BRUSSELS — Germany and the Netherlands are at odds with France in seeking to ensure Kyiv will be able buy U.S. weapons using the EU’s €90 billion loan to Ukraine. EU countries agreed the crucial lifeline to Kyiv at a European Council summit in December, but the capitals will still have to negotiate the formal conditions of that financing after a European Commission proposal on Wednesday. This sets up tense negotiations with Paris, which is leading a rearguard push to prevent money flowing to Washington amid a growing rift in the transatlantic alliance. French President Emmanuel Macron is keen to give preferential treatment to EU military companies to strengthen the bloc’s defense industry — even if that means Kyiv can’t immediately buy what it needs to keep Russian forces at bay. A majority of countries, led by governments in Berlin and The Hague, respond that Kyiv must have more leeway in how it spends the EU’s financial package to help fund its defense, according to position papers seen by POLITICO. These frictions are coming to a head after years of debate over whether to include Washington in EU defense purchasing programs. Divisions have only worsened since U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration threatened a military takeover of Greenland. Critics retort France’s push to introduce a strict “Buy European” clause would tie Kyiv’s hands and limit its ability to defend itself against Russia. “Ukraine also urgently requires equipment produced by third countries, notably U.S.-produced air defense systems and interceptors, F-16 ammunition and spare parts and deep-strike capacities,” the Dutch government wrote in a letter to other EU countries seen by POLITICO. While most countries including Germany and the Netherlands support a general “Buy European” clause, only Greece and Cyprus — which currently maintains a neutral stance as it is chairing talks under its rotating presidency of the Council of the EU — are backing the French push to limit the scheme to EU firms, according to multiple diplomats with knowledge of the talks. CASH FOR KYIV EU leaders agreed last month to issue €90 billion in joint debt to support Ukraine, after Belgium and others derailed a separate plan to mobilize Russian frozen state assets. Over two-thirds of the Commission’s funding is expected to go toward military expenditure rather than ordinary budget support, according to two EU diplomats briefed on the discussions. With only a few days until the Commission formally unveils its plan, EU capitals are trying to influence its most sensitive elements. French President Emmanuel Macron is keen to give preferential treatment to EU military companies to strengthen the bloc’s defense industry. | Pool photo by Sarah Meyssonnier via AFP/Getty Images Germany broke with France by proposing to open up purchases to defense firms from non-EU countries. “Germany does not support proposals to limit third country procurement to certain products and is concerned that this would put excessive restrictions on Ukraine to defend itself,” Berlin’s government wrote in a letter sent to EU capitals on Monday and seen by POLITICO. The Netherlands suggested earmarking at least €15 billion for Ukraine to buy foreign weapons that are not immediately available in Europe.  “The EU’s defence industry is currently either unable to produce equivalent systems or to do so within the required timeframe,” the Dutch government wrote in its letter. The French counterargument is that Brussels should seek to extract maximum value from its funding to Ukraine. Critics say that boosting Ukraine’s defense against Russia should take precedence over any other goal.    “It’s very frustrating. We lose the focus on our aim, and our aim is not to do business,” said a third EU diplomat. Another diplomat said that a potential French veto can be easily overcome as the proposal can be agreed by a simple majority of member countries. GERMANY FIRST In a further point of controversy, the German government, while rejecting the EU preference sought by France, still suggested giving preferential treatment to firms from countries that provided the most financial support to Ukraine. This would play to the advantage of Berlin, which is among the country’s biggest donors. “Germany requests for the logic of rewarding strong bilateral support (as originally proposed for third countries by the Commission) to be applied to member states, too,” Berlin wrote in the letter. Diplomats see this as a workaround to boost German firms and incentivize other countries to stump up more cash for the war-torn country. Giovanna Faggionato contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — If European governments didn’t realize before that Donald Trump’s threats to seize Greenland were serious, they do now. Policymakers are no longer ignoring the U.S. president’s ramped-up rhetoric — and are desperately searching for a plan to stop him. “We must be ready for a direct confrontation with Trump,” said an EU diplomat briefed on ongoing discussions. “He is in an aggressive mode, and we need to be geared up.” U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday that he planned to discuss a U.S. acquisition of Greenland with Danish officials next week. The White House said Trump’s preference would be to acquire the territory through a negotiation and also that it would consider purchasing the island — but that a military takeover was possible. As diplomatic efforts intensified in Europe, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said he and his counterparts from Germany and Poland had discussed a joint European response to Trump’s threats. “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 told reporters. “Greenland is not for sale, and it is not for taking … so the threats must stop.” POLITICO spoke with officials, diplomats, experts and NATO insiders to map out how Europe could deter the U.S. president from getting that far, and what its options are if he does. They were granted anonymity to speak freely. “Everyone is very stunned and unaware of what we actually have in the toolbox,” said a former Danish MP. “No one really knows what to do because the Americans can do whatever they want. But we need answers to these questions immediately. They can’t wait three or five or seven years.” On Wednesday, POLITICO set out the steps Trump could take to seize Greenland. Now here’s the flip side: What Europe does to stop him. OPTION 1: FIND A COMPROMISE Trump says Greenland is vital for U.S. security interests and accuses Denmark of not doing enough to protect it against increasing Chinese and Russian military activity in the Arctic.  A negotiated settlement that sees Trump come out of talks with something he can sell as a win and that allows Denmark and Greenland to save face is perhaps the fastest route out of trouble. A former senior NATO official suggested the alliance could mediate between Greenland, Denmark and the U.S., as it has done with alliance members Turkey and Greece over their disputes. U.S. NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker said on Wednesday that Trump and his advisers do not believe Greenland is properly secured. | Omar Havana/Getty Images U.S. NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker said on Wednesday that Trump and his advisers do not believe Greenland is properly secured. “As the ice thaws and as the routes in the Arctic and the High North open up … Greenland becomes a very serious security risk for the mainland of the United States of America.” NATO allies are also mulling fresh overtures to Trump that could bolster Greenland’s security, despite a widely held view that any direct threat from Russian and Chinese ships to the territory is overstated. Among other proposals, the alliance should consider accelerating defense spending on the Arctic, holding more military exercises in the region, and posting troops to secure Greenland and reassure the U.S. if necessary, according to three NATO diplomats.  The alliance should also be open to setting up an “Arctic Sentry” scheme — shifting its military assets to the region — similar to its Eastern Sentry and Baltic Sentry initiatives, two of the diplomats said. “Anything that can be done” to bolster the alliance’s presence near Greenland and meet Trump’s demands “should be maxed out,” said one of the NATO diplomats cited above. Trump also says he wants Greenland for its vast mineral deposits and potential oil and gas reserves. But there’s a reason Greenland has remained largely untapped: Extracting resources from its inhospitable terrain is difficult and very expensive, making them less competitive than Chinese imports. Denmark’s envoys say they tried for years to make the case for investment in Greenland, but their European counterparts weren’t receptive — though an EU diplomat familiar with the matter said there are signs that attitude is shifting. OPTION 2: GIVE GREENLAND A TON OF CASH The Trump administration has thrown its weight behind Greenland’s independence movement. The pitch is that if the Arctic territory leaves the Kingdom of Denmark and signs up to a deal with the U.S., it will be flooded with American cash.  While Trump has repeatedly refused to rule out using military force to take Greenland, he has also insisted he wants it to come willingly. The EU and Denmark are trying to convince Greenlanders that they can give them a better deal. Brussels is planning to more than double its spending on Greenland from 2028 under long-term budget plans drawn up after Trump started to make claims on the Danish-held territory, according to a draft proposal from the European Commission published in September. Under the plans, which are subject to further negotiations among member countries, the EU would almost double spending on Greenland to €530 million for a seven-year period starting in 2028.  That comes on top of the money Denmark sends Greenland as part of its agreement with the self-governing territory. Greenland would also be eligible to apply for an additional €44 million in EU funding for remote territories associated with European countries, per the same document. Danish and European support currently focuses mainly on welfare, health care, education and the territory’s green transition. Under the new spending plans, that focus would expand to developing the island’s ability to extract mineral resources. “We have many, many people below the poverty line, and the infrastructure in Greenland is lagging, and our resources are primarily taken out without good profit to Greenland but mostly profit to Danish companies,” said Kuno Fencker, a pro-independence Greenlandic opposition MP.  An attractive offer from Denmark and the EU could be enough to keep Greenlanders out of America’s grasp. OPTION 3: RETALIATE ECONOMICALLY Since Trump’s first term in office, “there’s been a lot of effort to try and think through how we ensure European security, Nordic security, Arctic security, without the U.S. actively involved,” said Thomas Crosbie, a U.S. military expert at the Royal Danish Defense College, which provides training and education for the Danish defense force. “That’s hard, but it’s possible. But I don’t know if anyone has seriously contemplated ensuring European security against America. It’s just crazy,” Crosbie said. The EU does have one strong political tool at its disposal, which it could use to deter Trump: the Anti-Coercion Instrument, the “trade bazooka” created after the first Trump administration, which allows the EU to retaliate against trade discrimination. The EU threatened to deploy it after Trump slapped tariffs on the bloc but shelved it in July after the two sides reached a deal. With the U.S. still imposing tariffs on the EU, Brussels could bring the bazooka back out. “We have exports to the United States a bit above €600 billion, and for around one-third of those goods we have a market share of more than 50 percent and it’s totally clear that this is also the power in our hands,” said Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee. But Trump would have to believe the EU was serious, given that all its tough talk amounted to nothing the last time around. OPTION 4: BOOTS ON THE GROUND If the U.S. does decide to take Greenland by military force, there’s little Europeans could do to prevent it.  “They are not going to preemptively attack Americans before they claim Greenland, because that would be done before an act of war,” said Crosbie, the Danish military educator. “But in terms of responding to the first move, it really depends. If the Americans have a very small group of people, you could try and arrest those people, because there’d be a criminal act.” It’s a different story if the U.S. goes in hard. Legally speaking, it’s possible Denmark would be forced to respond militarily. Under a 1952 standing order, troops should “immediately take up the fight without waiting for, or seeking orders” in “the event of an attack on Danish territory.” European countries should weigh the possibility of deploying troops to Greenland — if Denmark requests it — to increase the potential cost of U.S. military action, an EU diplomat said, echoing suggestions that Berlin and Paris could send forces to deter any incursion. While those forces are unlikely to be able to withstand a U.S. invasion, they would act as a deterrent. “You could have a tripwire effect where you have some groups of people who are physically in the way, like a Tiananmen Square-type situation, which would potentially force the [U.S.] military to use violence” or to back down, said Crosbie.  But that strategy comes at a high cost, he said. “This is completely unexplored territory, but it is quite possible that people’s lives will be lost in the attempt to reject the American claim over Greenland.” Gerardo Fortuna, Clea Caulcutt and Eli Stokols contributed reporting.

A cargo ship that sailed from Russia was detained in the Gulf of Finland on Wednesday following damage to an underwater data cable linking Finland and Estonia. “A ship that was in the area at the time of the cable damage between Helsinki and Tallinn has been diverted to Finnish waters,” Prime Minister Petteri Orpo posted on X. “The government is closely monitoring the situation.” The Fitburg, which was under the flag of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, had departed St. Petersburg, Russia on Dec. 30 and was en route to Israel with crew from Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan. Telecoms provider Elisa notified authorities at 5 a.m. of a cable break in Estonia’s exclusive economic zone, which extends 200 nautical miles from its coast. Hours later a Finnish patrol vessel caught the Fitburg with its anchor in the water in Finland’s exclusive economic zone, the country’s coast guard reported. “At the moment we suspect aggravated disruption of telecommunications and also aggravated sabotage and attempted aggravated sabotage,” Helsinki police chief Jari Liukku told media. “Finland is prepared for security challenges of various kinds, and we respond to them as necessary,” President Alexander Stubb said on X. Earlier this year the NATO military alliance launched its “Baltic Sentry” program to stop attacks against subsea energy and data cables in the Baltic Sea that have multiplied following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The sabotage has included the severing of an internet cable between Finland and Germany in November 2024 and another between Finland and Sweden the following month. A July study by the University of Washington found that 10 subsea cables in the Baltic Sea had been cut since 2022. “A majority of these incidents have raised suspicions of sabotage by state actors, specifically Russia and China, who have been particularly active in the region,” the study noted.

BRUSSELS — The European Union faces a critical week as it seeks to shield Ukraine from a humiliating peace deal carved out by the U.S. and Russia while attempting to salvage an agreement to fund a multi-billion euro loan to keep Kyiv afloat. After a series of stinging attacks from Washington ― including Donald Trump telling POLITICO that European leaders are “weak” ― the coming days will be a real test of their mettle. On Monday leaders will attempt to build bridges and use their powers of persuasion over the peace agreement when they meet Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. officials in Berlin. At the same time in Brussels, EU foreign ministers and diplomats will battle to win over a growing number of European governments that oppose the loan plan. By Thursday, when all 27 leaders gather in the Belgian capital for what promises to be one of the most pivotal summits in years, they’ll hope to have more clarity on whether the intense diplomacy has paid off. With Trump’s stinging put-downs ― Europe’s leaders “talk, but they don’t produce” ― and NATO chief Mark Rutte’s stark warnings about the the threat from Russia ringing in their ears, they’re taking nothing for granted. “We are Russia’s next target, and we are already in harm’s way,” Rutte said last week. “Russia has brought war back to Europe and we must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents and great grandparents endured.” Little wonder then that European officials are casting the next few days as existential. The latest shot of 11th-hour diplomacy will see the leaders of the U.K., Germany and possibly France, potentially with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and his special envoy Steve Witkoff, meeting with Zelenskyy in Berlin. As if to underscore the significance of the meeting, “numerous European heads of state and government, as well as the leaders of the EU and NATO, will join the talks” after the initial discussion, said Stefan Kornelius, spokesperson for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. French President Emmanuel Macron hasn’t confirmed his attendance but spoke to Zelenskyy by telephone on Sunday. The discussion will represent Europe’s attempt to influence the final settlement, weeks after a 28-point peace plan drafted by Witkoff  — reportedly with the aid of several Kremlin officials — provoked a furious backlash in both Kyiv and European capitals. They’ve since scrambled to put together an alternative. Further European disunity this week would send a “disastrous signal to Ukraine,” said one EU official. That outcome wouldn’t just be a hammer blow to the war-struck nation, the official added: “It’s also fair to say that Europe will then fail as well.” EMPTYING TERRITORIES This time the focus will be on a 20-point amendment to the plan drafted by Kyiv and its European allies and submitted to Washington for review last week. The contents remain unclear, and nothing is decided, but the fate of the Ukrainian territories under Russian occupation is particularly thorny. Trump has pitched emptying out the territories of Ukrainian and Russian troops and establishing a demilitarized “free economic zone” where U.S. business interests could operate. Ukraine has rejected that proposal, according to a French official, who was granted anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations. The U.S. has insisted on territorial concessions despite fierce European objections, the official added, creating friction with the Trump administration. Leaders will attempt to build bridges and use their powers of persuasion over the peace agreement when they meet Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. officials in Berlin. | Antonio Masiello/Getty Images Europe’s leaders insist there can be no progress on territory before Ukraine is offered security guarantees. In a sign of movement toward some kind of deal, Zelenskyy said over the weekend he was willing to “compromise” and not demand NATO membership for Ukraine. Instead, the country should be afforded an ad-hoc collective defense arrangement, he told journalists in a WhatsApp conversation. “The bilateral security guarantees between Ukraine and the United States … and the security guarantees from our European colleagues for us, as well as from other countries such as Canada and Japan ― these security guarantees for us provide an opportunity to prevent another outbreak of Russian aggression,” he said. REPEATED SETBACKS Europe will have further opportunities to discuss the way forward after Monday. EU affairs ministers will continue on Tuesday in Brussels to thrash out plans for Thursday’s summit. In between, Wednesday will see the leaders of Europe’s “Eastern flank” ― with countries including the Baltics and Poland represented ― huddle in Helsinki. The EU has been trying for months to convince Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever to consent to a plan to use the cash value of the €185 billion in Russian state assets held in Brussels-based depository Euroclear to fund and arm Ukraine. (The remainder of the total €210 billion financial package would include €25 billion in frozen Russian assets held across the bloc.) In a sign the chances of a deal at Thursday’s summit are worsening rather than improving, Italy — the EU’s third-largest country — sided with Belgium’s demands to look for alternative options to finance Ukraine in a letter on Friday that was also signed by Malta and Bulgaria. Czechia’s new Prime Minister Andrej Babiš also rejected the plan on Sunday. “The more such cases we have the more likely it is that we will have to find other solutions,” an EU diplomat said. The five countries — even if joined by pro-Kremlin Hungary and Slovakia — would not be able to build a blocking minority, but their public criticism erodes the Commission’s hopes of striking a political deal this week. A meeting of EU ambassadors originally planned for Sunday evening was postponed until Monday. While the last-minute diplomatic effort has left many concerned the money might not be approved before the end of the year, with Ukraine in desperate need of the cash, three diplomats insisted they were sticking to the plan and that no alternatives were yet being considered. Belgium is engaging constructively with the draft measures, actively making suggestions and changes in the document to be considered when ambassadors meet on Monday, one of the diplomats and an EU official said. The decision on the Russian assets is “a decision on the future of Europe and will determine whether the EU is still a relevant actor,” a German official said. “There is no option B.” Bjarke Smith-Meyer, Nick Vinocur, Victor Jack and Zoya Sheftalovich in Brussels, Veronika Melkozerova in Kyiv, Clea Caulcutt and Laura Kayali in Paris and Nette Nöstlinger in Berlin contributed to this report.

Mathias Döpfner is chair and CEO of Axel Springer, POLITICO’s parent company. America and Europe have been transmitting on different wavelengths for some time now. And that is dangerous — especially for Europe. The European reactions to the new U.S. National Security Strategy paper and to Donald Trump’s recent criticism of the Old Continent were, once again, reflexively offended and incapable of accepting criticism: How dare he, what an improper intrusion! But such reactions do not help; they do harm. Two points are lost in these sour responses. First: Most Americans criticize Europe because the continent matters to them. Many of those challenging Europe — even JD Vance or Trump, even Elon Musk or Sam Altman — emphasize this repeatedly. The new U.S. National Security Strategy, scandalized above all by those who have not read it, states explicitly: “Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete, and to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe.” And Trump says repeatedly, literally or in essence, in his interview with POLITICO: “I want to see a strong Europe.” The transatlantic drift is also a rupture of political language. Trump very often simply says what he thinks — sharply contrasting with many European politicians who are increasingly afraid to say what they believe is right. People sense the castration of thought through a language of evasions. And they turn away. Or toward the rabble-rousers. My impression is that our difficult American friends genuinely want exactly what they say they want: a strong Europe, a reliable and effective partner. But we do not hear it — or refuse to hear it. We hear only the criticism and dismiss it. Criticism is almost always a sign of involvement, of passion. We should worry far more if no criticism arrived. That would signal indifference — and therefore irrelevance. (By the way: Whether we like the critics is of secondary importance.) Responding with hauteur is simply not in our interest. It would be wiser — as Kaja Kallas rightly emphasized — to conduct a dialogue that includes self-criticism, a conversation about strengths, weaknesses and shared interests, and to back words with action on both sides. Which brings us to the second point: Unfortunately, much of the criticism is accurate. Anyone who sees politics as more than a self-absorbed administration of the status quo must concede that for decades Europe has delivered far too little — or nothing at all. Not in terms of above-average growth and prosperity, nor in terms of affordable energy. Europe does not deliver on deregulation or debureaucratization; it does not deliver on digitalization or innovation driven by artificial intelligence. And above all: Europe does not deliver on a responsible and successful migration policy. The world that wishes Europe well looked to the new German government with great hope. Capital flows on the scale of trillions waited for the first positive signals to invest in Germany and Europe. For it seemed almost certain that the world’s third-largest economy would, under a sensible, business-minded and transatlantic chancellor, finally steer a faltering Europe back onto the right path. The disappointment was all the more painful. Aside from the interior minister, the digital minister and the economics minister, the new government delivers in most areas the opposite of what had been promised before the election. The chancellor likes to blame the vice chancellor. The vice chancellor blames his own party. And all together they prefer to blame the Americans and their president. Instead of a European fresh start, we see continued agony and decline. Germany still suffers from its National Socialist trauma and believes that if it remains pleasantly average and certainly not excellent, everyone will love it. France is now paying the price for its colonial legacy in Africa and finds itself — all the way up to a president driven by political opportunism — in the chokehold of Islamist and antisemitic networks. In Britain, the prime minister is pursuing a similar course of cultural and economic submission. And Spain is governed by socialist fantasists who seem to take real pleasure in self-enfeeblement and whose “genocide in Gaza” rhetoric mainly mobilizes bored, well-heeled daughters of the upper middle class. Hope comes from Finland and Denmark, from the Baltic states and Poland, and — surprisingly — from Italy. There, the anti-democratic threats from Russia, China and Iran are assessed more realistically. Above all, there is a healthy drive to be better and more successful than others. From a far weaker starting point, there is an ambition for excellence. What Europe needs is less wounded pride and more patriotism defined by achievement. Unity and decisive action in defending Ukraine would be an obvious example — not merely talking about European sovereignty but demonstrating it, even in friendly dissent with the Americans. (And who knows, that might ultimately prompt a surprising shift in Washington’s Russia policy.) That, coupled with economic growth through real and far-reaching reforms, would be a start. After which Europe must tackle the most important task: a fundamental reversal of a migration policy rooted in cultural self-hatred that tolerates far too many newcomers who want a different society, who hold different values, and who do not respect our legal order. If all of this fails, American criticism will be vindicated by history. The excuses for why a European renewal is supposedly impossible or unnecessary are merely signs of weak leadership. The converse is also true: where there is political will, there is a way. And this way begins in Europe — with the spirit of renewal of a well-understood “Europe First” (what else?) — and leads to America. Europe needs America. America needs Europe. And perhaps both needed the deep crisis in the transatlantic relationship to recognize this with full clarity. As surprising as it may sound, at this very moment there is a real opportunity for a renaissance of a transatlantic community of shared interests. Precisely because the situation is so deadlocked. And precisely because pressure is rising on both sides of the Atlantic to do things differently. A trade war between Europe and America strengthens our shared adversaries. The opposite would be sensible: a New Deal between the EU and the U.S. Tariff-free trade as a stimulus for growth in the world’s largest and third-largest economies — and as the foundation for a shared policy of interests and, inevitably, a joint security policy of the free world. This is the historic opportunity that Friedrich Merz could now negotiate with Donald Trump. As Churchill said: “Never waste a good crisis!”

Denmark’s military intelligence service has for the first time classified the U.S. as a security risk, a striking shift in how one of Washington’s closest European allies assesses the transatlantic relationship. In its 2025 intelligence outlook published Wednesday, the Danish Defense Intelligence Service warned that the U.S. is increasingly prioritizing its own interests and “using its economic and technological strength as a tool of power,” including toward allies and partners. “The United States uses economic power, including in the form of threats of high tariffs, to enforce its will and no longer excludes the use of military force, even against allies,” it said, in a pointed reference to Washington trying to wrest control of Greenland from Denmark. The assessment is one of the strongest warnings about the U.S. to come from a European intelligence service. In October, the Dutch spies said they had stopped sharing some intelligence with their U.S. counterparts, citing political interference and human rights concerns. The Danish warning underscores European unease as Washington leverages industrial policy more aggressively on the global stage, and highlights the widening divide between the allies, with the U.S. National Security Strategy stating that Europe will face the “prospect of civilizational erasure” within the next 20 years. The Danish report also said that “there is uncertainty about how China-U.S. relations will develop in the coming years” as Beijing’s rapid rise has eroded the U.S.’s long-held position as the undisputed global power. Washington and Beijing are now locked in a contest for influence, alliances and critical resources, which has meant the U.S. has “significantly prioritized” the geographical area around it — including the Arctic — to reduce China’s influence. “The USA’s increasingly strong focus on the Pacific Ocean is also creating uncertainty about the country’s role as the primary guarantor of security in Europe,” the report said. “The USA’s changed policy places great demands on armaments and cooperation between European countries to strengthen deterrence against Russia.” In the worst-case scenario, the Danish intelligence services predict that Western countries could find themselves in a situation in a few years where both Russia and China are ready to fight their own regional wars in the Baltic Sea region and the Taiwan Strait, respectively.

BRUSSELS ― Europe’s strategy for convincing the Belgians to support its plan to fund Ukraine? Warn them they could be treated like Hungary. At their summit on Dec. 18, EU leaders’ key task will be to win over Bart De Wever, the bloc’s latest bête noire. Belgium’s prime minister is vetoing their efforts to pull together a €210 billion loan to Ukraine as it faces a huge financial black hole and as the war with Russian grinds on. De Wever has dug his heels in for so long over the plan to fund the loan using frozen Russian assets ― which just happen to be mostly housed in Belgium ― that diplomats from across the bloc are now working on strategies to get him on board. De Wever is holding out over fears Belgium will be on the hook should the money need to be paid back, and has now asked for more safety nets. Nearly all the Russian assets are housed in Euroclear, a financial depository in Brussels. He wants the EU to provide an extra cash buffer on top of financial guarantees and increased safeguards to cover potential legal disputes and settlements — an idea many governments oppose. Belgium has sent a list of amendments it wants, to ensure it isn’t forced to repay the money to Moscow alone if sanctions are lifted. De Wever said he won’t back the reparations loan if his concerns aren’t met. Leaders thought they’d have a deal the last time they all met in October. Then, it was unthinkable they wouldn’t get one in December. Now it looks odds-on. All hope isn’t lost yet, diplomats say. Ambassadors will go line by line through Belgium’s requests, figure out the biggest concerns and seek to address them. There’s still room for maneuver. The plan is to come as close to the Belgian position as they can. But a week before leaders meet, the EU is turning the screws. If De Wever continues to block the plan ― a path he’s been on for several months, putting forward additional conditions and demands ― he will find himself in an uncomfortable and remarkable position for the leader of a country that for so long has been pro-EU, according to an EU diplomat with knowledge of the discussions taking place. The Belgium leader would be frozen out and ignored, just like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán has been given the cold shoulder over democratic backsliding and his refusal to play ball on sanctioning Russia. The message to Belgium is that if it does not come on board, its diplomats, ministers and leaders will lose their voice around the EU table. Officials would put to the bottom of the pile Belgium’s wishlist and concerns related to the EU’s long-term budget for 2028–2034, which would cause the government a major headache, particularly when negotiations get into the crucial final stretch in 18 months’ time. Nearly all the Russian assets are housed in Euroclear, a financial depository in Brussels. | Ansgar Haase/Getty Images Its views on EU proposals will not be sought. Its phone calls will go unanswered, the diplomat said. It would be a harsh reality for a country that is both literally and symbolically at the heart of the EU project, and that has punched above its weight when it comes to taking on leading roles such as the presidency of the European Council. But diplomats say desperate times call for desperate measures. Ukraine faces a budget shortfall next year of €71.7 billion, and will have to start cutting public spending from April unless it can secure the money. U.S. President Donald Trump has again distanced himself from providing American support. Underscoring the high stakes, EU ambassadors are meeting three times this week — on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday — for talks on the Commission’s proposal for the loan, published last week.   PLAN B — AND PLAN C — FOR UKRAINE The European Commission put forward one other option for funding Ukraine: joint debt backed by the EU’s next seven-year budget. Hungary has formally ruled out issuing eurobonds, and raising debt through the EU budget to prop up Ukraine requires a unanimous vote. That leaves a Plan C: for some countries to dig into their own treasuries to keep Ukraine afloat. That prospect isn’t among the Commission’s proposals, but diplomats are quietly discussing it. Germany, the Nordics and the Baltics are seen as the most likely participants. But those floating the idea have a warning: The most significant benefit conferred by EU membership to countries around the bloc is solidarity. By forcing some member countries to carry the financial burden of supporting Ukraine alone, the bloc risks a serious split at its core. Germany in future may not choose to prop up a failing bank in a country that doesn’t stump up the cash for Kyiv now, the thinking goes. “Solidarity is a two-way street,” a diplomat said. For sure, there is another way — but only in theory. De Wever’s fellow EU leaders could band together and pass the “reparation loan” plan via so-called qualified majority voting, ignoring Belgium’s rejections and just steamrollering it through. But diplomats said this is not being seriously considered. Bjarke Smith-Meyer and Gregorio Sorgi contributed reporting.

Lithuania on Tuesday declared a nationwide state of emergency over a surge in contraband-carrying balloons flying over the border from Belarus. “It’s clear that this emergency is being declared not only because of disruptions to civil aviation, but also due to national security concerns and the need for closer coordination among institutions,” Lithuanian Interior Minister Vladislav Kondratovič said during a government meeting Tuesday. Kondratovič added that the government had asked the parliament to grant the military additional powers to work with the law enforcement authorities during the state of the emergency. “By introducing a state of emergency today, we are legitimizing the participation of the military … and indeed, every evening, a number of crews go out together with the police, conduct patrols, monitor the territory, and detect cargo,” he said. Lithuania has accused its neighbor Belarus of repeatedly smuggling contraband cigarettes into the country using balloons, prompting air traffic disruptions and a border closure with Belarus. Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko has called Vilnius’ response “petty.” According to Lithuanian Interior Ministry data, at least 600 balloons and 200 drones entered Lithuania’s airspace this year, disrupting more than 300 flights, affecting 47,000 passengers and leading to around 60 hours of airport closures. Lithuanian Prime Minister Inga Ruginienė said the state emergency will help coordination between joint response teams to better intercept the balloons, which both Lithuania and the EU consider to be hybrid attacks. Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys told POLITICO in an interview in October that the EU must prepare new sanctions against Belarus to deprive it of the ability to wage hybrid war.

BERLIN — Before Leif-Erik Holm became one of the German far right’s leading figures, he was a morning radio DJ in his home state in eastern Germany celebrated, by his station, for making “the best jokes far and wide.” Ahead of regional elections across Germany next year, Holm, 55, is now set to become the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party’s top candidate in the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, a largely rural area bordering Poland and the Baltic Sea. With polls showing the AfD in first place at 38 percent support in the state, it’s one of the places where the party — now the largest opposition group in Germany’s national parliament — is within striking distance of taking significant governing power for the first time since its formation over a decade ago. Holm embodies the type of candidate at least some AfD leaders increasingly want at the top of the ticket. With an avuncular demeanor, he eschews the kind of incendiary rhetoric other politicians in the party have embraced and says he seeks dialogue with his political opponents. Asked what his party would do if it takes power in his state next year, Holm rattled off some innocuous-sounding proposals: invest more in education, including STEM subjects, and ensure children of immigrants learn German before they start school. “I’m actually a nice guy,” Holm said. Underneath the guy-next-door image, however, there’s a clear political calculus. National co-head of the party, Alice Weidel, is attempting something of a rebrand, believing that the AfD won’t be able to make the jump to real political power unless it moves away from candidates who embrace openly extreme positions. That means moving away from controversial leaders like Björn Höcke — found guilty by a court for uttering a banned slogan used by Adolf Hitler’s SA storm troopers — and Maximilian Krah, who last year said he would “never say that anyone who wore an SS uniform was automatically a criminal.” Instead, the preferred candidate, at least for Weidel and people in her camp, is someone like Holm, who can present a more sanitized face of the party. But the makeover is proving to be only skin deep, and even Weidel, despite her national leadership role, can’t prevent the mask from slipping. NEW LOOK, SAME POLITICS Since its creation in 2013 as a Euroskeptic party, the AfD has grown more extreme, mobilizing its increasingly radicalized base primarily around the issue of migration. Earlier this year, Germany’s federal domestic intelligence agency — which is tasked with surveilling groups found to be anti-constitutional — deemed the AfD an extremist group. Weidel is now trying to tamp down on the open extremism. The effort is intended to make the AfD more palatable to mainstream conservatives — and to make it harder for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s center-right alliance to refuse to govern in coalition with the party by maintaining the postwar “firewall” around the far right. Weidel’s push to present a more polished party image isn’t necessarily supported by large swaths of the AfD’s rank and file — especially in its strongholds in the former East Germany — who point to the fact that the party’s political ascent coincided with its radicalization. The argument isn’t without merit. Despite its rising extremism, the party came in second in the snap federal election early this year — the best national showing for a far-right party since World War II. The party is now ahead of Merz’s conservatives in polls. Alice Weidel’s push to present a more polished party image isn’t necessarily supported by large swaths of the AfD’s rank and file. | Sean Gallup/Getty Images  Weidel is nevertheless pressing ahead with her drive to try to soften the AfD’s image. As part of this effort, Weidel has tried to somewhat shift her party from its proximity to the Kremlin — seeking closer ties with Republicans in the U.S. From now on, the party will “fight alongside the white knight rather than the black knight,” a person familiar with Weidel’s thinking said. In another remake attempt, earlier this year, an extremist youth group affiliated with the AfD dissolved itself to avert a possible ban that might have damaged the party. Last weekend, a new youth wing was formed that party leaders will have direct control over. Other far-right parties across Europe have made their own rebranding efforts. In France, far-right leader Marine Le Pen has attempted to normalize her party — an effort referred to as dédiabolisation, or “de-demonization” — ditching the open antisemitism of its founders. As part of that push, Le Pen moved to disassociate her party from the AfD in the European Parliament. In Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has moderated her earlier anti-EU, pro-Russia stances. For the AfD, however, the attempted transformation is less a matter of substance — and more a matter of optics. Underneath Weidel’s effort to burnish her party’s reputation, many of its most extreme voices continue to hold sway. THE POLISHED RADICAL Perhaps no AfD leader embodies that tension more than Ulrich Siegmund, the lead candidate for the party in the state of Saxony-Anhalt, where it is polling first at 40 percent support ahead of a regional vote next September. It’s here, in this small state of just over 2 million people, where AfD leaders pin most of their hopes of getting into state government next year — possibly even with an absolute majority. Like Holm, Siegmund too tries to cultivate a regular-guy persona. Even members of opposing parties in the state parliament describe him as friendly and approachable. With over half a million followers on TikTok, he reaches more people than any other state politician in Germany. Perhaps no AfD leader embodies that tension more than Ulrich Siegmund, the lead candidate for the party in the state of Saxony-Anhalt. | Emmanuele Contini/NurPhoto via Getty Images At the same time, Siegmund is clearly connected to the extreme fringe of the party. He was one of the attendees at a secret meeting of right-wing extremists in which a “master plan” to deport migrants and “unassimilated citizens” was reportedly discussed. When news of the meeting broke last year, it sparked sustained protests against the far right across Germany and temporarily dented the AfD’s popularity in polls. Speaking to POLITICO, Siegmund minimized the secret meeting as “coffee klatsch,” claiming the real scandal is how the media overblew the episode. He described himself not as a dangerous extremist — but as a regular guy concerned for his country. “I am a normal citizen, taxpayer and resident of this country who simply wants a better home, especially for his children, for his family, for all of our children,” Siegmund said. “Because I simply cannot stand by and watch our country develop so negatively in such a short time.” Yet, when pressed, Siegmund could not conceal his extremism. He defended the use of the motto “Everything for Germany!” — the banned Nazi phrase that got his party colleague, Höcke, into legal trouble. “I think it goes without saying that you should give your all for your own country,” Siegmund said. “And I think that should also be the benchmark for every politician — to do everything they can for their own country, because that’s what they were elected to do and what they are paid to do.” Siegmund also took issue with the notion that the Nazis perpetrated history’s greatest crime against humanity, so therefore Germans have a special responsibility to avoid such terms. Ulrich Siegmund also took issue with the notion that the Nazis perpetrated history’s greatest crime against humanity, so therefore Germans have a special responsibility to avoid such terms. | Heiko Rebsch/picture alliance via Getty Images “I find this interpretation to be grossly exaggerated and completely detached from reality,” he said. “For me, it is important to look forward and not backward. And of course, we must always learn from history, but not just from individual aspects of history, but from history as a whole.” Siegmund said he couldn’t judge whether the Nazis had perpetrated history’s worst crime, relativizing the Holocaust in a manner reminiscent of some of the most extreme voices in his party. “I don’t presume to judge that,” he said, “because I can’t assess the whole of humanity.” One lesson from Germany’s history, Siegmund added, is that there should be no “language police” or attempts to ban the AfD as extremist, as some centrist politicians advocate. “If you want to ban the strongest force in this country according to opinion polls, then you’re not learning from history either,” he said. INTERNATIONAL NATIONALISTS The AfD’s national leaders privately smarted at Siegmund’s comments for making their faltering rebrand more difficult. (Holm did not respond to a request for comment on the statements.) That’s especially the case because Weidel and other AfD leaders are increasingly looking abroad for the legitimacy they crave at home and fear such rhetoric will complicate the effort. Weidel and people in her circle have sought to forge closer ties to the Trump administration and other right-wing governments, seeing connections with MAGA Republicans in the U.S. and other populist-right parties in Europe as a way of winning credibility for the AfD domestically. In Europe, Weidel has repeatedly visited Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán at his official residence in Budapest. The party is also making an effort to reestablish connections with members of Le Pen’s party in the European Parliament, according to a high-ranking AfD official. Not everyone in the AfD, however, sees eye to eye with Weidel on the attempt to moderate the party image, especially when it comes to relations with Moscow. The AfD’s other national co-leader, Tino Chrupalla, recently told an interviewer on German public television that Vladimir Putin’s Russia poses no threat to Germany. Chrupalla’s rhetoric is much more friendly to the Kremlin, and he’s the preferred party leader among many of the AfD’s most radical supporters in eastern Germany — where pro-Moscow sympathies are more prevalent. Many of the AfD’s followers in the former East Germany, where the party polls strongest, see Weidel, born in the former West Germany, as too mild in her approach. Ultimately, the direction of the AfD — in next year’s state elections and beyond — may well depend on which leader’s vision prevails.

Romania’s Defense Minister Ionuț Moșteanu resigned Friday over false claims on his resume, marking the second time in recent weeks that a NATO country close to Russia has had to change its defense leadership. “Romania and Europe are under attack from Russia. Our national security must be defended at all costs. I do not want discussions about my education and the mistakes I made many years ago to distract those who are now leading the country from their difficult mission,” he said. According to local media, Moșteanu wrote in his official resume that he graduated from Athenaeum University in Bucharest even though he never attended the school. He also added the Faculty of Automation at the Polytechnic University of Bucharest to his CV despite dropping out. Moșteanu’s resignation just months into the job follows the ousting of Dovilė Šakalienė as Lithuania’s defense minister over a dispute about the Baltic country’s defense budget — and as Europe mulls how to respond to intensifying Russian hybrid attacks. Romania’s Economy Minister Radu Miruță is expected to take over the defense portfolio on an interim basis, the government said. Moșteanu’s departure comes with Romania facing regular Russian drone incursions. Bucharest is also 48 hours away from a deadline for EU countries to submit a plan to the European Commission for how they will spend money from the EU’s loans-for-weapons SAFE program. Romania is set to be the second-largest beneficiary of the scheme, in line for a €16.6 billion pot of cash.