The Alternative for Germany (AfD) has not only risen to the country’s second position in national electoral preferences according to recent polls, but has now become Germany’s top recipient of large political donations, leaving both conservative and social democratic parties behind.
Founded in 2013 as a conservative and Eurosceptic party, the AfD has quickly become a dominant force in German politics. Often criticized by left-wing groups as “far-right”, the party gained popularity by opposing Germany’s subordination to the EU and arguing for a return to the German D-mark.
Over the years, the AfD has gradually moved towards a more in-depth focus on issues of immigration, Islam, national identity, and later also questioned narratives related to covid-19 and the totalitarian lockdown policy. They have expressed opposition to vaccine mandates, and have also expressed concerns about the WHO pandemic pact.
According to data published by the Bundestag (German Federal Parliament), the AfD received an individual donation of €265,000 in the first half of the year, the highest single transfer among all parliamentary parties. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the leading opposition party, came second with a donation of €216,000.
In Germany, contributions are the third largest source of income for political parties after membership fees and the share allocated based on the number of seats and votes in national, regional or local elections. Donations exceeding €50,000 must be immediately reported to the Bundestag, while donations above €10,000 must be recorded with full details of the donor.
We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.
Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…
Europe must enter “war mode” and mentally prepare for armed conflict with Russia. This is the demand from Swedish Defense Minister Pål Jonson in an interview with the German media network RND, where he also calls for tightened sanctions.
The statements come as the EU accelerates its military investments, and the defense minister’s words have attracted international attention, not least from Russian media.
— A change in mentality is needed – we must enter ‘war mode’ to resolutely deter the threat, defend and preserve peace. Russia constantly tests our unity and determination, Jonson declares.
He emphasizes that Europe must prepare “both mentally and militarily for the possibility of war”.
The Swedish defense minister also calls for tightened sanctions against Russia and believes that frozen Russian assets should be used to support Ukraine’s military.
— Only then will Putin understand that this war threatens his own power and cannot be won, he asserts.
The defense minister refers to Russia’s alleged military losses in Ukraine. Over the past year, according to Jonson, “more than 300,000 of the country’s soldiers have been killed or wounded” to capture “less than 0.5 percent of Ukraine’s territory”.
Arms deliveries from the US
Jonson also defends European arms purchases from the United States and argues that Europe “simply does not have or cannot yet produce” certain weapons systems.
— Ukraine needs these assets quickly. If Europe lacks them, it is logical to procure them from the US, he says.
The statements coincide with the European Commission presenting a plan last week to expand joint arms procurement to at least 40 percent by 2027.
Moscow has previously rejected European claims that Russia poses a threat to the EU and described the narrative as a political distraction from Europe’s domestic crises.
A jury in New York has found that French banking giant BNP Paribas, through its operations in Sudan, helped support Omar al-Bashir’s regime and is therefore liable for the abuses that took place under his rule.
Three Sudanese victims have been awarded a total of 20.75 million dollars in damages.
The eight-member jury sided on Friday with the three plaintiffs – two men and one woman, all originally from Sudan but now American citizens. They had testified about horrific events under al-Bashir’s rule, where they were subjected to torture, burns, stabbings and sexual abuse by Sudanese soldiers and pro-government militias.
— I have no relatives left, Entesar Osman Kasher told the court in Manhattan.
The trial focused on whether BNP Paribas’ financial services constituted a “natural and adequate cause” of the harm suffered by victims of ethnic cleansing and mass violence.
Provided credit guarantees to the regime
The French bank, which operated in Sudan from the late 1990s until 2009, provided credit guarantees that enabled Sudan to fulfill import and export commitments.
The plaintiffs argued that these guarantees allowed the regime to continue exporting cotton, oil and other commodities, which gave the country billions of dollars that helped finance the atrocities.
Bobby DiCello, who represented the plaintiffs, called the verdict “a victory for justice and accountability”.
— The jury recognized that financial institutions cannot turn a blind eye to the consequences of their actions, he said.
A spokesperson for BNP Paribas told news agency AFP that the verdict is “clearly wrong and there are very strong grounds to appeal the verdict”. The defense argued that the bank’s operations were legal in Europe and that there was no connection between the bank’s actions and what happened to the plaintiffs.
Previous penalty
BNP Paribas had in 2014 agreed to plead guilty and pay a penalty of 8.97 billion dollars for transferring billions of dollars for Sudanese, Iranian and Cuban entities that were subject to economic sanctions.
The US government recognized the Sudan conflict as genocide in 2004. The war claimed approximately 300,000 lives between 2002 and 2008 and displaced 2.5 million people, according to the UN.
Al-Bashir, who ruled Sudan for three decades, was deposed in 2019 and is wanted by the International Criminal Court on genocide charges.
Donald Trump has, according to multiple sources, urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to agree to Russia’s demands to end the war in Ukraine. A stormy meeting at the White House on Friday was reportedly marked by raised voices, heated arguments, and Trump’s repeated echoing of Putin’s positions.
During the meeting, Trump allegedly warned Zelensky that Putin had threatened to “destroy Ukraine” if the country does not accept the terms, reports Financial Times.
Sources with insight say the meeting between the parties devolved several times into “shouting matches”, where Donald Trump used profanities and threw frontline maps across the room.
Trump reportedly insisted that Zelensky must hand over the entire Donbass region to Moscow, and repeated arguments that Putin had made in a phone call the day before. At the same time, he later supported freezing the current frontlines, reflecting his shifting stance on the issue.
Zelensky and his delegation had hoped to convince Trump to deliver Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, but the US president refused.
If the reports are accurate, the meeting can be compared to the contentious meeting in February, where Trump and Vice President JD Vance criticized Zelensky for lack of gratitude toward the United States.
The meeting between Zelensky and Trump in February earlier this year ended in open quarreling. Facsimile: Fox4
Zelensky’s position unchanged
European officials report that Trump repeatedly echoed Putin’s arguments word for word on several occasions, even when they contradicted his own previous statements about Russia’s weaknesses.
One official said Trump called the conflict a “special operation, not even a war” and warned Zelenskyy that Ukraine risked destruction.
Trump also expressed that Russia’s economy “is doing well”, which contrasts with his previous public statements that Putin’s economy is near collapse.
Zelensky commented to journalists: —Trump wants a quick victory – an end to the war – and that would be a victory for all reasonable people. Putin, however, wants the total occupation of Ukraine.
After the meeting, Zelensky stated that he had made clear to Trump that Ukraine’s position remains unchanged. Trump told Fox News on Sunday that he was convinced the conflict could be ended, adding that Putin “going to take something, he’s won certain property”.
While peace negotiations between the parties are marked by disagreement and stubbornness, fighting continues with undiminished intensity (archive image June 2025). Photo: screenshot/Youtube/@CNN
Donbass in exchange for other regions
Putin has proposed in talks with Trump that Ukraine hand over all of Donbass in exchange for smaller areas in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. However, Zelenskyy stated that there is still no clarity about exactly what Russia is willing to give up in these regions.
Ukrainian officials warn that giving up the remaining Donbass would give Moscow territory that it only partially controls, since the war began over three years ago.
Oleksandr Merezhko, chairman of Ukraine’s foreign affairs committee, says: – To give the Donbas to Russia without a fight is unacceptable for Ukrainian society, and Putin knows that. It’s not about getting more territory for Russia; it’s about how to destroy us from within.
Trump’s repetition of Putin’s rhetoric dampened hopes among many European allies for increased support to Kiev, despite him previously expressing frustration over Putin’s unwillingness to negotiate directly with Zelensky.
Zelensky commented after returning home: – We have moved closer to a possible end to the war. That doesn’t mean it will definitely end, but President Trump has achieved a lot in the Middle East, and riding that wave he wants to end Russia’s war against Ukraine.
One of Britain’s highest-ranking military officers assesses that Ukraine will never be able to defeat Russia on the battlefield and should instead negotiate for peace.
In an interview with The Independent’s podcast World of Trouble, Field Marshal Lord David Richards argues that Ukraine simply does not have the capacity to drive Russian forces from its territory and should instead seek a negotiated solution.
Richards, who was promoted to the country’s most prestigious five-star military rank earlier this year and led NATO forces during the troop surge in Afghanistan, is critical of how Ukraine’s allies have managed their support.
— What we have done in the case of Ukraine is encourage Ukraine to fight, but not given them the means to win, says the former Chief of the Defence Staff.
When Richards is asked to reflect on Ukraine’s chances of success against Russia, he is clear.
— My view is that they would not win.
When the interviewer asks whether Ukraine could win even with the right resources, the answer is brief.
— No.
Pressed further on whether the right resources could make a difference, he repeated his answer and added:
— No, they haven’t got the manpower.
Not an existential issue for the West
Richards, who is the only British officer to have commanded large American combat forces since 1945, believes the prospects for Ukraine are bleak.
— Unless we were to go in with them – which we won’t do because Ukraine is not an existential issue for us. It clearly is for the Russians, by the way.
— We’ve decided because it’s not an existential issue, we will not go to war. We are, you can argue – and I absolutely accept it – in some sort of hybrid war. But that’s not the same as a shooting war in which our soldiers are dying in large numbers, Richards continues.
He emphasizes that despite sympathy for the Ukrainians and their achievements, he still believes the war is not in the West’s vital national interests.
— My instinct is that the best Ukraine can do, and you already see President Zelensky, who’s an inspirational leader … the best they can do is a sort of a score draw.
Zelensky met Trump
The statement comes after Volodymyr Zelensky flew to Washington DC to meet Donald Trump and try to convince him to give Ukraine Tomahawk cruise missiles.
But Zelensky’s plans to pressure Trump appear to have been undermined by Vladimir Putin, who spoke with the American president hours before the White House meeting with the Ukrainian leader.
At a packed press conference, Trump appeared hesitant to give away American weapons, while maintaining a friendly tone with Zelensky. The American president emphasized his own country’s need to maintain stockpiles.
Zelensky said very little, except to politely suggest that Ukraine could offer its drone technology in an exchange deal. Trump seemed open to the idea.
After the summit, Zelensky said that Trump had not said no to the idea of Tomahawk missiles – but not yes either.
Iraq war built on lies
In the extensive interview about his military life, the field marshal revealed that although his career has been successful, there have been occasions when he came into conflict with the establishment and often disagreed with his military and political superiors.
As a major general and deputy chief of the army under General Sir Mike Jackson, he says it was obvious to him that British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government was lying about its claims that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons in Iraq.
Tony Blair’s government lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to legitimize the invasion. Photo: World Economic Forum/CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Together with other senior officers, he questioned the legality of Britain’s decision to join American forces in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Before the British joined the invasion, Blair presented an intelligence document to parliament claiming that the Iraqi dictator was developing nuclear weapons.
“This stinks”
The document, which has since been mocked as “the dodgy dossier” for its unfounded claims, caused dismay among senior officers who had access to the actual intelligence information.
— “I and others encouraged the chief of defence staff to query whether this was legal and what was the basis of this intelligence, says Lord Richards.
— I do remember one officer – who I won’t name but was on the intelligence side – saying, ‘Don’t worry. We’ll find something to put’. Yeah, ‘don’t worry. We’ll find something about that. We’ll justify what we were doing’, he recounts.
— I went back to say to Mike Jackson, ‘This stinks’.
