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

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

HELSINKI — The U.K. is ready to work with its European allies to intercept vessels in Russia’s “shadow fleet,” Britain’s chief foreign minister said Wednesday. A week after British armed forces supported the U.S. seizure of a Russian-flagged oil tanker in the North Atlantic, Yvette Cooper said Britain is prepared to work on enforcement with “other countries and other allies” against ships suspected of carrying sanctioned oil or damaging undersea infrastructure. Promising “stronger action” to break the shadow fleet’s “chokehold,” she added: “It means a more robust response, and it means as we see operations by shadow fleet vessels, standing ready to be able to act.” While the foreign secretary would not be drawn on the specific action the U.K. might take, her charged rhetoric appears to be laying the ground for future interventions that go beyond last week’s coordination with the Trump administration. Officials believe that the U.K. government has identified a legal basis for the military to board shadow fleet vessels in international shipping lanes, in certain cases. Cooper did not rule out the prospect of British forces boarding vessels, telling POLITICO: “It means looking at whatever is appropriate, depending on the circumstances that we face.” She also did not rule out using oil from seized vessels to fund the Ukrainian war effort — but cautioned that the prospect was of a different order to using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine. That idea hit a wall in discussions between EU countries in December. The foreign secretary said: “As you know, we’ve had all sorts of discussions in the past about different Russian sovereign assets. That’s a different set of circumstances. So we take the approach that it always has to be done within an international legal framework and on a case-by-case basis.” Asked directly if she was talking about joint shadow fleet operations with European allies, Cooper said: “We stand ready to work with allies on stronger enforcement around the shadow fleet.” Cooper made her comments on Wednesday after a demonstration on board the Finnish Border Guard ship Turva. It took part in a Dec. 31 operation to seize a cargo ship sailing from Russia to Israel, which was accused of deliberately damaging a cable between Helsinki and Estonia. Finnish authorities demonstrated a mock operation similar to the one that seized the ship on New Year’s Eve. Cooper watched as five armed officers slid down a rope from a helicopter onto the deck and stormed the bridge, shouting: “Hands up.” The operation took around three minutes. Cooper said after the demonstration: “The reason for being here is to see the work that Finland has been doing around the shadow fleet, and to look at what the further potential is for us to work with allies to strengthen that enforcement work.” Mari Rantanen, Finland’s interior minister, said the age of some Russian-linked tankers using northern shipping routes risks an ecologically disastrous oil spill. | Olivier Hoslet/EPA She name-checked work by France and Finland, while one U.K. official said she also intends to work with Norway. Mari Rantanen, Finland’s interior minister, said the age of some Russian-linked tankers using northern shipping routes risks an ecologically disastrous oil spill. “These vessels, these tankers, are very old,” she told POLITICO. “They are not built [for] this kind of icy weather, and they are in very bad shape, so the environmental risk is huge.” Mikko Simola, the commander of the Gulf of Finland coastguard, said he has seen “a rapid change since early 2022” in the prevalence of malign activity, for which Moscow denies responsibility. Simola said he would let the courts decide who was culpable, but said it was “certainly very strange to believe that in a short period of time, many cable and gas pipe damages would happen by accident in the same area.”

PARIS — Kyiv and its European allies are eyeing the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos next week as a key venue for Donald Trump to throw his weight behind American commitments on a peace plan for Ukraine. Trump’s presence at the elite business and political event, along with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is seen as a prime opportunity to get the U.S. president to personally endorse U.S. commitments discussed during a high-level meeting in Paris last week, most critically on what America can offer to deter Russia from further attacks. Two senior European officials said the big hope was that Trump could commit to those U.S.-backed security guarantees for Ukraine at the Swiss meeting, but two others said the target could be Trump’s endorsement of a lower-level economic pact on postwar recovery. In either case, the goal is to lock in engagement from Washington. French President Emmanuel Macron, who has been leading European efforts to hash out a security guarantee plan jointly with the U.K.’s Keir Starmer, will be attending the global event, according to three officials, joining a flock of European leaders. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will attend along with leaders from Germany, Spain, Belgium, Finland, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and Serbia. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte will also join. Starmer’s attendance is not yet confirmed, but he would be expected to travel if hopes of clinching a deal are rising, according a U.K. official not authorized to speak publicly. He would go alongside his National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell, seen as one of the most trusted links between the U.S. and Europe in negotiations. Zelenskyy said Monday he had instructed his negotiating team to “finalize and submit for consideration at the highest level the document on the United States’ security guarantees for Ukraine.” “We are negotiating with President Trump’s representatives about the meeting schedules — our documents are largely ready for signing. We expect that the Davos format this year will be quite effective precisely in terms of our relations with partners and our recovery from Russian strikes,” he added in a separate statement out the same day. The meeting of the so-called Coalition of the Willing in Paris last Tuesday was followed by several bilateral meetings at diplomatic level, according to two diplomats, including with U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Both men’s show of support at the Paris meeting was interpreted as an encouraging sign of U.S. commitment, even if an explicit promise from Washington on a Ukraine backstop was scrapped from the leaders’ final joint statement. Esther Webber reported from London. Veronika Melkozerova reported from Kyiv and Zoya Sheftalovich reported from Brussels.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission on Wednesday unveiled a €90 billion loan to Ukraine aimed at saving it from financial collapse as it continues to battle Russia while aid from the U.S. dries up. About one-third of the cash will be used for normal budget expenditures and the rest will go to defense — although countries still need to formally agree to what extent Ukraine can use the money to buy weapons from outside the EU. A Commission proposal gives EU defense firms preferential treatment but allows Ukraine to buy foreign weapons if they aren’t immediately available in Europe. While the loan is interest-free for Ukraine, it is forecast to cost EU taxpayers between €3 billion and €4 billion a year in borrowing costs from 2028. The EU had to resort to the loan after an earlier effort to use sanctioned Russian frozen assets ran into opposition from Belgium. The race is now on for EU lawmakers to agree on a final legal text that’ll pave the way for disbursements in April, when Ukraine’s war chest runs out. Meetings between EU treasury and defense officials are already planned for Friday. The European Parliament could fast-track the loan as early as next week. The financing package is also crucial for unlocking additional loans to Ukraine from the International Monetary Fund. The Washington-based Fund wants to ensure Kyiv’s finances aren’t overstretched, as the war enters its fifth year next month. The €90 billion will be paid out over the next two years, as Moscow shows no sign of slowing down its offensive on Ukraine despite U.S.-led efforts to agree on a ceasefire. “Russia shows no sign of abating, no sign of remorse, no sign of seeking peace,” Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters after presenting the proposal. “We all want peace for Ukraine, and for that, Ukraine must be in a position of strength.” When EU leaders agreed on the loan, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called the deal an “unprecedented decision, and it will also have an impact on the peace negotiations.” Adding to the pressure on the EU, the U.S. under President Donald Trump has halted new military and financial aid to Ukraine, leaving it up to Europe to ensure Kyiv can continue fighting. Once the legal text is agreed, the EU will raise joint debt to finance the initiative, although the governments in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia said they will not participate in the funding drive.  The conditions on military spending are splitting EU countries. Paris is demanding strict rules to prevent money from flowing to U.S. weapons manufacturers, while Germany and other Northern European countries want to give Ukraine greater flexibility on how to spend the cash, pointing out that some key systems needed by Ukraine aren’t manufactured in Europe. MEETING HALFWAY The Commission has put forward a compromise proposal — seen by POLITICO. It gives preferential treatment to defense companies based in the EU, Ukraine and neighboring countries, including Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, but doesn’t rule out purchases from abroad. To keep the Northern European capitals happy, the Commission’s proposal allows Ukraine to buy specialized weapons produced outside the EU if they are vital for Kyiv’s defense against Russian forces. These include the U.S. Patriot long-range missile and air defense systems. The rules could be bent further in cases “where there is an urgent need for a given defense product” that can’t be delivered quickly from within Europe. Weapons aren’t considered European if more than 35 percent of their parts come from outside the continent, according to the draft. That’s in line with previous EU defense-financing initiatives, such as the €150 billion SAFE loans-for-weapons program. Two other legal texts are included in the legislative package. One proposes using the upper borrowing limit in the current budget to guarantee the loan. The other is designed to tweak the Ukraine Facility, a 2023 initiative that governs the bloc’s long-term financial support to Kyiv. The Commission will also create a new money pot to cover the borrowing costs before the new EU budget enters into force in 2028. RUSSIAN COLLATERAL Ukraine only has to repay the €90 billion loan if it receives post-war reparations from Russia — an unlikely scenario. If this doesn’t happen, the EU has left the door open to tapping frozen Russian state assets across the bloc to pay itself back. Belgium’s steadfast opposition to leveraging the frozen assets, most of which are based in the Brussels-based financial depository Euroclear, promises to make that negotiation difficult. However, the Commission can indefinitely roll over its debt by issuing eurobonds until it finds the necessary means to pay off the loan. The goal is to ensure Ukraine isn’t left holding the bill. “The Union reserves its right to use the cash balances from immobilized Russian assets held in the EU to repay the Ukraine Support Loan,” Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis said alongside von der Leyen. “Supporting Ukraine is a litmus test for Europe. The outcome of Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine will determine Europe’s future.” Jacopo Barigazzi contributed to this report from Brussels.

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. Russia’s reaction to America’s gunboat diplomacy in Venezuela has been rather tame by the Kremlin’s standards, with a pro forma feel to it. The foreign ministry has come out with standard language, issuing statements about “blatant neocolonial threats and external armed aggression.” To be sure, it demanded the U.S. release the captured Nicolás Maduro, and the Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council Dmitry Medvedev dubbed the whole business “unlawful” — but his remarks also contained a hint of admiration. Medvedev talked of U.S. President Donald Trump’s consistency and how he is forthrightly defending America’s national interests. Significantly, too, Russian President Vladimir Putin has yet to comment directly on the snatching of his erstwhile ally. Nor did the Kremlin miss a beat in endorsing former Vice President Delcy Rodriguez as Venezuela’s interim leader, doing so just two days after Maduro was whisked off to a jail cell in New York. Overall, one would have expected a much bigger reaction. After all, Putin’s alliance with Venezuela stretches back to 2005, when he embraced Maduro’s boss Hugo Chávez. The two countries signed a series of cooperation agreements in 2018; Russia sold Venezuela military equipment worth billions of dollars; and the relationship warmed up with provocative joint military exercises. “The unipolar world is collapsing and finishing in all aspects, and the alliance with Russia is part of that effort to build a multipolar world,” Maduro announced at the time. From 2006 to 2019, Moscow extended $17 billion in loans and credit to Venezuela. So why the current rhetorical restraint? Seems it may all be about bargaining — at least for the Kremlin. Moscow likely has no wish to rock the boat with Washington over Venezuela while it’s actively competing with Kyiv for Trump’s good graces. Better he lose patience with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and toss him out of the boat rather than Putin. Plus, Russia probably has zero interest in advertising a hitherto successful armed intervention in Ukraine that would only highlight its own impotence in Latin America and its inability to protect its erstwhile ally. Indeed, there are grounds to suspect the Kremlin must have found Maduro’s surgically executed removal and its stunning display of U.S. hard power quite galling. As POLITICO reported last week, Russia’s ultranationalists and hard-line militarists certainly did: “All of Russia is asking itself why we don’t deal with our enemies in a similar way,” posted neo-imperialist philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, counseling Russia to do it “like Trump, do it better than Trump. And faster.” Even Kremlin mouthpiece Margarita Simonyan conceded there was reason to “be jealous.” Indeed, there are grounds to suspect the Kremlin must have found Maduro’s surgically executed removal and its stunning display of U.S. hard power quite galling. | Boris Vergara/EPA From Russia’s perspective, this is an understandable sentiment — especially considering that Putin’s “special military operation” in Ukraine was likely conceived as a quick decapitation mission aimed at removing Zelenskyy and installing a pro-Kremlin satrap in his place. Four years on, however, there’s no end in sight. It’s essentially a demonstration of America’s military might that highlights the limits of Russia’s military effectiveness. So, why draw attention to it? However, according to Bobo Lo — former deputy head of the Australia mission in Moscow and author of “Russia and the New World Disorder” — there are other explanations for the rhetorical restraint. “Maduro’s removal is quite embarrassing but, let’s be honest, Latin America is the least important area for Russian foreign policy,” he said. Besides, the U.S. operation has “a number of unintended but generally positive consequences for the Kremlin. It takes the attention away from the conflict in Ukraine and reduces the pressure on Putin to make any concessions whatsoever. It legitimizes the use of force in the pursuit of vital national interests or spheres of influence. And it delegitimizes the liberal notion of a rules-based international order,” he explained. Fiona Hill, a Russia expert at the Brookings Institute who oversaw European and Russian affairs at the White House for part of Trump’s first term, echoed these thoughts: “Russia will simply exploit Trump’s use of force in Venezuela — and his determination to rule the country from afar — to argue that if America can be aggressive in its backyard, likewise for Russia in its ‘near abroad.’” Indeed, as far back as 2019, Hill told a congressional panel the Kremlin had signaled that when it comes to Venezuela and Ukraine, it would be ready to do a swap. This all sounds like two mob bosses indirectly haggling over the division of territory through their henchmen and actions. For the Kremlin, the key result of Venezuela is “not the loss of an ally but the consolidation of a new logic in U.S. foreign policy under the Trump administration — one that prioritizes force and national interests over international law,” noted longtime Putin opponent Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s New Eurasian Strategies Center. “For all the reputational damage and some minor immediate economic losses, the Kremlin has reason, on balance, to be satisfied with recent developments: Through his actions, Trump has, in effect, endorsed a model of world order in which force takes precedence over international law.” And since Maduro’s ouster, Trump’s aides have only made that clearer. While explaining why the U.S. needs to own Greenland, regardless of what Greenlanders, Denmark or anyone else thinks, influential White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller told CNN: “We live in a world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power.” Now that’s language Putin understands. Let the bargaining begin — starting with Iran.

KYIV — Russia’s relentless assault killed at least 2,500 civilians and injured 12,000 in Ukraine last year, according to a new report published this week. Those figures made it the deadliest year for Ukraine’s civilian population since the Kremlin launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, the U.N. Human Rights Monitoring Mission said. The U.N. monitors included only deaths and injuries they were able to verify, noting the total dead and injured toll in 2025 was still 31 percent higher than in 2024, and 70 percent higher than in 2023. The vast majority of casualties, around 97 percent, occurred in Ukraine-controlled territory due to attacks launched by Russian armed forces. Russia’s army increased its efforts to capture Ukraine’s eastern and southern regions in 2025, with the campaign resulting in the killing and injuring of civilians, destruction of infrastructure and new waves of displacement. The aggression continues as Russian leader Vladimir Putin brushes off U.S. President Donald Trump’s efforts to end the war. More than 9,000 people were injured in 2025 in frontline areas, with the elderly most affected. Civilian casualties by short-range drones increased by 120 percent last year, with 577 people killed and more than 3000 injured by FPV drone attacks, compared to 226 killed and 1,528 injured in 2024.  Russian Ambassador to the U.N. Vasilii Nebendzia denied that Russia ever targets civilians, blaming Ukrainian air defense for the death toll during the U.N. Security Council meeting on Monday.   Russia attacked Ukraine with more than 20 different missiles and 293 killer drones on Monday night, killing four and injuring six people in Kharkiv alone, said local governor Oleh Synehubov.  The Kremlin has bombarded Ukraine’s energy system during freezing temperatures, leaving hundreds of thousands of families without heating and electricity. “Every such strike against life is a reminder that support for Ukraine cannot be stopped. Missiles for air defense systems are needed every day, and especially during winter,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Tuesday. “The world can respond to this Russian terror with new assistance packages for Ukraine. We expect the acceleration of deliveries already agreed with America and Europe. Russia must come to learn that cold will not help it win the war,” Zelenskyy added.

When Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, he promised Russians they would “do it again” — send their armed forces westward and sweep to victory like the Soviet Union did against Germany. Today, the Russian president has kept half that boast. As of this week, the war Putin once hoped would be over in just three days has stretched out for longer than Moscow spent fighting the Nazis. To make matters worse, even as Moscow bogs down in Ukraine, the global network of allies Putin spent two decades building seems to be falling apart, put to the test by an unexpectedly belligerent U.S. President Donald Trump. What was supposed to be a quick operation in Ukraine has turned into a grinding war of attrition. The duration of the conflict has now surpassed the 1,418 days the Soviets spent fighting back the Nazi onslaught, ultimately pushing the Germans from Moscow all the way to Berlin. During its almost-four-year campaign in Ukraine, Moscow has captured only a wedge of the country, at a cost of some 1.1 million Russian casualties and mounting disruption at home. This month some 600,000 Russians were left without electricity in the border region of Belgorod following a Ukrainian missile strike. Meanwhile, internationally, there appears to be little Putin can do to stop his allies from being picked off one by one. The Kremlin has been on the back foot in the Middle East since late 2024, when the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria deprived it of a reliable partner in the region.  Moscow was also seemingly unable to protect its closest friend in South America earlier this month when the United States captured Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro, a leader who had dutifully made the trip to Moscow for Putin’s Victory Day Parade in May last year.  Embarrassingly, Moscow wasn’t even able to fend off the unprecedented U.S. seizure of an oil tanker flying a Russian flag. Hristo Rusev/Getty Images Just a year ago, Putin signed a 20-year strategic partnership agreement with Tehran. Now the regime — which supplied Russia with killer Shahed drones for its fight in Ukraine — is in danger of being toppled by protesters whom Trump has indicated he could intervene militarily to defend.  Russians have taken notice. “An entire era is coming to an end,” wrote a pro-war military blogger under the pen name Maxim Kalashnikov on Sunday, reflecting growing criticism of the Russian leadership.  Russian authorities, he argued, had spent too much time trying to create an image that the country was a great power rather than taking steps to ensure it became one. The promise that “‘we can do it again’ has failed,” Kalashnikov concluded.  Journalists friendly to the Iranian regime have reported that Moscow in recent weeks supplied Iran with Russian-made Spartak armored vehicles and attack helicopters, presumably to help fend off protesters, said Nikita Smagin, an expert on Russia-Iran relations and a contributor to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  “But, of course, the Iranians have no illusions that if the situation were to become truly critical, Russia would simply step aside, as it did in the case of Bashar al-Assad,” he said, referring to the fall of the Syrian dictator’s regime in 2024 and his subsequent exile to Russia.  The reality is that the Moscow-inspired alliance was always largely fiction, said former Russian diplomat Boris Bondarev.  “Neither Venezuela nor Iran are part of any Russian empire,” he said. Following its invasion of Ukraine, “it was important [for Russia] to show that it was not alone, but that’s propaganda.”  Smagin pointed out that the partnership agreement between Iran and Russia specifically left out a mutual defense clause, describing their relationship as “stable” with an undertone of “serious mistrust.”  “The two countries aren’t really allies, they’re strategic partners out of necessity, because both sides have few other options,” he said. The Kremlin’s mouthpieces have tried to put a positive spin on matters, arguing Washington’s own apparent lack of regard for international law shows Russia was right to invade Ukraine. Other commentators have sought to downplay the relationship between Russia and its allies or have highlighted the differences between WWII and the war in Ukraine to justify the lack of progress. It’s not that the country’s military is weak, they argue: Russians are just less invested than they were back then.  “In the first case the entire country fought [the Nazis], now only 5 percent or so are interested,” a Telegram channel aptly named “Don’t Stop War” claimed.  Putin himself hasn’t yet commented on events in either Venezuela or Iran, true to his habit of leaving his underlings to talk about bad news, said Bondarev, the diplomat.  He noted, however, that the Kremlin likely sees U.S. actions in Venezuela and against the oil tanker as attempts to push Russia into a corner. To show it doesn’t yield to pressure, Russia will be looking for ways to display its own dominance, primarily in Ukraine, said Bondarev, pointing to Moscow’s firing of an Oreshnik hypersonic missile into Ukraine last week.  Humiliated or not, Bondarev warned against expecting a “softening” of the Russian position. “Even if it is weak, the Kremlin will be looking to show that it’s strong.”

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

PARIS — Donald Trump’s mounting threats toward Greenland are irking even his potential allies in Europe. Jordan Bardella, president of France’s far-right National Rally opposition party, criticized the U.S. president’s pledge to seize the autonomous Danish territory as “a direct challenge to the sovereignty of a European country” in his New Year’s address to the press on Monday. He also cited the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro as an example of recent U.S. hawkish moves he opposes, warning against “a return to imperial ambitions” and a world in which “the law of the strongest trumps respect of international rules.” The National Rally has been forced to perform a delicate dance when it comes to Trump, whose administration last month hinted it was ready to throw its weight between “patriotic European parties” in its bombshell national security strategy. In contrast with his jabs at the U.S., Bardella didn’t explicitly mention Russia in his speech, although in response to a question from POLITICO he warned against being too confrontational with Moscow. “Russia is today a multidimensional threat for a number of European interests,” he said. “But Russia is a nuclear power and … it’s never good in the world that we know when two nuclear powers are staring each other in the face.” The National Rally’s past ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin and its dovish stance on support for Ukraine have fueled fears among Kyiv’s allies that if Bardella or his mentor Marine Le Pen accessed power, it would seriously dial down Paris’ leading role in the coalition of European countries willing to provide security guarantees to the embattled country. Bardella reiterated his red lines concerning security guarantees on Monday, notably on sending French ground troops, something he opposes. Asked whether he would uphold the commitments that have been signed by President Emmanuel Macron, the far-right leader said he supported “some of them.” Early polling ahead of France’s next presidential election, scheduled for 2027, shows Bardella defeating all the other candidates polled. Marine Le Pen is the party’s official candidate but is currently under a five-year election ban following her conviction in the embezzlement of EU funds last year. She is trying to overturn that ban in an appeal trial that starts this week.