Dutch intelligence services say Russia has stepped up use of banned chemical weapons in Ukraine
The Netherlands' military intelligence and the security service, together with the German intelligence service, found that the use of prohibited chemical weapons by the Russian military had become 'standardized and commonplace' in Ukraine.
According to the findings, the Russian military uses chloropicrin and riot control agent CS against sheltering Ukrainian soldiers, who are then forced out into the open and shot.
Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans called for more sanctions against Moscow, and continued military support for Kyiv.
Brekelmans, who stayed on in a caretaker role after the Dutch government collapsed last month, said that he doesn't want to see the use of chemical weapons become normalized.
Lowering the threshold for use 'is not only dangerous for Ukraine, but also for the rest of Europe and the world,' he said in a statement.
Russia has signed up to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans the use of chloropicrin and CS as weapons. The convention's watchdog, The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, or OPCW, has found several incidents in Ukraine involving CS, but the group hasn't conducted a full investigation, which must be requested by the member states.
The executive committee for the OPCW is holding a regular meeting next week, where it's expected to discuss the conflict in Ukraine.
Russian authorities didn't immediately comment on the findings, but they have denied using chemical weapons in the past, instead alleging that Ukraine has used the banned substances.
According to Ukraine, Russia has carried out 9,000 chemical weapons attacks in the country since the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022.
In 2024, the U.S. State Department said that it had recorded the use of chloropicrin against Ukrainian troops.
___
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
32 minutes ago
- Reuters
EU to stockpile critical minerals amid geopolitical risks, FT says
July 5 (Reuters) - The European Union plans to stockpile critical minerals as a precaution against potential supply disruptions due to geopolitical tension, the Financial Times reported on Saturday, citing a draft document by the European Commission. "The EU faces an increasingly complex and deteriorating risk landscape marked by rising geopolitical tensions, including conflict, the mounting impacts of climate change, environmental degradation, and hybrid and cyber threats," the newspaper quoted the draft as saying. The document warns that the higher-risk environment was driven by "increased activity from hacktivists, cybercriminals and state-sponsored groups", the FT said. The European Commission did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. The draft document, due to be published next week and still subject to change, says there is "limited common understanding of which essential goods are needed for crisis preparedness against the backdrop of a rapidly evolving risk landscape", the newspaper reported. In March, the European Commission unveiled its EU Preparedness Union Strategy, urging member states to strengthen stockpiles of critical equipment and encouraging citizens to keep at least 72 hours' worth of essential supplies in case of emergencies. The strategy was designed to prepare the bloc for risks such as natural disasters, cyberattacks and geopolitical crises, including the possibility of armed aggression against EU countries.
Telegraph
40 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Inside the ugly relationship between Islamism and the Left
Barely an hour after Zarah Sultana announced that she was leaving Labour to lead a new Left-wing party with Jeremy Corbyn, the Muslim Engagement and Development (Mend) campaign group posted a statement on X wishing the pair 'every success in this bold new chapter'. Labour refused to engage with Mend after Sir Keir Starmer took over as leader, and cut the party's ties with groups accused of links to Islamism. In his official review of the Prevent anti-extremism programme in 2023, Sir William Shawcross described Mend as an 'Islamist organisation' and, before becoming Met Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley highlighted the group's alarmist opposition to British counter-extremism measures. Wishing @zarahsultana and @jeremycorbyn every success in this bold new chapter. At a time when so many feel politically voiceless, your continued commitment to justice, equality, and grassroots representation is inspiring. We look forward to seeing positive change flourish. — MEND Community (@mendcommunity) July 3, 2025 Sultana, however, might take a different view. Although there is no suggestion that she holds Islamist views, before becoming an MP she worked as Mend's parliamentary officer. She has also claimed that the phrase 'Islamist' is used to smear pro-Palestine activists as 'violent and extreme'. Like Mend, she has been deeply critical of Prevent, describing it as 'racist'. Like Sultana, Mend insists that Israel is carrying out a 'genocide' in Gaza – an issue that Sultana's statement says will be a focus of her new party. Sultana and Corbyn's venture (although Corbyn has yet to publicly confirm his ally's statement) appears to herald a new dawn in the decades-long relationship between the far-Left and Islamism, which has been flourishing amid the war in Gaza like never before. It is perhaps fitting that the announcement should come in the week after tens of thousands of festival-goers at Glastonbury joined in with a chant of 'death to the IDF' that would not have sounded out of place at a parade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, or a Hamas rally. Many may also have been among the crowd at Glastonbury eight years earlier, when Corbyn was welcomed on stage to a chant of 'Oh, Jeremy Corbyn'. The political alliance highlighted by Mend's support for Sultana and Corbyn's new party, and the seeping of Islamist narratives and slogans into progressive protest, are the culmination of a long marriage of convenience between Islamism and the hard-Left, based on a shared sense of grievance and cynical opportunism. The Left hopes to harness the fervour of anti-Western sentiment among radicalised Muslims, while Islamism benefits from the warm glow of the more acceptable face of progressives who exert influence over culture and politics. Rakib Ehsan, the British Muslim academic and author, says: 'The hard-Left and Islamism are tied by grievance politics and, in the darker circles of their intersection, anti-Semitism is rife – especially the classic tropes about global power, influence and control. That is shared by both sides, along with sympathies with foreign regimes which are hostile to so-called Western interests.' Broadly speaking, Islamism relates to groups espousing 'political Islam', by stressing that religion should determine how society is governed. These groups tend to have close links to, or show support for, far-Left organisations such as Palestine Action and Stop The War. 'Islamist organisations are gradualists,' says Lord Walney, the former Labour MP and adviser to the Government on political violence and disruption. 'They believe that, ultimately, we should live under Islamic rule, but they realise that that's not going to happen soon, so they will pick out building blocks – such as blasphemy laws – to keep moving the dial.' The effort to shape Britain's approach to the Gaza conflict appears to have become one of those building blocks. Now, the alliance is stronger than ever, with Islamists and the far-Left joining forces to influence government policy, with demands to end arms sales to Israel, and opposition to the Government's plans to ban the radical protest group, Palestine Action. If you wanted a family portrait of this idiosyncratic partnership, it would be hard to beat the sight of pink-haired protestors in the capital effectively cheering for the mullahs of the Iranian regime, claiming to be on the 'right side of history' – with clerics who execute homosexuals, torture opponents and systematically oppress women. Soviet origins Fifty years ago, much of the far-Left was inspired by the Soviet Union's Middle East propaganda, a pro-Islamist stance in response to US and European support for Israel. That influenced Left-wing groups in the UK – such as the Communist Party of Great Britain and the Revolutionary Communist Group – who identified Arabs as oppressed, while Israel, then as now, was seen as an illegitimate 'white' state. But the far-Left remains a politically insignificant force on its own. Part of the motivation for an alliance with Islamism is to harness the power of others for their own ends – which, of course, works both ways. This is neatly illustrated in a 1994 article by Chris Harman of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) for International Socialism, ' The Prophet and the Proletariat ', which advocated for a pragmatic working relationship between Islamists and revolutionary socialists. Harman is open about the areas of opposition between the two groups – over the role of women, for example – but concludes: 'On some issues we will find ourselves on the same side as the Islamists against imperialism and the state… It should be true in countries like France or Britain... Where the Islamists are in opposition, our rule should be, 'with the Islamists sometimes, with the state never'.' In Britain, where Islamism only speaks for a fraction of the country's Muslims, the Labour party remained a natural home for many Muslim voters up to Tony Blair's premiership. 'To put it crudely, community leaders were able to 'deliver' votes for Labour from within those communities in certain areas such as Birmingham or Bradford,' says Timothy Peace, a senior lecturer in politics and international relations at the University of Glasgow. 'From the 1980s, Muslims themselves began to enter local councils, but the closeness with Labour continued up to the late 1990s.' This began to break down thanks to the wars in Iraq (2003-2011) and Afghanistan (2001-2021). The establishment of the Stop The War Coalition (STWC) in 2001 was a milestone which provided Corbyn and other prominent Leftists with a forum to connect with groups such as the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB). Last year, the then Communities Secretary, Michael Gove, alleged in Parliament that the MAB, together with Mend and Cage, which campaigns against counter-terror measures, 'give rise to concern for their Islamist orientation and views'. All three groups rejected the label, with Mend's chief executive Azhar Qayum saying his organisation was 'not at all' extremist, Cage pledging to 'explore all avenues, including legal' to challenge the 'government's deep dive into authoritarianism', and the MAB accusing Gove of a 'blatant effort to stifle dissenting voices'. Britain's action in Iraq and elsewhere gave overtly Islamist groups an opportunity to tap into the concept of the 'Ummah' – the worldwide Islamic community. Shawcross's review warned that key Islamist narratives included, 'commanding that [their interpretation of] the Islamic faith is placed at the centre of an individual's identity, and must govern all social and political decision-making'. At the same time, a definition of Islamophobia proposed by some MPs and backed by bodies such as Mend and the MAB would prohibit anyone from 'accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the 'Ummah'… than to the interests of their own nations', raising concerns about potential limits on freedom of speech. 'The MAB were tied to political Islam and found inspiration from the Muslim Brotherhood, a powerful organisation in Arab countries,' says Peace. 'The MAB were one of the key organisations in Stop the War, even though they were not very big at the time it began. The driving force were the Socialist Workers Party, and they managed to mobilise large numbers of Muslim protesters, and that overruled any ideological divisions between the two groups.' The MAB has said it is 'a British organisation operating entirely within the British Isles, with no presence elsewhere. It is not an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood nor a member'. Respect Party A 2004 poll revealed Labour's support among Muslim voters had halved from its high watermark of around 80 per cent. The Lib Dems specifically targeted Muslim voters with an anti-war agenda at the general election a year later, which paid off most notably in Rochdale. Labour's Lorna Fitzsimons was unseated amid claims of anti-Semitism in campaign leaflets produced by a group called the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK, which advocated for the Lib Dems, and later apologised for the pamphlets. More significant was George Galloway's victory in Bethnal Green and Bow in east London over Labour's Oona King in 2005. Galloway, expelled from Labour in 2003 and a long-standing anti-Zionist, assumed a leadership role in the nascent Respect Party, described in The Observer as an, 'alliance... between the Trotskyist far-Left and the Islamic far-Right'. In 2010, the Channel 4 series Dispatches alleged that the Islamic Forum of Europe, which sought to change 'the very infrastructure of society... from ignorance to Islam', had been campaigning for Respect. Galloway described the documentary as 'a dirty little programme'. 'Even though far-Left figures were involved, Muslim voters were driving Respect because the Left have never been able to mobilise large numbers of voters alone,' says Peace. In the years between 2005 and 2023, the links between the Left and Islamism were largely built on an antipathy for counter-terrorism measures such as Prevent, which it was claimed put unfair emphasis on the role of Muslims in extremism, thus contributing to Islamophobia. In his 2021 report for the Policy Exchange think tank, Islamism And The Left, Britain's former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sir John Jenkins, wrote: 'Following the introduction of legislation by David Cameron's Government that put Prevent on a statutory footing, the Islamist-aligned campaign groups Cage and Mend, and the Stand Up To Racism network, allegedly linked to the Socialist Workers Party, formed a particularly close alliance. 'Throughout 2016 and 2017, individuals representing Mend spoke at Stand Up To Racism events across the country. Some of these events were attended by prominent Labour figures such as... Jeremy Corbyn.' Corbyn, now 76, is in many ways, along with Galloway, the great continuity figure in the relationship between the Left and Muslim political activism, stretching back through his campaigning over 50 years. Gaza war Within eight hours of the attack by Hamas on Oct 7 2023, the Met Police received its first request for a national demonstration against Israel. That first march took place on Oct 14, and carried an 'end apartheid' message, supported by the SWP, the Friends of Al-Aqsa (FOA) and the MAB. Corbyn addressed the rally, saying, 'You must condemn what is happening now in Gaza by the Israeli army.' Although Islamism only speaks for a minority of Muslims, the Gaza war has confirmed that support for Palestine (and animosity to Israel) is widespread within Britain's Muslim communities. Central to the pro-Palestinian protests ever since October 2023 have been the SWP working alongside, among others, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), the Left-wing group run by Ben Jamal, the son of a Palestinian Anglican vicar, and the MAB. The latest Stop The War posters display the SWP logo alongside those of the PSC, MAB, Mend and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, among others. 'Palestine does rank differently in terms of its importance to Muslims,' says Ehsan. 'Some might think, 'Why is this MP talking about Gaza so much?', but you'll find that they are representing the views of their Muslim constituents.' Galloway was re-elected to Parliament in the Rochdale by-election of 2024, having stood for the Workers Party of Britain in opposition to Israel. Labour withdrew support for its own candidate Azhar Ali, who apologised following reports that he claimed Israel had 'allowed' the Hamas attack, leaving Galloway to secure 40 per cent of the vote and proclaim: 'Keir Starmer, this is for Gaza.' Ehsan says that 'when it comes to Israel and Palestine, many British Muslims are emotionally invested. In their eyes, this is their brothers and sisters suffering at the hands of a Jewish-supremacist regime. They also feel they live in a country that doesn't recognise Palestine – there is a sense of betrayal.' 2024 elections The moment the Green councillor Mothin Ali chanted 'Allahu Akbar!' in his victory rally in Leeds last May signalled something had changed in British politics. Ali later apologised for past comments on Israel, which included posting on Oct 7 that 'White supremacist European settler colonialism must end.' But the preponderance of Gaza as a central issue in areas with large numbers of Muslim voters was evident in both the general and local elections. Leane Mohamad almost unseated Wes Streeting by campaigning on Gaza in the Health Secretary's Ilford North constituency in 2024, losing by only 528 votes, and claiming more than 32 per cent of the vote from a standing start. This pattern was replicated across the country at the general election, and though Mohamad fell just short, four other independent candidates were able to defeat Labour opponents in areas with significant Muslim populations. Several more pushed prominent Labour figures – including Jess Phillips in Birmingham Yardley – to within an inch of defeat. Shockat Adam, Adnan Hussain, Iqbal Mohamed and Ayoub Khan then joined Corbyn (who else?) to form a new 'Independent Alliance' of MPs. The logo of this faction features green, white and black arrows on a red base, conveying the colours of the Palestinian flag. There is no suggestion that any of these MPs are Islamists. What their election does show is that many Muslims are prepared to vote en masse for candidates on the single issue of Gaza. That in itself is a noteworthy, novel development in British politics. 'Pro-Palestine candidates now know they can win without a mainstream party,' says Ehsan. 'That is the future. We are now in a totally different political environment.' Anti-Zionist 'takeover' of the Greens Last month, Ali shared a post supporting Palestine Action that altered the words to William Blake's poem, Jerusalem. It ended with the line: 'Till we have built Jerusalem in Palestine's green and pleasant land'. The words, turned into the famous hymn of England, had been rewritten in support of the group alleged to have broken into RAF Brize Norton base and damaged Typhoon fighter jets. Ali rose to further prominence last summer when he was filmed advocating for the protection of Muslims during the riots in the aftermath of the Southport murders. Now he is standing to become the Green Party's deputy leader. His success highlights how the Greens are attracting both far-Left figures and some Muslim politicians who, while not linked to Islamism, have espoused extreme views. It will also become a test case of whether that partnership can last. During the election, the party endorsed half a dozen candidates who allegedly shared 'anti-Semitic' slurs, conspiracy theories or offensive comments online. It went on to enjoy its best-ever general election results, winning nearly two million votes, including four seats in the Commons. Muslim support was crucial to the victory in Bristol Central, where there is a large Somali community. 'The Greens aren't just ripe for takeover – they have been taken over,' says Lord Walney. Corbyn's former advisor Matt Zarb-Cousin has recently joined. 'Some of the ant-Zionist rhetoric in Green activism is absolutely toxic,' adds Lord Walney. 'I don't think they have any interest in tackling that because they want to be an influential voice and capture that alternative Left, and to be in that space you need to be vehemently anti-Israel – that reflects the Islamist point of view as well.' A Green Party spokesperson declined to comment on Ali or the findings of any investigation into his conduct, but told The Telegraph: 'People join because they are passionate about human rights, ending systemic racism, and stopping climate change. In joining, members also agree to abide by our Code of Conduct.' Another test case when it comes to the partnership between some Muslims and the far-Left over Gaza, will be the recent takeover of Tribune, the Left-wing publication for which George Orwell used to be a columnist, by the founder of the Islam Channel, which repeatedly accuses Israel of a genocide in Gaza, and was fined £40,000 by Ofcom over 'serious and repeated breaches' of broadcasting rules which 'amounted to hate speech against Jewish people'. Former Tribune editor Paul Anderson said it was 'one of the weirdest things to have happened in the history of British media. The link probably comes from the Jeremy Corbyn factor, that Islamic hard-Left alliance.' Taking an ugly turn Beyond Gaza, Islamist groups and the far-Left have come together to support a new definition of Islamophobia, which has been rejected by previous governments as being too vulnerable to influence from extremists. Critics believe the proposed definition, which is also supported by many moderate Muslims, is so expansive that it could threaten free speech, act as a de facto blasphemy law, and stifle legitimate criticism of Islam as a religion. To Lord Walney, the convergence over the definition speaks to a recurring theme of the far-Left's alliance with Islamists. The relationship gives figures such as Corbyn cover for some distinctly unprogressive views. 'The hard-Left's strange attraction to Islamism reflects their tolerance for authoritarianism,' says Lord Walney. 'British politics is potentially taking a really ugly turn.'
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘The vehicle suddenly accelerated with our baby in it': the terrifying truth about why Tesla's cars keep crashing
It was a Monday afternoon in June 2023 when Rita Meier, 45, joined us for a video call. Meier told us about the last time she said goodbye to her husband, Stefan, five years earlier. He had been leaving their home near Lake Constance, Germany, heading for a trade fair in Milan. Meier recalled how he hesitated between taking his Tesla Model S or her BMW. He had never driven the Tesla that far before. He checked the route for charging stations along the way and ultimately decided to try it. Rita had a bad feeling. She stayed home with their three children, the youngest less than a year old. At 3.18pm on 10 May 2018, Stefan Meier lost control of his Model S on the A2 highway near the Monte Ceneri tunnel. Travelling at about 100kmh (62mph), he ploughed through several warning markers and traffic signs before crashing into a slanted guardrail. 'The collision with the guardrail launches the vehicle into the air, where it flips several times before landing,' investigators would write later. The car came to rest more than 70 metres away, on the opposite side of the road, leaving a trail of wreckage. According to witnesses, the Model S burst into flames while still airborne. Several passersby tried to open the doors and rescue the driver, but they couldn't unlock the car. When they heard explosions and saw flames through the windows, they retreated. Even the firefighters, who arrived 20 minutes later, could do nothing but watch the Tesla burn. At that moment, Rita Meier was unaware of the crash. She tried calling her husband, but he didn't pick up. When he still hadn't returned her call hours later – highly unusual for this devoted father – she attempted to track his car using Tesla's app. It no longer worked. By the time police officers rang her doorbell late that night, Meier was already bracing for the worst. The crash made headlines the next morning as one of the first fatal Tesla accidents in Europe. Tesla released a statement to the press saying the company was 'deeply saddened' by the incident, adding, 'We are working to gather all the facts in this case and are fully cooperating with local authorities.' To this day, Meier still doesn't know why her husband died. She has kept everything the police gave her after their inconclusive investigation. The charred wreck of the Model S sits in a garage Meier rents specifically for that purpose. The scorched phone – which she had forensically analysed at her own expense, to no avail – sits in a drawer at home. Maybe someday all this will be needed again, she says. She hasn't given up hope of uncovering the truth. Rita Meier was one of many people who reached out to us after we began reporting on the Tesla Files – a cache of 23,000 leaked documents and 100 gigabytes of confidential data shared by an anonymous whistleblower. The first report we published looked at problems with Tesla's autopilot system, which allows the cars to temporarily drive on their own, taking over steering, braking and acceleration. Though touted by the company as 'Full Self-Driving' (FSD), it is designed to assist, not replace, the driver, who should keep their eyes on the road and be ready to intervene at any time. Autonomous driving is the core promise around which Elon Musk has built his company. Tesla has never delivered a truly self-driving vehicle, yet the richest person in the world keeps repeating the claim that his cars will soon drive entirely without human help. Is Tesla's autopilot really as advanced as he says? The Tesla Files suggest otherwise. They contain more than 2,400 customer complaints about unintended acceleration and more than 1,500 braking issues – 139 involving emergency braking without cause, and 383 phantom braking events triggered by false collision warnings. More than 1,000 crashes are documented. A separate spreadsheet on driver-assistance incidents where customers raised safety concerns lists more than 3,000 entries. The oldest date from 2015, the most recent from March 2022. In that time, Tesla delivered roughly 2.6m vehicles with autopilot software. Most incidents occurred in the US, but there have also been complaints from Europe and Asia. Customers described their cars suddenly accelerating or braking hard. Some escaped with a scare; others ended up in ditches, crashing into walls or colliding with oncoming vehicles. 'After dropping my son off in his school parking lot, as I go to make a right-hand exit it lurches forward suddenly,' one complaint read. Another said, 'My autopilot failed/malfunctioned this morning (car didn't brake) and I almost rear-ended somebody at 65mph.' A third reported, 'Today, while my wife was driving with our baby in the car, it suddenly accelerated out of nowhere.' Braking for no reason caused just as much distress. 'Our car just stopped on the highway. That was terrifying,' a Tesla driver wrote. Another complained, 'Frequent phantom braking on two-lane highways. Makes the autopilot almost unusable.' Some report their car 'jumped lanes unexpectedly', causing them to hit a concrete barrier, or veered into oncoming traffic. Musk has given the world many reasons to criticise him since he teamed up with Donald Trump. Many people do – mostly by boycotting his products. But while it is one thing to disagree with the political views of a business leader, it is another to be mortally afraid of his products. In the Tesla Files, we found thousands of examples of why such fear may be justified. We set out to match some of these incidents of autopilot errors with customers' names. Like hundreds of other Tesla customers, Rita Meier entered the vehicle identification number of her husband's Model S into the response form we published on the website of the German business newspaper Handelsblatt, for which we carried out our investigation. She quickly discovered that the Tesla Files contained data related to the car. In her first email to us, she wrote, 'You can probably imagine what it felt like to read that.' There isn't much information – just an Excel spreadsheet titled 'Incident Review'. A Tesla employee noted that the mileage counter on Stefan Meier's car stood at 4,765 miles at the time of the crash. The entry was catalogued just one day after the fatal accident. In the comment field was written, 'Vehicle involved in an accident.' The cause of the crash remains unknown to this day. In Tesla's internal system, a company employee had marked the case as 'resolved', but for five years, Rita Meier had been searching for answers. After Stefan's death, she took over the family business – a timber company with 200 employees based in Tettnang, Baden-Württemberg. As journalists, we are used to tough interviews, but this one was different. We had to strike a careful balance – between empathy and the persistent questioning good reporting demands. 'Why are you convinced the Tesla was responsible for your husband's death?' we asked her. 'Isn't it possible he was distracted – maybe looking at his phone?' No one knows for sure. But Meier was well aware that Musk has previously claimed Tesla 'releases critical crash data affecting public safety immediately and always will'; that he has bragged many times about how its superior handling of data sets the company apart from its competitors. In the case of her husband, why was she expected to believe there was no data? Meier's account was structured and precise. Only once did the toll become visible – when she described how her husband's body burned in full view of the firefighters. Her eyes filled with tears and her voice cracked. She apologised, turning away. After she collected herself, she told us she has nothing left to gain – but also nothing to lose. That was why she had reached out to us. We promised to look into the case. Rita Meier wasn't the only widow to approach us. Disappointed customers, current and former employees, analysts and lawyers were sharing links to our reporting. Many of them contacted us. More than once, someone wrote that it was about time someone stood up to Tesla – and to Elon Musk. Meier, too, shared our articles and the callout form with others in her network – including people who, like her, lost loved ones in Tesla crashes. One of them was Anke Schuster. Like Meier, she had lost her husband in a Tesla crash that defies explanation and had spent years chasing answers. And, like Meier, she had found her husband's Model X listed in the Tesla Files. Once again, the incident was marked as resolved – with no indication of what that actually meant. 'My husband died in an unexplained and inexplicable accident,' Schuster wrote in her first email. Her dealings with police, prosecutors and insurance companies, she said, had been 'hell'. No one seemed to understand how a Tesla works. 'I lost my husband. His four daughters lost their father. And no one ever cared.' Her husband, Oliver, was a tech enthusiast, fascinated by Musk. A hotelier by trade, he owned no fewer than four Teslas. He loved the cars. She hated them – especially the autopilot. The way the software seemed to make decisions on its own never sat right with her. Now, she felt as if her instincts had been confirmed in the worst way. Oliver Schuster was returning from a business meeting on 13 April 2021 when his black Model X veered off highway B194 between Loitz and Schönbeck in north-east Germany. It was 12.50pm when the car left the road and crashed into a tree. Schuster started to worry when her husband missed a scheduled bank appointment. She tried to track the vehicle but found no way to locate it. Even calling Tesla led nowhere. That evening, the police broke the news: after the crash her husband's car had burst into flames. He had burned to death – with the fire brigade watching helplessly. The crashes that killed Meier's and Schuster's husbands were almost three years apart but the parallels were chilling. We examined accident reports, eyewitness accounts, crash-site photos and correspondence with Tesla. In both cases, investigators had requested vehicle data from Tesla, and the company hadn't provided it. In Meier's case, Tesla staff claimed no data was available. In Schuster's, they said there was no relevant data. Over the next two years, we spoke with crash victims, grieving families and experts around the world. What we uncovered was an ominous black box – a system designed not only to collect and control every byte of customer data, but to safeguard Musk's vision of autonomous driving. Critical information was sealed off from public scrutiny. Elon Musk is a perfectionist with a tendency towards micromanagement. At Tesla, his whims seem to override every argument – even in matters of life and death. During our reporting, we came across the issue of door handles. On Teslas, they retract into the doors while the cars are being driven. The system depends on battery power. If an airbag deploys, the doors are supposed to unlock automatically and the handles extend – at least, that's what the Model S manual says. The idea for the sleek, futuristic design stems from Musk himself. He insisted on retractable handles, despite repeated warnings from engineers. Since 2018, they have been linked to at least four fatal accidents in Europe and the US, in which five people died. In February 2024, we reported on a particularly tragic case: a fatal crash on a country road near Dobbrikow, in Brandenburg, Germany. Two 18-year-olds were killed when the Tesla they were in slammed into a tree and caught fire. First responders couldn't open the doors because the handles were retracted. The teenagers burned to death in the back seat. A court-appointed expert from Dekra, one of Germany's leading testing authorities, later concluded that, given the retracted handles, the incident 'qualifies as a malfunction'. According to the report, 'the failure of the rear door handles to extend automatically must be considered a decisive factor' in the deaths. Had the system worked as intended, 'it is assumed that rescuers might have been able to extract the two backseat passengers before the fire developed further'. Without what the report calls a 'failure of this safety function', the teens might have survived. Our investigation made waves. The Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt, Germany's federal motor transport authority, got involved and announced plans to coordinate with other regulatory bodies to revise international safety standards. Germany's largest automobile club, ADAC, issued a public recommendation that Tesla drivers should carry emergency window hammers. In a statement, ADAC warned that retractable door handles could seriously hinder rescue efforts. Even trained emergency responders, it said, may struggle to reach trapped passengers. Tesla shows no intention of changing the design. That's Musk. He prefers the sleek look of Teslas without handles, so he accepts the risk to his customers. His thinking, it seems, goes something like this: at some point, the engineers will figure out a technical fix. The same logic applies to his grander vision of autonomous driving: because Musk wants to be first, he lets customers test his unfinished Autopilot system on public roads. It's a principle borrowed from the software world, where releasing apps in beta has long been standard practice. The more users, the more feedback and, over time – often years – something stable emerges. Revenue and market share arrive much earlier. The motto: if you wait, you lose. Musk has taken that mindset to the road. The world is his lab. Everyone else is part of the experiment. By the end of 2023, we knew a lot about how Musk's cars worked – but the way they handle data still felt like a black box. How is that data stored? At what moment does the onboard computer send it to Tesla's servers? We talked to independent experts at the Technical University Berlin. Three PhD candidates – Christian Werling, Niclas Kühnapfel and Hans Niklas Jacob – made headlines for hacking Tesla's autopilot hardware. A brief voltage drop on a circuit board turned out to be just enough to trick the system into opening up. The security researchers uncovered what they called 'Elon Mode' – a hidden setting in which the car drives fully autonomously, without requiring the driver to keep his hands on the wheel. They also managed to recover deleted data, including video footage recorded by a Tesla driver. And they traced exactly what data Tesla sends to its servers – and what it doesn't. The hackers explained that Tesla stores data in three places. First, on a memory card inside the onboard computer – essentially a running log of the vehicle's digital brain. Second, on the event data recorder – a black box that captures a few seconds before and after a crash. And third, on Tesla's servers, assuming the vehicle uploads them. The researchers told us they had found an internal database embedded in the system – one built around so-called trigger events. If, for example, the airbag deploys or the car hits an obstacle, the system is designed to save a defined set of data to the black box – and transmit it to Tesla's servers. Unless the vehicles were in a complete network dead zone, in both the Meier and Schuster cases, the cars should have recorded and transmitted that data. Who in the company actually works with that data? We examined testimony from Tesla employees in court cases related to fatal crashes. They described how their departments operate. We cross-referenced their statements with entries in the Tesla Files. A pattern took shape: one team screens all crashes at a high level, forwarding them to specialists – some focused on autopilot, others on vehicle dynamics or road grip. There's also a group that steps in whenever authorities request crash data. Sign up to Inside Saturday The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend. after newsletter promotion We compiled a list of employees relevant to our reporting. Some we tried to reach by email or phone. For others, we showed up at their homes. If they weren't there, we left handwritten notes. No one wanted to talk. We searched for other crashes. One involved Hans von Ohain, a 33-year-old Tesla employee from Evergreen, Colorado. On 16 May 2022, he crashed into a tree on his way home from a golf outing and the car burst into flames. Von Ohain died at the scene. His passenger survived and told police that von Ohain, who had been drinking, had activated Full Self-Driving. Tesla, however, said it couldn't confirm whether the system was engaged – because no vehicle data was transmitted for the incident. Then, in February 2024, Musk himself stepped in. The Tesla CEO claimed von Ohain had never downloaded the latest version of the software – so it couldn't have caused the crash. Friends of von Ohain, however, told US media he had shown them the system. His passenger that day, who barely escaped with his life, told reporters that hours earlier the car had already driven erratically by itself. 'The first time it happened, I was like, 'Is that normal?'' he recalled asking von Ohain. 'And he was like, 'Yeah, that happens every now and then.'' His account was bolstered by von Ohain's widow, who explained to the media how overjoyed her husband had been at working for Tesla. Reportedly, von Ohain received the Full Self-Driving system as a perk. His widow explained how he would use the system almost every time he got behind the wheel: 'It was jerky, but we were like, that comes with the territory of new technology. We knew the technology had to learn, and we were willing to be part of that.' The Colorado State Patrol investigated but closed the case without blaming Tesla. It reported that no usable data was recovered. For a company that markets its cars as computers on wheels, Tesla's claim that it had no data available in all these cases is surprising. Musk has long described Tesla vehicles as part of a collective neural network – machines that continuously learn from one another. Think of the Borg aliens from the Star Trek franchise. Musk envisions his cars, like the Borg, as a collective – operating as a hive mind, each vehicle linked to a unified consciousness. When a journalist asked him in October 2015 what made Tesla's driver-assistance system different, he replied, 'The whole Tesla fleet operates as a network. When one car learns something, they all learn it. That is beyond what other car companies are doing.' Every Tesla driver, he explained, becomes a kind of 'expert trainer for how the autopilot should work'. According to Musk, the eight cameras in every Tesla transmit more than 160bn video frames a day to the company's servers. In its owner's manual, Tesla states that its cars may collect even more: 'analytics, road segment, diagnostic and vehicle usage data', all sent to headquarters to improve product quality and features such as autopilot. The company claims it learns 'from the experience of billions of miles that Tesla vehicles have driven'. It is a powerful promise: a fleet of millions of cars, constantly feeding raw information into a gargantuan processing centre. Billions – trillions – of data points, all in service of one goal: making cars drive better and keeping drivers safe. At the start of this year, Musk got a chance to show the world what he meant. On 1 January 2025, at 8.39am, a Tesla Cybertruck exploded outside the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas. The man behind the incident – US special forces veteran Matthew Livelsberger – had rented the vehicle, packed it with fireworks, gas canisters and grenades, and parked it in front of the building. Just before the explosion, he shot himself in the head with a .50 calibre Desert Eagle pistol. 'This was not a terrorist attack, it was a wakeup call. Americans only pay attention to spectacles and violence,' Livelsberger wrote in a letter later found by authorities. 'What better way to get my point across than a stunt with fireworks and explosives.' The soldier miscalculated. Seven bystanders suffered minor injuries. The Cybertruck was destroyed, but not even the windows of the hotel shattered. Instead, with his final act, Livelsberger revealed something else entirely: just how far the arm of Tesla's data machinery can reach. 'The whole Tesla senior team is investigating this matter right now,' Musk wrote on X just hours after the blast. 'Will post more information as soon as we learn anything. We've never seen anything like this.' Later that day, Musk posted again. Tesla had already analysed all relevant data – and was ready to offer conclusions. 'We have now confirmed that the explosion was caused by very large fireworks and/or a bomb carried in the bed of the rented Cybertruck and is unrelated to the vehicle itself,' he wrote. 'All vehicle telemetry was positive at the time of the explosion.' Suddenly, Musk wasn't just a CEO; he was an investigator. He instructed Tesla technicians to remotely unlock the scorched vehicle. He handed over internal footage captured up to the moment of Tesla CEO had turned a suicide attack into a showcase of his superior technology. Yet there were critics even in the moment of glory. 'It reveals the kind of sweeping surveillance going on,' warned David Choffnes, executive director of the Cybersecurity and Privacy Institute at Northeastern University in Boston, when contacted by a reporter. 'When something bad happens, it's helpful, but it's a double-edged sword. Companies that collect this data can abuse it.' There are other examples of what Tesla's data collection makes possible. We found the case of David and Sheila Brown, who died in August 2020 when their Model 3 ran a red light at 114mph in Saratoga, California. Investigators managed to reconstruct every detail, thanks to Tesla's vehicle data. It shows exactly when the Browns opened a door, unfastened a seatbelt, and how hard the driver pressed the accelerator – down to the millisecond, right up to the moment of impact. Over time, we found more cases, more detailed accident reports. The data definitely is there – until it isn't. In many crashes when Teslas inexplicably veered off the road or hit stationary objects, investigators didn't actually request data from the company. When we asked authorities why, there was often silence. Our impression was that many prosecutors and police officers weren't even aware that asking was an option. In other cases, they acted only when pushed by victims' families. In the Meier case, Tesla told authorities, in a letter dated 25 June 2018, that the last complete set of vehicle data was transmitted nearly two weeks before the crash. The only data from the day of the accident was a 'limited snapshot of vehicle parameters' – taken 'approximately 50 minutes before the incident'. However, this snapshot 'doesn't show anything in relation to the incident'. As for the black box, Tesla warned that the storage modules were likely destroyed, given the condition of the burned-out vehicle. Data transmission after a crash is possible, the company said – but in this case, it didn't happen. In the end, investigators couldn't even determine whether driver-assist systems were active at the time of the crash. The Schuster case played out similarly. Prosecutors in Stralsund, Germany, were baffled. The road where the crash happened is straight, the asphalt was dry and the weather at the time of the accident was clear. Anke Schuster kept urging the authorities to examine Tesla's telemetry data. When prosecutors did formally request the data recorded by Schuster's car on the day of the crash, it took Tesla more than two weeks to respond – and when it did, the answer was both brief and bold. The company didn't say there was no data. It said that there was 'no relevant data'. The authorities' reaction left us stunned. We expected prosecutors to push back – to tell Tesla that deciding what's relevant is their job, not the company's. But they didn't. Instead, they closed the case. The hackers from TU Berlin pointed us to a study by the Netherlands Forensic Institute, an independent division of the ministry of justice and security. In October 2021, the NFI published findings showing it had successfully accessed the onboard memories of all major Tesla models. The researchers compared their results with accident cases in which police had requested data from Tesla. Their conclusion was that while Tesla formally complied with those requests, it omitted large volumes of data that might have proved useful. Tesla's credibility took a further hit in a report released by the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in April 2024. The agency concluded that Tesla failed to adequately monitor whether drivers remain alert and ready to intervene while using its driver-assist systems. It reviewed 956 crashes, field data and customer communications, and pointed to 'gaps in Tesla's telematic data' that made it impossible to determine how often autopilot was active during crashes. If a vehicle's antenna was damaged or it crashed in an area without network coverage, even serious accidents sometimes went unreported. Tesla's internal statistics include only those crashes in which an airbag or other pyrotechnic system deployed – something that occurs in just 18% of police-reported cases. This means that the actual accident rate is significantly higher than Tesla discloses to customers and investors. There's more. Two years prior, the NHTSA had flagged something strange – something suspicious. In a separate report, it documented 16 cases in which Tesla vehicles crashed into stationary emergency vehicles. In each, autopilot disengaged 'less than one second before impact' – far too little time for the driver to react. Critics warn that this behaviour could allow Tesla to argue in court that autopilot was not active at the moment of impact, potentially dodging responsibility. The YouTuber Mark Rober, a former engineer at Nasa, replicated this behaviour in an experiment on 15 March 2025. He simulated a range of hazardous situations, in which the Model Y performed significantly worse than a competing vehicle. The Tesla repeatedly ran over a crash-test dummy without braking. The video went viral, amassing more than 14m views within a few days. The real surprise came after the experiment. Fred Lambert, who writes for the blog Electrek, pointed out the same autopilot disengagement that the NHTSA had documented. 'Autopilot appears to automatically disengage a fraction of a second before the impact as the crash becomes inevitable,' Lambert noted. And so the doubts about Tesla's integrity pile up. In the Tesla Files, we found emails and reports from a UK-based engineer who led Tesla's Safety Incident Investigation programme, overseeing the company's most sensitive crash cases. His internal memos reveal that Tesla deliberately limited documentation of particular issues to avoid the risk of this information being requested under subpoena. Although he pushed for clearer protocols and better internal processes, US leadership resisted – explicitly driven by fears of legal exposure. We contacted Tesla multiple times with questions about the company's data practices. We asked about the Meier and Schuster cases – and what it means when fatal crashes are marked 'resolved' in Tesla's internal system. We asked the company to respond to criticism from the US traffic authority and to the findings of Dutch forensic investigators. We also asked why Tesla doesn't simply publish crash data, as Musk once promised to do, and whether the company considers it appropriate to withhold information from potential US court orders. Tesla has not responded to any of our questions. Elon Musk boasts about the vast amount of data his cars generate – data that, he claims, will not only improve Tesla's entire fleet but also revolutionise road traffic. But, as we have witnessed again and again in the most critical of cases, Tesla refuses to share it. Tesla's handling of crash data affects even those who never wanted anything to do with the company. Every road user trusts the car in front, behind or beside them not to be a threat. Does that trust still stand when the car is driving itself? Internally, we called our investigation into Tesla's crash data Black Box. At first, because it dealt with the physical data units built into the vehicles – so-called black boxes. But the devices Tesla installs hardly deserve the name. Unlike the flight recorders used in aviation, they're not fireproof – and in many of the cases we examined, they proved useless. Over time, we came to see that the name held a second meaning. A black box, in common parlance, is something closed to the outside. Something opaque. Unknowable. And while we've gained some insight into Tesla as a company, its handling of crash data remains just that: a black box. Only Tesla knows how Elon Musk's vehicles truly work. Yet today, more than 5m of them share our roads. Some names have been changed. This is an edited extract from The Tesla Files by Sönke Iwersen and Michael Verfürden, published on 24 July by Penguin Michael Joseph at £22. To support the Guardian, order your copy at Delivery charges may apply.
