Mujtaba Rahman is the head of Eurasia Group’s Europe practice. He posts at @Mij_Europe. 2026 is here, and Europe is under siege. External pressure from Russia is mounting in Ukraine, China is undermining the EU’s industrial base, and the U.S. — now effectively threatening to annex the territory of a NATO ally — is undermining the EU’s multilateral rule book, which appears increasingly outdated in a far more transactional and less cooperative world. And none of this shows signs of slowing down. In fact, in the year ahead, the steady erosion of the norms Europe has come to rely on will only be compounded by the bloc’s weak leadership — especially in the so-called “E3” nations of Germany, France and the U.K. Looking forward, the greatest existential risks for Europe will flow from the transatlantic relationship. For the bloc’s leaders, keeping the U.S. invested in the war in Ukraine was the key goal for 2025. And the best possible outcome for 2026 will be a continuation of the ad-hoc diplomacy and transactionalism that has defined the last 12 months. However, if new threats emerge in this relationship — especially regarding Greenland — this balancing act may be impossible. The year also starts with no sign of any concessions from Russia when it comes to its ceasefire demands, or any willingness to accept the terms of the 20-point U.S.-EU-Ukraine plan. This is because Russian President Vladimir Putin is calculating that Ukraine’s military situation will further deteriorate, forcing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to capitulate to territorial demands. I believe Putin is wrong — that backed by Europe, Zelenskyy will continue to resist U.S. pressure on territorial concessions, and instead, increasingly target Russian energy production and exports in addition to resisting along the frontline. Of course, this means Russian aerial attacks against Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure will also increase in kind. Nonetheless, Europe’s growing military spending, purchase of U.S. weapons, financing for Kyiv and sanctions against Russia — which also target sources of energy revenue — could help maintain last year’s status quo. But this is perhaps the best case scenario. Activists protest outside Downing street against the recent policies of Donald Trump. | Guy Smallman/Getty Images Meanwhile, European leaders will be forced to publicly ignore Washington’s support for far-right parties, which was clearly spelled out in the new U.S. national security strategy, while privately doing all they can to counter any antiestablishment backlash at the polls. Specifically, the upcoming election in Hungary will be a bellwether for whether the MAGA movement can tip the balance for its ideological affiliates in Europe, as populist, euroskeptic Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is currently poised to lose for the first time in 15 years. Orbán, for his part, has been frantically campaigning to boost voter support, signaling that he and his inner circle actually view defeat as a possibility. His charismatic rival Péter Magyar, who shares his conservative-nationalist political origins but lacks any taint of corruption poses a real challenge, as does the country’s stagnating economy and rising prices. While traditional electoral strategies — financial giveaways, smear campaigns and war fearmongering — have so far proven ineffective for Orbán, a military spillover from Ukraine that directly affects Hungary could reignite voter fears and shift the dynamic. To top it all off, these challenges will be compounded by the E3’s weakness. The hollowing out of Europe’s political center has already been a decade in the making. But France, Germany and the U.K. each entered 2026 with weak, unpopular governments besieged by the populist right and left, as well as a U.S. administration rooting for their collapse. While none face scheduled general elections, all three risk paralysis at best and destabilization at worst. And at least one leader — namely, Britain’s Keir Starmer — could fall because of an internal party revolt. The year’s pivotal event in the U.K. will be the midterm elections in May. As it stands, the Labour Party faces the humiliation of coming third in the Welsh parliament, failing to oust the Scottish National Party in the Scottish parliament and losing seats to both the Greens and ReformUK in English local elections. Labour MPs already expect a formal challenge to Starmer as party leader, and his chances of surviving seem slight. France, meanwhile, entered 2026 without a budget for the second consecutive year. The good news for President Emmanuel Macron is that his Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s minority government will probably achieve a budget deal targeting a modest deficit reduction by late February or March. And with the presidential election only 16 months away and local elections due to be held in March, the opposition’s appetite for a snap parliamentary election has abated. However, this is the best he can hope for, as a splintered National Assembly will sustain a mood of slow-motion crisis until the 2027 race. Finally, while Germany’s economy looks like it will slightly recover this year, it still won’t overcome its structural malaise. Largely consumed by ideological divisions, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government will struggle to implement far-reaching reforms. And with the five upcoming state elections expected to see increased vote shares for the far-right Alternative for Germany party, pressure on the government in Berlin will only mount A historic truth — one often forgotten in the quiet times — will reassert itself in 2026: that liberty, stability, prosperity and peace in Europe are always brittle. The holiday from history, provided by Pax Americana and exceptional post-World War II cooperation and integration, has officially come to an end. Moving forward, Europe’s relevance in the new global order will be defined by its response to Russia’s increased hybrid aggression, its influence on diplomacy regarding the Ukraine war and its ability to improve competitiveness, all while managing an increasingly ascendant far right and addressing the existential threats to its economy and security posed by Russia, China and the U.S. This is what will decide whether Europe can survive.

Andrea Carlo is a British-Italian researcher and journalist living in Rome. His work has been published in various outlets, including TIME, Euronews and the Independent. Last month, UNESCO designated Italian cuisine part of the world’s “intangible cultural heritage.” This wasn’t the first time such an honor was bestowed upon food in some form — French haute cuisine and Korean kimchi fermentation, among others, have been similarly recognized. But it was the first time a nation’s cuisine in its entirety made the list. So, as the U.N. agency acknowledged the country’s “biocultural diversity” and its “blend of culinary traditions […] associated with the use of raw materials and artisanal food preparation techniques,” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni reacted with expected pride. This is “a victory for Italy,” she said. And prestige aside — Italy already tops UNESCO’s list of World Heritage Sites — it isn’t hard to see the potential benefits this designation might entail. One study even suggests the UNESCO nod alone could boost Italian tourism by up to 8 percent. But behind this evident soft power win also lies a political agenda, which has turned “Italian cuisine” into a powerful weapon for the country’s right-wing government. For Meloni’s government, food is all the rage. It permeates every aspect of political life. From promoting “Made in Italy” products to blocking EU nutrition labelling scores and banning lab-grown meat, Rome has been doing its utmost to regulate what’s on Italian plates. In fact, during Gaza protests in Rome in September, Meloni was sat in front of the Colosseum for a “Sunday lunch” as part of her government’s long-running campaign to make the coveted list. Clearly, the prime minister has made Italian cuisine one of the main courses of her political menu. And all of this can be pinpointed to a phenomenon political scientists call “gastronationalism,” whereby food and its production are used to fuel identitarian narratives — a trend the Italian far right has latched onto with particular gusto. There are two main principles involving Italian gastronationalism: The notion that the country’s culinary traditions must be protected from “foreign contamination,” and that its recipes must be enshrined to prevent any “tinkering.” And the effects of this gastronationalism now stretch from political realm all the way to the world of social media “rage-bait,” with a deluge of TikTok and Instagram content lambasting “culinary sins” like adding cream to carbonara or putting pineapple on pizza. At the crux of this gastronationalism, though, lies the willful disregard of two fundamental truths: First, foreign influence has contributed mightily to what Italian cuisine is today; and second, what is considered to be “Italian cuisine” is neither as old nor as set in stone as gastronationalists would like to admit. Europe, as a continent, is historically poor in its selection of indigenous produce — and Italy is no exception. The remarkable variety of the country’s cuisine isn’t due to some geographic anomaly, rather, it is the byproduct of centuries of foreign influence combined with a largely favorable climate: Citrus fruits imported by Arab settlers in the Middle Ages, basil from the Indian subcontinent through ancient Greek trading routes, pasta-making traditions from East Asia, and tomatoes from the Americas. Lying at the crossroads of the Mediterranean and home to major trading outposts, Italy was a sponge for cultural cross-pollination, which enriched its culinary heritage. To speak of the “purity” of Italian food is inherently ahistorical. This wasn’t the first time such an honor was bestowed upon food in some form — French haute cuisine and Korean kimchi fermentation, among others, have been similarly recognized. | Anthony Wallace/AFP via Getty Images But even more controversial is acknowledging that the concept of “Italian cuisine” is a relatively recent construct — one largely borne from post-World War II efforts to both unite a culturally and politically fragmented country, and to market its international appeal. From north to south, not only is Italy’s cuisine remarkably diverse, but most of its iconic dishes today would have been alien to those living hardly a century ago. Back then, Italy was an agrarian society that largely fed itself with legume-rich foods. Take my great-grandmother from Lake Como — raised on a diet of polenta and lake fish — who had never heard of pizza prior to the 1960s. “The mythology [of gastronationalism] has made complex recipes — recipes which would have bewildered our grandmothers — into an exercise of national pride-building,” said Laura Leuzzi, an Italian historian at Glasgow’s Robert Gordon University. Food historian Alberto Grandi took that argument a step forward, titling his latest book — released to much furor — “Italian cuisine does not exist.” From carbonara to tiramisù, many beloved Italian classics are relatively recent creations, not much older than the culinary “blasphemies” from across the pond, like chicken parmesan or Hawaiian pizza. Even more surprising is the extent of U.S. influence on contemporary Italian food itself. Pizza, for instance, only earned its red stripes when American pizza-makers began adding tomato sauce to the dough, in turn influencing pizzaioli back in Italy. And yet, some Italian politicians, like Minister of Agriculture Francesco Lollobrigida, have called for investigations into brands promoting supposedly misleadingly “Italian sounding” products, such as carbonara sauces using “inauthentic” ingredients like pancetta. Lollobrigida would do well to revisit the original written recipe of carbonara, published in a 1954 cookbook, which actually called for the use of pancetta and Gruyère cheese — quite unlike its current pecorino, guanciale and egg yolk-based sauce. Simply put, Italian cuisine wasn’t just exported by the diaspora — it is also the product of the diaspora. One study even suggests the UNESCO nod alone could boost Italian tourism by up to 8 percent. | Michael Nguyen/NurPhoto via Getty Images What makes it so rich and beloved is that it has continued to evolve through time and place, becoming a source of intergenerational cohesion, as noted by UNESCO. Static “sacredness” is fundamentally antithetical to a cuisine that’s constantly reinventing itself, both at home and abroad. The profound ignorance underpinning Italian gastronationalism could be considered almost comedic if it weren’t so perfidious — a seemingly innocuous tool in a broader arsenal of weaponry, deployed to score cheap political points. Most crucially, it appeals directly to emotion in a country where food has been unwittingly dragged into a culture war. “They’re coming for nonna’s lasagna” content regularly makes the rounds on Facebook, inflaming millions against minorities, foreigners, vegans, the left and more. And the real kicker? Every nonna makes her lasagna differently. Hopefully, UNESCO’s recognition can serve as a moment of reflection in a country where food has increasingly been turned into a source of division. Italian cuisine certainly merits recognition and faces genuine threats — the impact of organized crime and the effects of climate change on crop growth biggest among them. But it shouldn’t become an unwitting participant in an ideological agenda that runs counter to its very spirit. For now, perhaps it’s best if our government kept politics off the dinner table.

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon is clearly gleeful as we sit down to discuss the new U.S. National Security Strategy and the hostility it displays toward America’s supposed allies in Europe. With its brutal claim that Europe is headed for “civilizational erasure,” the document prompted gasps of horror from European capitals when it was released this month. But the MAGA firebrand — and current host of the influential “War Room” podcast — only has words of praise. “It is a shot across the bow of the EU, and even NATO,” he purred, seemingly astonished that the 33-page document ever saw the light of day in its published form without being muted by the more fainthearted Trump aides. Famously, Bannon had once claimed he wanted “to drive a stake through the Brussels vampire.” And now, he and other MAGA influencers get to sharpen their stake with the encouragement of U.S. government policy. Above all, it’s what Bannon describes as the commitment to “back resistance movements to the globalists” that thrills him most. “It was pleasantly shocking that it was so explicit,” he said of the document’s prioritization of support for so-called “patriotic European parties,” with the aim of halting the continent’s supposed slide into irreversible decline due to mass migration, falling birth rates and the dilution of national cultural identities. But while Bannon extols Trump’s foreign-policy priorities, former U.S. diplomats fret the administration may be signaling an intention to go beyond expressing its rhetorical support for MAGA’s ideological allies and browbeating their opponents. Could Washington be tempted to launch more clandestine activities? And if the continent’s current trajectory does, indeed, represent a threat to U.S. national security interests by weakening transatlantic allies — as the document claims — would that justify straying into the unsettling territory of covert action? In short, could we see a reprise of Cold War tactics of political subversion? A time that saw the CIA competing with the KGB, meddling in elections in Italy and Greece, secretly funding academic journals, magazines and think tanks across Western Europe, and disseminating black propaganda to shape public opinion and counter Soviet propaganda. “[The NSS] could just be seen as a guiding document for people who are trying, in an overt way, on behalf of the Trump administration, to exert influence over the direction of European politics,” said Jeff Rathke, head of the American-German Institute at Johns Hopkins University. But the former U.S. diplomat worries it could also entail more: “It remains unclear the degree to which other parts of the U.S. national security and foreign policy establishment might also see it as a nudge to do things that go beyond simple overt expressions of endorsement and support,” he said. “That, I think, is an interesting dimension that hasn’t really been explored in the media reporting so far.” According to Rathke, who previously served in the U.S. embassies in Dublin, Moscow and Riga, and was the deputy director of the State Department’s Office of European Security and Political Affairs, “different agencies of the U.S. government” are now probably trying to figure out how the NSS should shape their own activities. NSS documents are generally aspirational, explained former U.S. diplomat and CIA officer Ned Price. “They set out the broad parameters of what an administration hopes to achieve and act as a helpful guide. When you’re talking about something like covert action, the NSS isn’t in itself a green light to do something. That would take a presidential finding and a lot of back-and-forth between the president and the CIA director,” he told POLITICO. But while Price finds it unlikely the administration would resort to covert action, he doesn’t categorically rule it out either. “Maybe in extremes, it could go back to Cold War-era CIA activities,” he mused. “That said, there’s been a lot of rule-bending. There are a lot of norms being broken. I don’t want to be too precious and say this administration couldn’t do such a thing — but it would be highly risky.” Above all, it’s what Bannon describes as the commitment to “back resistance movements to the globalists” that thrills him most. | Shannon Finney/Getty Images for Semafor Bannon, for his part, pooh-poohs the idea that the administration would organize clandestine operations against European liberals and centrists. “Even if Trump ordered it, there would be zero chance his instructions would be executed — particularly by the intelligence agencies,” he scoffed. As far as he sees it, they’re all “deep state” enemies of MAGA. Plus, why would you need covert action when you have the MAGA movement and deep-pocketed tech billionaires like Elon Musk promoting far-right European figures and parties? However, Washington’s muscular efforts to bully the EU into curtailing its landmark Digital Services Act (DSA) with visa bans and threats of punitive tariffs could, for example, read as overt covert action. Trump aides like Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers say they oppose the DSA, which aims to block harmful speech and disinformation, because it amounts to foreign influence over online speech, stifles the free speech of Americans, and imposes costs on U.S. tech companies. But European MAGA allies have lobbied Washington hard to help them push back against the legislation, which, they say, is largely aimed at silencing them. The Department of State declined a POLITICO interview request with Rogers, referring us to the White House. The NSS will now likely turbocharge these transatlantic activities, and we’ll no doubt see the administration give even more love and attention to their “ideological allies in Europe,” said Price. “Instead of hosting the German chancellor, maybe we’ll see the hosting of the AfD head in the Oval Office.” For Europe’s ultraconservatives and populists, the document serves as an invitation to double their efforts to gain MAGA blessings as they try to reforge their politics in Trump’s image, hoping that what’s worked for him in America will work for them in Europe. “I think, in the past it was a big mistake that conservative forces were just focused on their own countries,” explained Markus Frohnmaier, an Alternative for Germany (AfD) lawmaker who sits on the Bundestag’s foreign affairs committee. For Europe’s ultraconservatives and populists, the document serves as an invitation to double their efforts to gain MAGA blessings as they try to reforge their politics in Trump’s image, hoping that what’s worked for him in America will work for them in Europe. | Adam Gray/Getty Images Frohnmaier is among the AfD politicians flocking to the U.S. to meet with Trump officials and attend MAGA events. Earlier this month, he was the guest of honor at a gala hosted by New York’s Young Republicans Club, where he was awarded a prize in memory of founding CIA director Allen Dulles, who had overseen the agency’s massive operation to manipulate Italy’s 1948 election and ensure a Soviet-backed Popular Front didn’t win. “What we’re trying to do is something new, with conservatives starting to interact and network seriously to try to help each other with tactics and messaging and to spotlight the issues important for us,” he told POLITICO. Among the key issues for Frohnmaier is Germany’s firewall (brandmauer), which excludes the AfD from participating in coalition governments at the federal and state levels. He and other AfD politicians have discussed this with MAGA figures and Trump officials, urging them to spotlight it as “undemocratic” and help them smash it. But Bannon hopes it isn’t just the firewall that cracks — and he’s clearly relishing upcoming opportunities to amplify the radical populist message across Europe. “I think MAGA will be much more aggressive in Europe because President Trump has given a green light with the national security memo, which is very powerful,” he said. And he’s brimming with iconoclastic schemes to smash the bloc’s liberal hegemony and augment the Trump administration’s efforts. Interestingly, first up is Ireland. “I’m spending a ton of time behind the scenes on the Irish situation to help form an Irish national party,” Bannon told POLITICO. At first glance, Ireland wouldn’t seem the most promising territory for MAGA. Last year, none of the far-right candidates came anywhere near winning a seat in the Dáil, and this year, professional mixed martial arts fighter and MAGA favorite Conor McGregor had to drop out of Ireland’s presidential race, despite endorsements from both Trump and Musk. None of that’s deterring Bannon, though. “They’re going to have an Irish MAGA, and we’re going to have an Irish Trump. That’s all going to come together, no doubt. That country is right on the edge thanks to mass migration,” he said definitively. Of course, Britain, France and Germany figure prominently in future MAGA plans too: “MAGA thinks the European governments, by and large, are deadbeats. They love AfD. They love what National Rally is doing. They love Nigel Farage,” he said.

BRUSSELS — European leaders like Romania’s Nicușor Dan spent most of 2025 trying to work out how to live with Donald Trump. Or — even worse — without him. Since the great disruptor of international norms returned to the White House in January, he has made clear just how little he really cares for Europe — some of his key lieutenants are plainly hostile.  The U.S. president slashed financial and military aid to Ukraine, hit the European Union with tariffs, and attacked its leaders as “weak.” His administration is now on a mission to intervene in Europe’s democracy to back “patriotic” parties and shift politics toward MAGA’s anti-migrant goals.  For leaders such as Romania’s moderate president, the dilemma is always how far to accept Trump’s priorities — because Europe still needs America — and how strongly to resist his hostility to centrist European values. Does a true alliance even still exist across the Atlantic? “The world [has] changed,” Dan said in an interview from his top-floor Brussels hotel suite. “We shifted from a — in some sense — moral way of doing things to a very pragmatic and economical way of doing things.” EU leaders understand this, he said, and now focus their attention on developing practical strategies for handling the new reality of Trump’s world. Centrists will need to factor in a concerted drive from Americans to back their populist opponents on the right as the United States seeks to change Europe’s direction. Administration officials such as Vice President JD Vance condemned last year’s canceled election in Romania and the new White House National Security Strategy suggests the U.S. will seek to bend European politics to its anti-migrant MAGA agenda. For Dan, it is “OK” for U.S. politicians to express their opinions. But it would be a “problem” if the U.S. tried to “influence” politics “undemocratically” — for example, by paying media inside European countries “like the Russians are doing.” WEAK EUROPEANS Relations with America are critical for a country like Romania, which, unusually, remained open to the West during four decades of communist rule. On the EU’s eastern edge, bordering Ukraine, Romania is home to a major NATO base — soon to be Europe’s biggest — as well as an American ballistic missile defense site. But the Trump administration has announced the withdrawal of 800 American troops from Romania, triggering concern in Bucharest. As winter sun streamed in through the window, Dan argued that Europe and the U.S. are natural allies because they share more values than other regions of the world. He thought “a proper partnership” will be possible — “in the medium [term] future.” But for now, “we are in some sense of a transition period in which we have to understand better each other.” Dan’s frank assessment reveals the extent of the damage that has been done to the transatlantic alliance this year. Trump has injected jeopardy into all aspects of the Western alliance — even restoring relations with Russian ruler Vladimir Putin.  At times, Europeans have been at a loss over how to respond.  Does Dan believe Trump had a point when he told POLITICO this month that European leaders were “weak”?  “Yes,” Dan said, there is “some” truth in Trump’s assessment. Europe can be too slow to make decisions. For example, it took months of argument and a fraught summit in Brussels last week that ended at 3 a.m. to agree on a way to fund Ukraine. But — crucially — even a fractious EU did eventually take “the important decision,” he said. That decision to borrow €90 billion in joint EU debt for a loan for cash-strapped Kyiv will keep Ukraine in the fight against Putin for the next two years.  WAITING FOR PEACE According to EU leaders who support the plan (Hungary, Slovakia and Czechia won’t take part), it makes a peace deal more likely because it sends a signal to Putin that Ukraine won’t just collapse if he waits long enough. But Dan believes the end of the war remains some way off, despite Trump’s push for a ceasefire.  “I am more pessimistic than optimistic on short term,” he said. Putin’s side does not appear to want peace: “They think a peace in two, three months from now will be better for them than peace now. So they will fight more — because they have some small progress on the field.”  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said at last week’s European Council summit that he wanted Trump to put more pressure on Putin to agree to a ceasefire. Does Dan agree? “Of course. We are supporting Ukraine.” But Trump’s “extremely powerful” recent sanctions on Russian oil firms Rosneft and Lukoil are already helping, Dan said. He also welcomed Trump’s commitment to peace, and America’s new openness to providing security guarantees to bolster a final deal.  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said at last week’s European Council summit that he wanted Trump to put more pressure on Putin to agree to a ceasefire. Does Dan agree? “Of course. We are supporting Ukraine.” | Olivier Hoslet/EPA It is clear that Dan hopes Putin doesn’t get the whole of Donbas in eastern Ukraine, but he doesn’t want to tie Zelenskyy’s hands. “Any kind of peace in which the aggressor is rewarded in some sense is not good for Europe and for the future security of the world,” Dan said. “But the decision for the peace is just on the Ukrainian shoulders. They suffer so much, so we cannot blame them for any decision they will do.” Romania plays a critical role as an operational hub for transferring supplies to neighboring Ukraine. With its Black Sea port of Constanța, the country will be vital to future peacekeeping operations. Ukrainian soldiers are training in Romania and it is already working with Bulgaria and Turkey to demine the Black Sea, Dan said.  Meanwhile, Russian drones have breached Romanian airspace more than a dozen times since the start of the full-scale war, and a village on the border with Ukraine had to be evacuated recently when drones set fire to a tanker ship containing gas. Dan played down the threat.  “We had some drones. We are sure they have not intentionally [been] sent on our territory,” he said. “We try to say to our people that they are not at all in danger.” Still, Romania is boosting its military spending to deter Russia all the same. CORRUPTION AND A CRISIS OF FAITH Dan, 56, won the presidency in May this year at a tense moment for the country of 19 million people. The moderate former mayor of Bucharest defeated his populist, Ukraine-skeptic opponent against the odds. The vote was a rerun, after the first attempt to hold a presidential election was canceled last December over allegations of massive Russian interference and unlawful activity in support of the far-right front-runner Călin Georgescu. Legal cases are underway, including charges against Georgescu and others over an alleged coup plot. But for many Romanians, the cancelation of the 2024 election merely reinforced their cynicism toward the entire democratic system in their country. They wanted change and almost half the electorate backed the far right to deliver it.  Corruption today remains a major problem in Romania and Dan made it his mission to restore voters’ faith. In his first six months, however, he prioritized painful and unpopular public-sector spending cuts to bring the budget deficit — which was the EU’s biggest — under control. “On the big problems of society, starting with corruption, we didn’t do much,” Dan confessed. That, he said, will change. A recent TV documentary about alleged corruption in the judiciary provoked street demonstrations and a protest letter signed by hundreds of judges. Dan is due to meet them this week and will then work on legislative reforms focused on making sure the best magistrates are promoted on merit rather than because of who they know. “People at the top are working for small networks of interests, instead of the public good,” Dan said. But for many Romanians, the cancellation of the 2024 election merely reinforced their cynicism toward the entire democratic system in their country. | Robert Ghement/EPA He was also clear that the state has not yet done enough to explain to voters why the election last year was canceled. More detail will come in a report expected in the next two months, he said. RUSSIAN MEDDLING One thing that is now obvious is that Russia’s attack on Romanian democracy, including through a vast TikTok influence campaign, was not isolated. Dan said his country has been a target for Moscow for a decade, and other European leaders tell him they now suffer the same disinformation campaigns, as well as sabotage. Nobody has an answer to the torrent of fake news online, he said. “I just have talks with leaders for countries that are more advanced than us and I think nobody has a complete answer,” he said. “If you have that kind of information and that information arrived to half a million people, even if you’re coming the next day saying that it was false, you have lost already.” The far-right populist Alliance for the Union of Romanians party is ahead in the polls on about 40 percent, mirroring the pattern elsewhere in Europe. Dan, who beat AUR leader George Simion in May, believes his own team must get closer to the people to defeat populism. And he wishes that national politicians around Europe would stop blaming all their unpopular policies on Brussels because that merely fuels populist causes. Dan said he has learned that EU politics is in fact a democratic process, in which different member countries bring their own ideas forward. “With my six months’ experience, I can say that it’s quite a debate,” he said. “There is not a bureaucratic master that’s arranging things. It’s a democracy. It’s a pity that the people do not feel that directly.” But what about those marathon EU summits that keep everyone working well beyond midnight? “The topics are well chosen,” Dan said. “But I think the debates are a little bit too long.”

Laura Thornton is the senior director for democracy programs at the McCain Institute. She spent more than two decades in Asia and the former Soviet Union with the National Democratic Institute. Earlier this month, I spoke at a conference in Bucharest for Eastern Europe’s democracy activists and leaders. I was discussing foreign malign influence operations, particularly around elections, highlighting Russia’s hybrid war in Moldova, when a Hungarian participant pointed out that U.S. President Donald Trump had offered Hungary’s illiberal strongman Viktor Orbán a one-year reprieve for complying with U.S. sanctions for using Russian oil and gas. With Hungarian elections around the corner and this respite being a direct relief to Orbán’s economy, “Is that not election interference?” she asked. The next day, while at the Moldova Security Forum in Chișinău, a Polish government official expressed his deep concern about sharing intelligence with the current U.S. administration. While he had great respect for the embassy in Warsaw, he noted a lack of trust in some leaders in Washington and his worry that intelligence would get leaked, in the worst case to Russia — as had happened during Trump’s first term. My week came to an end at a two-day workshop for democracy activists, all who described the catastrophic impact that the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) elimination had on their work, whether that be protecting free and fair elections, combating disinformation campaigns or supporting independent media. “It’s not just about the money. It’s the loss of the U.S. as a democratic partner,” said one Georgian participant. Others then described how this withdrawal had been an extraordinary gift to Russia, China and other autocratic regimes, becoming a main focus of their disinformation campaigns. According to one Moldovan participant, “The U.S. has abandoned Moldova” was now a common Russian narrative, while Chinese messaging in the global south was also capitalizing on the end of USAID to paint Washington as an unreliable ally. Having spent a good deal of my career tracking malign foreign actors who undermine democracy around the world and coming up with strategies to defend against them, this was a rude reality check. I had to ask myself: “Wait, are we the bad guys?” It would be naive to suggest that the U.S. has always been a good faith actor, defending global democracy throughout its history. After all, America has meddled in many countries’ internal struggles, supporting leaders who didn’t have their people’s well-being or freedom in mind. But while it has fallen short in the past, there was always broad bipartisan agreement over what the U.S. should be: a reliable ally; a country that supports those less fortunate, stands up against tyranny worldwide and is a beacon of freedom for human rights defenders. America’s values and interests were viewed as intertwined — particularly the belief that a world with more free and open democracies would benefit the U.S. As the late Senator John McCain famously said: “Our interests are our values, and our values are our interests.” At the Moldova Security Forum in Chișinău, a Polish government official expressed his deep concern about sharing intelligence with the current U.S. administration. | Artur Widak/Getty Images I have proudly seen this born out in my work. I’ve lived in several countries that have had little to offer the U.S. with regards to trade, extractive industries or influence, and yet we supported their health, education and agriculture programs. We also stood up for defenders of democracy and freedom fighters around the world, with little material benefit to ourselves. I’ve worked with hundreds of foreign aid and NGO workers in my life, and I can say not one of them was in it for a “good trade deal” or to colonize resources. But today’s U.S. foreign policy has broken from this approach. It has abandoned the post-World War II consensus on allies and the value of defending freedom, instead revolving around transactions and deal-making, wielding tariffs to punish or reward, and defining allies based on financial benefit rather than shared democratic values. There are new ideological connections taking place as well — they’re just not the democratic alliances of the past. At the Munich Security Forum earlier this year, U.S. Vice President JD Vance chose to meet with the far-right Alternative for Germany party rather than then-Chancellor Olaf Scholz. The Conservative Political Action Committee has also served as a transatlantic bridge to connect far-right movements in Europe to those in the U.S., providing a platform to strongmen like Orbán. The recently released U.S. National Security Strategy explicitly embraces this pivot away from values toward more transactional alliances, as well as a fondness for “patriotic European parties” and a call to “resist” the region’s “current trajectory” — a clear reference to the illiberal, far-right movements in Europe. Meanwhile, according to Harvard University’s school of public health, USAID’s closure has tragically caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, while simultaneously kneecapping the work of those fighting for freedom, human rights and democracy. And according to Moldovan organizations I’ve spoken with, while the EU and others continue to assist them in their fight against Russia’s hybrid attacks ahead of this year’s September elections, the American withdrawal is de facto helping the Kremlin’s efforts. It should have come as no surprise to me that our partners are worried and wondering whose side the U.S. is really on. But I also believe that while a country’s foreign policy often reflects the priorities and values of that nation as a whole, Americans can still find a way to shift this perception. Alliances aren’t only built nation-to-nation — they can take place at the subnational level, creating bonds between democratic cities or states in the U.S. with like-minded local governments elsewhere. Just like Budapest doesn’t reflect its anti-democratic national leadership, we can find connections and share lessons learned. Moreover, partnerships can be forged at the civil society level too. Many American democracy and civic organizations, journalists and foundations firmly believe in a pro-democracy U.S. foreign policy, and they want to build communities with democratic actors globally. At a meeting in Prague last month, a former German government official banged their hand on the table, emphatically stating: “The transatlantic relationship is dead!” And I get it. I understand that the democratic world may well be tempted to cut the U.S. off as an ally and partner. But to them I’d like to say that it’s not our democracy organizations, funding organizations and broader government that abandoned them when national leadership changed. Relationships can take on many shapes, layers and connections, and on both sides of the Atlantic, those in support of democracy must now find new creative avenues of cooperation and support. I hope our friends don’t give up on us so easily.

EUROPE’S CENTER ISN’T HOLDING ANYMORE Despite recent election wins for moderates in the Netherlands, Germany and the U.K., the far right is stronger than ever. By TIM ROSS in Jaywick, England Illustration by Merijn Hos for POLITICO In recent elections, voters in Europe have given hope to embattled centrist politicians across the Western world.   Donald Trump may have romped back into the White House, but the international movement of MAGA-aligned populists has run into trouble across the Atlantic. At elections in the U.K., France, Germany, the Netherlands, Romania — and in a sprawling vote across 27 EU countries for the European Parliament — mainstream candidates defeated populist hardliners and far-right nationalists.  “There remains a majority in the center for a strong Europe, and that is crucial for stability,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said, after the EU Parliament elections last year. “In other words, the center is holding.”   Sixteen months later, that hold is looking anything but secure.    Hard-right and far-right politicians are now leading the polls in France, the U.K. and even Germany. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s approval rating is a dire 21 percent. His French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, is even lower, at 11 percent — and the mood is so grim that this fall’s spectacular theft at the Louvre is being treated by some as a giant metaphor for a country unable to manage its challenges.   Even von der Leyen’s own EU conservatives now rely on the votes of far right lawmakers to get her plans approved in Brussels. One outraged centrist likened the shift to those German politicians who enabled Adolf Hitler to take power. Populists at the extremes, meanwhile, cast themselves as the obvious alternative for populations that want change. And now they can expect Trump to help: In a brutal rupture of transatlantic norms, a new U.S. National Security Strategy aims to use American diplomacy to cultivate “resistance” to political correctness in Europe — especially on migration — and to support parties it describes as “patriotic.” Trump himself told POLITICO he would endorse candidates he believed would move Europe in the right direction. On that rightward trajectory, in the next four years the political map of the West faces its most dramatic upheaval since the Cold War. The implications for geopolitics, from trade to defense, could be profound.   “What [Europeans are] getting from Trump is the strategy of maximum polarization that hollows out the center,” said Will Marshall from the Progressive Policy Institute, the centrist American think tank that backed Bill Clinton in the 1990s. “The old established parties of left and right that dominated the post war era have gotten weaker,” he said. “The nationalist or populist right’s revolt is against them.”  Nowhere is this recent transformation more dramatic than in the U.K.   As the sun sinks toward the horizon over a calm sea one Thursday evening in November, half a dozen regulars huddle around the bar in the Never Say Die pub, a few yards from the beach at Jaywick Sands, on the east coast of England.   Built in the 1930s as a resort 70 miles from London, Jaywick is now the most deprived neighborhood in the country. The area had such a bad image that in 2018 a U.S. MAGA ad used a photograph of a dilapidated Jaywick street to warn of the apocalyptic future facing America if Trump’s candidates were not elected.   Jaywick was named England’s most deprived neighbourhood in October — for the fourth time since 2010. | Tolga Akmen/EPA It is here among the pebbledashed bungalows and England flags hanging limp from lampposts that a new political force — Nigel Farage’s rightwing Reform UK — has built its heartland.   At the bar, Dave Laurence, 82, says he doesn’t vote, as a rule, but made an exception for Farage, who was elected to represent the area last year. “I quite like him. He’s doing the best he can,” Laurence says as he sips his pint of lager, with ’80s pop hits playing in the background. “I’ll vote for him again.”  Laurence freely describes himself as “racist” and says he would never vote for a Black person, such as the center-right Conservative Party’s leader Kemi Badenoch. What troubles him most, he says, is the number of immigrants who have arrived in the U.K. during his lifetime, especially those crossing the Channel in small boats. Soon, Laurence fears, the country will be “full of Muslims and they’ll fucking rebel against us.”  With its anti-establishment, immigration-fighting agenda, Farage’s Reform UK offers voters a program tightly in tune with far-right parties that have gained ground across the West. According to opinion polls, Farage now has a real chance of becoming the U.K.’s next prime minister if the vote were held today. (A general election is not due until 2029).   It’s startling to note that as recently as July 2024, Starmer’s Labour Party won a historic landslide and some of his triumphant election aides traveled to the U.S. to advise Democrats on strategy. Today, Starmer is derided as “First Gear Keir” as he fights off leadership rivals rumored to be trying to oust him. And Reform isn’t the only force remaking British party politics. To the left of Labour, the Greens have also made recent gains in the polls under a new leader calling himself an “eco-populist.”   Farage’s stunning rise from the sidelines to the front of a political revolution carries lessons well beyond Britain’s borders. Europeans raised in the old school of mainstream politics fear that the traditional centerground — their home turf — will not hold.   ‘DURABLY UNSTABLE’   Macron, for his part, tried to counter the rise of the hard right by calling a snap election for the French National Assembly last year. The gamble backfired, delivering a hung parliament that has been unable to agree on key economic policies ever since. Macron is now historically unpopular.   French lawmakers’ clashes over the budget have toppled three of Macron’s picks as prime minister since the summer of 2024. A backlash against his plan to raise the pension age has forced ratings agencies to mull a damaging downgrade. Macron, who himself became president by launching a new centrist movement to rival the political establishment, now has no traditional party machinery to help bolster his position. “He’ll leave a political landscape that is perhaps durably unstable. It’s unforgivable,” said Alain Minc, an influential adviser and former mentor to the French president.  The chaos gives populists their chance. The main politicians making any running in conversations about the next presidential election belong to the far-right National Rally of Marine Le Pen and its youthful party president Jordan Bardella, who are riding high in the polls at 34 percent.   In Germany, too, the center ground is steadily eroding.   Though Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservatives won a snap election in February, his ideologically uneasy coalition, which consists of his own conservative bloc and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), holds one of the slimmest parliamentary majorities for a government since 1945, with just 52 percent of seats. That leaves the Merz coalition vulnerable to small defections within the ranks and makes it hard for him to achieve anything ambitious in government. The far-left Die Linke party and the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) both surged at the last election, too, with AfD winning the best result in a national election for any far-right party since World War II.  Merz’s attempt to defang the AfD by moving his conservatives sharply to the right on the issue of migration seems to have backfired. The AfD has only continued its rise, surpassing Merz’s conservatives in many polls.   The rise of the far-right is a cultural shock to many centrist Germans, given the country’s deeply entrenched desire to avoid repeating its past. “For a long time in Germany we thought with our history, and the way we teach in our schools, we would be a bit more immune to that,” one concerned German official said. “It turned out we are not.”   Even in the Netherlands, where centrist Rob Jetten won a famous but narrow victory over the far-right firebrand Geert Wilders in October, there are reasons for mainstream politicians to worry. Wilders’ Freedom Party is still one of the biggest forces in the land, winning the same number of seats as Jetten’s D66. He could well return next time, just as Trump did in the U.S.   WHERE DID ALL THE VOTERS GO?   According to polling firm Ipsos, a large proportion of voters in many Western democracies now have little faith in the political process. While they still believe in democratic values, they are dissatisfied with the way democracy is working for them.   A large survey questioning around 10,000 voters across nine countries found 45 percent were dissatisfied, fueling support for the extremes. Among voters on the far left (57 percent) and the far right (54 percent), levels of dissatisfaction were highest of all.   The countries with the highest rates of dissatisfaction in the Ipsos study were France and the Netherlands, where political upheaval has taken its toll on faith in the system.   Anti-riot police officers stand next to a demonstration called by far-right activist Els Rechts against the Netherlands’ current asylum policy, in September in The Hague. | Josh Walet/ANP via Getty Images Alongside the coronavirus pandemic and the aftermath of lockdowns, the biggest drivers of dissatisfaction were the cost of living, immigration and crime, according to Gideon Skinner from Ipsos. Trust in politics fell in the 90s and took another hit in the late 2000s at the time of the financial crash, he said.   “There may be specific things that have made it worse over the last couple of years but it’s also a long-term condition,” Skinner told POLITICO. “It’s something we do need to worry about and there is not a silver bullet that can fix it all.”  Perhaps the greatest problem for incumbent centrists is that in most cases their economies are so moribund that they lack the fiscal firepower to spend money addressing the issues disillusioned voters care about most — like high living costs, ailing public services and migration.  THE INEQUALITY EMERGENCY   The financial crisis of 2008 and the coronavirus lockdowns of 2020-21 left many governments strapped for cash. In the U.K., for example, the economy was 16 percent smaller than it should have been a decade after the 2008 crash if prior growth trends had continued, according to Anand Menon, professor of European politics at King’s College London.   “Crucially, the impact of the financial crisis, like the impact of so much else in our politics, was massively unequal,” Menon said. “Prosperous places with high productivity, with well-educated workforces suffered far, far less than poorer parts of the country.”   Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz submitted a study to the G20 in November warning that the world was facing an “inequality emergency.” Fueled by war, pandemic and trade disruptions, the crisis risks preparing the ground for more authoritarian leaders, his report said.   In many Western countries, the centerground is more than just a metaphor. It is in capital cities like London, Paris and Washington that power and money accumulate and the economic and political elites seek to maintain their grip on the status quo.   The further you travel from these centers out to areas in decline, the more likely you are to find support for radical politics.   As Menon notes, Britain’s 2016 revolution — the referendum vote to leave the European Union after almost half a century of membership — can be mapped onto the culinary geography of the country.   “Pret a Manger” is a smart national chain of sandwich and coffee shops, catering for hungry commuters and office workers in wealthy, successful British cities. “Places that had a Pret voted Remain,” Menon said. Parts of the U.K. where median wages were lower were disproportionately likely to vote to leave the EU.   IMMIGRATION, IMMIGRATION, IMMIGRATION   After the Brexit vote in 2016, immigration slid from the top of the priority list for British voters and Farage himself took a step back. Both have now returned, as Farage rides a wave of headlines about irregular migrants landing in small boats from France.   From January to May this year, there were a record 14,800 small boat crossings, 42 percent more than in the same period in the previous year, according to Oxford University’s Migration Observatory.   For Laurence, in the Never Say Die pub, the small boats represent the biggest issue of all. “What’s going to happen in 10 years’ time? What’s going to happen in 20 years’ time when the boat people are still coming over?” he asked.   A decade ago, German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the doors to hundreds of thousands of refugees arriving into Europe from Syria, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq. The AfD surged in the months that followed, permanently changing German politics. At February’s election, the AfD won a record 21 percent of the vote, finishing in second place behind Merz’s conservative bloc.  “The fundamental failure that is common to the whole [centrist] transatlantic community is on immigration,” said Marshall from the Progressive Policy Institute. “All of the far-right movements have made it their top issue.”   It is the perceived threat that waves of migration pose to traditional national cultures which drives much of the support for the far right. Trump’s White House is now primed to join the European nationalists’ fight. According to a new U.S. National Security Strategy document released in December, Europe is facing “civilisational erasure” from unrestricted immigration, as well as falling birthrates. The analysis draws on the so-called great replacement theory, a racist conspiracy theory. Free speech — in the MAGA definition, at least — is another casualty of conventional centrist rule in Europe, as political correctness veers into “censorship,” the U.S. document said. Protesters demostrate under the motto “Loud against Nazis” in early February in Berlin. After years of decline, The Left party  pulled off a stunning revival in the general election later that month. | John MacDougall via AFP/Getty Images In his interview with POLITICO earlier this week, Trump aligned himself fully with the strategy paper. European nations are “decaying” and their “weak” leaders can expect to be challenged by rivals with American support, he said. “I’d endorse,” he added. In Brussels, the double-punch of the president’s interview and the strategy document left diplomats and officials feeling bruised and alarmed all over again, after a period in which they allowed themselves to hope that the transatlantic alliance wasn’t dying. One EU diplomat was blunt in assessing Trump’s new method: “It’s autocracy.” THE STOLEN JEWELS  Sometimes, it takes a random news event — ostensibly unconnected to politics — to crystalize the national mood. In Paris, the theft of France’s priceless crown jewels from the Louvre provided just such an opportunity, morphing into an indictment of an establishment that can’t get the job done, even when the job simply involves thoroughly locking the windows at the world’s most famous museum. National Rally leader Jordan Bardella called the incident a “humiliation” before asking: “How far will the breakdown of the state go?”   In Britain, just a month after Starmer’s victory last year, riots broke out across the country, fueled by far-right extremists. The catalyst was the murder of three young girls aged 6, 7 and 9, in Southport, northwest England, by a Black teenager wrongly identified at the time on social media — in posts amplified by the far-right — as a Muslim.   At the time, Farage suggested the police were withholding the truth about the suspect, earning him the fury of mainstream politicians. While stressing he did not support violence, Farage railed against what he called “two-tier policing,” a phrase popular among far-right commentators who claim police treat right-wing protesters more harshly than those on the left.  It’s an opinion that resonates in Jaywick. Chennelle Rutland, 56, is walking her two dogs along the beachfront, admiring the view as the sun sets, flaring the sky orange, then purple. The colors catch the surface of the flat sea. “It’s one rule for one and one rule for the other,” she says. “The whites have got to shut up because if you do say anything, you’re ‘racist’ and ‘far right.’”   Far-right activist Tommy Robinson invited his supporters to attend the “Unite The Kingdom” rally in September. | Christopher Furlong/Getty Images It would be wrong to characterise residents of Jaywick as simply ignorant or full of rage. Many who spoke to POLITICO there were cheerful, happy with their community and up to speed with the news. But, just as they’d soured on their country’s centrist establishment, they were also tuning out its favored news sources.   In Jaywick, some of Farage’s voters prefer GB News, Britain’s answer to Fox News, which launched in 2021, or learn about current affairs from YouTube and other social media. The BBC — for decades the mainstay of the British media landscape — has lost a portion of its audience here. Right-wing commentators and politicians attack it as biased. Trump has lately joined in, threatening to sue over a BBC edit that he said deceptively made it look as if he was explicitly inciting violence. The BBC’s director general and head of news both resigned. In the process, another piece of Britain’s onetime centerground was giving way.   WHAT NEXT?   There are reasons for centrists to hope. In Rome, Giorgia Meloni’s hard-right Brothers of Italy party has become less extreme in power, and the worst fears of moderates about a group with its historic roots in neo-fascism have not come to pass. She remains popular, and while pushing a culture war at home, she has avoided the wrath of the EU leadership and kept Trump onside.   Populists and nationalists don’t always win. Trump lost in 2020. In the Netherlands, Wilders lost in October this year, though only by a whisker. Romania’s Nicușor Dan won the presidency as a centrist in May, but again only narrowly defeating his far-right opponent.   Structural obstacles may also slow the radicals’ progress. The U.K.’s first-past-the-post voting system makes it hard for new parties to do well. The two-round French system has so far stopped Le Pen’s National Rally from gaining power as centrists combine to back moderates. In Germany, a similar “firewall” exists under which center parties keep the far-right out.   After the Brexit vote in 2016, immigration slid from the top of the priority list for British voters and Farage himself took a step back. Both have now returned. | Tolga Akmen/EPA Even as he enjoys a sustained lead in the polls and wins local elections in the U.K., Farage has not convinced voters that Reform would do a good job. Even some of his supporters worry he will be out of his depth in government.   The problem, for the centrists who are in power, is that a lot of voters seem to think they, too, are out of their depth. And, whether that involves dealing with migration, combatting inequality, or just boosting the security around the Mona Lisa, it’s a reputation they’ll need to fix in order to survive — no easy task given the intractability of the challenges facing the rich world.  The next year will see more elections at which the centrists — and their populists rivals — will be tested. In Hungary Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, long seen as the far-right bad boy of EU politics, is fighting to keep power at an election expected in April. There are regional votes in Germany where the AfD is on track to prosper. France may require yet another snap election to end its political paralysis. Trump’s diplomats and officials will be ready to intervene. Farage’s party, too, will be on the ballot in 2026: It is expected to make gains in Wales, Scotland and local votes elsewhere next spring. After that, his sights will be on the U.K. general election expected in 2029, by which time European politics may look very different.   “Of course I know Mr. Orban and of course I know Giorgia Meloni, of course I know these people,” Farage told POLITICO at a recent Reform rally. “I suspect that after the next election cycle in Europe there will be even more that I know.” Natalie Fertig in Washington, Clea Caulcutt in Paris and James Angelos in Berlin contributed to this report.  

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music In Gießen will die AfD am Wochenende ihre neue Jugendorganisation gründen: „Generation Deutschland“. Die alte Junge Alternative gilt als verbrannt und doch  rückt die neue Jugend inhaltlich kaum von den alten radikalen Positionen ab. Im Zentrum steht Jean-Pascal Hohm, bestens vernetzt in der rechtsextremen Szene, nun designierter Chef des neuen Verbands. Nach außen moderater, im Kern unverändert hart.  Frederik Schindler und Pauline von Pezold analysieren, wie die AfD die Jugend enger unter Parteikontrolle bringen will, welche Machtkämpfe, besonders in Nordrhein-Westfalen, die Wahl überschatten und warum das Antragsbuch bewusst klein gehalten wurde, um inhaltliche Debatten zu verhindern. 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. Legal Notice (Belgium) POLITICO SRL Forme sociale: Société à Responsabilité Limitée Siège social: Rue De La Loi 62, 1040 Bruxelles Numéro d’entreprise: 0526.900.436 RPM Bruxelles info@politico.eu www.politico.eu

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Friedrich Merz und Julia Klöckner haben es angekündigt: 2027 soll zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik eine Bundespräsidentin gewählt werden. Doch wer könnte das sein? Gordon Repinski erklärt, wie sich die Union jetzt sortiert, warum Namen wie Karin Prien und Ilse Aigner kursieren und wieso Merz die Fehler der Merkel-Ära vermeiden will. Danach geht der Blick in die Niederlande: Dort erlebt der politische Liberalismus ein Comeback. Die Partei D66 landet nicht nur wie prognostiziert weit vorne, sondern gewinnt überraschend die Wahl. Angeführt wird sie von Rob Jetten, einem neuen Hoffnungsträger auch in der EU. Hans von der Burchard analysiert, wie die Niederlande das rechtspopulistische Experiment um Geert Wilders beenden und wie es jetzt weitergehen wird.  Im 200-Sekunden-Interview zieht Otto Fricke seine Lehren aus dem Wahlsieg der niederländischen Linksliberalen: Was die FDP in Deutschland von Rob Jetten lernen und umsetzen kann, bespricht er mit Gordon Repinski. 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.

LONDON — For Britain’s government, it’s a no-go. For the Greens’ new leader Zack Polanski, it’s a must. The end of free movement of people with the EU has been a “disaster” for the U.K. that should be urgently reversed, Polanski told POLITICO — in his first major intervention on EU policy. Elected leader of the left-wing environmentalist party last month, Polanski’s brand of “eco populism” is already cutting through with some voters. POLITICO’s polling average shows his party steadily climbing to 13 percent — more than double the 6 percent they won in last year’s general election. One outlier even shows them drawing level with Labour. While Polanski — a relative outsider who sits in London’s regional assembly rather than Westminster — has so far cut through by focusing on domestic policy, inequality and the cost of living, he’s now setting out his stall on Europe. Though Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer has sought to reset relations with the EU, he’s done so within tight red lines designed to appeal to Brexit supporters: no re-entry to the single market, no rejoining the customs union, and absolutely no return to freedom of movement. Polanski has no such qualms, and he’s not impressed with the prime minister’s caution. “It all feels a little bit ‘meh,’ for want of a better description,” he told POLITICO of Starmer’s reset so far. “It doesn’t really feel like he has any kind of passionate vision of what the future looks like, or any real direction that he’s driving it in. He doesn’t really have a vision for this country. So how is he going to have a vision of what the future of Europe looks like?” ‘DISASTER’ In particular, the Green leader is unapologetic about a return to free movement of people — which ended in 2021. It’s an issue most politicians in Westminster won’t go anywhere near for fear of landing on the wrong side of voters annoyed about immigration. “The restriction on free movement has been a disaster,” he said, adding that it should be in the “first phase” of any rapprochement. “It’s interesting to see [Nigel Farage’s party] Reform banging on about immigration, but we know immigration has risen since Brexit. “It’s just risen from countries outside of Europe. So even on its own terms, Reform and the Brexit Party’s own project was a disaster by their own criteria. And I think free movement is really important, both for our citizens and citizens around Europe.” Though Keir Starmer has sought to reset relations with the EU, he’s done so within tight red lines designed to appeal to Brexit supporters. | Stefan Rousseau/PA Images via Getty Images Net migration to the U.K. was 431,000 in 2024 — significantly higher than rates in the 2010s when numbers were typically between 200,000 and 300,000. But despite welcoming more newcomers than ever, Brits have lost their right to move abroad within the EU. Polling commissioned by POLITICO shows voters aren’t impressed with the new system and are open to turning back the clock, if somewhat disinterested in the policy detail. Starmer’s EU reset, primed at a summit in May this year, involves negotiating a new agrifood deal with the EU to smooth trade in food, closer cooperation on energy, and a “youth experience” scheme that doesn’t restore free movement but would give a capped number of young people time-limited visas to live abroad. Polanski, however, thinks the government should go further on building ties with the EU in other areas. “I think rejoining the customs union is something we should be doing as soon as possible,” he said. “It’s just resulting in higher prices for people.” It’s a policy also backed by the opposition Liberal Democrats, with whom the Greens are bidding for disillusioned Labour voters. As for rejoining the bloc altogether? “Over longer term, absolutely we should be rejoining the European Union. But we’ve got to make sure that that conversation is a conversation all the public’s involved with. I think one of the reasons Brexit happened is because so many people feel like politics is done to them rather than with them,” he said. “I think Brexit was a catastrophic decision. I think it’s also important that politicians listen to the fact that the public made that decision, and I believe they made that decision because of the lack of investment in their communities and need and want of something different. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone, though, who thinks that was a right decision that has made our communities any wealthier.” INTERNATIONALISM The Green leader told POLITICO that “really grim” plans by the Tories and Reform to leave the European Convention on Human Rights show “the slow march towards fascism that this country is on.” But he said the rightward drift across Europe is a reason to get stuck in, not to hang back. “I think there’s some really worrying trends across Europe, particularly around the far right, and we’re seeing the beginnings of some of those trends in our own country. I think any political party has a decision to make, which is: Do you stay isolationist and out of Europe and say, ‘Well, you know, they’re going right wing, so we’re not going to get involved.’ “Or do you say actually: International and indeed, socialist solidarity looks like working with left-wing or progressive movements across Europe in ways that look to reform Europe; to make sure that the entire project is moving in a direction that ultimately protects people’s freedom, protects the poorest communities across Europe, and is the best thing for our country, too.”

LONDON — Former British Prime Minister Theresa May laid into her own political party Monday night, accusing it of taking a populist tilt to the right that risks emboldening Nigel Farage. May criticized the Conservatives’ decision to repeal the Climate Change Act 2008, which requires the government to cut carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050, as an “extreme and unnecessary measure”  that would “fatally undermine” Britain’s leadership on climate issues. The U.K. committed to reaching net zero under May’s administration, something Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch has since called “impossible.” Badenoch has also advocated extensive oil and gas extraction from the North Sea. “This announcement only reinforces climate policy as a dividing line in our politics, rather than being the unifying issue it once was,” May told fellow members of the House of Lords. “And, for the Conservative Party, it risks chasing votes from Reform at the expense of the wider electorate.” May also lambasted the “villainization of the judiciary” by politicians “peddling populist narratives” and said this would “erode public trust in the institutions of our democracy and therefore in democracy itself.” Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick, who narrowly lost the Tory leadership contest last year, used his conference speech earlier this month as a tirade against “dozens of judges with ties to open-borders charities” and said “judges who blur the line between adjudication and activism can have no place in our justice system.” Though May recalled “frustrating” experiences coming up “against the courts” as a minister, she urged her party to “tread carefully.” “Every step we take to reduce our support for human rights merely emboldens our rivals and weakens our position in the world,” the former prime minister said. “Those politicians in the Western world who use populism and polarisation for their own short-term political ends risk handing a victory to our enemies.”