Mark Leonard is the director and co-founder of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) and author of “Surviving Chaos: Geopolitics when the Rules Fail” (Polity Press April 2026). The international liberal order is ending. In fact, it may already be dead. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said as much last week as he gloated over the U.S. intervention in Venezuela and the capture of dictator Nicolás Maduro: “We live in a world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power … These are the iron laws of the world.” But America’s 47th president is equally responsible for another death — that of the united West. And while Europe’s leaders have fallen over themselves to sugarcoat U.S. President Donald Trump’s illegal military operation in Venezuela and ignore his brazen demands on Greenland, Europeans themselves have already realized Washington is more foe than friend. This is one of the key findings of a poll conducted in November 2025 by my colleagues at the European Council on Foreign Relations and Oxford University’s Europe in a Changing World research project, based on interviews with 26,000 individuals in 21 countries. Only one in six respondents considered the U.S. to be an ally, while a sobering one in five viewed it as a rival or adversary. In Germany, France and Spain that number approaches 30 percent, and in Switzerland — which Trump singled out for higher tariffs — it’s as high as 39 percent. This decline in support for the U.S. has been precipitous across the continent. But as power shifts around the globe, perceptions of Europe have also started to change. With Trump pursuing an America First foreign policy, which often leaves Europe out in the cold, other countries are now viewing the EU as a sovereign geopolitical actor in its own right. This shift has been most dramatic in Russia, where voters have grown less hostile toward the U.S. Two years ago, 64 percent of Russians viewed the U.S. as an adversary, whereas today that number sits at 37 percent. Instead, they have turned their ire toward Europe, which 72 percent now consider either an advisory or a rival — up from 69 percent a year ago. Meanwhile, Washington’s policy shift toward Russia has also meant a shift in its Ukraine policy. And as a result, Ukrainians, who once saw the U.S. as their greatest ally, are now looking to Europe for protection. They’re distinguishing between U.S. and European policy, and nearly two-thirds expect their country’s relations with the EU to get stronger, while only one-third say the same about the U.S. Even beyond Europe, however, the single biggest long-term impact of Trump’s first year in office is how he has driven people away from the U.S. and closer to China, with Beijing’s influence expected to grow across the board. From South Africa and Brazil to Turkey, majorities expect their country’s relationship with China to deepen over the next five years. And in these countries, more respondents see Beijing as an ally than Washington. More specifically, in South Africa and India — two countries that have found themselves in Trump’s crosshairs recently — the change from a year ago is remarkable. At the end of 2024, a whopping 84 percent of Indians considered Trump’s victory to be a good thing for their country; now only 53 percent do. Of course, this poll was conducted before Trump’s intervention in Venezuela and before his remarks about taking over Greenland. But with even the closest of allies now worried about falling victim to a predatory U.S., these trends — of countries pulling away from the U.S. and toward China, and a Europe isolated from its transatlantic partner — are likely to accelerate. Meanwhile, Washington’s policy shift toward Russia has also meant a shift in its Ukraine policy. And as a result, Ukrainians, who once saw the U.S. as their greatest ally, are now looking to Europe for protection. | Joe Raedle/Getty Images All the while, confronted with Trumpian aggression but constrained by their own lack of agency, European leaders are stuck dealing with an Atlantic-sized chasm between their private reactions and what they allow themselves to say in public. The good news from our poll is that despite the reticence of their leaders, Europeans are both aware of the state of the world and in favor of a lot of what needs to be done to improve the continent’s position. As we have seen, they harbor no illusions about the U.S. under Trump. They realize they’re living in an increasingly dangerous, multipolar world. And majorities support boosting defense spending, reintroducing mandatory conscription, and even entertaining the prospect of a European nuclear deterrent. The rules-based order is giving way to a world of spheres of influence, where might makes right and the West is split from within. In such a world, you are either a pole with your own sphere of influence or a bystander in someone else’s. European leaders should heed their voters and ensure the continent belongs in the first category — not the second.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Die SPD ringt sichtbar mit ihrem Führungsanspruch. Parteichefin und Arbeitsministerin Bärbel Bas schließt eine Kanzlerkandidatur 2029 für sich schon mal aus und löst damit Zweifel an Ambition, Rollenverständnis und strategischer Orientierung der Sozialdemokratie aus. Gordon Repinski analysiert, warum diese Aussage keine persönliche Zurückhaltung  ist und was sie über den aktuellen Zustand der SPD sagt. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview stellt sich der Parlamentarische Geschäftsführer der SPD-Fraktion Dirk Wiese den Fragen nach Richtung und Selbstverständnis seiner Partei. Es geht um Bürgergeld, Reformen, Sanktionen, Rentenfragen, die Energiepreise und um darum, ob die SPD noch auf Sieg spielt oder sich mit Verwaltung begnügt. Danach der Blick nach Sachsen-Anhalt. Beim IHK-Neujahrsempfang in Halle sendet Kanzler Friedrich Merz wirtschaftspolitische Signale, die in der Koalition noch für Diskussionen sorgen werden. Rasmus Buchsteiner ordnet ein, warum Merz dort über längeres Arbeiten, Steuerpolitik und das Heizungsgesetz spricht und wie groß die Nervosität der CDU mit Blick auf die starke AfD ist. Und: Donald Trumps Ansprüche auf Grönland lösen weitere Sorgen aus in Dänemark, aber auch für unerwartete wirtschaftliche Effekte mit einer ironischen Note. Den Spaziergang mit Ulrich Siegmund findet ihr zum Nachhören hier und das 200-Sekunden-Interview mit Sven Schulze zum Unvereinbarkeitsbeschluss hier. Die Machthaber-Folge, in der wir Giorgia Meloni porträtiert haben, gibt es hier.  Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

Get set for this year’s most consequential election in the EU. Hungary’s campaign stepped up a gear this week, with populist nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán facing the toughest challenge yet to his 15-year grip on power. The long-suffering opposition hopes that Péter Magyar — conservative leader of the opposition Tisza party, which is running 12 points ahead in the polls — can overturn what Orbán himself styles as Hungary’s “illiberal democracy.” For many Hungarians, the election is a referendum on Orbán’s model. Under his leadership the government, led by Orbán’s Fidesz party, has tightened its grip on the media and state companies — sparking accusations of cronyism — while weakening judicial independence and passing legislation that sent Hungary plunging down transparency rankings. It now sits at the bottom of the World Justice Project’s rule-of-law index for EU countries. The 62-year-old Orbán is the EU leader closest to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and proves a continual obstacle to efforts by Brussels to build a united front against the Kremlin. He has repeatedly clashed with the EU on topics ranging from LGBTQ+ rights to migration. Predicting the end of the liberal multilateral order, Orbán kicked off the year by saying the EU would “fall apart on its own.” But can Magyar — whose surname literally means “Hungarian” — really topple his former ally? And even if he does, how far could he realistically guide Hungary back toward liberal democracy with Orbán’s state architecture still in place? POLITICO breaks down the five key questions as Hungary heads toward the seismic April 12 vote. 1. WHY SHOULD I CARE? Hungary may be relatively small, with a population of 9.6 million, but under Orbán’s leadership it has become one of the EU’s biggest headaches. He has long weaponized Budapest’s veto in Brussels to block Russia-related sanctions, tie up financial aid to Ukraine and repeatedly stall urgent EU decisions. He is also a key — and sometimes leading — member of a group of right-wing populists in EU capitals, who unite on topics such as opposition to migration and skepticism toward arming Ukraine. Without Orbán, Czechia’s Andrej Babiš and Slovakia’s Robert Fico would cut far more isolated figures at summits of the European Council. Brussels has often resorted to elaborate workarounds to bypass Hungary’s obstructionism, and Orbán’s persistent defiance has led to calls to ditch the unanimity rule that has been in place for decades. “You have heard me 20 times regret, if not more, the attitude of Viktor Orbán, who, every time we had to move forward to help Ukraine … has used his veto to do more blackmail,” EU liberal party chief Valérie Hayer told journalists Tuesday. 2. WHAT ARE THE MAIN BATTLEGROUNDS? Magyar accuses Orbán and Fidesz of nepotism and corruption — of weakening the country’s economy by favoring oligarchs — and of missing out on EU funds by antagonizing Brussels. Orbán wants to frame his arch-nemesis Magyar as a puppet controlled by Brussels. Hungary’s campaign stepped up a gear this week, with populist nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán facing the toughest challenge yet to his 15-year grip on power. | Zoltán Fischer/Hungarian PM Communication/EPA In the past year, Fidesz has launched public debates aiming to divide Magyar’s base — which spans green and left-wing voters to disenchanted former Orbán loyalists — on subjects such as the LGBTQ+ Pride ban. Tisza’s strategy has been to avoid positioning itself on controversial issues, in an effort to garner an absolute majority that will grant the party power to reform electoral law, which they say Orbán rigged to his benefit, and enable constitutional changes. Tisza’s No. 2, Zoltán Tarr, told POLITICO he expected Orbán’s government to deploy “all possible dirty tricks.” “State propaganda smears, AI-generated fakes, doctored videos, potential staged incidents, blackmail, and exploiting the rigged electoral system. They will mobilize everything because they have so much to lose,” Tarr said. Speaking at Fidesz’s party congress on Saturday, Orbán lambasted Tisza as a pro-EU stooge. “If you vote for Tisza or DK [the social-democratic Democratic Coalition], you are voting against your own future. Tisza and DK will carry out Brussels’ demands without batting an eyelid. Do not forget that Tisza’s boss is Herr Weber, Europe’s biggest warmonger,” Orbán said, referring to the German chief of the European People’s Party, Manfred Weber. 3. HOW AND WHEN DOES THE ELECTION TAKE PLACE? The national elections will take place on Sunday, April 12. Voters will choose a new 199-seat National Assembly under Hungary’s mixed electoral system, with 106 MPs elected in single-member constituencies and 93 from national party lists. The long-suffering opposition hopes that Péter Magyar — conservative leader of the Tisza party — can overturn what Orbán himself styles as Hungary’s “illiberal democracy.” | Noémi Bruzák/EPA POLITICO’s Poll of Polls shows Tisza leading with 49 percent support ahead of Fidesz at 37 percent — with Orbán’s party having been trailing for almost a year now. Although the official campaign period begins Feb. 21, the race has effectively been in full swing for months. Other notable parties in the race are the Democratic Coalition (DK); the far-right Mi Hazánk (Our Homeland) movement; and the satirical Hungarian Two-Tailed Dog Party (MKKP), largely created to mock Orbán’s policies. But these are fighting for survival as they may not meet the threshold of support for winning seats in parliament — meaning the Hungarian legislature could be exclusively controlled by two right-wing parties.  4. CAN THE ELECTION BE FREE AND FAIR? Challengers to the ruling party face a system designed to favor Fidesz. In 2011 Orbán’s government redrew electoral districts and overhauled the voting system to maximize its chances of winning seats. “There is no direct interference with the act of voting itself, yet the broader competitive environment — both in terms of institutional rules and access to resources — tilts heavily in favor of the governing parties,” said political analyst Márton Bene at the TK Institute of Political Science in Budapest. In addition to controlling roughly 80 percent of the media market, the government allows ethnic Hungarians in neighboring countries (who tend to favor Fidesz) to vote by mail, whereas those living abroad who have kept their Hungarian addresses must travel to embassies to cast their ballots. “One side enjoys access to the full resources of the state, while the challenger receives no public campaign funding and has virtually no presence in state-controlled media,” said political scientist Rudolf Metz from the TK Institute, adding that this imbalance is partially offset in the digital sphere. But even the unfair conditions don’t preclude a Magyar victory, Bene says, as long as the integrity of the voting process is preserved. 5. HOW MUCH WOULD A MAGYAR WIN REALLY CHANGE? The Brussels establishment is praying for Magyar to win, hoping a Tisza government will deepen ties with the EU. Centrist chief Hayer said her party supported “any candidate who will carry pro-European values, who will be able to beat” the incumbent Hungarian prime minister. Conservative boss Weber quickly welcomed Tisza into the center-right family to secure influence in Budapest and to give them resources to develop their electoral platform. He has repeatedly framed Magyar as the man who will save Hungary from Orbán. While viewed as a potential bridge-builder for the strained Brussels-Budapest relationship, Magyar is by no means an unwavering EU cheerleader. He has been noncommittal about Brussels, considering that any rapprochement could be used by Orbán against him. In an interview with POLITICO in October 2024 he said “we certainly don’t believe in a European superstate.” Conservative boss Manfred Weber quickly welcomed Tisza into the center-right family to secure influence in Budapest and give them resources to develop their electoral platform. Filip Singer/EPA On the domestic front, Tarr — Tisza’s No. 2 — told POLITICO the party wants to “keep [the] border fence, oppose mandatory migration quotas and accelerated Ukraine accession, pursue peace, fight Russian propaganda, strengthen V4 [Hungary, Poland, Czechia and Slovakia] and Central Europe without being Europe’s bad boy.” That echoes the prognosis of political scientist Metz, who said a victory by Magyar “would not mean a radical U-turn or a return to some idealized past.” “Hungary’s role as the EU’s permanent disruptor would probably fade, not because national interests disappear, but because they would be pursued through negotiation and institutional engagement rather than constant veto politics and symbolic conflict,” Metz added. Analysts also cautioned that change at home could be slow. Zoltán Vasali of Milton Friedman University said dismantling the current system would be “legally and institutionally challenging.” “Core constitutional bodies will retain their mandates beyond the upcoming elections, and key positions remain held by individuals aligned with the current government, limiting near-term change,” Vasali said. The scale of a Magyar victory could be decisive. A two-thirds parliamentary supermajority, which would allow the new government to change the constitution, Metz said, would be “a game-changer.” “It would give a Magyar government the legal capacity to restore core elements of the rule of law, rebuild checks and balances, and introduce safeguards such as term limits for key offices,” he said. Kinga Gál, Fidesz’s leader in the European Parliament, did not reply to a request for comment by the time of publication.

Britain’s chief foreign minister plans to make a standalone visit to China, a move designed to further boost economic and diplomatic engagement with Beijing in the wake of an imminent trip by Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Yvette Cooper said she “certainly will” travel to the country after Starmer moved her to the role of foreign secretary in September. She declined to comment on a possible date or whether it would be this year. Cooper’s aim will be unsurprising to many, given Cabinet ministers including Chancellor Rachel Reeves, Cooper’s predecessor David Lammy and the former Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds all visited China last year in a drumbeat that will culminate in Starmer’s visit, widely expected around the end of January. However, they indicate that Britain’s ruling Labour Party has no intention of cooling a courtship that has generated significant opposition — including from some of its own MPs — due to concerns over China’s human rights record and espionage activity. Cooper herself said Britain takes security issues around China “immensely seriously,” adding: “That involves transnational repression, it involves the espionage threats and challenges that we face.” Speaking to POLITICO ahead of a visit Thursday to the Arctic, where China is taking an increasing strategic interest, Cooper added: “There are also some wider economic security issues around, for example, the control of critical minerals around the world, and some of those issues.  “So we’re very conscious of the broad range of China threats that are posed alongside what we also know is China’s role as being our third-largest trading partner, and so the complexity of the relationship with China and the work that needs to done.” SECURITY TAKEN ‘VERY SERIOUSLY’ Labour officials have repeatedly emphasised their desire to engage directly with the world’s second-largest economy, including frank dialogue on areas where they disagree. Starmer said in December that he rejected a “binary choice” between having a golden age or freezing China out. However, the timing is acutely sensitive for the Labour government, which is likely to approve plans for a new Chinese “mega-embassy” in London in the coming days. The site near Tower Bridge is very close to telecommunications cables that run to the capital’s financial district. Cooper declined to answer directly whether she had assured U.S. counterparts about the embassy plans, after a Trump administration official told the Telegraph newspaper the White House was “deeply concerned” by them. Keir Starmer said in December that he rejected a “binary choice” between having a golden age or freezing China out. | Pool Photo by Ludovic Marin via EPA The foreign secretary said: “The Home Office, the foreign office, also the security agencies take all of those security issues very seriously, and we also brief our allies on security issues as well.” However, Cooper appeared to defend the prospect of approving the plans — which have run parallel to Britain’s aim to rebuild its own embassy in Beijing.  “All countries have embassies,” she said. “We have embassies all around the world, including in Beijing.” She added: “Of course, security is an important part of the considerations around all embassies. So we need to have those diplomatic relationships, those communications. We also have to make sure that security is taken very seriously. The U.K. and the U.S. have a particularly close security partnership. So we do share a lot of information intelligence, and we have that deep-rooted discussion.” Asked if she plans to make her own visit to China, Cooper responded: “I certainly will do so.”

BRUSSELS — The EU’s centrist powers need to move to the right to reflect the new political reality, according to Manfred Weber, the leader of the European People’s Party. The EPP caused uproar in Brussels last year when it voted alongside the far right rather than with its traditional allies, the socialists and liberals. Weber’s remarks are the strongest signal yet that he wants to repair bridges with the other two parties that have ruled the EU for decades. However, he made clear that those same allies must be willing to adapt, in an exclusive interview with POLITICO, reflecting on 2025 and looking forward to 2026. The S&D and Renew were furious at the perceived betrayal, saying the EPP had gone too far by voting with the far right and smashed the firewall meant to keep the far right away from decision-making. But Weber was adamant he had done nothing wrong, saying: “I want to stop populism and anti-Europeans,” and adding that he’s happy to work alongside the centrist parties, but they need to listen to voters. The outcome of the 2024 EU election, which changed Parliament’s arithmetic in favor of right-wing and far-right parties, “has to be reflected” and “translated” into policy to show that Brussels is listening to its citizens, Weber said. There are more challenges to come for the old coalition — a deregulation package targeting environmental rules, a reversal of the ban on combustion engines, and a bill to boost deportations of migrants. “We can solve problems in the center when it is about the questions of migration, the big fear and uncertainty for a lot of people who are afraid to lose jobs … we have to take this seriously.” According to Weber, the way to fight Euroskeptic and populist parties is by tackling the issues they campaign on: “Please also consider … what we have to do to take away the campaign issues from the populists, that is what is at stake,” he added in the interview, which took place in late December. In his logic, if citizens are worried about migration, the EU should deport more people who are in Europe illegally; if people see green policy as hampering economic growth, Brussels should scrap environmental reporting requirements; and if thousands of jobs are being lost in the car sector, Brussels should give industry more leeway in the transition to electric vehicle production.   “My invitation goes really to the socialists and liberals and others: Please come back to this approach.“ MEET ME HALFWAY Weber — who has been an MEP since 2004, leader of the EPP group in the Parliament since 2014 and leader of the Europe-wide EPP since 2022 — said the center-right is “delivering via successes” and that he “will not be stopped by anyone” in implementing the party program. He argued that when the EPP has voted alongside the far right — to dilute an anti-deforestation bill, to pass green reporting requirements for businesses, and to ease rules to deport migrants to third countries — these were not “radical positions” and reflected the views of national governments and the European Commission. The votes are “not a kind of radicalization.” He said half of the liberal Renew Europe group voted in favor of slashing green reporting requirements for businesses and the EPP has voted with the S&D on “more than 85 percent of all votes in the European Parliament,” on issues ranging from housing to climate, including on a 2040 carbon reduction target, which he said should remain in place, even though parts of his group want to scrap it. Manfred Weber has called for the centrists to work with the Brothers of Italy, the party of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, which is to the right of the EPP. | Ettore Ferrari/EPA “The EPP delivered on this, we are committed to the 2040 targets … It was also not easy in my party, I have to be honest.” MAKING FRIENDS WITH MELONI Since the start of the 2024 EU election campaign, Weber has called for the centrists to work with the Brothers of Italy, the party of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, which is to the right of the EPP. This has angered Socialists and liberals, who argue that Meloni is a far-right populist who should be excluded from EU decision-making. When Commission President Ursula von der Leyen granted Italy an executive vice-presidency in her second team, Meloni nominated Raffaele Fitto for the role, prompting an unsuccessful bid by Socialists and Liberals to block his appointment. The EPP defended Fitto’s candidacy, citing Meloni’s pragmatism and reliability at the EU level. Fitto is now executive vice-president for cohesion and reforms. Weber said time has proven him right. A year-and-a-half after the election, “I think nobody can really say that Raffaele Fitto is a right extreme populist … he’s a very serious colleague.” He blamed his centrist allies for focusing on rhetoric and “ideological debate” instead of looking at the “reality on the ground” and understanding Europe’s new right-wing political reality. Meloni is “behaving,” Weber said, and “she’s ready to find compromises.”

Faced with a barrage of American threats to grab Greenland, Denmark’s foreign minister and his Greenlandic counterpart flew to Washington for — they hoped — sympathetic talks with Marco Rubio, the secretary of state. But their plan for a soothing diplomatic chat escalated into a tense White House head-to-head with the EU’s nemesis, JD Vance. Over the past year the U.S. vice president has earned a reputation for animosity toward the old continent, and many governments in Europe fear his hardline influence over President Donald Trump when it comes to seizing territory from a longstanding ally. Among the 10 ministers and officials who spoke anonymously to POLITICO for this article, none regarded Vance as an ally — either in the Greenland talks or for the transatlantic relationship in general.  “Vance hates us,” said one European diplomat, granted anonymity to give a candid view, like others quoted in this article. The announcement that the vice president would be helming the Washington talks on Greenland alarmed the European side. “He’s the tough guy,” the same diplomat said. “The fact that he’s there says a lot and I think it’s negative for the outcome.”  Trump says he wants “ownership” of Greenland for reasons of U.S. national security and will get it either by negotiation or, if necessary, perhaps through military means. At stake is much more than simply the fate of an island of 57,000 inhabitants, or even the future of the Arctic.  The bellicose rhetoric from the White House has dismayed America’s NATO allies and provoked warnings from Denmark that such a move would destroy the post-war Western alliance. Others say it is already terminal for the international order on which transatlantic relations rely.  In the event, the talks in Washington on Wednesday went as well as could be expected, officials said after: The Americans were blunt, but there was no declaration of war. Nor did the occasion descend into a public humiliation of the sort Vance unleashed against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a White House visit last year. The two sides clearly argued their cases with some force but resolved to keep talking. A high-level working group will explore whether any compromise can be reached between the Danes and Greenlanders, and Trump.  ‘FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT’ The discussion “wasn’t so successful that we reached a conclusion where our American colleagues said, ‘Sorry, it was totally a misunderstanding, we gave up on our ambitions,’” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen quipped to reporters after what he described as a “frank” exchange with Vance and Rubio. “There’s clearly a disagreement.”  “The president has this wish of conquering over Greenland,” Rasmussen added. “For us, ideas that would not respect territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark, or the right of self determination of the Greenlandic people, are of course totally unacceptable. And we therefore still have a fundamental disagreement. And we agree to disagree.” Talks in future must, he said, respect the “red lines” set by Greenland and Denmark. It is hoped that the working group will help lower “the temperature” on the issue when it begins its work in the coming weeks, Rasmussen added.  While Donald Trump can be distracted, some EU officials say, JD Vance appears to be more ideological in his hostility to Europe. | Aaron Schwartz/EPA The small win, for the Danes, is that the question of Greenland has — for now — moved from wild social media images of the island dressed in the American flag to a proper diplomatic channel, giving everyone time to calm down.  If it holds, that would be something. A stream of X posts from Trump’s allies — alongside uncompromising statements from the president himself — have left European officials aghast. In one that the White House posted this week, Trump can be seen peering out of his Oval Office window at a scene depicting the icy map of Greenland.  Behind him, looking on, is Vance. “It was terrible,” the first diplomat cited above told POLITICO.  NO FRIEND Few Europeans will forget Vance’s attacks on Zelenskyy in last February’s Oval Office showdown. Vance also left Europeans shocked and horrified when he savaged them for refusing to work with the far right, and complained bitterly how much he resented America paying for European security.  By contrast, Rubio is often described as “solid” by European officials, and is generally seen as someone who is more aligned with the priorities of the European mainstream especially on security and the war in Ukraine.  At the time of writing, Vance had not given his account in public of Wednesday’s talks on Greenland. In response to a request for comment, Vance’s deputy press secretary pointed to previous remarks in which the vice president had said “I love Europe” and European people — but also said European leaders had been “asleep at the wheel” and that the Trump administration was frustrated that they had failed to address issues including migration and investment in defense. One EU official, speaking after the meeting, suggested it was actually a good thing Vance was involved because he “calls the shots” and holds sway with Trump.  Elsewhere, however, the skepticism remains deep — and turns to alarm at the prospect that when Trump’s second term ends, it could be Vance who takes over in the White House.  While Trump can be distracted, some EU officials say, Vance appears to be more ideological in his hostility to Europe. That would be a risk not just for Greenland but also for NATO and Ukraine. Some EU diplomats see Trump’s territorial ambitions as part of a pattern that includes Vance’s attacks and the new White House national security strategy, which sets out to redirect European democracy toward the ends of Trump’s MAGA movement. When it comes to the dispute over Greenland, many in Brussels and European capitals are pessimistic. Even Rasmussen, the Danish foreign minister, didn’t pretend a deal was in sight and confessed one may never come. “Trump doesn’t want to invest in something he doesn’t own,” one EU diplomat said. The U.S. has wide access to Greenland for military deployments under existing agreements, and could easily invest in further economic development, according to the Danes and their allies.  “It’s not clear what there is to negotiate because the Americans can already have whatever they want,” another diplomat said. “The only thing that Denmark cannot give is to say Greenland can become American.”  It may not be a question of what Greenland can give, if in the end the president and his eager deputy decide simply to take it.  Victor Goury-Laffont and Nicholas Vinocur contributed reporting.

SERBIA LET PUTIN’S SPIES ZAP DOGS WITH ‘SOUND CANNONS’ Documents show Belgrade brought in Russia’s FSB to conduct experiments on animals. By UNA HAJDARI in Belgrade, Serbia Illustration by Natália Delgado/ POLITICO Serbian intelligence officers tested sound cannons on dogs in collaboration with Russia’s notorious security service, according to government documents seen by POLITICO. The Serbian documents confirm that President Aleksandar Vučić’s administration carried out experiments with high-powered loudspeakers colloquially known as sound cannons, two weeks after an anti-government demonstration in Belgrade was disrupted by what protesters described as a crippling sonic blast. The joint testing of sonic weapons on animals highlights the depth of security cooperation between Russia — the EU’s most belligerent adversary — and Serbia, a stalled EU candidate whose government is facing a serious challenge. The Long-Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD) devices are marketed for long-distance communication, but when used at close range, they can risk hearing damage. They have also been reported to cause headaches, dizziness and nausea. The government has denied deploying sound cannons on demonstrators. Serbia is in the grip of its largest protest movement in decades. For more than a year, tens of thousands of people — occasionally hundreds of thousands of citizens — have poured into the streets across the country, staging regular nationwide rallies that reflect deepening anger at the government. On March 15, 2025, during one of the biggest demonstrations, a sudden, ear-splitting noise ripped down Belgrade’s main boulevard, prompting a wave of people to duck for cover. Videos filmed from multiple angles show the disturbance rippling through the tightly packed crowd before people bolted in panic. Demonstrators arriving at Belgrade emergency rooms reported nausea, vomiting, headaches and dizziness. They reported hearing a sound like “a group of motorcyclists” or a “locomotive” headed in their direction. After initially dismissing allegations that authorities had deployed a sound cannon, Vučić said “a complete investigation will be conducted within 48 hours, and then all those responsible for such brutal fabrications and lies will be held accountable to the authorities.” Interior Minister Ivica Dačić also denied any wrongdoing, insisting Serbia “did not use any illegal means, including a so-called sound cannon.” A month after the protest, Serbia’s intelligence agency, the BIA, published a report that they had commissioned from Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) asserting that the high-decibel devices were “not used during the protests,” and concluding there had been no mass “psychological, moral and physical impact on people.” The Serbian Ministry of Interior did not reply to a request for comment. ANIMAL TESTING The animal tests were conducted as part of the post-protest inquiry, according to the documents seen by POLITICO, which were produced by the BIA and a government ministry. The intention was to assess whether the symptoms described by protesters were consistent with the effects of sound cannons, which Serbian officials had previously acknowledged the police possess. About two weeks after the protest, Serbian and Russian intelligence specialists gathered a group of dogs at a BIA testing site to evaluate the “effect of the emitters on biological objects.” Dogs were chosen as the test subjects because of “their high sensitivity to acoustic effects.” The animals were blasted with two LRAD models — LRAD 100X MAG-HS and LRAD 450XL — made by the California-based company Genasys, at “ranges of 200, 150, 100, 50 and 25 meters,” according to the documents. Datasheets for the models deployed indicate they can emit sounds at up to 150 decibels, the equivalent of a jet engine at takeoff. The documents also suggest the tests may have been carried out without the approvals required for animal experiments. “The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management… does not have information on whether tests of the effects of the LRAD 100H and LRAD 450XL, as well as other tests of the effects of other devices on dogs, have been conducted,” the documents state. “This Ministry has never received a request for approval to conduct tests on animals, and therefore no decision has been issued approving the test in question, as well as other similar tests,” they continued. Danilo Ćurčić, a Serbian human rights lawyer, said the dogs were “subjected to either experiments or abuse,” as defined under Serbia’s Animal Welfare Act. He said Serbian law requires animal experiments to be registered in advance and cleared through the competent bodies — including review by an ethics commission — and it explicitly bars animal testing for the “testing of weapons and military equipment.” Radomir Lazović, an opposition politician, described the tests as “part of a campaign by Aleksandar Vučić to cover up the use of sound cannons against his own people at the protests in March.” “Thousands of people felt the massive effects of this sonic weapon on their skins last year,” he said.   In their report about the canine experiments, the FSB insisted: “When transmitting the basic and test signals, biological objects (dogs) did not feel discomfort (changes in behavior) at the distance under investigation. The dogs were checked 3 days after the tests and did not show any changes in their condition.”

President Donald Trump has linked his desire to own Greenland with the development of his nascent missile defense shield, Golden Dome. Except that he doesn’t need to seize the Danish territory to accomplish his goal. Golden Dome, Trump’s pricey vision to protect the U.S., is a multi-layered defense shield intended to block projectiles heading toward the country. The president announced a $175 billion, three-year plan last year, although gave few details about how the administration would fund it. “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security,” Trump said Wednesday in a Truth Social post. “It is vital for the Golden Dome we are building.” But the country already has the access it needs in Greenland to host interceptors that could knock down enemy missiles. And the U.S. has other locations it could place similar defense systems — think New York or Canada — if many of the interceptors are even based on land, instead of space as envisioned. “The right way for the U.S. to engage with an ally to improve our homeland defense — whether through additional radars, communication antennas or even interceptor sites — is to engage collaboratively with that ally,” said a former defense official. “If strengthening homeland defense is the actual goal, this administration is off to a truly terrible start.” Here are three reasons why Golden Dome has little to do with Trump’s desire to take Greenland: HE COULD HAVE JUST ASKED DENMARK The U.S. military’s presence in Greenland centers on Pituffik Space Base, which operates under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark that grants the U.S. regular access to the island. The base is a key outpost for detecting threats from the Arctic, although it doesn’t host any interceptor systems. If the Pentagon wanted to station interceptors or more sensors on the island, the U.S. could simply work with Denmark to do so, according to the former official and a defense expert. Greenland has been part of the U.S. homeland missile defense and space surveillance network for decades and it would continue that role under Golden Dome, said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “We already have unfettered access to what we need for Golden Dome in Greenland, but the president talks as if he’s not aware of that,” Harrison said. “His statements about Greenland are detached from reality.” The White House, when asked for comment, pointed to Trump’s post. HE COULD CHOOSE SOMEWHERE ELSE — THAT THE U.S. OWNS Greenland could prove a good location for ground-based interceptors that block missiles launching from Russia and the Middle East towards the U.S. But the U.S. has other options for interceptor locations, and none would necessitate taking another country (a seizure that could threaten to destroy the NATO alliance). The Pentagon has examined potential locations for interceptor sites and Fort Drum, an Army base in upstate New York, has routinely survived deep dive analysis by the Missile Defense Agency, said the former defense official, who, like others interviewed, was granted anonymity to speak about internal discussions. “Compared to Fort Drum, Greenland does not appear to be a better location for such interceptors,” the person said. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Ala.) has also said his state could play a “critical role” in housing interceptors. MUCH OF THE DEFENSE SHIELD IS SUPPOSED TO BE BASED IN SPACE Trump’s assertion about needing Greenland for Golden Dome also raises questions about what the multibillion-dollar architecture will actually look like. The Pentagon has largely avoided discussing the price tag publicly. And officials originally envisioned most of it located above the Earth. A key part of Golden Dome is space-based interceptors — weapons orbiting the planet that can shoot down incoming missiles. But moving missile defense systems to space would require fewer ground-based systems, negating the importance of acquiring more land for the effort. “If Golden Dome’s sensor network and defenses are primarily space-based — as per the current plan — Greenland might still be of value,” said a former defense official. “But less so than it would be for terrestrial architecture.”

Britain has evacuated its ambassador and all embassy staff from Iran, a U.K. official said Wednesday, as U.S. President Donald Trump weighs launching strikes against the Islamist regime. The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said the decision had been taken based on the assessment of the security situation and to prioritize the safety of staff. A U.K. government spokesperson said: “We have temporarily closed the British Embassy in Tehran, this will now operate remotely.  “Foreign Office travel advice has now been updated to reflect this consular change.” The move came shortly after the U.S. ordered the evacuation of some personnel from the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, its largest base in the Middle East, which hosts 10,000 U.S. troops. A former U.S. official familiar with the situation said aircraft had also been moved. Reuters first reported the evacuation. The U.K. already advises against all travel to Iran and for British nationals already in the country to “carefully consider” their continued presence. Britain’s envoy to Iran was summoned alongside European diplomats on Monday to a fractious meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, European officials said. In turn, Britain’s Middle East Minister Hamish Falconer summoned Iran’s Ambassador to London for a meeting Tuesday. Speaking to POLITICO on a tour of Finland and Norway — before the evacuation was public — U.K. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper praised Tehran’s “brave protesters, especially for women to be out protesting, who are facing such huge repression in their daily lives.” With some protesters facing execution, she said: “Iran needs to understand the whole world is watching, and they need to end this violence. The idea that they would escalate the violence further with these executions is absolutely horrific.” Cooper said her priority was sanctions and economic pressure on Iran rather than military strikes. However, she did not rule out allowing the U.S. to use British resources, including air bases, to launch such strikes.

Denmark and Greenland “still have a fundamental disagreement” with the U.S. over President Donald Trump’s desire to control the Arctic territory, Denmark’s foreign minister said Wednesday. Lars Løkke Rasmussen and his Greenland counterpart Vivian Motzfeldt finally had their chance to try to turn down the temperature at the White House after more than a year of aggressive internet trolling, statements and demands from the U.S. Their conversation did little to dissuade Trump and his team from their hold on Greenland. “We didn’t manage to change the American position,” Rasmussen said. “It’s clear that the president has this wish of conquering over Greenland. We made it very very clear that this is not in the interest of the Kingdom.” Rasmussen and Motzfeldt took pains to describe the session as respectful, but their frustration that their longtime ally would not cooperate was clear. “It is of course very emotional for all of us,” Rasmussen said. The U.S., Denmark and Greenland agreed in the meeting to convene high-level working groups to see if they could find a way forward, but Rasmussen said he was unsure whether it would be possible. Demands that would violate Denmark and Greenland’s sovereignty are “totally unacceptable,” he said. Denmark has contributed $15 billion to Arctic security over the past two years and has pressed the U.S. and other NATO countries to do more through the alliance, Rasmussen added. Denmark announced earlier Wednesday that it would beef up its security presence in Greenland, which has been under Danish control for nearly 300 years. The officials noted much of what Trump and his team continue to say about Greenland is untrue, including Trump’s often repeated claim that Greenland is crawling with Russian and Chinese warships. Rasmussen said there has not been a Chinese warship in the Arctic for a decade. Those statements and Trump’s threatening tone do not yield a constructive dialogue, Rasmussen said. “It is not easy to think innovatively about solutions when you wake up every morning to different threats,” he said. On Wednesday morning, Trump posted on Truth Social that the United States needed to acquire Greenland for his Golden Dome missile defense project, his latest rationale. “NATO should be leading the way for us to get it,” Trump wrote. “IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.”