BRUSSELS — The European Union is under pressure to keep Ukrainian troops fully online after Elon Musk’s Starlink was restricted amid volatile U.S. support for Kyiv. “It was a very dangerous and unpleasant surprise,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told reporters after EU leaders met in Brussels, referring to Starlink speed limitations experienced by military troops in recent days. “We were using Starlink to intercept jet-powered Shaheds [combat drones] that are attacking our civilian infrastructure and killing our families … When the speed limits were lowered, we became incapable of shooting [them] down.” Ukraine has long relied critically on Musk’s satellite constellation for wartime efforts. Reuters reported Friday that the order to slow Ukraine’s military-grade Starshield service came from the White House, days after Washington pressed Kyiv to halt strikes on Russian refineries, amid soaring energy prices and ahead of November’s midterm elections. “It is unacceptable for Ukraine’s defense — and therefore Europe’s security — to depend on the goodwill of a single American billionaire or on Donald Trump’s decisions,” French centrist Member of the European Parliament Christophe Grudler told POLITICO. Ahead of Thursday’s high-level meeting, European lawmakers had been calling on the EU executive to fast-track Kyiv’s access to satellite capabilities already pooled under the bloc’s Govsatcom program — which gives participating governments secure communications capabilities. Negotiations between the EU executive and Ukraine over this access have been ongoing since March, with no breakthrough. Norway and Iceland secured such an agreement earlier this year. “What I don’t understand is why the European Commission and the Member States have not done everything possible to quickly reach an agreement that would allow Ukraine to benefit from it,” added Christophe Grudler, who wrote to EU leaders. He also called on them to speed up work on IRIS² — the EU’s in-house, planned satellite network and full-fledged match to Starlink, which is only expected to come online in 2030. Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier confirmed in a statement that it is “currently in talks with Ukraine to fully associate” the country with the EU’s Govsatcom program. “The war in Ukraine shows that our security also depends on space. And the EU has been doing quite a lot. We are ready to support Ukraine where we can support Ukraine,” he added. Calls to crack down on dependence on foreign providers and boost alternatives to Starlink also come at a time when legislators are negotiating a series of laws that could tame Musk’s ambitions in Europe. “Ukraine’s dependence on Starlink highlights the vulnerability of European defence systems that rely on U.S. technology, Another reminder that Europe must reduce its dangerous technological dependencies — ASAP,” center-right Finnish lawmaker Aura Salla said on social media. Policymakers across Europe have been joining forces to curb Starlink’s dominance in low-Earth orbit, where satellites fly close to Earth to deliver faster connections. “As legislators, we must ensure that European operators are well positioned in the market and limit the dominance of foreign players,” German center-left lawmaker Matthias Ecke said. In Brussels, lawmakers, including Ecke, are backing European telcos gunning for prized satellite frequencies, currently licensed to U.S. operators until next year and eyed by Starlink. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy said Ukraine was working bilaterally with EU countries to secure more capabilities, citing France. He also expressed hopes that Starlink restrictions could be lifted. “My partners told me there were signals from the White House that they would return these capabilities.” SpaceX — Starlink’s parent company — didn’t respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.

LONDON — Keir Starmer has successfully won Donald Trump back around to supporting his controversial Chagos Islands deal, rescuing a key foreign policy goal that the U.S. president blasted last month as an “act of GREAT STUPIDITY.” The U.K. prime minister’s plan to hand over sovereignty of the archipelago in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius while retaining use of a joint U.S.-U.K. military base on the island of Diego Garcia was thrown into disarray a fortnight ago by the president’s surprise criticism. But Trump wrote Thursday on Truth Social, the same platform where he had unleashed his criticism, that he now understands it’s the best deal Britain was able to get after he had “very productive discussions” with Starmer — though he warned he wouldn’t hesitate to get involved if he felt U.S. interests were at risk.   “If the lease deal, sometime in the future, ever falls apart, or anyone threatens or endangers U.S. operations and forces at our Base, I retain the right to Militarily secure and reinforce the American presence in Diego Garcia,” the president added.  To the ire of British officials, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and the Conservatives’ Kemi Badenoch had lobbied Trump to oppose the deal, which will cost Britain around £3.4 billion over the initial 99-year lease.  But official diplomatic channels have won the debate, and Starmer will take Trump’s backing as a modicum of sweet relief during a dire moment in which his authority is being questioned. Government officials, speaking under condition of anonymity to avoid further fraying diplomatic relations, had ascribed Trump’s Jan. 20 criticism of the Chagos deal to Starmer’s public defense of Greenland from American threats to seize the Danish territory. Starmer broached the agreement with Trump in a call over the weekend, as well as during another on Thursday.  Downing Street’s account of the call said the leaders had “agreed on the importance of the deal to secure the joint U.K.–U.S. base on Diego Garcia, which remains vital to shared security interests.” The men also agreed that both sides would “continue to work closely on the implementation of the deal,” the statement added.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Die Bundeswehr zieht Personal aus dem Nordirak ab. Wegen der drohenden Eskalation zwischen den USA und dem Iran wird die Präsenz in Erbil reduziert – nur Tage nach der Verlängerung des Mandats im Bundestag. Der Schritt zeigt, wie schnell sich Auslandseinsätze verändern können und wie stark die Truppe bereits heute belastet ist. Im Gespräch mit Henning Otte, dem Wehrbeauftragten des Deutschen Bundestags, geht es um die zentrale Frage: Kann Deutschland sich 17 Auslandseinsätze auf drei Kontinenten leisten, während zugleich die Aufgaben im NATO-Raum wachsen? Otte fordert eine klare Priorisierung auf Landes- und Bündnisverteidigung, warnt vor Überdehnung und spricht von einem notwendigen Umdenken bei Mandaten, Personal und Strukturen. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. ⁠Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.⁠ Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: ⁠@gordon.repinski⁠ | X: ⁠@GordonRepinski⁠. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 ⁠information@axelspringer.de⁠ Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

KYIV — Ukraine and Russia agreed to swap 314 prisoners of war during the latest round of talks in Abu Dhabi on Thursday, U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff said. The trilateral discussions ended Thursday afternoon, with Ukrainian, American and Russian negotiating teams working together and in special subgroups for two days. In a post on X, Witkoff described the latest trilateral negotiating round as “detailed and productive.” “While significant work remains, steps like this demonstrate that sustained diplomatic engagement is delivering tangible results and advancing efforts to end the war in Ukraine,” Witkoff said, adding that discussions will continue in the coming weeks. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed that the PoW exchange, the first in five months, happened on Thursday. “We are bringing our people home — 157 Ukrainians. Warriors from the Armed Forces, National Guard, and the State Border Guard Service. Soldiers, sergeants, and officers. Along with our defenders, civilians are also returning. Most of them had been in captivity since 2022,” Zelenskyy said in a post on X. Russia also received the return of 157 of its PoWs. The last prisoner exchange between Russia and Ukraine was in October, when the sides swapped 185 soldiers and 20 civilians. Zelenskyy explained that Moscow had halted the swaps. “They are not particularly interested in exchanging people, because they do not feel that it gives them anything. They believe it benefits us. But I think they should also be thinking about their own people — their own soldiers,” Zelenskyy told reporters in Kyiv last week. Since Kyrylo Budanov, former head of Ukrainian military intelligence, joined the negotiating group, Russia began to take the negotiations more seriously, Zelenskyy said last week. “I believe it was a higher-level delegation than before, considering what the people who represented Russia this time are responsible for. We saw this as a more serious opportunity for discussion,” Zelenskyy said. “Because one thing is when you come only to receive information and deliver some fantastical historical briefing from a playbook that everyone has heard many times before. And another thing is when you move closer to real steps to end the war,” Zelenskyy added. Territorial issues remain the most difficult issue in the negotiations. Russia demands that Ukraine withdraw from the remaining 30 percent of Donbas, Kyiv’s most secure stronghold in the region. Kyiv insists everyone should stand where they are, calling it enough of a compromise. “The American side understands this and says that there is a compromise solution, proposing a free economic zone. However, the issue of control over any territory — including a free economic zone — must also be fair. Specifically, it must involve Ukraine maintaining control over the territories that we currently control,” Zelenskyy said last week.

Finland has urged U.S. officials not to describe future security pledges to a postwar Ukraine as “Article 5-like,” implying that doing so could undercut the mutual defense clause at the heart of the NATO military alliance, according to a State Department cable obtained by POLITICO. The Jan. 20 cable hints at worries in some corners over the labels used during peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow. They show how sensitive some phrases can be in the national security realm, even when officials are merely trying to offer an analogy to various audiences. According to the cable, sent from the U.S. Embassy in Helsinki to Washington, Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen discussed the issue on Jan. 19 with U.S. Reps. Jack Bergman (R-Mich.) and Sarah Elfreth (D-Md.), both of whom are members of the House Armed Services Committee. Valtonen underscored Finland’s view that Russia is a “long-term strategic threat” and cautioned against a “weak” peace deal for Ukraine that would hinder its ability to defend itself against future Russian aggression, the cable states. But Valtonen cautioned against any suggestions of “Article 5-like” security guarantees in a postwar Ukraine, the cable adds. She warned that it risked conflating NATO’s Article 5 guarantees with whatever bilateral promises are made to Ukraine. It also quotes her as saying there should be a “firewall” between NATO and future security guarantees to Ukraine. Finland’s defense minister made similar points in a later meeting, according to the cable. Article 5 is a critical clause in the NATO pact that means an armed attack on one member of the 32-member alliance will be treated as an attack on all members. NATO has invoked the article only once: after Islamist terrorists attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. The documents’ contents offer insight into concerns voiced by other Finnish leaders who have said that, while they want to help Ukraine protect itself, the concept of a security “guarantee” is a more serious matter they’re not ready to agree to just yet. A Finnish official said Valtonen’s office wouldn’t comment on confidential discussions, though underscored Helsinki’s long-standing goal of eventually accepting Ukraine into the NATO alliance. “Finland’s objective is to ensure that Ukraine receives the strongest possible security arrangements and guarantees in support of a sustainable and lasting peace,” the official said, who was granted anonymity to speak about sensitive policy matters. “Finland’s position is that Ukraine’s future lies within NATO.” Former NATO officials and analysts said the cable reflects growing concerns in various capitals about how engaging with a postwar Ukraine could affect individual countries in the long run. One potential problem is that “using the term Article 5 in other contexts implies NATO involvement that is not in fact a part of any of these proposed arrangements,” said Edward Wrong, a former NATO official. “Finland and many other NATO members want to ensure it is understood that Article 5 is unique to NATO.” The State Department declined to comment. Elfreth, one of the U.S. lawmakers Valtonen met with, did not address the session with the Finnish foreign minister directly, but said in a statement: “From our many meetings, it was clear to me that our NATO allies, new and old, are committed to advancing shared goals of defending our partners from Russian and other adversarial influences. Bergman declined to comment. Using Article 5 as a parallel has multiple upsides and downsides, especially given the range of attitudes toward Ukraine in NATO, the former officials and analysts said. That’s further complicated by the likelihood that individual countries, or select groups of countries — but not NATO itself — will offer Ukraine security aid in the near future. One challenge is that by referring to Article 5, even with the “like” attached to it, national leaders could hand political ammunition to opposition groups, said Josh Shifrinson, a scholar with the University of Maryland, College Park, who advocates for a more restrained foreign policy. There’s also the possibility that framing a security pledge to Ukraine as “Article 5-like” will entice Russia to test what that truly means. If Russia stages some sort of an armed attack and the countries backing Ukraine struggle to respond, that could raise questions about the strength of NATO’s Article 5, said Rachel Ellehuus, a former Biden administration Defense Department official assigned to NATO. On top of that, other members of NATO, especially those in Europe, are acutely aware of President Donald Trump’s dim views of the alliance. They are reacting to his demands that they step up defense spending and have taken on the lion’s share of aid to Ukraine. Given economic uncertainties in the years ahead, just how much they can support Ukraine is in question. “I’m guessing the Finns don’t want to overpromise and under-deliver,” Ellehuus said. Spokespeople for NATO declined to comment. Finland is one of NATO’s newest members, having joined after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The Finnish foreign minister comes across in the cable as tough on Russia, a country with which Finland shares an 830-mile border. “We should not be naïve in thinking they will change, especially if sanctions get [lifted]” and Russia becomes “empowered politically and economically,” Valtonen is quoted as saying. Although there are ongoing talks among the U.S., Ukraine and Russia in various formats, Russian leader Vladimir Putin has not committed to a substantial cease-fire and has made demands that many Ukrainians consider unacceptable for a peace deal. Victor Jack contributed to this report from Brussels.

PARIS — Prosecutors in Paris opened an investigation Wednesday into allegations that Chinese citizens had sought to capture sensitive French government and military data using Starlink. “Four people were brought before the investigating judge for indictment, with two of them being remanded in custody,” the public prosecutor’s office said in a statement. Investigators are looking into possible acts of “delivering information to a foreign power or a company or organization under foreign control, or to their agents, in a manner likely to harm the fundamental interests of [France],” the statement added — a crime that can lead to up to 15 years in prison. The prosecutor’s office said police had been notified last week that the arrested pair were suspected of conducting satellite interception operations from an AirBnB they had rented in the Gironde region, near the city of Bordeaux, after neighbors noticed that “a satellite dish approximately two meters in diameter” had been installed and local residents were experiencing internet outages. “The device installed was used to illegally intercept satellite downlinks, including exchanges between military entities of vital importance,” the statement added. On their visa application to enter France, the suspects said they worked for a company that focuses on “smart beams, signal recognition and satellite networks, and cooperates with universities establishing military-oriented projects.” POLITICO has reached out to the Chinese Embassy in Paris for a comment.

When Russia sent Georgy Avaliani to fight in Ukraine, he did exactly what German leaders proposed: He ran. A pacifist who fled the front after being forcibly conscripted, he says he survived beatings and mock executions in a “torture basement” before escaping Russia altogether. Last week, Germany told him it would be safe to go back. In a letter, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) rejected the 47-year-old’s asylum application, concluding he was unlikely to face persecution if he returned to Russia — a decision that has alarmed networks helping Russian soldiers flee the war. Advocates for deserters say the ruling reinforces Russian President Vladimir Putin’s message that there is no safe exit for those who flee the front, as European governments harden asylum policies and as peace talks between Russia and Ukraine have stalled. “Even if I could escape death, I’d get sent to the front or face a 15-year prison sentence,” said Avaliani, who is planning to appeal the decision.  The rejection comes at a sensitive time for Russians seeking to rebuild new lives abroad.  The United States last summer began deporting asylum seekers back to Russia, with the latest planeload landing just last week. And in November the EU tightened its visa rules for Russian citizens. “European politicians say that Russians need to fight Putin, that they need to resist,” said Alexei Alshansky, a former sergeant-major turned analyst at A Farewell to Arms, a group that assists Russian deserters.  “At the same time, people who have actually refused to fight for Putin and have gone through a very difficult journey are not receiving any help from those same countries,” he added.  FLEEING THE WAR Avaliani was among tens of thousands of Russians who were served call-up papers in September 2022 as part of Putin’s “partial mobilization” drive. A construction engineer and father of three, Avaliani said he had made it clear from the outset that he wouldn’t fight. “This is not my war. I’m a pacifist,” he told POLITICO. But his appeals for an exemption on health and family grounds were rejected. Tens of thousands of Russians were served call-up papers in 2022. | Alexander Nemenov/AFP via Getty Images “It’s useless to try to fight the system,” he said. “If it wants to devour you, it will devour you. So I decided I had to act.” Within weeks of arriving at the front in eastern Ukraine, Avaliani fled — only to be captured and taken to what he describes as a “torture basement” in Russian-occupied Luhansk. There, he says, he was beaten and subjected to mock executions. The conditions, he said, were “inhumane.”  Returned to the front, he escaped again and was captured a second time. Finally, on his third try, he crossed into Belarus and from there traveled to Uzbekistan. While Avaliani lived in hiding abroad, he said, police visited his home and questioned his wife. In 2025 he and his family were reunited and applied for political asylum in Germany. CHANGE OF TUNE The decision to return Avaliani marks a stark reversal from Germany’s stance at the start of Russia’s full-on invasion of Ukraine. In September 2022, Marco Buschmann, then Germany’s justice minister, hailed the exodus of Russians of fighting age, saying on X that “anyone who hates Putin’s policies and loves liberal democracy is very welcome here in Germany.” The interior minister at the time, Nancy Faeser, echoed that sentiment, telling the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung newspaper that “anyone who courageously opposes President Vladimir Putin’s regime and therefore puts themselves in grave danger can apply for asylum in Germany on grounds of political persecution.”  In 2022 and 2023 about one in 10 Russian men of military age who reached Germany received some form of legal protection from the country. In 2024 and 2025 that number dropped sharply to around 4 percent.  The change coincided with a shift in the political climate. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government, which took office last May, has led a crackdown on migration, hoping to lure voters away from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) — now the largest opposition party in Germany’s Bundestag. The rejection letter that Avaliani received, seen by POLITICO, stated he was unlikely to face persecution in Russia beyond a fine. Russia, it added, is no longer actively mobilizing men. Friedrich Merz’s government has led a crackdown on migration. | Nadja Wohlleben/Getty Images When it comes to defectors like Avaliani, the letter concludes, there is no “considerable likelihood of concrete and sustained interest in them on the part of the Russian state or other actors.”  CARBON COPY Rights activists argue that the assessment of the German authorities denies what is going on in Russia. Many who were mobilized and sent to the front in 2022 have yet to come home. Russia continues to recruit some 30,000 soldiers monthly.  The letter to Avaliani reads like a carbon copy of rejections sent to other defectors, said Artyom Klyga, a lawyer with Connection, an organization that helps conscientious objectors.  “It’s like they [the authorities] use a single Word document, a template that they slightly adapt,” Klyga said.  He argued that German authorities fail to distinguish between draft dodgers — men who fled the country to avoid being mobilized — and defectors like Avaliani, who were actually served call-up papers.   For them, the risk of returning to Russia is not a fine but jail time or a forced return to the front.  Asked for a reaction, Germany’s BAMF migration office said it couldn’t comment on individual cases but noted that every asylum application “involves an examination of each individual case, in which every refugee story presented is carefully reviewed.” The agency added that protection is only granted to applicants with a well-founded fear of persecution. BURDEN OF PROOF In practice, some argue, applicants like Avaliani face an impossible burden of proof.  “Ultimately, [the German authorities] try to talk their way out of [granting asylum] with statistics,” said Peter von Auer, a legal expert at German refugee advocacy organization Pro Asyl.  “They argue that it is statistically unlikely that what asylum seekers suspect or fear will happen, will befall them.” Out of 8,201 Russian men of military age who have applied for asylum in Germany since 2022, just 416 — about 5 percent — were granted some form of protection, such as being given asylum status, according to figures provided by the government in response to a parliamentary question. Deserters presumably comprise a small minority of those cases, given the significant barriers faced by those who have already been drafted to make their way out of Russia and then on to Europe. Alshansky, the A Farewell to Arms co-founder, argued that deporting people like Avaliani undercuts Europe’s promise to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia. The asylum rejection “helps Putin to maintain the idea that it’s useless to run.” In fact, he said, the calculus is simple: “The more deserters there are, the easier it will be to defend Ukraine.”

5 TIMES THE WINTER OLYMPICS GOT SUPER POLITICAL Invasions, nuclear crises and Nazi propaganda: The Games have seen it all. By SEBASTIAN STARCEVIC Illustration by Natália Delgado /POLITICO The Winter Olympics return to Europe this week, with Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo set to host the world’s greatest athletes against the snowy backdrop of the Italian Alps. But beyond the ice rinks and ski runs, the Games have long doubled as a stage for global alliances, heated political rivalries and diplomatic crises.  “An event like the Olympics is inherently political because it is effectively a competition between nations,” said Madrid’s IE Assistant Professor Andrew Bertoli, who studies the intersection of sport and politics. “So the Games can effectively become an arena where nations compete for prestige, respect and soft power.” If history is any guide, this time won’t be any different. From invasions to the Nazis to nuclear crises, here are five times politics and the Winter Olympics collided. 1980: AMERICA’S “MIRACLE ON ICE” One of the most iconic moments in Olympic history came about amid a resurgence in Cold War tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The USSR had invaded Afghanistan only months earlier, and Washington’s rhetoric toward Moscow had hardened, with Ronald Reagan storming to the presidency a month prior on an aggressive anti-Soviet platform. At the 1980 Winter Games in Lake Placid, New York, that superpower rivalry was on full display on the ice. The U.S. men’s ice hockey team — made up largely of college players and amateurs — faced off against the Soviet squad, a battle-hardened, gold medal-winning machine. The Americans weren’t supposed to stand a chance. Then the impossible happened. In a stunning upset, the U.S. team skated to a 4-3 victory, a win that helped them clinch the gold medal. As the final seconds ticked away, ABC broadcaster Al Michaels famously cried, “Do you believe in miracles? Yes!” The impact echoed far beyond the rink. For many Americans, the victory was a morale boost in a period marked by geopolitical anxiety and division. Reagan later said it was proof “nice guys in a tough world can finish first.” The miracle’s legacy has endured well into the 21st century, with U.S. President Donald Trump awarding members of the hockey team the Congressional Gold Medal in December last year. 2014: RUSSIA INVADES CRIMEA AFTER SOCHI Four days. That’s how long Moscow waited after hosting the Winter Olympics in the Russian resort city of Sochi before sending troops into Crimea, occupying and annexing the Ukrainian peninsula. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych had fled to Moscow days earlier, ousted by protesters demanding democracy and closer integration with the EU. As demonstrators filled Kyiv’s Independence Square, their clashes with government forces played on television screens around the world alongside highlights from the Games, in which Russia dominated the medal tally. Vladimir Putin poses with Russian athletes while visiting the Coastal Cluster Olympic Village ahead of the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics. | Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images No sooner was the Olympic flame extinguished in Sochi on Feb. 23 than on Feb. 27 trucks and tanks rolled into Crimea. Soldiers in unmarked uniforms set up roadblocks, stormed Crimean government buildings and raised the Russian flag high above them. Later that year, Moscow would face allegations of a state-sponsored doping program and many of its athletes were ultimately stripped of their gold medals. 2022: RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE … AGAIN There’s a theme here. Russian President Vladimir Putin made an appearance at the opening ceremony of Beijing’s Winter Games in 2022, meeting on the sidelines with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping and declaring a “no limits” partnership. Four days after the end of the Games, on Feb. 24, Putin announced a “special military operation,” declaring war on Ukraine. Within minutes, Russian troops flooded into Ukraine, and missiles rained down on Kyiv, Kharkiv and other cities across the country. According to U.S. intelligence, The New York Times reported, Chinese officials asked the Kremlin to delay launching its attack until after the Games had wrapped up. Beijing denied it had advance knowledge of the invasion. 2018: KOREAN UNITY ON DISPLAY As South Korea prepared to host the Winter Games in its mountainous Pyeongchang region, just a few hundred kilometers over the border, the North Koreans were conducting nuclear missile tests, sparking global alarm and leading U.S. President Donald Trump to threaten to strike the country. The IOC said it was “closely monitoring” the situation amid concerns about whether the Games could be held safely on the peninsula. South Korean Vice Unification Minister Chun Hae-Sung, shakes hands with the head of North Korean delegation Jon Jong-Su after their meeting on January 17, 2018 in Panmunjom, South Korea. | South Korean Unification Ministry via Getty Images But then in his New Year’s address, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un signaled openness to participating in the Winter Olympics. In the end, North Korean athletes not only participated in the Games, but at the opening ceremony they marched with their South Korean counterparts under a single flag, that of a unified Korea. Pyongyang and Seoul also joined forces in women’s ice hockey, sending a single team to compete — another rare show of unity that helped restart diplomatic talks between the capitals, though tensions ultimately resumed after the Games and continue to this day. 1936: HITLER INVADES THE RHINELAND Much has been said about the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, in which the Nazi regime barred Jewish athletes from participating and used the Games to spread propaganda. But a few months earlier Germany also hosted the Winter Olympics in the town of Garmisch-Partenkirchen, allowing the Nazis to project an image of a peaceful, prosperous Germany and restore its global standing nearly two decades after World War I. A famous photograph from the event even shows Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels signing autographs for the Canadian figure skating team. Weeks after the Games ended, Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, a major violation of the Treaty of Versailles that was met with little pushback from France and Britain, and which some historians argue emboldened the Nazis to eventually invade Poland, triggering World War II.

The Trump administration wants to work with traditional allies to secure new supplies of critical minerals. But months of aggression toward allies, culminating with since-aborted threats to seize Greenland, have left many cool to the overtures. While the State Department has drawn a lengthy list of participating countries for its first Critical Minerals Ministerial scheduled for Wednesday, a number of those attending are hesitant to commit to partnering with the U.S. in creating a supply chain that bypasses China’s current chokehold on those materials, according to five Washington-based diplomats of countries invited to or attending the event. State Department cables obtained by POLITICO also show wariness among some countries about signing onto a framework agreement pledging joint cooperation in sourcing and processing critical minerals. Representatives from more than 50 countries are expected to attend the meeting, according to the State Department — all gathered to discuss the creation of tech supply chains that can rival Beijing’s. But the meeting comes just two weeks since President Donald Trump took to the stage at Davos to call on fellow NATO member Denmark to allow a U.S. takeover of Greenland, and that isn’t sitting well. “We all need access to critical minerals, but the furor over Greenland is going to be the elephant in the room,” said a European diplomat. In the immediate run-up to the event there’s “not a great deal of interest from the European side,” the person added. The individual and others were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic relationships. Their concerns underscore how international dismay at the Trump administration’s foreign policy and trade actions may kneecap its other global priorities. The Trump administration had had some success over the past two months rallying countries to support U.S. efforts to create secure supply chains for critical minerals, including a major multilateral agreement called the Pax Silica Declaration. Now those gains could be at risk. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wants foreign countries to partner with the U.S. in creating a supply chain for the 60 minerals (including rare earths) that the U.S. Geological Survey deems “vital to the U.S. economy and national security that face potential risks from disrupted supply chains.” They include antimony, used to produce munitions; samarium, which goes into aircraft engines; and germanium, which is essential to fiber-optics. The administration also launched a $12 billion joint public-private sector “strategic critical minerals stockpile” for U.S. manufacturers, a White House official said Monday. Trump has backed away from his threats of possibly deploying the U.S. military to seize Greenland from Denmark. But at Davos he demanded “immediate negotiations” with Copenhagen to transfer Greenland’s sovereignty to the U.S. That makes some EU officials leery of administration initiatives that require cooperation and trust. “We are all very wary,” said a second European diplomat. Rubio’s critical minerals framework “will not be an easy sell until there is final clarity on Greenland.” Trump compounded the damage to relations with NATO countries on Jan. 22 when he accused member country troops that deployed to support U.S. forces in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021 of having shirked combat duty. “The White House really messed up with Greenland and Davos,” a third European diplomat said. “They may have underestimated how much that would have an impact.” The Trump administration needs the critical minerals deals to go through. The U.S. has been scrambling to find alternative supply lines for a group of minerals called rare earths since Beijing temporarily cut the U.S. off from its supply last year. China — which has a near-monopoly on rare earths — relented in the trade truce that Trump brokered with China’s leader Xi Jinping in South Korea in October. The administration is betting that foreign government officials that attend Wednesday’s event also want alternative sources to those materials. “The United States and the countries attending recognize that reliable supply chains are indispensable to our mutual economic and national security and that we must work together to address these issues in this vital sector,” the State Department statement said in a statement. The administration has been expressing confidence that it will secure critical minerals partnerships with the countries attending the ministerial, despite their concerns over Trump’s bellicose policy. “There is a commonality here around countering China,” Ruth Perry, the State Department’s acting principal deputy assistant secretary for ocean, fisheries and polar affairs, said at an industry event on offshore critical minerals in Washington last week. “Many of these countries understand the urgency.” Speaking at a White House event Monday, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum indicated that 11 nations would sign on to a critical minerals framework with the United States this week and another 20 are considering doing so. Greenland has rich deposits of rare earths and other minerals. But Denmark isn’t sending any representatives to the ministerial, according to the person familiar with the event’s planning. Trump said last month that a framework agreement he struck with NATO over Greenland’s future included U.S. access to the island’s minerals. Greenland’s harsh climate and lack of infrastructure in its interior makes the extraction of those materials highly challenging. Concern about the longer term economic and geostrategic risks of turning away from Washington in favor of closer ties with Beijing — despite the Trump administration’s unpredictability — may work in Rubio’s favor on Wednesday. “We still want to work on issues where our viewpoints align,” an Asian diplomat said. “Critical minerals, energy and defense are some areas where there is hope for positive movement.” State Department cables obtained by POLITICO show the administration is leaning on ministerial participants to sign on to a nonbinding framework agreement to ensure U.S. access to critical minerals. The framework establishes standards for government and private investment in areas including mining, processing and recycling, along with price guarantees to protect producers from competitors’ unfair trade policies. The basic template of the agreement being shared with other countries mirrors language in frameworks sealed with Australia and Japan and memorandums of understanding inked with Thailand and Malaysia last year. Enthusiasm for the framework varies. The Philippine and Polish governments have both agreed to the framework text, according to cables from Manila on Jan. 22 and Warsaw on Jan. 26. Romania is interested but “proposed edits to the draft MOU framework,” a cable dated Jan. 16 said. As of Jan. 22 India was noncommittal, telling U.S. diplomats that New Delhi “could be interested in exploring a memorandum of understanding in the future.” European Union members Finland and Germany both expressed reluctance to sign on without clarity on how the framework aligns with wider EU trade policies. A cable dated Jan. 15 said Finland “prefers to observe progress in the EU-U.S. discussions before engaging in substantive bilateral critical mineral framework negotiations.” Berlin also has concerns that the initiative may reap “potential retaliation from China,” according to a cable dated Jan. 16. Trump’s threats over the past two weeks to impose 100 percent tariffs on Canada for cutting a trade deal with China and 25 percent tariffs on South Korea for allegedly slow-walking legislative approval of its U.S. trade agreement are also denting enthusiasm for the U.S. critical minerals initiative. Those levies “have introduced some uncertainty, which naturally leads countries to proceed pragmatically and keep their options open,” a second Asian diplomat said. There are also doubts whether Trump will give the initiative the long-term backing it will require for success. “There’s a sense that this could end up being a TACO too,” a Latin American diplomat said, using shorthand for Trump’s tendency to make big threats or announcements that ultimately fizzle. Analysts, too, argue it’s unlikely the administration will be able to secure any deals amid the fallout from Davos and Trump’s tariff barrages. “We’re very skeptical on the interest and aptitude and trust in trade counterparties right now,” said John Miller, an energy analyst at TD Cowen who tracks critical minerals. “A lot of trading partners are very much in a wait-and-see perspective at this point saying, ‘Where’s Trump really going to go with this?’” And more unpredictability or hostility by the Trump administration toward longtime allies could push them to pursue critical mineral sourcing arrangements that exclude Washington. “The alternative is that these other countries will go the Mark Carney route of the middle powers, cooperating among themselves quietly, not necessarily going out there and saying, ‘Hey, we’re cutting out the U.S.,’ but that these things just start to crop up,” said Jonathan Czin, a former China analyst at the CIA now at the Brookings Institution. “Which will make it more challenging and allow Beijing to play divide and conquer over the long term.” Felicia Schwartz contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — The EU and U.K. must overcome historic gripes and “reset” their relationship to be able to work together in an increasingly uncertain world, the bloc’s top parliamentarian said. European Parliament President Roberta Metsola used an address to the Spanish senate on Tuesday to call for closer ties with the U.K. as London steps up efforts to secure smoother access to European markets and funding projects, after the country voted to leave the bloc in 2016. “Ten years on from Brexit … and in a world that has changed so profoundly, Europe and the U.K. need a new way of working together on trade, customs, research, mobility and on security and defense,” Metsola said. “Today it is time to exorcize the ghosts of the past.” Metsola called for a “reset” in the partnership between Britain and the EU as part of a policy of “realistic pragmatism anchored in values that will see all of us move forward together.” Her speech comes after British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he intended to try and ensure his country’s defense industries can benefit from the EU’s flagship SAFE scheme — a €150 billion funding program designed to boost procurement of military hardware. That push has been far from smooth, with a meeting of EU governments on Monday night failing to sign off U.K. access to SAFE, despite France — which has consistently opposed non-EU countries taking part — supporting the British inclusion. Starmer has also signaled in recent days that he is seeking closer integration with the EU’s single market. Brussels has so far been reluctant to reopen the terms of the U.K.’s relations with the bloc just six years after it exited. While those decisions lie with the remaining 27 EU member countries, rather than the Parliament, Metsola’s intervention marks a shift in tone that could bolster the British case for closer relations. In the context of increasingly tense relations with the U.S., capitals are depending on cooperation with British intelligence and military capabilities and in key industries. Europe must take “the next steps towards a stronger European defense, boosting our capabilities and cooperation, and working closely with our NATO allies so that Europe can better protect its people,” Metsola said.