Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Die SPD ringt sichtbar mit ihrem Führungsanspruch. Parteichefin und Arbeitsministerin Bärbel Bas schließt eine Kanzlerkandidatur 2029 für sich schon mal aus und löst damit Zweifel an Ambition, Rollenverständnis und strategischer Orientierung der Sozialdemokratie aus. Gordon Repinski analysiert, warum diese Aussage keine persönliche Zurückhaltung  ist und was sie über den aktuellen Zustand der SPD sagt. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview stellt sich der Parlamentarische Geschäftsführer der SPD-Fraktion Dirk Wiese den Fragen nach Richtung und Selbstverständnis seiner Partei. Es geht um Bürgergeld, Reformen, Sanktionen, Rentenfragen, die Energiepreise und um darum, ob die SPD noch auf Sieg spielt oder sich mit Verwaltung begnügt. Danach der Blick nach Sachsen-Anhalt. Beim IHK-Neujahrsempfang in Halle sendet Kanzler Friedrich Merz wirtschaftspolitische Signale, die in der Koalition noch für Diskussionen sorgen werden. Rasmus Buchsteiner ordnet ein, warum Merz dort über längeres Arbeiten, Steuerpolitik und das Heizungsgesetz spricht und wie groß die Nervosität der CDU mit Blick auf die starke AfD ist. Und: Donald Trumps Ansprüche auf Grönland lösen weitere Sorgen aus in Dänemark, aber auch für unerwartete wirtschaftliche Effekte mit einer ironischen Note. Den Spaziergang mit Ulrich Siegmund findet ihr zum Nachhören hier und das 200-Sekunden-Interview mit Sven Schulze zum Unvereinbarkeitsbeschluss hier. Die Machthaber-Folge, in der wir Giorgia Meloni porträtiert haben, gibt es hier.  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

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.

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 — European governments are pressuring the EU to appoint a negotiator to represent their interests on Ukraine, fearing the United States will stitch up a deal with Russia behind their backs. Supporters of the plan — including France and Italy — have secured support in the European Commission and among a handful of other countries for the post, according to three diplomats and officials with direct knowledge of the talks who were granted anonymity to speak to POLITICO. They say Europe can only maintain its red lines, such as Ukraine’s potential future membership in NATO, if the EU has a seat at the table. The unprecedented move would mark a major shift in how Europe engages with the string of bilateral talks brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump, and comes as the continent works to demonstrate it is ready to play a major role in any settlement to end the four-year war. French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni have joined forces in recent weeks to call for the opening of diplomatic channels to Russian leader Vladimir Putin and his inner circle, even as White House peace talks falter. “Macron has been advocating in the last days that, in view of the bilateral discussions between the Americans and the Russians, it is important to play at least a role in the discussion,” a senior French official said. “Meloni very much supported that … they’re not naive about what can be reached through these discussions, but on the balance between not engaging and engaging, there’s a growing appreciation [of the merits of engaging] in some capitals.” Major disagreements remain over the details of the position. Critics say appointing a negotiator would imply that Russia is ready to negotiate in good faith and would accept anything other than Ukraine’s total subjugation. Trump’s efforts to broker a deal have failed so far, with the Kremlin refusing to budge from its demand that Ukraine hand over swaths of territory that Russian troops have been unable to conquer. MESSAGE TO MOSCOW Discussions have been taking place in Brussels about what the bloc would contribute to any talks, and how they could be used to ensure Trump doesn’t sideline its concerns. “There are some issues which cannot be discussed with [only] the U.S. when they have direct implications on our security as Europeans,” the official said. “The message to Washington is as important as [the message] to Moscow.” Kurt Volker, who served as U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations in Trump’s first term and as ambassador to NATO in 2008-2009 under then-President George W. Bush, told POLITICO that Brussels has to be more assertive if it wants to be included in the talks. “It’s been made clear Trump is going to keep up his dialog with Putin both directly and through [U.S. envoy Steve] Witkoff,” he said. “That’s not going away. So you have to have your own communication if it’s going on — it’s not about being in the same room as the Americans and the Russians, it’s about having any kind of communication.” JOB CREATION European leaders first discussed the idea of a special envoy at an EU summit last March, a senior EU official confirmed. Despite getting broad backing, no decision was taken and the proposals were left out of the subsequent joint statement. The role would have been narrowly focused on representing Brussels in talks alongside Kyiv — an altogether different proposition to Meloni’s suggestion of an interlocutor for Moscow. “Countries that were supportive of a Ukraine envoy may not be supportive of an envoy to speak with Russia,” the official said. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, has consistently positioned herself as the only candidate for any role in negotiations over Ukraine’s future. | Filip Singer/EPA Kaja Kallas, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, has consistently positioned herself as the only candidate for any role in negotiations over Ukraine’s future. The former Estonian prime minister has been a steadfast ally of Kyiv and has used her role to corral capitals into backing stronger sanctions designed to force Russia to end its war of aggression. “If Europe were to name a special envoy, the question is who does that person represent? Who do they report to?” Volker asked. “If it were [Commission President Ursula]von der Leyen, that sidelines Kaja Kallas and the External Action Service [the EU’s diplomatic corps] — most envoys have typically been within the action service, but then that would be at such a low level when they need to talk to Putin directly, it wouldn’t work. “But then I can just imagine the discussions in the Commission if it were to be the Council who had an envoy. That would never fly.” Officials confirmed that key aspects of the job — such as whether it would represent just the EU or the entire “coalition of the willing,” including the U.K. and others — have yet to be worked out. Ditto the diplomatic rank, and whether to formally appoint a bureaucrat or informally delegate the role to a current national leader. Italian government minister Giovanbattista Fazzolari — an influential ally of Meloni whose Ukrainian wife is credited with building support for Kyiv within Rome’s governing coalition — said over the weekend that former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi should be offered the special envoy job. Another four diplomats, meanwhile, noted that Finnish President Alexander Stubb has often been considered a potential representative for Europe in any talks with Washington and Moscow. The center-right veteran diplomat has struck up friendly relations with Trump while playing golf, while his country shares a border with Russia and has been on the receiving end of hybrid campaigns from the Kremlin. According to one of them, relying on “a sitting leader” means they could be “a bit more free in what they say.” However, “another question is figuring out what is the moment to speak with Putin. Is there a risk that if you do so, you’re also in a way legitimizing his positions?” Two EU officials underlined to POLITICO that no special envoy role exists and that any talk of candidates was premature. That said, a third noted, “none of these jobs exist until they do.” Jacopo Barigazzi contributed reporting. 

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.

BRUSSELS — European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s plan to shake up how the EU spends its almost €2 trillion budget is rapidly being diluted. Von der Leyen’s big idea is to steer hundreds of billions in funds away from farmer subsidies and regional payouts — traditionally the bread and butter of the EU budget — toward defense spending and industrial competitiveness. But those modernizing changes — demanded by richer Northern European countries that pay more into the budget than they receive back from it — are difficult to push through in the face of stern opposition from Southern and Central European countries, which get generous payments for farmers and their poorer regions. A coalition of EU governments, lawmakers and farmers is now joining forces to undo key elements of the new-look budget running from 2028 to 2034, less than six months after the European Commission proposed to focus on those new priorities. Von der Leyen’s offer last week to allow countries to spend up to an extra €45 billion on farmer subsidies is her latest concession to powerful forces that want to keep the budget as close as possible to the status quo. Northern European countries are growing increasingly frustrated by moves by other national capitals and stakeholders to turn back the clock on the EU budget, according to three European diplomats. They were particularly irritated by a successful Franco-Italian push last week to exact more concessions for farmers as part of diplomatic maneuvers to get the long-delayed Mercosur trade deal with Latin America over the line. “Some delegations showed up with speaking points that they have taken out of the drawer from 2004,” said an EU diplomat who, like others quoted in this story, was granted anonymity to speak freely. The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy was worth 46 percent of the bloc’s total budget in 2004. The Commission’s proposal for 2028-2034 has reserved a minimum of roughly 25 percent of the total cash pot for farmers, although governments can spend significantly more than that. The Commission had no immediate comment when asked whether the anti-reform camp was successfully chipping away at von der Leyen’s proposal. THE ANTI-REFORM ALLIANCE The Commission’s July proposal to modernize the budget triggered shockwaves in Brussels and beyond. The transition away from sacred cows consolidated a ramshackle coalition of angry farmers, regional leaders and lawmakers who feared they would lose money and influence in the years to come. “This was the most radical budget [ever proposed] and there was resistance from many interested parties,” said Zsolt Darvas, a senior fellow at the Bruegel think tank. A protest by disgruntled farmers in Brussels during a summit of EU leaders on Dec. 18 was only the latest flashpoint of discontent. | Bastien Ohier/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images The scale of the Commission’s task became apparent weeks before the proposal was even published, as outspoken MEPs, ministers and farmers’ unions threatened to dismantle the budget in the following years of negotiations. That’s exactly what is happening now. “The Commission’s proposal was quite radical so no one thought it could go ahead this way,” said a second EU diplomat.   “We knew that this would be controversial,” echoed a Commission official working on the file. A protest by disgruntled farmers in Brussels during a summit of EU leaders on Dec. 18 was only the latest flashpoint of discontent. The terrible optics of the EU’s signing off on Mercosur as farmers took to the streets on tractors was not lost on national leaders and EU officials. Commission experts spent their Christmas break crafting a clever workaround that allows countries to raise agricultural subsidies by a further €45 billion without increasing the overall size of the budget. The extra money for farmers isn’t new — it’s been brought forward from an existing rainy-day fund that was designed to make the EU budget better suited to handling unexpected crises. By handing farmers a significant share of that financial buffer, however, the Commission is undermining its capacity to mobilize funding for emergencies or other policy areas. “You are curtailing the logic of having a more flexible budget for crises in the future,” said Eulalia Rubio, a senior fellow at the Jacques Delors Institute think tank. At the time, reactions to the budget compromise from frugal countries such as Germany and Netherlands were muted because it were seen as a bargaining chip to win Italy’s backing for the Mercosur deal championed by Berlin. The trouble was instead postponed, as it reduces budget flexibility. Darvas also argued that the Commission has not had to backtrack “too much” on the fundamentals of its proposal as countries retained the option of whether to spend the extra cash on agriculture. In a further concession, the Commission proposed additional guarantees to reduce the risk of national governments cutting payments to more developed regions. | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images ANOTHER MONTH, ANOTHER CONCESSION This wasn’t the first time von der Leyen has tinkered with the budget proposal to extract herself from a political quagmire. The Commission president had already suggested changes to the budget in November to stem a budding revolt by her own European People’s Party (EPP), which was feeling the heat from farmers’ unions and regional leaders. At the time, the EU executive promised more money for farmers by introducing a “rural spending” target worth 10 percent of a country’s total EU funds. In a further concession, the Commission proposed additional guarantees to reduce the risk of national governments cutting payments to more developed regions — a sensitive issue for decentralized countries like Germany and Spain. “The general pattern that we don’t like is that the Commission is continuing to offer tiny tweaks here and there” to appease different constituencies, an EU official said. The Commission official retorted that national capitals would eventually have made those changes themselves as the “trend of the negotiations [in the Council] was going in that direction.” However, budget veterans who are used to painstaking negotiations were surprised by the speed at which Commission offered concessions so early in the process. “Everyone is scared of the [2027] French elections [fearing a victory by the far-right National Rally] and wants to get a deal by the end of the year, so the Commission is keen to expedite,” said the second EU diplomat. Nicholas Vinocur contributed to this report.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music In Sachsen-Anhalt stellen sich der CDU-Vorstand, die Fraktion aber auch die Koalitionspartner SPD und FDP hinter die Entscheidung von Ministerpräsident Reiner Haseloff, sich Ende Januar zurückzuziehen.  Damit macht er den Weg frei für Wirtschaftsminister und CDU-Spitzenkandidat Sven Schulze. Der Wechsel kommt wenige Monate vor der Landtagswahl und soll verhindern, dass die AfD stärkste Kraft wird und damit der erste Ministerpräsident der Alternative ins Amt kommt. Rixa Fürsen bespricht mit Nikolaus Doll von der WELT, warum dieser Schritt so spät erfolgt und welche Chancen Schulze jetzt noch hat. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview erklärt Sepp Müller, Vorsitzender der CDU Landesgruppe Sachsen-Anhalt im Bundestag, warum die Union trotz deutlichem Rückstand an einen Wahlsieg glaubt und weshalb Koalitionen mit AfD oder Linken ausgeschlossen bleiben. Auf Bundesebene stellt die SPD heute ihr Konzept für eine Reform der Erbschaftsteuer vor. Jasper Bennink ordnet ein, was der geplante “Lebensfreibetrag” bedeutet, wie groß bzw. klein die erwarteten Mehreinnahmen sind und wie aus dem SPD-Vorhaben ein Regierungsvorhaben werden könnte. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

BRUSSELS — 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.

LONDON — U.K. ministers are warning Elon Musk’s X it faces a ban if it doesn’t get its act together. But outlawing the social media platform is easier said than done. The U.K.’s communications regulator Ofcom on Monday launched a formal investigation into a deluge of non-consensual sexualized deepfakes produced by X’s AI chatbot Grok amid growing calls for action from U.K. politicians. It will determine whether the creation and distribution of deepfakes on the platform, which have targeted women and children, constitutes a breach of the company’s duties under the U.K.’s Online Safety Act (OSA).   U.K. ministers have repeatedly called for Ofcom, the regulator tasked with policing social media platforms, to take urgent action over the deepfakes. U.K. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall on Friday offered her “full support” to the U.K. regulator to block X from being accessed in the U.K., if it chooses to. “I would remind xAI that the Online Safety Act Includes the power to block services from being accessed in the U.K., if they refuse to comply with U.K. law. If Ofcom decide to use those powers they will have our full support,” she said in a statement. The suggestion has drawn Musk’s ire. The tech billionaire branded the British government “fascist” over the weekend, and accused it of “finding any excuse for censorship.”   With Ofcom testing its new regulatory powers against one of the most high-profile tech giants for the first time, it is hard to predict what happens next. NOT GOING NUCLEAR — FOR NOW   Ofcom has so far avoided its smash-glass option. Under the OSA it could seek a court order blocking “ancillary” services, like those those processing subscription payments on X’s behalf, and ask internet providers to block X from operating in the U.K.   Taking that route would mean bypassing a formal investigation, but that is generally considered a last resort according to Ofcom’s guidance. To do so, Ofcom would need to prove that risk of harm to U.K. users is particularly great.  Before launching its investigation Monday, the regulator made “urgent contact” with X on Jan. 5, giving the platform until last Friday to respond. Ofcom stressed the importance of “due process” and of ensuring its investigations are “legally robust and fairly decided.”   LIMITED REACH   The OSA only covers U.K. users. It’s a point ministers have been keen to stress amid concerns its interaction with the U.S. First Amendment, which guarantees free speech, could become a flashpoint in trade negotiations with Washington. It’s not enough for officials or ministers to believe X has failed to protect users generally.   The most egregious material might not even be on X. Child sexual abuse charity the Internet Watch Foundation said last week that its analysts had found what appeared to be Grok-produced Child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on a dark web forum, rather than X itself — so it’s far from self-evident that Ofcom taking the nuclear option against X would ever have been legally justified.   X did not comment on Ofcom’s investigation when contacted by POLITICO, but referred back to a statement issued on Jan. 4 about the issue of deepfakes on the platform. “We take action against illegal content on X, including Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), by removing it, permanently suspending accounts, and working with local governments and law enforcement as necessary. Anyone using or prompting Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content,” the statement said. BIG TEST   The OSA came into force last summer, and until now Ofcom’s enforcement actions have focused on pornography site providers for not implementing age-checks.  Online safety campaigners have argued this indicates Ofcom is more interested in going after low-hanging fruit than challenging more powerful tech companies. “It has been striking to many that of the 40+ investigations it has launched so far, not one has been directed at large … services,” the online safety campaign group the Molly Rose Foundation said in September.   That means the X investigation is the OSA’s first big test, and it’s especially thorny because it involves an AI chatbot. The Science, Innovation and Technology committee wrote in a report published last summer that the legislation does not provide sufficient protections against generative AI, a point Technology Secretary Liz Kendall herself conceded in a recent evidence session.  POLITICAL RISKS  If Ofcom concludes X hasn’t broken the law there are likely to be calls from OSA critics, both inside and outside Parliament, to return to the drawing board. It would also put the government, which has promised to act if Ofcom doesn’t, in a tricky spot.  The PM’s spokesperson on Monday described child sexual abuse imagery as “the worst crimes imaginable.” Ofcom could also conclude X has broken the law, but decide against imposing sanctions, according to its enforcement guidance. The outcome of Ofcom’s investigation will be watched closely by the White House and is fraught with diplomatic peril for the U.K. government, which has already been criticized for implementing the new online safety law by Donald Trump and his allies. Foreign Secretary David Lammy raised the Grok issue with U.S. Vice President JD Vance last week, POLITICO reported.  But other Republicans are readying for a geopolitical fight: GOP Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, a member of the U.S. House foreign affairs committee, said she was drafting legislation to sanction the U.K. if X does get blocked. 

ROME — Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Friday called on Europe to appoint a special envoy to talk to Russia, as efforts continue to end the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine. Meloni said that she agreed with French President Emmanuel Macron, who last month called for new dialogue with the Kremlin. Russian President Vladimir Putin “expressed readiness to engage in dialogue” with Macron, Moscow said in response. “I believe the time has come for Europe to also speak with Russia,” Meloni told a press conference in Rome on Friday. “If Europe speaks to only one of the two sides on the field, I fear that the contribution it can make will be limited.” Meloni warned that Europe needs a coordinated approach or “risks doing Putin a favor.” Since the beginning of negotiations over a potential ceasefire in Ukraine, “many voices have been speaking out, and that’s why I’ve always been in favor of appointing a European special envoy on the Ukrainian issue,” Meloni said. Peace talks aimed at ending the all-out conflict, which Russia launched in February 2022, have accelerated with U.S. President Donald Trump back in the White House, but Moscow has not indicated that it is willing to make concessions. The U.S. in November proposed that Russia be readmitted to the Group of Seven leading nations. But Meloni said it was “absolutely premature” to talk about welcoming Russia back to the G7 fold. Meloni also emphasized that Italy would not join France and the U.K. in sending troops to Ukraine to guarantee a potential peace deal, because it was “not necessary” if Ukraine signed a collective defense agreement with Western allies modeled on NATO’s Article 5 collective-defense provision. She suggested that a small contingent of foreign troops would not be a serious deterrent against a much larger Russian force. Reacting to Trump’s recent aggressive rhetoric toward Greenland, Meloni said that she “would not approve” of a U.S. military takeover of the vast Arctic island. “I don’t believe that the USA will carry out military action on Greenland, which I would not approve of and would not do anyone any good,” she told reporters. Meloni said she believed the Trump administration was using “very assertive methods” to draw attention to the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. interests and security. “It’s an area where many foreign actors are carrying out activity and I think that the message of the USA is that they will not accept excessive interference by foreign actors,” she said.   Meloni also countered Trump’s remarks Thursday that he does not need international law, stressing that “international law must be defended.” But she added that it was normal to disagree with allies, “as national interests are not perfectly aligned.” “When I don’t agree with Trump, I say so — I say it to him.”