Denmark and allied countries said Wednesday they will increase their military presence in Greenland as part of expanded exercises, amid intensifying pressure from Washington over the Arctic island’s sovereignty. “Security in the Arctic is of crucial importance to the Kingdom and our Arctic allies, and it is therefore important that we, in close cooperation with allies, further strengthen our ability to operate in the region,” said Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen. “The Danish Defense Forces, together with several Arctic and European allies, will explore in the coming weeks how an increased presence and exercise activity in the Arctic can be implemented.” In a statement, Denmark’s defense ministry said additional Danish aircraft, naval assets and troops will be deployed in and around Greenland starting immediately as part of expanded training and exercise activity. The effort will include “receiving allied forces, operating fighter jets and carrying out maritime security tasks,” the ministry said. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said on X that Swedish officers are arriving in Greenland as part of a multinational allied group to help prepare upcoming phases of Denmark’s Operation Arctic Endurance exercise, following a request from Copenhagen. A European diplomat said that troops from the Netherlands, Canada and Germany were also taking part. The diplomat and another official with first-hand knowledge said France was also involved. Defense ministries in other countries did not immediately respond to requests for comment. So far, the deployment remains intergovernmental and has not been formally approved by NATO, according to two people familiar with the matter. “The goal is to show that Denmark and key allies can increase their presence in the Arctic region,” said a third person briefed on the plans, demonstrating their “ability to operate under the unique Arctic conditions and thereby strengthen the alliance’s footprint in the Arctic, benefiting both European and transatlantic security.” The announcement landed the same day U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with the Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers in Washington, following days of rising transatlantic tensions over President Donald Trump’s bid to take over the strategic island. Trump escalated the dispute earlier Wednesday in a Truth Social post, declaring that “the United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security,” calling it “vital” for his planned “Golden Dome” missile defense system.  He also insisted that seizing Greenland would not destroy NATO, despite warnings from Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen that such a move would end the Atlantic alliance. “Militarily, without the vast power of the United States … NATO would not be an effective force or deterrent — Not even close!” Trump posted. “They know that, and so do I. NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES.” Denmark and Greenland have repeatedly rejected any suggestion of a transfer of sovereignty, stressing that Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and that its future is for Greenlanders alone to decide. Greenland’s government said it is working closely with Copenhagen to ensure local involvement and transparency, with Denmark’s Arctic Command tasked with keeping the population informed. “If we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark,” Jens-Frederik Nielsen, Greenland’s prime minister, said at a press conference Tuesday. In response, Trump said, “That’s their problem. I disagree with him. I don’t know who he is. Don’t know anything about him, but that’s going to be a big problem for him.”

LONDON — Britain stepped up a promise to send troops into Ukraine — and left open a host of questions about how it will all work in practice. At a meeting of the “coalition of the willing” in Paris this week, the U.K. and France signed a “declaration of intent” to station forces in Ukraine as part of a multinational bid to support any ceasefire deal with Russia. It builds on months of behind-the-scenes planning by civil servants and military personnel eager to put heft behind any agreement. Despite promising a House of Commons vote, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has so far shared very little information publicly about how the operation might work and what its terms of engagement will be, at a time when Britain’s armed forces are already under significant strain. This lack of transparency has begun to raise alarm bells in defense circles. Ed Arnold of think tank the Royal United Services Institute has described the U.K. as being in “a really dangerous position,” while retired commander Tim Collins said any peacekeeping mission would not be credible without higher defense spending. Even Nigel Farage was in on the action Wednesday — the populist leader of Britain’s Reform UK party said he couldn’t sign up to the plan in its current form, and predicted the country could only keep its commitments going “for six or eight weeks.” Here are the key questions still lingering for Starmer’s government. HAS THE UK GOT ENOUGH TROOPS? In France, Emmanuel Macron is at least starting to get into the numbers. The French president gave a televised address Tuesday in which he said France envisaged sending “several thousands” of troops to Ukrainian territory. But Starmer has given no equivalent commitment. Under pressure in the House of Commons, the British prime minster defended that position Wednesday, saying the size of the deployment would depend on the nature of the ceasefire agreed between Russia and Ukraine. However, analysts say it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a deployment does not place a genuine strain on the U.K.’s military. The country’s strategic defense review, published last year, stressed that the Britain’s armed forces have dwindled in strength since the Cold War, leaving “only a small set of forces ready to deploy at any given moment. The latest figures from the Ministry of Defence put the number of medically-deployable troops at 99,162. Figures including former head of the army Richard Dannatt and Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, have warned that a new deployment in Ukraine would mean pulling away from existing operations. There is also a hefty question mark over how long troops might be deployed for, and whether they might be taking on an open-ended commitment of the kind that snarled Britain for years in Afghanistan. RUSI’s Arnold said positioning troops in Ukraine could be “bigger” than deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Libya, “not necessarily in numbers, but in terms of the consequences… This mission absolutely can’t fail. And if it’s a mission that can’t fail, it needs to be absolutely watertight.” WHAT HAPPENS IF RUSSIA ACTUALLY ATTACKS? Ministers have refused to be drawn so far on the expectations placed on troops who might be stationed in Ukraine as part of the plan. They have instead placed an emphasis on the U.K.’s role as part of a “reassurance” force, providing air and maritime support, with ground activity focused on training Ukrainian soldiers, and have not specified what would happen if British troops came under direct threat. The latest figures from the Ministry of Defence put the number of medically-deployable troops at 99,162. | Pool photo by Jason Alden/EPA That’s already got Kyiv asking questions. “Would all the COW partners give a strong response if Russia attacks again? That’s a hard question. I ask all of them, and I still have not gotten a clear answer,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told reporters via WhatsApp chat on Wednesday. “I see political will. I see partners being ready to give us strong sanctions, security guarantees. But until we have legally binding security guarantees, approved by parliaments, by the U.S. Congress, we cannot answer the question if partners are ready to protect us,” Zelenskyy added. Richard Shirreff, former deputy supreme commander of NATO in Europe, told LBC: “This can’t be a lightly armed ‘blue beret’-type peacekeeping force … enforcing peace means being prepared to overmatch the Russians, and that means also being prepared to fight them if necessary.” A U.K. military official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said: “There is no point in troops being there if they’re not prepared to fight.” Asked if British troops could return fire if they came under attack from Russia, a Downing Street spokesman said Wednesday afternoon that they would not comment on “operational hypothetical scenarios.”  Ministers have refused to be drawn so far on the expectations placed on troops who might be stationed in Ukraine as part of the plan. | Tolga Akmen/EPA Returning fire might even be one of the simpler possibilities for the army to contemplate, with less clarity over how peacekeeping forces could respond to other types of hostile activity designed to destabilize a ceasefire, such as drone incursions or attempted hacking. WILL THE US REALLY PROVIDE A BACKSTOP? Starmer has long stressed that U.K. military involvement will depend on the U.S. offering back-up. John Foreman, a former British defense attaché in Moscow and Kyiv, said it was right for the multinational force to focus on support for Ukraine’s own forces, pointing out: “It was never going to be able to provide credible security guarantees — only the U.S. with perhaps key allies can do this.” While Washington has inched forward in its apparent willingness to provide security guarantees — including warm words from Donald Trump’s top envoys in Paris Tuesday — they are by no means set in stone.  The final statement, which emerged from Tuesday’s meeting, was watered down from an earlier draft, removing references to American participation in the multinational force for Ukraine, including with “U.S. capabilities such as intelligence and logistics, and with a U.S. commitment to support the force if it is attacked.” This will only add to fears that the U.K. is talking beyond its capabilities and is overly optimistic about the behavior of its allies. Government officials pushed back against the accusation that British military plans lack substance, arguing that it would be “irresponsible” to share specific operational details prematurely. That position could be difficult to maintain for long.

Donald Trump wants the U.S. to own Greenland. The trouble is, Greenland already belongs to Denmark and most Greenlanders don’t want to become part of the U.S. While swooping into Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, and taking over Venezuela-style seems fanciful ― even if the military attack on Caracas seems to have provided a jolt to all sides about what the U.S. is capable of ― there’s a definite pathway. And Trump already appears to be some way along it. Worryingly for the Europeans, the strategy looks an awful lot like Vladimir Putin’s expansionist playbook. POLITICO spoke with nine EU officials, NATO insiders, defense experts and diplomats to game out how a U.S. takeover of the mineral-rich and strategically important Arctic island could play out. “It could be like five helicopters … he wouldn’t need a lot of troops,” said a Danish politician who asked for anonymity to speak freely. “There would be nothing they [Greenlanders] could do.” STEP 1: INFLUENCE CAMPAIGN TO BOOST GREENLAND’S INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT Almost immediately upon taking office, the Trump administration began talking up independence for Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. An unshackled Greenland could sign deals with the U.S., while under the status quo it needs Copenhagen’s approval. To gain independence, Greenlanders would need to vote in a referendum, then negotiate a deal that both Nuuk and Copenhagen must approve. In a 2025 opinion poll, 56 percent of Greenlanders said they would vote in favor of independence, while 28 percent said they would vote against it. Americans with ties to Trump have carried out covert influence operations in Greenland, according to Danish media reports, with Denmark’s security and intelligence service, PET, warning the territory “is the target of influence campaigns of various kinds.” Felix Kartte, a digital policy expert who has advised EU institutions and governments, pointed to Moscow’s tactics for influencing political outcomes in countries such as Moldova, Romania and Ukraine. “Russia mixes offline and online tactics,” he said. “On the ground, it works with aligned actors such as extremist parties, diaspora networks or pro-Russian oligarchs, and has been reported to pay people to attend anti-EU or anti-U.S. protests. “At the same time, it builds large networks of fake accounts and pseudo-media outlets to amplify these activities online and boost selected candidates or positions. The goal is often not to persuade voters that a pro-Russian option is better, but to make it appear larger, louder and more popular than it really is, creating a sense of inevitability.” Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, told CNN on Monday that “nobody is going to fight the U.S. militarily over the future of Greenland.” | Joe Raedle/Getty Images On Greenland, the U.S. appears to be deploying at least some of these methods. Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, told CNN on Monday that “nobody is going to fight the U.S. militarily over the future of Greenland.” Last month, Trump created the position of special envoy to Greenland and appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry to the role. He declared his goal was to “make Greenland a part of the U.S.”  Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President JD Vance, on a visit to the territory in March, said “the people of Greenland are going to have self-determination.” He added: “We hope that they choose to partner with the United States, because we’re the only nation on Earth that will respect their sovereignty and respect their security.” STEP 2: OFFER GREENLAND A SWEET DEAL Assuming its efforts to speed up Greenland’s independence referendum come to fruition, and the territory’s inhabitants vote to leave Denmark behind, the next step would be to bring it under U.S. influence. One obvious method would be to fold Greenland into the U.S. as another state — an idea those close to the president have repeatedly toyed with. Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was on Monday forced to say that “the U.S. has no right to annex” Greenland after Katie Miller — the wife of Stephen Miller — posted to social media a map of the territory draped in a U.S. flag and the word “SOON.” A direct swap of Denmark for the U.S. seems largely unpalatable to most of the population. The poll mentioned above also showed 85 percent of Greenlanders oppose the territory becoming part of the U.S., and even Trump-friendly members of the independence movement aren’t keen on the idea. But there are other options. Reports have circulated since last May that the Trump administration wants Greenland to sign a Compact of Free Association (COFA) — like those it currently has with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau. Under the deals, the U.S. provides essential services, protection and free trade in exchange for its military operating without restriction on those countries’ territory. The idea resurfaced this week. Kuno Fencker, a pro-independence Greenlandic opposition MP who attended Trump’s inauguration and met with Republican Congressman Andy Ogles last year, said he tries to “explain to [the Americans] that we don’t want to be like Puerto Rico, or any other territory of the United States. But a Compact of Free Association, bilateral agreements, or even opportunities and other means which maybe I can’t imagine — let them come to the table and Greenlanders will decide in a plebiscite.” Compared to Nuuk’s deal with Copenhagen, things “can only go upwards,” he said.  Referring to Trump’s claim that the U.S. has a “need” for Greenland, Fencker added: “Denmark has never said that they ‘needed’ Greenland. Denmark has said that Greenland is an expense, and they would leave us if we become independent. So I think it’s a much more positive remark than we have ever seen from Denmark.” But Thomas Crosbie, an associate professor of military operations at the Royal Danish Defense College that provides training and education for the Danish defense forces, warned that Greenland is unlikely to get the better of Trump in a negotiation. “Trump’s primary identity as a deal-maker is someone who forces his will on the people he’s negotiating with, and someone who has a very long track record of betraying people who he’s negotiated deals with, not honoring his commitments, both in private and public life, and exploiting those around him … I really see zero benefits to Greenlandic people other than a very temporary boost to their self esteem.” And, he added, “it would be crazy to agree to something in the hope that a deal may come. I mean, if you give away your territory in the hopes that you might get a deal afterwards — that would be just really imprudent.” STEP 3: GET EUROPE ON BOARD Europe, particularly Denmark’s EU allies, would balk at any attempt to cleave Greenland away from Copenhagen. But the U.S. administration does have a trump card to play on that front: Ukraine. As peace negotiations have gathered pace, Kyiv has said that any deal with Putin must be backed by serious, long-term U.S. security guarantees. Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President JD Vance, on a visit to the territory in March, said “the people of Greenland are going to have self-determination.” | Pool photo by Tom Brenner vis Getty Images The Americans have prevaricated on that front, and in any case, Kyiv is skeptical about security guarantees, given those it has received from both Russia and the West in the past have amounted to nothing. One potential scenario an EU diplomat floated would be a security-for-security package deal, under which Europe gets firmer assurances from the Trump administration for Ukraine in exchange for an expanded role for the U.S. in Greenland. While that seems like a bitter pill, it could be easier to swallow than the alternative, annoying Trump, who may retaliate by imposing sanctions, pulling out of peace negotiations — or by throwing his weight behind Putin in negotiations with Ukraine. STEP 4: MILITARY INVASION But what if Greenland — or Denmark, whose “OK” Nuuk needs to secede — says no to Trump? A U.S. military takeover could be achieved without much difficulty.  Crosbie, from the Royal Danish Defense College, said Trump’s strategists are likely presenting him with various options. “The most worrisome would be a fait accompli-type strategy, which we see a lot and think about a lot in military circles, which would be simply grabbing the land the same way Putin tried to grab, to make territorial claims, over Ukraine. He could just simply put troops in the country and just say that it’s American now … the United States military is capable of landing any number of forces on Greenland, either by air or by sea, and then claiming that it’s American territory.” According to Lin Mortensgaard, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies and an expert on Greenlandic security, Washington also has around 500 military officers, including local contractors, on the ground at its northern Pituffik Space Base and just under 10 consulate staff in Nuuk. That’s alongside roughly 100 National Guard troops from New York who are usually deployed seasonally in the Arctic summer to support research missions.  Greenland, meanwhile, has few defenses. The population has no territorial army, Mortensgaard said, while Denmark’s Joint Arctic Command in the capital includes scant and out-of-date military assets, largely limited to four inspection and navy vessels, a dog-sled patrol, several helicopters and one maritime patrol aircraft. As a result, if Trump mobilizes the U.S. presence on the ground — or flies in special forces — the U.S. could seize control of Nuuk “in half an hour or less,” Mortensgaard said. “Mr. Trump says things and then he does them,” said Danish Member of European Parliament Stine Bosse. “If you were one of 60,000 people in Greenland, you would be very worried.” Any incursion would have no “legal basis” under U.S. and international law, said Romain Chuffart, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Arctic Institute, a security think tank. Any occupation beyond 60 days would also require approval from the U.S. Congress.  Meanwhile, an invasion would “mean the end of NATO,” he said, and the “U.S. would be … shooting itself in the foot and waving goodbye to an alliance it has helped create.” Beyond that, a “loss of trust by key allies … could result in a reduction in their willingness to share intelligence with the U.S. or a reduction in access to bases across Europe,” said Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. troops in Europe. “Both of these would be severely damaging to America’s security.” Reports have circulated since last May that the Trump administration wants Greenland to sign a Compact of Free Association (COFA) — like those it currently has with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau. | Joe Raedle/Getty Images NATO would be left unable to respond, given that military action must be approved unanimously and the U.S. is the key member of the alliance, but European allies could deploy troops to Greenland via other groupings such as the U.K.-Scandinavian Joint Expeditionary Force or the five-country Nordic Defence Cooperation format, said Ed Arnold, a senior fellow at the Royal United Services Institute. But for now, NATO allies remain cool-headed about an attack. “We are still far from that scenario,” said one senior alliance diplomat. “There could be some tough negotiations, but I don’t think we are close to any hostile takeover.” Max Griera, Gerardo Fortuna and Seb Starcevic contributed reporting.

PARIS — Europe and the U.S. presented a united front for Ukraine in Paris on Tuesday, hailing security guarantees with American backing and laying out a detailed plan for bolstering Kyiv long-term. In a notable show of support, U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner praised European work to hash out a plan that would provide a security guarantee to ongoing peace talks with Russia.  “We have largely finished the security protocols,” said Witkoff, standing alongside the leaders of France, Germany, the U.K. and Ukraine at the Elysée Palace. “This is important so that when this war ends, it ends forever,” he added, after praising Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his “outstanding team.” Europeans, Americans and Ukrainians had agreed on “robust” security guarantees for Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron said. Those guarantees include the U.S.-led monitoring of a ceasefire and the deployment of a multinational force in Ukraine in case of a peace deal with Russia, according to the joint statement put out by the so-called coalition of the willing — a loose group of Ukraine allies that doesn’t include Washington. Security guarantees are “the key to ensuring that a peace agreement can never mean a Ukrainian surrender and that a peace agreement can never mean a new threat to Ukraine,” Macron said.  But the upbeat declarations in Paris will not allay the doubts swirling over the U.S. commitment to supporting Ukraine and the European continent. While it was initially hoped that Washington would commit to a joint statement on the security guarantees, the final declaration was ultimately only signed by the coalition of the willing. Details of American participation in the multinational force for Ukraine were removed from an earlier draft, seen by POLITICO. That version had stipulated the U.S. would commit to “support the force if it is attacked” and assist with intelligence and logistics. Leaders also did not want to be drawn on the credibility of U.S. commitments in the wake of the capture by U.S. forces of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and President Donald Trump’s threat to seize Greenland.  Europeans, Americans and Ukrainians had agreed on “robust” security guarantees for Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron said. | Ludovic Marin/Getty Images Witkoff refused to comment on Greenland, instead turning his focus to Kyiv and insisting that Trump “strongly stands behind security protocols.” “The president does not back down from his commitments … we will be there for Ukraine,” he said.   Responding to a question on Washington’s credibility, Zelenskyy said the security guarantees must be backed by the U.S. Congress. “We are counting a lot on that, the documents are ready,” he said. A PLAN FOR UKRAINE The statement from Kyiv’s European allies says they stand ready to commit to “legally binding” security guarantees to support Ukraine in the event of a peace deal with Russia. Crucially, the monitoring and verification of a future ceasefire would be led by the U.S., with contributions from countries including the U.K. and Germany.  The plan also sets out security guarantees that would include long-term support for the Ukrainian armed forces, the deployment of a European-led multinational force in Ukraine in case of a peace settlement, and “binding” commitments to support Ukraine should there be a future Russian attack.  “The coalition of the willing declaration for a solid and lasting peace … for the first time recognizes an operational convergence between the 35 countries, Ukraine and the U.S. to build robust security guarantees,” Macron told reporters. Washington will participate in those guarantees, including with the “backstop” that Europeans wanted, he added.  British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that after a ceasefire, the U.K. and France will set up military hubs across Ukraine and “build protected facilities for weapons and military equipment to support Ukraine’s defense needs.” France, the U.K. and Ukraine signed a separate declaration on Tuesday laying out these commitments. The European-led multinational force will cover land, air and sea and will be stationed in Western Ukraine, far from the contact line, Macron said. France and the U.K. have previously said they would be willing to put boots on the ground — but most other coalition members, including Germany, have so far shied away from joining that commitment. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Berlin was open to deploying its troops in a neighboring NATO country that would act in case of Russian aggression. | Tom Nicholson/Getty Images Other nations have suggested deploying aircraft based in neighboring NATO countries to monitor Ukrainian skies, and Turkey has agreed to lead the coalition’s maritime segment to secure the Black Sea.  German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Berlin was open to deploying its troops in a neighboring NATO country that would act in case of Russian aggression, telling reporters “we are not ruling anything out.” But he stressed that the final decision would be up to Germany’s parliament. “I will only make proposals to the Bundestag once there is a ceasefire and the coalition of the willing has agreed on the procedure to be followed,” he told reporters. “The prerequisite is a ceasefire.” Some European countries, however, remain reluctant to deploy military assets in a post-war Ukraine. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis repeated that Greece will not participate in a European military force in Ukraine. However, Greek government officials said Mitsotakis has not ruled out other forms of assistance, such as in maritime surveillance. Nektaria Stamouli contributed reporting.

Numerous countries including Jordan, Qatar and Algeria, as well as the African Union, have rejected Israel’s decision to recognize Somaliland, a breakaway region in Somalia. Israel on Friday became the first country to recognize Somaliland since the territory claimed its independence from the eastern African country of Somalia in 1991. The country has been engulfed in a brutal civil war since then. Somaliland is located on Somalia’s Gulf of Aden coast where the Bab el-Mandeb strait connects with the Red Sea, a highly strategic section of global maritime trade routes. It neighbours Djibouti, which houses the largest U.S. military base on the African continent. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signed a joint declaration with Somaliland President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullah “in the spirit of the Abraham Accords,” a series of agreements to create commercial and diplomatic ties between Israel and Arab countries, AP reported. Netanyahu is expected to meet U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday in Florida. On Friday the New York Post reported that Trump said he would not follow Israel’s lead in recognizing Somaliland’s independence. The U.S. State Department on Saturday said it continued to recognize the territorial integrity of Somalia, “which includes the territory of Somaliland.” Qatar called the declaration “a dangerous precedent and a unilateral action that contravenes the principles of international law.” The African Union said it “firmly rejects any initiative or action aimed at recognizing Somaliland as an independent entity” without mentioning Israel. The European External Action Service, the EU’s diplomatic arm, also reacted to the news, saying in a statement Saturday that it “reaffirms the importance of respecting the unity, the sovereignty and the territorial integrity” of Somalia. It also called for “meaningful dialogue” between Somalia and Somaliland, according to the statement.

BODØ, Norway — Half a mile inside a mountain in the north of Norway, the U.K. is preparing for war. The country’s military planners have travelled to Bodø, nestled between the sea and snow-capped peaks of the Arctic Circle, to rehearse what it would look like if Russia decided to unleash hostile activity on its doorstep.  The exercise is set a year after an imagined ceasefire in Ukraine. It asks leaders of Nordic and Baltic countries to calculate what they would do as they begin to track pro-Russia civil unrest inside a bordering country. Defense ministers and generals in attendance are supplied with newspaper reports about the incidents, patchy intelligence updates and social media posts and asked to decide the best course of action. The task is not purely hypothetical. An unexplained attack on a Baltic undersea cable last year, Russian drones and airplanes violating NATO airspace and an increase in Russian ships threatening British waters have called attention to the vulnerability of the so-called “high north.” In the wake of Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea, Britain put itself forward to lead a group of like-minded European countries in preparing for threats on their northern flank, founding the 10-nation Joint Expeditionary Force. The question now is whether this alliance can live up to its potential as the Russian threat morphs — and the U.S. continues to turn away from European security under Donald Trump. A CHANGING LANDSCAPE While the high north has long been an area of Russian strength, Moscow’s methods are diversifying in a way that demands answers from its neighbors. At the same time, melting Article ice is opening previously-impassable seas and triggering a new contest for access and minerals in the region — pulling in both China and the U.S.  British Defence Secretary John Healey, who took part in this week’s war-gaming exercise, spoke to POLITICO on the plane from Norway to France, where he held talks with the French defense minister. “These are the countries where Russian aggression is their everyday experience. They live next door to the presence of the Russian military,” Healey said. “We’re the nations that can best assess the risks, best respond to the threats, and best get NATO connected to take this more seriously.” Part of the idea behind JEF is that it can act swiftly while the NATO machine, which requires the agreement of 32 member states to act, takes much longer to whir into action. In the wake of Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea, Britain put itself forward to lead a group of like-minded European countries, founding the 10-nation Joint Expeditionary Force. | Fredrik Varfjell/AFP via Getty Images Northern allies also believe it is the right vehicle for adapting to rapidly developing weaponry and disruptive tactics which do not meet the threshold of traditional warfare, sometimes known as “gray zone” attacks. Speaking from the cosy surrounds of the Wood Hotel, which sits on a winding road above Bodø, Maj. Gen. Gjert Lage Dyndal of the Norwegian army was philosophical about the danger to his country. Russian aggression in the Arctic is nothing new, he said, and has more to do with the long-running nuclear standoff between the U.S. and Russia than Norway itself. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the importance of a coordinated response, particularly for dealing with hybrid warfare — “something that has been developing all over Europe over the last couple of years” — as he pointed to the 2022 sabotage of Nord Stream natural gas pipelines linking Russia and Germany, heightened drone activity and the disruption of shipping routes. UNDER-POWERED? In theory, then, the U.K. has helped forge an ideal alliance for protecting the high north as its boundaries are increasingly tested. Yet there is a suspicion among some observers that it is not operating at full strength at precisely the time it is needed most. Founded under the previous Conservative government, JEF was a particular source of pride for former PM Rishi Sunak — who made a point of meeting its leaders in Latvia after a gap of eight years — and then-Defence Secretary Ben Wallace. Grant Shapps, another Tory former defense secretary, is keen to talk up JEF as “Britain leading from the front, working with our closest allies to make Europe and the North Atlantic safer,” but he stressed: “We can’t afford to lose momentum.” The current Labour government has devoted enormous effort to shoring up its own record on defense. It’s focused to a large extent on offering solidarity and resources to Ukraine, including through the new U.K.-French-led outfit, dubbed the “coalition of the willing.” But Anthony Heron, deputy editor-in-chief of the Arctic Institute think tank, said: “Maritime and air assets dedicated to the high north are limited, and the Arctic’s growing strategic significance demands hard but clear choices about resource allocations.” Ed Arnold, senior research fellow for European security at the Royal United Services Institute, was more damning. He said that while JEF is “naturally placed to step up” it “has never really managed to articulate its purpose” and “needs to get its mojo back.”  He’s calling for a long-term strategy for the force which would give it the resources and the attention currently devoted to the Coalition of the Willing, which sprung up amid European nerves about Trump’s commitment to Ukraine. One Labour MP with a security background, granted anonymity to speak candidly like others quoted in this piece, said a key question mark remains over JEF’s authority to act. While it is “capable” of deploying “I don’t think it’s empowered to do so at present, not adequately,” they added. “This is crucial because both the COW [Coalition of the Willing] and JEF will be the front lines against Russia,” they warned. Defense officials gathered in Bodø agreed privately that the group will only grow in importance as the U.S. shifts its security priorities elsewhere, even if couched in the positive language of Europe “stepping up.” BREAKING THROUGH One ingredient for powering up allies’ presence in the high north is investment in more icebreaking capability: specialist ships which can plow through the polar sea. Russia is estimated to have 50 icebreakers — at least 13 of which can operate in the Arctic and seven of which are nuclear — while China has five that are suitable for the Arctic. NATO members Sweden and Finland have their own versions of these vessels — as do the U.S. and Canada, but Norway’s Dyndal said more are needed. “Russia is living in the Arctic,” he warned. “We see China stepping up and learning through more research and activity in the Arctic than we do. We need to step up on the European side, on the American side, to actually learn to live in the ice-covered polar sea.”  The U.K. has no imminent plans to acquire an icebreaker, but British officials stress that the country’s brings its own naval and aviation expertise to the table. One senior military figure said there was a risk Britain would miss out if it doesn’t persuade allies to buy other U.K.-produced cold-weather equipment as defense budgets boom. Addressing Britain’s wider commitment to the region, Healey was defiant. “The level of recognition and readiness to follow the U.K. by defense ministers [in Bodø] was really strong.” “You can judge us by the response to Russian threats,” he said, before remarking that plans for further military tabletop exercises are under way. Europe is trying to get serious about its own security — but it’s still a long way from figuring out how to win the game.

BRUSSELS — On the same day world leaders arrived at the COP30 summit in Brazil to push for more action on climate change, Greece announced it will start drilling for fossil fuels in the Mediterranean Sea — with U.S. help. Under the deal, America’s biggest oil company, ExxonMobil, will explore for natural gas in waters northwest of the picturesque island of Corfu, alongside Greece’s Energean and HELLENiQ ENERGY. It’s the first time in more than four decades that Greece has opened its waters for gas exploration — and the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump is claiming it as a victory in its push to derail climate action and boost the global dominance of the U.S. fossil fuel industry. It comes three weeks after the U.S. successfully halted a global deal to put a carbon tax on shipping, with the support of Greece. “There is no energy transition, there is just energy addition,” said U.S. Interior Secretary and energy czar Doug Burgum, who was present at the signing ceremony in Athens on Thursday, alongside U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and the new U.S. Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle. “Greece is taking its own natural resources, and we are working all together toward energy abundance,” Burgum added, describing Greece’s Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis as a leader who “bucks the trend.” Only a few hours later, U.N. secretary-general Antonio Guterrez made an impassioned plea for countries to stop exploring for coal, oil and gas. “I’ve consistently advocated against more coal plants and fossil fuel exploration and expansion,” he said at a COP30 leaders’ summit in Belém, Brazil. Donald Trump was not among the many world leaders present. NOT LISTENING “America is back and drilling in the Ionian Sea,” said Guilfoyle, the U.S. ambassador, at the Athens ceremony. Drilling for natural gas — a fossil fuel that is a major contributor to global warming — is expected to start late next year, or early 2027. Greece’s Minister of Environment and Energy, Stavros Papastavrou, hailed the agreement as a “historic signing” that ends a 40-year hiatus in exploration. Last month, Greece and Cyprus — both major maritime countries — were the only two EU countries that voted to halt action for a year on a historic effort to tax climate pollution from shipping. Greece claimed its decision had nothing to do with U.S. pressure, which several people familiar with the situation said included threats to negotiators. Thursday’s ceremony took place on the sidelines of the sixth Partnership for Transatlantic Energy Cooperation (P-TEC) conference, organized in Athens by the U.S. and Greek governments, along with the Atlantic Council. Greece aims to showcase its importance as an entry point for American liquefied natural gas (LNG), bolstering Europe’s independence from Russian gas. LNG from Greece’s Revithoussa terminal is set to reach Ukraine this winter through the newly activated “Vertical Corridor,” an energy route linking Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova.

YOKOSUKA, Japan — President Donald Trump brought his signature rally style on his trip across the Pacific, taking the stage Tuesday aboard the USS George Washington, an aircraft carrier docked at Yokosuka Naval Base near Tokyo. But this time, his usual “Make America Great Again” banner was swapped out for one reading “Peace Through Strength.” Instead of swing-state voters, his audience consisted of roughly 6,000 U.S. service members and more than 200 personnel from Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Force. Wearing a white “USA” hat, Trump strode into the ship’s hangar bay to his familiar walkout song, “God Bless the USA.” Over the course of a 53-minute address, Trump engaged in a lively back-and-forth with the soldiers and offered a mix of administration updates and bravado. He linked his administration’s trade agenda to what he described as a broader mission to keep American forces out of foreign conflicts. “When we don’t get you involved, it’s a good thing,” Trump told the sailors. “People want to get you involved, but we stopped a lot of those wars based on trade. They’re getting ready to fight, and we tell them: ‘No more trade with the U.S.’” And Trump touted news he said he’d received from Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi that Toyota plans to invest $10 billion in new U.S. auto plants. He also said the first batch of missiles for Japan’s F-35 jets would be delivered this week. Takaichi, who spoke briefly before Trump, invoked the pair’s shared friendship with her predecessor, recalling Trump’s 2019 visit to Yokosuka with former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. “Together once again,” she said, “we reaffirm our determination to keep the Indo-Pacific free and open, as a foundation for peace and prosperity across the entire region.” Trump worked the crowd, calling out groups by their function on the ship — the “white shirts” who handle safety, “blue shirts” who run equipment, and “yellow shirts” who direct aircraft. Each mention drew cheers from different corners of the hangar. At one point, he polled the audience on whether steam or electric catapults were better for launching aircraft. “Steam!” the sailors roared back. Trump agreed. “We’re spending billions of dollars to build stupid electric ones.” He promised to sign an executive order requiring future aircraft carriers to use steam catapults and hydraulic elevators. The former president also took aim at his predecessor. “Biden used to say he was a pilot. He was a truck driver. He was whatever, whoever walked in,” Trump claimed, drawing a muted response from the assembled service members. It’s not clear that Biden ever referred to himself as a pilot, though he talked about his aviator uncle. Trump nevertheless added: “He wasn’t a pilot. He wasn’t much of a president either.”

BERLIN — Friedrich Merz said the quiet part out loud back in May: Germany intends to build the Bundeswehr into “the strongest conventional army in Europe,” pledging to give it “all the financial resources it needs.” Five months later, the German chancellor aims to add the hardware to that ambition, according to new internal government documents seen by POLITICO.  The sprawling 39-page list lays out €377 billion in desired buys across land, air, sea, space and cyber. The document is a planning overview of arms purchases that will be spelled out in the German military’s 2026 budget, but many are longer-term purchases for which there is no clear time frame. Taken together, it’s a comprehensive roadmap for Germany’s long-overdue defense overhaul, anchored firmly in domestic industry. Politically, the timing tracks with Merz’s shift to a new financing model. Since the spring, Berlin has moved to carve out defense from Germany’s constitutional debt brake, allowing sustained multiyear spending beyond the nearly exhausted €100 billion special fund set up under former Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s tenure. Items on the list will eventually appear, in smaller tranches, when they’re mature enough for a parliamentary budget committee vote. All procurements valued over €25 million need the committee’s sign-off. HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS The documents show that the Bundeswehr wants to launch about 320 new weapons and equipment projects over the next year’s budget cycle. Of those, 178 have a listed contractor. The rest remain “still open,” showing that much of the Bundeswehr’s modernization plan is still on the drawing board. German companies dominate the identifiable tenders with around 160 projects, worth about €182 billion, tied to domestic firms.  Rheinmetall is by far the biggest winner. The Düsseldorf-based group and its affiliated ventures appear in 53 separate planning lines worth more than €88 billion. Around €32 billion would flow directly to Rheinmetall, while another €56 billion is linked to subsidiaries and joint ventures, such as the Puma and Boxer fighting vehicle programs run with KNDS. The document foresees a total of 687 Pumas, including 662 combat versions and 25 driver-training vehicles, to be delivered by 2035. Rheinmetall is by far the biggest winner. | Hannibal Hanschke/EPA In air defense, the Bundeswehr aims to procure 561 Skyranger 30 short-range turret systems for counter-drone and short-range protection — a program fully under Rheinmetall’s lead. Along with that come grenades and rifle rounds in the millions. Diehl Defence emerges as the Bundeswehr’s second major industrial anchor after Rheinmetall. The Bavarian missile manufacturer appears in 21 procurement lines worth €17.3 billion. The largest share comes from the IRIS-T family, which is set to form the backbone of Germany’s future air defense architecture. According to the document, the Bundeswehr aims to buy 14 complete IRIS-T SLM systems valued at €3.18 billion, 396 IRIS-T SLM missiles for about €694 million and another 300 IRIS-T LFK short-range missiles worth €300 million. Together, these lines alone amount to around €4.2 billion — making IRIS-T one of the most significant single air defense programs in the Bundeswehr’s planning. Drones are also gaining ground on the military wish list.  On the higher end, the Bundeswehr wants to expand its armed Heron TP fleet operated with Israel’s IAI, aiming to buy new munitions for around €100 million. A dozen new LUNA NG tactical drones follow at about €1.6 billion. For the navy, four uMAWS maritime drones appear in the plan for an estimated €675 million, which will include replacement parts, training and maintenance. Several of the Bundeswehr’s most expensive new projects sit not on land, sea or in the air — but in orbit. The list includes more than €14 billion in satellite programs, calling for new geostationary communications satellites, upgraded ground control stations and, most ambitiously, a low-Earth-orbit satellite constellation worth €9.5 billion to ensure constant, jam-resistant connectivity for troops and command posts. The push aligns with Defense Minister Boris Pistorius’ €35 billion plan to boost Germany’s “space security.” KEEPING THE CASH AT HOME One of the most politically charged plans on the Bundeswehr’s wish list is the potential top-up of 15 F-35 jets from Lockheed Martin, worth about €2.5 billion under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales system.  These would keep Germany’s nuclear-sharing role intact but also retain its reliance on American maintenance, software and mission-data access. It could also signal a further German convergence on American weaponry it cannot replace, just as political tensions deepen over the Franco-German-Spanish sixth-generation fighter jet, the Future Combat Air System. The same U.S. framework appears across other high-profile projects.  The Bundeswehr plans to buy 400 Tomahawk Block Vb cruise missiles for roughly €1.15 billion, along with three Lockheed Martin Typhon launchers valued at €220 million — a combination that would give Germany a 2,000-kilometer strike reach.  The navy’s interim maritime-patrol aircraft plan, worth €1.8 billion for four Boeing P-8A Poseidons, also sits within the foreign military sales pipeline. One of the most politically charged plans on the Bundeswehr’s wish list is the potential top-up of 15 F-35 jets from Lockheed Martin. | Kevin Carter/Getty Images All three tie Berlin’s future strike and surveillance capabilities to U.S. export and sustainment control. Together, about 25 foreign-linked projects worth roughly €14 billion appear clearly in the Bundeswehr’s internal planning — less than 5 percent of the total €377 billion in requested spending.  Yet they account for nearly all of Germany’s strategic, nuclear-related and long-range capabilities, from nuclear-certified aircraft to deep-strike and maritime surveillance systems. By contrast, nearly half of the list is anchored in German industry, spanning armored vehicles, sensors and ammunition lines. In financial terms, domestic firms dominate; politically, however, the few foreign systems define the country’s most sensitive military roles.

BRUSSELS — Heard the one about the 12-and-half-hour meeting of 27 national leaders that succeeded in agreeing very little apart from coming up with quite a lot of “let’s decide in a couple of months” or “let’s just all agree on language that means absolutely nothing but looks like we’re united” or “let’s at least celebrate that we got through this packed agenda without having to come back on Friday”? No? Well let us enlighten you. And if that makes you question how we’ve managed to squeeze 29 things out of this, well let’s just say one of these is about badly functioning vending machines… 1 . STRAIGHT OUT OF THE BOX WITH A QUICK WIN ON SANCTIONS … The day was off to a flying start when Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico lifted his veto over the latest raft of Russia sanctions on the eve of the summit — allowing the package to get formally signed off at 8 a.m. before leaders even started talking. Fico rolled over after claiming to achieve what he set out to do: clinch support for Slovakia’s car industry. He found an unusual ally in German Chancellor Friedrich Merz who he met separately to discuss the impact of climate targets on their countries’ automotive sectors. 2. … BUT AGREEMENT ON FROZEN RUSSIAN ASSETS WAS LESS FORTHCOMING There was a moment earlier in the week where the EU looked to be on the cusp of a breakthrough on using Russian frozen assets to fund a €140 billion loan for Ukraine. Belgium, the main holdout, appeared to be warming to the European Commission’s daring idea to crack open the piggy bank. But Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever stuck by his guns , saying he feared taking the assets, which are held in a Brussels-based financial depository, could trigger Moscow to take legal action. 3. BELGIUM DIDN’T MOVE ON ITS BIG THREE BIG DEMANDS The Flemish right-winger’s prerequisites were threefold: the “full mutualization of the risk,” guarantees that if the money has to paid back, “every member state will chip in,” and for every other EU country that holds immobilized assets to also seize them. Leaders eventually agreed on that classic EU summit outcome: a fudge. They tasked the European Commission to “present options” at the next European Council — effectively deciding not to decide. “Political will is clear, and the process will move forward,” said one EU official. But it’s uncertain whether a deal can be brokered by the next summit, currently set for December. 4. DE WEVER REJECTS THE ‘BAD BOY’ LABEL After POLITICO ranked the Belgian leader among its list of “bad boys” likely to disrupt Thursday’s summit (rightfully, might we add), he protested the branding. “A bad boy! Me? … If you talk about the immobilized assets, we’re the very, very best,” he said. The day was off to a flying start when Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico lifted his veto over the latest raft of Russia sanctions on the eve of the summit. | Olivier Hoslet/EPA 5. URSULA VON DER LEYEN ALSO CONCEDED THEY’RE NOT QUITE THERE YET The high-level talks “allowed us to identify points we need to clarify,” the Commission president said tactfully. “Nobody vetoed nothing today,” European Council President António Costa chimed in. “The technical and legal aspects of Europe’s support need to be worked upon.” Translation in case you didn’t understand the double negative: The EU needs to come up with a better plan to reassure Belgium — and fast. 6. UKRAINE: EVER THE OPTIMIST Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy ― a guest of the summit ― told reporters Russia must pay the price for its invasion, calling on the EU to follow through with its frozen assets proposal, adding he thought the leaders were “close” to an agreement. “If Russia brought war to our land, they have to pay for this war,” he said. 7. AND ZELENSKYY IS STILL HOLDING OUT FOR TOMAHAWKS “We will see,” was Zelenskyy’s message on the topic of acquiring the long-range missiles from the U.S., which Donald Trump has so far ruled out selling to Kyiv. “Each day brings something … maybe tomorrow we will have Tomahawks,” Zelenskyy said. “I don’t know.” 8. UKRAINE WANTS GERMANY TO SEND MORE WEAPONS TOO Merz held a meeting with Zelenskyy about “the situation in Washington and the American plans that are now on the table,” a German official said, adding Zelenskyy made “specific requests” to the chancellor about helping Ukraine with its “defense capabilities.” After the summit, the German leader said Berlin would review a proposal on how German technologies could help to protect Ukrainian’s energy and water infrastructure. 9. THUMBS UP TO DEFENSE ROADMAP! EU leaders endorsed the Defense Readiness Roadmap 2030 presented last week by the Commission, which aims to prepare member countries for war by 2030. One of its main objectives is to fill EU capability gaps in nine areas: air and missile defense, enablers, military mobility, artillery systems, AI and cyber, missile and ammunition, drones and anti-drones, ground combat, and maritime. The plan also mentions areas like defense readiness and the role of Ukraine, which would be heavily armed and supported to become a “steel porcupine” able to deter Russian aggression. As leaders deliberated, a Russian fighter jet and a refueling aircraft briefly crossed into Lithuanian airspace from the Kaliningrad region, underscoring the need for the EU to protect its skies. 10. KYIV IS PROMISING TO BUY EUROPEAN — MOSTLY Ukraine will prioritize domestic and European industry when spending cash from the proposed reparation loan funded by Russia’s frozen assets, Zelenskyy told leaders at the summit — but wants to be able to go across the pond when necessary. 11. MUCH THE SAME FOR SPAIN Spanish leader Pedro Sánchez said the country had committed to contributing cash to a fund organized by NATO to buy weapons for Ukraine from the U.S. | Nicolas Tucat/Getty Images Spanish leader Pedro Sánchez said the country had committed to contributing cash to a fund organized by NATO to buy weapons for Ukraine from the U.S. “Today, most of the air defense components, such as Patriots or Tomahawks … which Ukraine clearly needs, are only manufactured in the United States,” he said. Madrid has been a thorn in Washington’s side over its lax defense spending. 12. THERE WAS A MERCOSUR SURPRISE Merz stunned trade watchers when he announced the leaders had backed a controversial trade agreement with Latin American countries. “We voted on it today: The Mercosur agreement can be ratified,” the German chancellor told reporters, adding that he was “very happy” about that. “All 27 countries voted unanimously in favor,” Merz added on Mercosur. “It’s done.” The remark sparked confusion amongst delegations, as the European Council doesn’t usually vote on trade agreements — let alone one as controversial as the mammoth agreement with the countries of the Latin American bloc of Mercosur, which has been in negotiations for over 25 years. One EU diplomat clarified that it’s because European Council President António Costa sought confirmation from EU leaders that they would agree to take a stance on the deal by the end of this year — and no formal vote was taken yet. 13. CLIMATE TALKS PASSED WITHOUT A HITCH One of the hotter potatoes ahead of the summit passed surprisingly smoothly. Leaders ultimately refrained from bulldozing the EU’s climate targets, agreeing to a vaguely worded commitment to a green transition, though without committing to a 2040 goal, which proposes cutting emissions by 90 percent compared to 1990 levels. In the words of one diplomat: “Classic balance, everyone equally unhappy.” 14. AT LEAST ONE LEADER SEEMED PLEASED, THOUGH Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called the summit a “turning point” in Europe’s approach to green policy, adding he succeeded in inserting a “revision clause” into the EU’s plan to extend its carbon-trading system to heating and transport emissions that will give member countries the option to delay or adjust the rollout. “We’ve defused a threat to Polish families and drivers,” he declared, calling the change a signal that “Europe is finally speaking our language.” 15. BUT THE ISSUE WON’T STAY BURIED FOR LONG Ministers are set to reconvene and cast a vote on the 2040 goal on Nov. 4, described by one diplomat as “groundhog day.” 16. MEANWHILE, THERE WAS NOTHING ON MIGRATION … Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called the summit a “turning point” in Europe’s approach to green policy. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Aside from promising to make migration a “priority,” the EU’s leaders failed to make any kind of breakthrough on a stalled proposal for burden-sharing. Reminder: The EU missed a deadline last week to agree on a new way of deciding which member countries are under stress from receiving migrants and ways of sharing the responsibility more equally across the bloc. 17. … BUT THE ANTI-MIGRANT BREAKFAST CLUB LIVES ON Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen and the Netherlands’ Dick Schoof have kept up their informal pre-summit “migration breakfasts” since last June, swapping innovative ideas on tougher border and asylum policies. They met again on Thursday with von der Leyen, who updated them on the EU’s latest plans for accelerating migrant returns, and the trio agreed an informal summit will take place next month in Rome. 18. NOR DID THE EU’S SOCIAL MEDIA BAN GET MUCH OF A LOOK IN As expected, the leaders endorsed a “possible” minimum age for kids to use social media, but failed to commit to a bloc-wide ban, with capitals divided on whether to make the age 15 or 16, as well as on the issue of parental consent. 19. THERE WAS A WHOLE LOT OF WAITING FOR NEWS… Journalists were frantically pressing their sources in the Council and national delegations to find out what was happening at the leaders’ table as the meeting dragged into the late hours. It eventually finished at 10.30 p.m. ― 12 and a half hours after it began. 20. … AND THE GREENS SEIZED THEIR MOMENT The EU Parliament’s Greens group co-chair Bas Eickhout wandered the hallways of the Justus Lipsius building ready to brief bored journalists about the wonders of the Green Deal — while leaders debated how to unravel it in the other room. 21. THE COMBUSTION ENGINE BAN FELL FLAT One of the pillars of the EU’s green transition, its 2035 de facto combustion engine ban, was set to play a major role in the competitiveness and climate discussions, with Merz and Fico spoiling for a fight over the proposal — yet it barely registered as a footnote. Slovakia used the climate talks to oppose the ban, and the Czech Republic chimed in to agree, but in the end the summit’s official conclusions welcomed the Commission’s proposed ban without mentioning how it should be watered down. 22. THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL’S VENDING MACHINES AREN’T VERY, ER, COMPETITIVE Officials and journalists alike found that the vending machines in the EU’s Justus Lipsius building, which incidentally is due for a €1 billion renovation, about as efficient as a roundtable of 27 national leaders lasting 12 and a half hours. 23. THE BLOC IS WORRIED ABOUT CHINA… Beijing’s export controls on rare earths came up in the talks on competitiveness, according to two EU officials, with some leaders expressing their concerns. 24. … BUT THEY’RE NOT READY TO GO NUCLEAR — YET One of the officials said the EU’s most powerful trade weapon, the Anti-Coercion Instrument, was mentioned, but didn’t garner much interest around the table. 25. HOUSING GETS 40 MINUTES — NOT BAD FOR A FIRST RUN Leaders spent a chunk of time discussing the continent’s housing crisis. A solid start for the topic, which made it onto the agenda for the first time at Costa’s behest. The EU executive “is ready to help,” von der Leyen said after the summit, announcing a European Affordable Housing Plan is in the pipeline and the first EU Housing Summit in 2026. | Dursun Aydemir/Getty Images During talks, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis called on the Commission to create a database tracking which housing policies work — and which don’t — across Europe. Most leaders agreed that, while housing remains a national competence, the EU still has a role to play. 26. AND THE COMMISSION WANTS TO ROLL UP ITS SLEEVES The EU executive “is ready to help,” von der Leyen said after the summit, announcing a European Affordable Housing Plan is in the pipeline and the first EU Housing Summit in 2026. 27. LEADERS ENJOYED A FEAST OR TWO For lunch, langoustine with yuzu, celeriac and apple, fillet of veal with artichokes and crispy polenta, and a selection of fresh fruit. For dinner, cannelloni with herbs, courgette velouté, fillet of brill with chorizo and pepper, and fig meringue cake. Yum. 28. THOUGH A FEW COULDN’T MAKE IT Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was the most notable absence, rocking up several hours late due to a national holiday in Budapest. Portugal and Slovenia’s leaders were also absent at one point. 29. AND COSTA KEPT HIS PROMISE … JUST The European Council president pledged to streamline summits under his watch, making them one-day affairs instead of two. And with just a couple hours to spare, he was successful. Okay, breathe. Did we miss anything? (Don’t answer that.) Gerardo Fortuna, Max Griera Andrieu, Jordyn Dahl, Gabriel Gavin, Hanne Cokelaere, Clea Caulcutt, Hans von der Burchard, Kathryn Carlson, Tim Ross, Jacopo Barigazzi, Gregorio Sorgi, Eliza Gkritsi, Carlo Martuscelli, Nicholas Vinocur, Saga Ringmar, Sarah Wheaton, Louise Guillot, Zia Weise, Camille Gijs, Bartosz Brzezinski and Giedre Peseckyte contributed to this report.