Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Donald Trump stellt mit seinen Ansprüchen auf Grönland und seiner Sicherheitsstrategie zentrale Grundannahmen des NATO-Bündnisses infrage. In dieser Folge spricht Rixa Fürsen mit Stefanie Babst, langjährige NATO-Strategin, über den wachsenden Vertrauensverlust zwischen den Alliierten und die Frage, wie ernst die europäischen Partner die Drohungen aus Washington nehmen müssen. Babst erklärt, warum die nationale Sicherheitsstrategie der USA mehr ist als Rhetorik, weshalb Grönland für Trump strategisch so attraktiv ist und wie sehr der Schulterschluss mit Russland die NATO politisch aushöhlt. Im Mittelpunkt steht dabei die unbequeme Frage nach der Verlässlichkeit amerikanischer Sicherheitsgarantien für Europa. 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

BRUSSELS — NATO countries asked the alliance to beef up its presence in the Arctic after the U.S. ramped up threats to seize Greenland, three NATO diplomats told POLITICO. At a closed-door meeting in Brussels on Thursday, the alliance’s ambassadors agreed the organization should reinforce its Arctic flank, according to the diplomats, all of whom were granted anonymity to talk about the sensitive discussions. U.S. President Donald Trump has claimed the Danish territory is exposed to Russian and Chinese influence. Envoys floated leveraging intelligence capabilities to better monitor the territory, stepping up defense spending to the Arctic, shifting more military equipment to the region, and holding more military exercises in the vicinity.  The flurry of ideas underscores a growing European concern around U.S. intentions on Greenland. This week, the White House ratcheted up its claims on Greenland, and repeatedly refused to rule out a military takeover.  Europe is scrambling to placate the latest Trump threats and avoid a military intervention that Denmark has said would mean the end of the alliance. A compromise with the U.S. president is seen as the first and preferred option. The request for proposals just days after the White House’s latest broadside reflects how seriously Europe is taking the ultimatum and the existential risk any incursion onto Greenland would be on the alliance and transatlantic ties. NATO’s civil servants are now expected to come up with options for envoys, the alliance diplomats said. Alongside its wealth of raw material and oil deposits, Trump has cited an alleged swarm of threatening Russian and Chinese ships near Greenland as a reason behind Washington’s latest campaign to control the territory.  Experts largely dispute those claims, with Moscow and Beijing mostly focusing their defense efforts — including joint patrols and military investment — in the eastern Arctic. Thursday’s meeting of 32 envoys veered away from direct confrontation, the three NATO diplomats said, with one calling the mood in the room “productive” and “constructive.” Denmark’s ambassador, who spoke first, said the dispute was a bilateral issue and instead focused on recent successes of NATO’s Arctic strategy and the need for more work in the region, the diplomats said — a statement that received widespread support. The Greenland issue was also raised at a closed-door meeting of EU defense and foreign policy ambassadors on Thursday, despite it not being on the formal agenda, two EU diplomats said. The bloc’s capitals then expressed their solidarity for Denmark, they added. Denmark is expected to provide a formal briefing and update at a meeting of EU envoys on Friday, the same diplomats said. Zoya Sheftalovich contributed to this report.

PARIS — Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski called on the U.S. Congress to weigh in on President Donald Trump’s growing threats to seize Greenland. “The topic of territories, of war and peace, belongs to the U.S. Congress,” Sikorski said Wednesday, speaking alongside the foreign ministers of France, Germany and India. “I want to know what is the position of the U.S. Congress on Greenland.” In recent days, some U.S. lawmakers have started pushing back against Trump’s calls to take over Greenland. On Monday, a bipartisan group of U.S. representatives released a statement saying annexing Greenland would be “dangerous” and could trigger a “civil war” among NATO members. On Wednesday, Democrat Ted Lieu warned: “There is no legal justification, whatsoever, to use military force against a NATO ally like Greenland. If any military member participates in this without congressional authorization, they are following illegal orders.” Sikorski was in Paris for the visit of Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, but the meeting with his European counterparts was also an opportunity to discuss Greenland. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said the three European ministers discussed a joint European response to Trump’s threats, something that “was destined to be widened to all European partners.” “What is at stake is the question of how Europe, the EU, can be strengthened to deter threats, attempts on its security and interests,” Barrot said. “Greenland is not for sale, and it is not for taking. The age when you could buy and sell Louisiana is over, so the threats must stop,” he added, referring to France’s 1803 sale of the vast territory to the U.S. for $15 million. In recent days, Trump has reiterated his claims to Greenland — a self-ruling Danish territory — following a separate U.S. operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro last weekend. On Tuesday, eight of Europe’s top leaders insisted Greenland’s security must be ensured collectively by NATO and with full respect to the wishes of its people. Germany’s Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul is working on a plan with his counterparts that could include European deterrence in the event the U.S. tries to attack or seize Greenland. | Petras Malukas/Getty Images None of the three ministers in Paris said what options were being discussed. Officials in Berlin however said discussions on how to safeguard Greenland’s sovereignty were ongoing on Wednesday following talks on the topic between European leaders and Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in Paris on Tuesday. Germany’s Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul is working on a plan with his counterparts that could include European deterrence in the event the U.S. tries to attack or seize Greenland, as well as increased NATO presence in Greenland’s direct vicinity, a German government spokesperson said. Last year, when Trump started to seriously raise the issue of Greenland, Barrot didn’t rule out sending French troops to the island.

BRUSSELS — The EU’s tepid response to Donald Trump’s Venezuelan operation underscores how hard it is for Brussels to take a strong position on the U.S. president’s threats to take over Greenland. The European Commission on Monday sought to draw a distinction between the U.S. capture of Venezuela’s leader Nicolás Maduro and Trump’s renewed rhetoric about taking control of the Arctic territory, but couldn’t say how it planned to deter the American from such a move. “You would recall that Greenland is an ally to the U.S. and is also covered by the NATO alliance. And that is a big, big difference,” Commission chief spokesperson Paola Pinho told reporters. “So we therefore completely stand by Greenland and in no way do we see a possible comparison with what happened [in Venezuela].” Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen appeared to take Trump’s threats at face value, warning that such an attack would spell the end of NATO. “The American president should be taken seriously when he says he wants Greenland,” she said on Monday. “If the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops … including the security that has been established since the end of the second world war.”  Pressed repeatedly on what specific steps the EU could take to ward off Trump, the Commission demurred, saying only that it will “not stop defending” the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity — without clarifying how it planned to do that. THE GREENLAND QUANDARY World powers have in recent years sought to expand their Arctic footprints, and mineral-rich Greenland — which hosts a U.S. military base — is coveted for its strategic security and trade value. While Greenland is a self-ruling territory of Denmark, it isn’t part of the EU itself, having left its precursor, the European Communities, in 1985. But Greenlanders are EU citizens because Denmark is in the bloc. “We need Greenland for a national security situation,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday. “It’s so strategic. Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place.” Russia has ramped up defense investments in the Arctic in recent years, while China has occasionally joined Moscow in joint patrols — though experts note that little military activity has taken place near Greenland itself. Greenland and Denmark have both repeatedly pushed back against Trump’s overtures, insisting that Greenland is not for sale and that its future is a question for its own citizens, not Washington, to decide. “Enough is enough. No more pressure. No more insinuations. No more fantasies about annexation,” Greenland’s Premier Jens-Frederik Nielsen said on Monday. As for Trump’s claim this weekend that the EU “needs” the U.S. to “have” Greenland, the Commission said this was “certainly not” the EU’s position. “Enough is enough. No more pressure. No more insinuations. No more fantasies about annexation,” Greenland’s Premier Jens-Frederik Nielsen said. | Kristian Tuxen Ladegaard Berg/Getty Images Yet the mildness of the response from Brussels illustrates the bind Europe finds itself in. Fearing potential retaliation from Trump on trade or Ukraine if he perceives harm to U.S. interests, the EU has mostly pulled its punches in responding to his saber-rattling. NATO is also treading a fine line to avoid antagonizing the U.S. president. While many allies have so far brushed off an all-out Greenland incursion as implausible, Trump’s comments are beginning to stir anxiety — and defiance — within the alliance. “We support Denmark fully — including their level of concern,” said one senior NATO diplomat, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. Others argue the remarks should galvanize allies to step up their defense capabilities in the Arctic — which could also placate Trump. “Some creative thinking is in order … to strengthen the Alliance’s presence around Greenland and thus address U.S. security concerns,” said a second senior NATO diplomat, noting the organization could dispatch more military equipment to the region as it did last year in the Baltic Sea and on NATO’s eastern flank. “If the head of state of an ally says that part of allied territory … has ‘Russian and Chinese ships all over the place,’ then that should be taken very seriously,” they added.  Yet Trump’s latest threat poses an “existential” challenge to NATO, said Ed Arnold, a senior fellow at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, given there is no precedent for one country launching an outright attack on another within the alliance since its 1949 founding. In a worst-case scenario — a U.S. military incursion — Denmark could unilaterally summon allies for talks about threats to its security, he said, but would then be hamstrung as Washington blocks a military response. That would almost “certainly … mean the end of NATO as we know it,” Arnold said. Arnold said there has been some increased Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic, with Germany’s Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul also acknowledging that point in an interview with Deutschlandfunk radio on Monday. Trump “has rightly pointed out that there is increased Chinese and Russian interest in this region,” Wadephul said. “This affects our security interests. We are certainly prepared to discuss these issues with the U.S.” He said he planned to speak about the situation with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio “in the near future,” while underscoring the importance of respecting Greenland’s territorial integrity. Raphael Glucksmann, a French MEP from the Socialists and Democrats group in the European Parliament, suggested the EU should create “a permanent European military base in Greenland,” which he said “would send a signal of firmness toward Trump and would allow us to kill the American argument about our inability to ensure Greenland’s security.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that the current draft peace framework includes 15 years of security guarantees from the U.S., with Kyiv pushing for that to be extended for up to 50 years. At a meeting in Florida on Sunday, Zelenskyy said U.S. President Donald Trump confirmed strong security guarantees for Kyiv, with both leaders expressing optimism that they were on the precipice of a peace deal to end the war in Ukraine. “Yesterday we confirmed this with [Trump], that we will have strong security guarantees from the United States. Indeed, now it is not forever. In the documents it is for 15 years with the possibility of extending these security guarantees,” Zelenskyy told reporters via WhatsApp chat on Monday. “I raised this issue with the President. I told him that we are already at war, and it has been for almost 15 years. Therefore, I really wanted the guarantees to be longer. I told him that we would really like to consider the possibility of 30, 40, 50 years,” Zelenskyy added. The exact shape of the security guarantees remains unclear, though the U.S. has indicated it would mirror NATO’s Article 5 protections. Zelenskyy said he believes they would be credible if backed by the U.S. and supported by European allies. “I believe that the presence of international troops is a real security guarantee, it is a strengthening of the security guarantees that our partners are already offering us,” the Ukrainian leader said. Zelenskyy also said that the current 20-point plan needs to be supported by a referendum in Ukraine, but that would require 60 days of ceasefire — something Russia “does not want to give us.” On Saturday, Russia launched one of its heaviest attacks in recent weeks on Kyiv. But an impasse remains over several issues, including the fate of Donbas, which Zelenskyy has proposed be turned into a demilitarized free economic zone, while Russian President Vladimir Putin has pushed to claim the entire region. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Monday reiterated that Ukraine “must leave Donbas to stop the hostilities” and said that Putin will hold another call with Trump “very soon.” Zelenskyy said he wants to host a meeting between U.S., Ukrainian and European officials in Kyiv in the coming days. Zelenskyy also confirmed that a meeting of Ukraine’s European allies will take place in Paris for early January, adding that a meeting with Russia is possible if the U.S. and Europe agree on a peace framework.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Donald Trumps Rückkehr ins Weiße Haus, Putins Vormarsch in der Ukraine und eine transatlantische Statik, die „endgültig aus den Fugen“ geraten ist: Das Jahr 2025 war sicherheitspolitisch ein Jahr der Zerreißproben. In dieser Sonderfolge zieht Gordon Repinski gemeinsam mit Claudia Major, Sicherheitsexpertin und Senior Vice President, Transatlantic Security beim German Marshall Fund, Bilanz. Major analysiert, warum Europa momentan keine glaubwürdige „Siegtheorie“ für die Ukraine hat und weshalb die Kapitulation Kiews zwar „gerade noch abgewendet“ wurde, die Gefahr für 2026 aber keineswegs gebannt ist. Es geht um die Wirksamkeit des 90-Milliarden-Kredits und die bittere Erkenntnis, dass der Westen derzeit nicht genug tut, um Putins Kalkül zu verändern. Major erklärt, ob und wie sich der Kontinent im Ernstfall auch ohne die USA verteidigen könnte, warum „Sicherheitsgarantien“ oft missverstanden werden und welche Rolle kleine Formate wie die „E3“ oder „E5“ im kommenden Jahr spielen müssen. 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. Legal Notice (Belgium) POLITICO SRL Forme sociale: Société à Responsabilité Limitée Siège social: Rue De La Loi 62, 1040 Bruxelles Numéro d’entreprise: 0526.900.436 RPM Bruxelles info@politico.eu www.politico.eu

Ed Arnold is a senior research fellow for European security at the Royal United Services Institute. Early in 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had a severe diplomatic dustup with U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the Oval Office. Since then, relations between Washington and Kyiv have swung up and down and back again. Europe, for its part, reacted to the diplomatic incident with increased efforts to support Ukraine and keep the U.S. onside. In March, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron announced the launch of a 34-nation “coalition of the willing” to strengthen Europe’s role in ensuring Ukraine’s future sovereignty and security. And in September, Macron announced that 26 countries committed to deploying troops on the ground as part of a Multi-National Force Ukraine “the day after the ceasefire or peace.” However, regardless of Europe’s efforts to support Ukraine, the only thing that really matters is America’s security guarantees, which Zelenskyy must now secure — even if it means concessions elsewhere. As much as Europe may like to think otherwise, Washington’s guarantees are the only viable path to peace for Ukraine. Europe can’t even deploy its multinational force without U.S. logistical support. And as 2025 draws to a close, the question of Washington’s commitment remains a fundamental factor in efforts to move Russia’s war toward its next phase and, hopefully, a durable peace. Yet, everything suggests real power lies in Russia’s hands. Ukraine’s collective memory of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum’s failures — security guarantees that were provided by the U.S., Russia and U.K. so that Ukraine would surrender its Soviet-era nuclear weapons — cast a long shadow over current negotiations. And at this truly perilous moment, Zelenskyy has several points to consider: First, the Ukrainian president is reportedly prepared to drop Ukraine’s quest for NATO membership — something the alliance had described as “irreversible” at last year’s NATO Summit — in exchange for robust security guarantees, and there are signs these could be forthcoming. So far, the U.S. has offered Ukraine “platinum standard” security guarantees, alongside the caveat that they “will not be on the table forever,” pushing Zelenskyy toward accepting the deal currently on the table. In addition, there are hopes that these guarantees would include the provision of Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of 1,000 kilometers — only four U.S. allies have ever been granted Tomahawks in the past. These would allow Ukraine to strike Russia’s political and military centers, thus potentially deterring the Kremlin from resuming hostilities. But while this additional capability would certainly complicate Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision-making, it’s no silver bullet. Apart from the guarantee’s technical details, Zelenskyy rightly hopes that unlike the Budapest Memorandum, which was an executive agreement, any commitment would be legally binding, requiring ratification by the U.S. House and Senate — both of which are broadly supportive of Ukraine — and then approval by the president. Such formal ratification would put Ukraine’s guarantees on similar footing to other U.S. bilateral security treaties with countries like Japan and South Korea. Alternative vehicles like a presidential executive action, which was used for both the Paris Climate accords and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to limit Iran’s uranium enrichment, are non-binding political commitments, meaning a future president wouldn’t be bound by them. So, if formal ratification is on the table, Zelenskyy will be hoping it provides Ukraine future opportunities to influence Congress and ensure support remains strong and united. However, regardless of Europe’s efforts to support Ukraine, the only thing that really matters is America’s security guarantees, which Volodymyr Zelenskyy must now secure — even if it means concessions elsewhere. | Leszek Szymanski/EPA But even then, there are risks. While Zelenskyy has said the security guarantees “correspond to Article 5,” this core alliance commitment is fragile. On the plane to the NATO Summit in the Hague this summer, Trump mentioned: “There are numerous definitions of Article 5” — and he was right. Article 5 is open to interpretation, and was deliberately worded as such in 1949 to prevent the U.S. from being automatically pulled into a third major war on the European continent. Therefore, it isn’t just a question of the letter of the treaty but also its spirit. Of course, NATO is far more than just Article 5. Founded on the ashes of World War II, it’s also an alliance built on economic collaboration (Article 2), as well as an individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack (Article 3) . But if Article 5 was easily replicable, then alliances with similar strength would be established all over the world. In reality, mutual security guarantees backed by credible military force are rare. So it’s questionable whether the U.S. would, in fact, choose to offer a guarantee that could force it to directly intervene in Ukraine, especially considering it’s provided measured support since 2014, consistently blocked the country’s path to NATO since 2022, and made it a priority to avoid getting directly involved in the war. Finally, it is a maxim of war that “the enemy gets a vote.” So, as bilateral engagements between the U.S. and Russia continue in parallel with European and Ukrainian negotiations, Putin’s position will be important, whether one likes it or not. Russia wants a far more expansive deal with the U.S. on European security — something it clearly demonstrated with its initial 28-point peace plan. And with Putin refusing to concede on his maximalist demands to date, it remains unclear what Russia will accept. Ultimately, regardless of how strong Zelenskyy believes America’s security guarantee is, its durability may still be based on Putin’s interpretation.

BERLIN — U.S. envoys in Berlin signaled they are ready to give Ukraine security guarantees for a future peace deal that correspond to the same levels of protection as Article 5 in the NATO alliance, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Monday. “We have now heard from the U.S. side that they are ready to give us security guarantees that correspond to Article 5,” Zelenskyy said in the chancellery in Berlin.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Friedrich Merz hat ein internationales Spitzentreffen zusammengebracht, bei dem es um einen möglichen Weg zu einem Waffenstillstand in der Ukraine geht. Wolodymyr Selenskyj ist in der Hauptstadt, ebenso die amerikanischen Unterhändler Jared Kushner und Steve Witkoff. Europa verhandelt mit, unter hohem Zeitdruck und mit offenen Fragen zu Sicherheitsgarantien und der Zukunft des amerikanischen Vorschlags für einen Frieden-Rahmen.  Gordon Repinski berichtet, warum dieser Tag zu einem Wendepunkt werden könnte, oder zu einem weiteren gescheiterten Versuch. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview spricht Andrij Melnyk, ukrainischer Botschafter bei den Vereinten Nationen und früherer Botschafter in Berlin, über die Erwartungen an die Gespräche. Er erklärt, warum Europa eine stärkere Rolle einnehmen muss, welche Garantien für die Ukraine unverzichtbar sind und wie weit sein Land bereit ist, in den Verhandlungen zu gehen, ohne seine territoriale Integrität aufzugeben. Danach richtet sich der Blick in die USA. Pauline von Pezold analysiert den Auftritt des AfD-Außenpolitikers Markus Frohnmaier beim Young Republican Club in New York. Dort wurde sichtbar, wie eng sich Teile der AfD an das Umfeld von Donald Trump anbinden und welche strategische Bedeutung dieser Schulterschluss für kommende Wahlen in Deutschland hat. Zum Schluss geht es nach Baden-Württemberg. Maximilian Stascheit berichtet vom Grünen Parteitag in Ludwigsburg. Cem Özdemir setzt im Wahlkampf auf Bekanntheit und Kontinuität, um das Staatsministerium zu verteidigen. Ein Parteitag zwischen Aufholjagd, Personalisierung und der Frage, ob dieses Konzept im Autoland aufgeht. 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. Legal Notice (Belgium) POLITICO SRL Forme sociale: Société à Responsabilité Limitée Siège social: Rue De La Loi 62, 1040 Bruxelles Numéro d’entreprise: 0526.900.436 RPM Bruxelles info@politico.eu www.politico.eu

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Europa muss sich sicherheitspolitisch neu sortieren. Gordon Repinski spricht mit der Politikwissenschaftlerin Florence Gaub darüber, warum die Debatten über europäische Eigenständigkeit seit Jahrzehnten immer wiederkehren und weshalb der aktuelle Moment dennoch eine andere Qualität hat. Gaub erklärt, wie sehr die Reaktionen Europas weniger von amerikanischen Entscheidungen als von einem eigenen Gefühl der Schwäche geprägt sind und warum dieser Kontinent lernen muss, strategisch zu denken und langfristig zu planen. Im Zentrum stehen grundlegende Fragen: Warum gelingt es Europa trotz wachsender Bedrohungen so schwer, den entscheidenden Schritt zu mehr Handlungsfähigkeit zu gehen. Welche politischen Entscheidungen fehlen und was braucht es, damit Gesellschaften Resilienz entwickeln. Gaub beschreibt die strukturellen Ursachen für langsame militärische Prozesse, die kulturellen Besonderheiten Deutschlands und die verbreitete Annahme, dass Konflikte Europa nicht mehr betreffen könnten. Der Podcast blickt außerdem auf konkrete Szenarien. Von Sabotage bis Cyberangriff, von Desinformation bis zur Frage, wie man überhaupt erkennt, dass ein Angriff stattfindet. Gaub macht deutlich, wie sehr Unsicherheit inzwischen Teil moderner Konflikte ist und warum Demokratien in der Defensive häufig stärker reagieren als in der Offensive. Und es geht um mögliche Wege nach vorn. Eine engere europäische Zusammenarbeit, flexible Formate jenseits des Einstimmigkeitsprinzips und eine neue Ehrlichkeit in der Frage, wofür Europa bereit ist, einzustehen. Gaub zeichnet ein Bild, das nüchtern ist, aber auch zeigt, welches Potenzial Europa hätte, wenn es bereit wäre, diese Rolle anzunehmen. 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. Legal Notice (Belgium) POLITICO SRL Forme sociale: Société à Responsabilité Limitée Siège social: Rue De La Loi 62, 1040 Bruxelles Numéro d’entreprise: 0526.900.436 RPM Bruxelles info@politico.eu www.politico.eu