattern of increasingly dangerous incidents. Repeated incursions into our airspace. Drones that paralyse our airports. Interference with our critical infrastructure. Europeans are faced with a hard truth that this is the new normal. We have to step up. And that means being ready to respond to Russia's recklessness faster and better. We must treat our everyday infrastructure as frontline targets and protect it accordingly. And we will support any Member State - Russia targets. Europe already has Rapid Response Teams which can respond to these styles of attacks whether they occur inside or outside our Union. Our strength, our preparedness, our resolve, is our deterrence.

We also do this by using the power of our Single Market. Our sanctions have weakened Russia's economy. We can use more sanctions and have them ready to impose, as soon as such dangerous, life-threatening acts are attributed. Every loophole Russia exploits, is one we must close. In Ireland today, European foreign affairs ministers are discussing new listings. At the Commission, we are looking at ways to cut even deeper into Russia's war chest.

My second point today regards our support for Ukraine. Today I can confirm that we have received a new payment request. It is worth several billion euros and would cover Ukraine's air defences, including the highly advanced PAC-3 Patriot air defence systems. Member States are currently looking at Ukraine's request, but I can say that it is going in the right direction. At the same time, we in Europe are working on FREYA with Ukraine. This is a European project to build our own anti-ballistic missile defences. All of this is on top of the ‘90 billion euro support loan' for Ukraine that is already at work. Since June, we have issued 8.5 billion EUR for drones and missiles for Ukraine. And this money would also buy fighter jets from European industry.

Finally, my third point. We do all of this together with NATO. Mark and I have repeatedly stood side by side to express this solidarity, and we do so today to show that Europe is united. And that Europe must mobilise its defence surge even sooner. Air defences are critical. We need a faster, more integrated alert system across Europe. And then we must intercept the threats faster. This is why we have put forward an 800 billion euro defence investment plan. Including 150 billion euro through SAFE, so we can invest more, but together and therefore smarter.

Mark, last time we met was at the NATO summit in Türkiye where we discussed these topics. As you said, the EU and NATO reinforce each other. And today our message is very clear. We are in a new era of European security. And European investment in defence strengthens NATO and re-energises our industrial base. We will continue; we will prevail; and we will deter anyone who attacks our freedom and security.

As the European Commission considers its final response to the Fur Free Europe European Citizens’ Initiative, The Lancet Regional Health – Europe has published a commentary by leading zoonotic disease experts and academics warning that fur farming poses a preventable public health threat. The authors argue that if the Commission is serious about One Health – the principle that the health of people, animals and wider environment are interconnected – it must propose a ban on fur farming rather than welfare standards.

Lead author Dr Joanna Swabe, senior director of public affairs at Humane World for Animals Europe, says: “Fur farming is an unnecessary and preventable public health threat. The EU cannot claim to champion One Health while allowing a declining fur industry to continue cruelly breeding susceptible species, such as mink, foxes and raccoon dogs, in intensive conditions where dangerous viruses can spread, adapt and potentially spill over to people. Surveillance and spurious welfare tweaks will not remove that risk. The Commission must act decisively and ban fur farming.” 

Dr Neil Vora, director of Preventing Pandemics at the Source Coalition, adds: "Caging wild species, like mink, is dangerous to our health. These animals are like viral sponges under these awful conditions: They can contract respiratory viruses from us, incubate them, then pass them back to us in mutated form. It does not make sense to take wild species and confine them in small cages for their entire lives, only to be gassed or electrocuted, solely to produce fur for fashion. Aside from the animal abuse, the risk to our health is too great. It’s long past time to phase this industry out. The EU should ban fur farming, as many of its citizens want, and show the world what true prevention looks like."

The European Commission was due to respond to the Fur Free Europe ECI by the end of March 2026, but its decision has been delayed by apparent disagreement within the College (the EU’s executive leadership body) over whether to ban fur farming or introduce welfare standards. A document leaked to the media in March suggested the Commission was leaning towards standards. This came despite an unequivocal EFSA opinion by independent EU science agency, the European Food Safety Authority, that the most serious welfare problems for mink, foxes, raccoon dogs and chinchillas cannot be prevented or substantially mitigated in the cage systems used for fur farming.

The Lancet piece argues that the EU’s commitment to One Health is undermined by its hesitation to ban fur farming, despite clear zoonotic disease risks and strong public support for action. It highlights how fur farms create ideal conditions for pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2 and H5N1 to spread, adapt and potentially spill over to humans, with past outbreaks in the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland and Spain demonstrating the danger. The authors note that the fur industry is in steep economic decline, imposes wider public health and environmental costs, and cannot resolve its core welfare or disease risks through minimum standards. They conclude that an EU ban on fur farming would be a practical, preventive One Health measure and a clear example of upstream pandemic prevention.

• The Lancet commentary entitled If the EU is serious about One Health, it must ban fur farming was co-authored by Dr. Joanna Swabe (Humane World for Animals), Prof. dr. Chris Walzer (University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna/WCS), Dr. Benjamin Roche (MIVEGEC, Université Montpellier/ Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)), Prof. dr. Arnaud Fontanet (Institut Pasteur, Université Paris-Cité), Prof. dr. Thijs Kuiken (Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam), Dr. Manon Lounnas ((MIVEGEC, Université Montpellier), Prof. dr. Andrea S. Winkler (Technical University of Munich, Germany/University of Oslo), Prof. dr. Sarah Cleaveland (University of Glasgow), Prof. dr. Dirk U. Pfeiffer (Royal Veterinary College, London/ City University of Hong Kong),  Prof. dr. Latiffah Hassan (University of Missouri), Prof. dr. Raina K. Plowright (College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University), Dr. Neil M. Vora (Preventing Pandemics at the Source Coalition).
• The European Food Safety Authority published its scientific opinion on the Welfare of American mink, red and Arctic foxes, raccoon dog and chinchilla kept for fur production in 2025.

About Humane World for Animals

Together, we tackle the root causes of animal cruelty and suffering to create permanent change. With millions o supporters and work happening in over 50 countries, Humane World for Animals—formerly called Humane Society International—addresses the most deeply entrenched forms of animal cruelty and suffering. As the leading voice in the animal protection space, we work to end the cruelest practices, care for animals in crisis and build a stronger animal protection movement. Driving toward the greatest global impact, we aim to achieve the vision behind our name: a more humane world.
humaneworld.org

Great Wi-Fi, affordable rent and a laptop-friendly café have long been the checklist for the perfect digital nomad city. But they say little about what it is actually like to live there. Look beyond the usual rankings and a different picture begins to emerge. New research from Holafly finds that 32.2% of frequent and long-stay travellers have experienced burnout linked to their travel lifestyle. 32.3% have felt isolated from their usual social or emotional support network. And even some of the most ordinary parts of daily life — sleeping well, exercising regularly or eating healthily — become harder to maintain when home keeps changing.

Digital nomads are clear about what gets in the way. 33.7% point to unpredictable schedules or changing time zones as their main challenge, 18.8% to the cost of gyms, classes or healthy food, and 20.7% simply to not knowing what is available around them. That led Holafly to examine a question largely missing from traditional digital nomad rankings: which popular nomad destinations actually make it hardest to live well? Holafly analysed 25 established digital nomad hubs across eight wellbeing factors, including community, noise, green space, exercise, healthy food, daylight, cost of living and healthcare.

Using data from official public sources, the World Health Organization, Mercer and Google Maps, each city received a deficit score from 0 to 100. The resulting Holafly Plans Wellbeing Index 2026 reveals how differently some familiar nomad hotspots perform once the laptop closes. The research is part of Holafly's broader focus on the growing number of people living across borders for longer. Holafly Plans, its global eSIM subscription, is designed specifically for frequent travellers and digital nomads, giving them one plan they can use across destinations rather than starting again every time they move.

Lima, Hanoi and Cusco emerge as the three most challenging cities for digital nomad wellbeing in 2026. 1. Lima, Peru 2. Hanoi, Vietnam 3. Cusco, Peru 4. Bogotá, Colombia 5. Da Nang, Vietnam 6. Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 7. Cancún, Mexico 8. Medellín, Colombia 9. Tbilisi, Georgia 10. Buenos Aires, Argentina

Lima ranks as the toughest city for digital nomad wellbeing, with a deficit score of 85.3/100. The Peruvian capital records the lowest levels of daylight among all 25 destinations analysed, alongside high noise levels and limited green space. Hanoi follows at 82.7/100, ranking worst for noise and exercise access and tying for the weakest green space, while Cusco takes third place at 76.3/100, largely because it has the weakest social and community network in the study. The ranking also uncovers a broader pattern: six of the eight worst-performing cities — Lima, Hanoi, Cusco, Bogotá, Da Nang and Ho Chi Minh City — are classic budget-friendly nomad destinations.

It points to a trade-off rarely captured in traditional nomad rankings: a city can be cheap and easy to move to without necessarily being easy to live well in. About Holafly Holafly is the global leader in eSIMs for travellers, offering coverage in over 200 destinations. With a 4.7/5 rating on Trustpilot and more than 25 million eSIMs sold, it has become a preferred choice for international travellers. Its unlimited data and built-in backup data ensures total peace of mind anywhere in the world.