BRUSSELS — The EU’s centrist powers need to move to the right to reflect the new political reality, according to Manfred Weber, the leader of the European People’s Party. The EPP caused uproar in Brussels last year when it voted alongside the far right rather than with its traditional allies, the socialists and liberals. Weber’s remarks are the strongest signal yet that he wants to repair bridges with the other two parties that have ruled the EU for decades. However, he made clear that those same allies must be willing to adapt, in an exclusive interview with POLITICO, reflecting on 2025 and looking forward to 2026. The S&D and Renew were furious at the perceived betrayal, saying the EPP had gone too far by voting with the far right and smashed the firewall meant to keep the far right away from decision-making. But Weber was adamant he had done nothing wrong, saying: “I want to stop populism and anti-Europeans,” and adding that he’s happy to work alongside the centrist parties, but they need to listen to voters. The outcome of the 2024 EU election, which changed Parliament’s arithmetic in favor of right-wing and far-right parties, “has to be reflected” and “translated” into policy to show that Brussels is listening to its citizens, Weber said. There are more challenges to come for the old coalition — a deregulation package targeting environmental rules, a reversal of the ban on combustion engines, and a bill to boost deportations of migrants. “We can solve problems in the center when it is about the questions of migration, the big fear and uncertainty for a lot of people who are afraid to lose jobs … we have to take this seriously.” According to Weber, the way to fight Euroskeptic and populist parties is by tackling the issues they campaign on: “Please also consider … what we have to do to take away the campaign issues from the populists, that is what is at stake,” he added in the interview, which took place in late December. In his logic, if citizens are worried about migration, the EU should deport more people who are in Europe illegally; if people see green policy as hampering economic growth, Brussels should scrap environmental reporting requirements; and if thousands of jobs are being lost in the car sector, Brussels should give industry more leeway in the transition to electric vehicle production.   “My invitation goes really to the socialists and liberals and others: Please come back to this approach.“ MEET ME HALFWAY Weber — who has been an MEP since 2004, leader of the EPP group in the Parliament since 2014 and leader of the Europe-wide EPP since 2022 — said the center-right is “delivering via successes” and that he “will not be stopped by anyone” in implementing the party program. He argued that when the EPP has voted alongside the far right — to dilute an anti-deforestation bill, to pass green reporting requirements for businesses, and to ease rules to deport migrants to third countries — these were not “radical positions” and reflected the views of national governments and the European Commission. The votes are “not a kind of radicalization.” He said half of the liberal Renew Europe group voted in favor of slashing green reporting requirements for businesses and the EPP has voted with the S&D on “more than 85 percent of all votes in the European Parliament,” on issues ranging from housing to climate, including on a 2040 carbon reduction target, which he said should remain in place, even though parts of his group want to scrap it. Manfred Weber has called for the centrists to work with the Brothers of Italy, the party of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, which is to the right of the EPP. | Ettore Ferrari/EPA “The EPP delivered on this, we are committed to the 2040 targets … It was also not easy in my party, I have to be honest.” MAKING FRIENDS WITH MELONI Since the start of the 2024 EU election campaign, Weber has called for the centrists to work with the Brothers of Italy, the party of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, which is to the right of the EPP. This has angered Socialists and liberals, who argue that Meloni is a far-right populist who should be excluded from EU decision-making. When Commission President Ursula von der Leyen granted Italy an executive vice-presidency in her second team, Meloni nominated Raffaele Fitto for the role, prompting an unsuccessful bid by Socialists and Liberals to block his appointment. The EPP defended Fitto’s candidacy, citing Meloni’s pragmatism and reliability at the EU level. Fitto is now executive vice-president for cohesion and reforms. Weber said time has proven him right. A year-and-a-half after the election, “I think nobody can really say that Raffaele Fitto is a right extreme populist … he’s a very serious colleague.” He blamed his centrist allies for focusing on rhetoric and “ideological debate” instead of looking at the “reality on the ground” and understanding Europe’s new right-wing political reality. Meloni is “behaving,” Weber said, and “she’s ready to find compromises.”

BERLIN — German Vice Chancellor Lars Klingbeil has assailed U.S. President Donald Trump for his rhetoric on Greenland and actions in Venezuela, saying the situation is worse than politicians like to admit. The comments lay bare divisions inside Germany’s governing coalition over how to handle Washington as transatlantic tensions mount. They also mark a divergence between Klingbeil’s approach and that of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has taken a far more cautious approach to Trump to avoid a rupture with Washington. “The transatlantic alliance is undergoing much more profound upheaval than we may have been willing to admit until now,” Klingbeil said Wednesday in view of Trump’s assertion that the U.S. needs control over Greenland as well as the U.S. administration’s decision to deploy its military to seize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. “The transatlantic relationship that we have known until now is disintegrating,” he added. Merz, by contrast, has said with regard to Greenland that the U.S. president has legitimate security concerns that NATO should address in order to achieve a “mutually acceptable solution.” And while other EU governments strongly criticized the Trump administration following the capture of Maduro, Merz was more restrained, calling the matter legally “complex.” Behind Klingbeil’s more strident criticism of Trump lies a clear political calculus. The vice chancellor — who also serves as finance minister — is a leader of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), which governs in coalition with Merz’s conservative bloc and has seen its popularity stagnate. Attacking Trump more forcefully may be one way for the party to improve its fortunes. Polls show most Germans strongly oppose Trump’s actions in Venezuela and his rhetoric on Greenland, and views of the U.S. government more generally are at a nadir. | Pool Photo by Shawn Thew via EPA Polls show most Germans strongly oppose Trump’s actions in Venezuela and his rhetoric on Greenland, and views of the U.S. government more generally are at a nadir. Only 15 percent of Germans consider the U.S. to be a trustworthy partner, according to the benchmark ARD Deutschlandtrend survey released last week, a record low. This underscores the political risk for Merz as he seeks to avoid direct confrontation with an American president deeply unpopular with the German electorate. But Merz has calculated that keeping open channels of communication with the U.S. president is far more critical. Klingbeil, on the other hand, is less encumbered by international diplomacy. “The Trump administration has made it clear that it wants to dominate the Western hemisphere,” he said on Wednesday. “One could sit here and say, ‘Yes, what the US has done in Latin America is not pretty. Yes, there are also threats against Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba, but what does that actually have to do with us?’ But then we look at President Trump’s statements today about Greenland. Then we look at what the Trump administration has written in its new national security strategy with regard to Europe. “All the certainties we could rely on in Europe are under pressure,” Klingbeil added.

The world’s ice is disappearing — and with it, our planet’s memory of itself.  At a very southern ribbon-cutting ceremony on the Antarctic snowpack Wednesday, scientists stored long cores of ice taken from two dying Alpine glaciers inside a 30-meter tunnel — safe, for now, from both climate change and global geopolitical upheaval. Each ice sample contains tiny microbes and bubbles of air trapped in the ancient past. Future scientists, using techniques unknown today, might use the ice cores to unlock new information about virus evolution, or global weather patterns.  Extracting ice from glaciers around the world and carrying it to Antarctica involved complex scientific and diplomatic collaboration — exactly the type of work denigrated by the Trump Administration of the United States, said Olivier Poivre d’Arvor, a special envoy of France’s President Emmanuel Macron and ambassador to the Poles. Scientists are “threatened by those who doubt science and want to muzzle it. Climate change is not an hoax, as President Trump and others say. Not at all,” Poivre d’Arvor said during an online press conference Wednesday. Glaciers are retreating worldwide thanks to global warming. In some regions their information about the past will be lost forever in the coming decades, no matter what is done to curb the Earth’s temperature. “Our time machines are melting very quickly,” said Carlo Barbante, an Italian scientist who is the vice chair of the Ice Memory Foundation (IMF). The tunnel, known as the Ice Memory Sanctuary, is just under a kilometer from the French-Italian Concordia base in Antarctica. It rests on an ice sheet 3,200 meters thick and is a constant minus 52 degrees. Scientists said they believed the tunnel would stay structurally stable for more than 70 years before needing to be remade. As well as the two ice samples, which arrived by ship and plane this month, the scientists have collected cores from eight other glaciers from Svalbard to Kilimanjaro. These are currently in freezers awaiting transportation to Antarctica. Co-founder of the sanctuary Jérôme Chappellaz, a French sociologist, called for more such facilities to be opened across Antarctica, and said he expected China would soon create its own store for Tibetan ice. Poivre d’Arvor called for an international treaty that commits countries to donate ice to the Sanctuary and guarantee access for scientists. France and Italy have collaborated on building the sanctuary and provided resources to assist with the transportation of the samples. “This is not a short-term investment but a strategic choice grounded in scientific responsibility and international cooperation,” Gianluigi Consoli, an official from the Italian Ministry of Universities and Research. On the inside of the door that locks the ice away, someone had written in black marker “Quo Vadis?” Latin for “where are you going?” It’s a question that hangs over even the protected southern continent. Antarctica is governed by a 1959 treaty that suspended territorial claims and preserved the continent for the purposes of science and peace. With President Donald Trump’s grab for territory near the North Pole in Greenland, the internationalist ideals that have brought stability to the Antarctic for over half a century appear to no be longer shared by the U.S. But William Muntean, who was senior advisor for Antarctica at the State Department during Trump’s first term Trump and under President Joe Biden, said there had been “no sign” U.S. policy in Antarctica would change, nor did he expect it to. “The southern polar region is very different from the western hemisphere and from the Arctic,” Muntean said. The U.S. doesn’t claim sovereignty, military competition is negligible, nor are there commercially viable energy or mining projects at the South Pole. “Taking disruptive or significant actions in Antarctica would not advance any Trump administration priorities.” That said, he added, “you can never rule out a change.”

European diplomats were summoned to a closed-door meeting in Tehran with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi at which they “forcefully” objected to Iran’s crackdown on anti-regime protests, according to European officials. An EU diplomat, granted anonymity to speak freely, said all European ambassadors still active in Tehran had been summoned to the highly unusual meeting with Araghchi. The U.K. was also invited. The meeting started with Araghchi presenting the Islamic regime’s version of the uprising, describing protesters as rabble-rousers and anti-regime forces supported from abroad, the diplomat said. However, the European and British envoys used their speaking time to push back strongly against the minister’s account, voicing outrage over what Britain’s Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper called the “brutal repression” of protests. “The ambassadors forcefully expressed their concerns” during the Monday meeting, a spokesperson for France’s foreign ministry said in a statement. The closed-door meeting in Tehran was part of a piecemeal but escalating European response to the crackdown on protests, in which at least 2,571 people have been killed, according to the U.S.-based HRANA rights group. Speaking to journalists in India, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the Islamic regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was “finished,” adding that “we are now witnessing the final days and weeks of this regime.” Several EU countries, including Spain, France, Belgium, Czechia and the Netherlands, have summoned Iranian ambassadors to condemn the violence. Germany and the Netherlands are now pushing to get the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) listed as a terror organization in the EU, according to statements from the German and Dutch foreign ministers. That comes after EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said she will soon propose fresh sanctions against the Islamic Republic. The proposal for new sanctions will be put forward at a gathering of European foreign ministers in Brussels on Jan. 29, an EU official said. Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel said Tuesday he had summoned Iran’s ambassador to the Netherlands to “formally protest the excessive violence against peaceful protesters, large-scale arbitrary arrests and internet shutdowns.” The EU’s cautious approach contrasts with that of Trump, who is reportedly reviewing options to act against Tehran, including military strikes. Trump’s moves have been welcomed by Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s former shah, who has emerged as a possible successor to Khamenei. “Mr President,” Pahlavi posted Sunday on X. “Your words of solidarity have given Iranians the strength to fight for freedom. Help them liberate themselves and Make Iran Great Again!” In several conversations with POLITICO over the past year, Pahlavi said Iran’s military would either have to cooperate with protesters or stand aside if the current wave of protests is to succeed. Tehran has a history of brutal crackdowns on protests, with the last wave ending in a series of public hangings that brought formal protests from EU governments.

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.

LONDON — The U.S. Department of State’s Sarah B. Rogers says “nothing is off the table” if the U.K. government makes good on its threat to ban Elon Musk’s X over concerns about a deluge of AI-generated sexualized deepfakes on the platform. “I would say from America’s perspective … nothing is off the table when it comes to free speech,” Rogers, the under secretary of state for public diplomacy, told GB News in an interview which aired in the U.K. in the early hours of Tuesday morning. “Let’s wait and see what Ofcom does and we’ll see what America does in response,” she added. Rogers, an appointee of President Donald Trump, has repeatedly criticized European efforts to crack down on hate speech. She was involved in last month’s State Department decision to sanction former European Commissioner Thierry Breton and four other European nationals involved in efforts to curb the spread of disinformation. At least one lawmaker aligned with Trump has also weighed in on behalf of the Elon Musk-owned platform. U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican, said last week she was drafting legislation to sanction the U.K. if X is banned in the country. In her GB News interview Rogers accused the British government of wanting “the ability to curate a public square, to suppress political viewpoints it dislikes.” X has a “political valence that the British government is antagonistic to, doesn’t like, and that’s what’s really going on,” she added. The U.S. embassy in London did not immediately respond when contacted by POLITICO for comment. Ofcom, the U.K.’s online safety watchdog, is currently investigating whether X failed to comply with its duties under the Online Safety Act by allowing its Grok AI chatbot to create and distribute non-consensual intimate images, including potential child sexual abuse material. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall told the House of Commons on Monday that Ofcom has the government’s backing to use the full extent of its powers, which include imposing financial penalties of up to £18 million or 10 percent of a company’s worldwide revenue, and in the most serious cases seeking a court order to block X from functioning in the U.K. “This is not, as some would claim, about restricting freedom of speech, which is something that I and the whole Government hold very dear. It is about tackling violence against women and girls. It is about upholding basic British values of decency and respect, and ensuring that the standards that we expect offline are upheld online. It is about exercising our sovereign power and responsibility to uphold the laws of this land,” she said. At a behind-closed-doors meeting with Labour lawmakers on Monday Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “If X cannot control Grok, we will — and we’ll do it fast because if you profit from harm and abuse, you lose the right to self regulate.” POLITICO reported last week that Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy raised the issue of Grok with Vice President Vance, and Lammy later told The Guardian that Vance had agreed the deepfaked images spreading on X were “unacceptable.”

The leaders of the five political parties in Greenland’s parliament have a message for U.S. President Donald Trump: Leave us alone. “We do not want to be Americans, we do not want to be Danes, we want to be Greenlanders,” the party leaders said in a joint statement Friday.  The statement comes after Trump has become increasingly explicit about his desire to take over Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark — a desire made more real by recent U.S. strikes in Venezuela.  “We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not, because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor,” Trump told reporters during an event at the White House on Friday. “I would like to make a deal the easy way, but if we don’t do it the easy way, we will do it the hard way,” he said. But the Greenlandic leaders pushed back, repeating their request to be left alone to manage their own affairs. “We would like to emphasize once again our desire for the U.S.’s disdain for our country to end,” they said. “The future of Greenland must be decided by the Greenlandic people.” They added that they have increased their “international participation” in recent years. “We must again call for that dialogue to continue to be based on diplomacy and international principles,” they said in the statement. Taking over Greenland would be relatively simple, according to officials and experts, though Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that doing so would spell the end of NATO. Eight of Europe’s top leaders backed Greenland earlier this week, saying security in the Arctic must be achieved “collectively” and with full respect to the wishes of its people.

While U.S. President Donald Trump brashly cited the Monroe Doctrine to explain the capture of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, he didn’t leave it there. He also underscored a crude tenet guiding his foreign adventures: “It’s important to make me happy,” he told reporters. Maduro had failed in that task after shunning a surrender order by Trump — hence, he was plucked in the dead of night by Delta Force commandos from his Caracas compound, and unceremoniously deposited at New York’s Metropolitan Detention Center. Yet despite the U.S. president’s admonishment about needing to be kept happy — an exhortation accompanied by teasing hints of possible future raids on the likes of Cuba, Colombia and Mexico — one continent has stood out in its readiness to defy him. Maduro’s capture has been widely denounced by African governments and the continent’s regional organizations alike. South Africa has been among the most outspoken, with its envoy to the U.N. warning that such actions left unpunished risk “a regression into a world preceding the United Nations, a world that gave us two brutal world wars, and an international system prone to severe structural instability and lawlessness.” Both the African Union, a continent-wide body comprising 54 recognized nations, and the 15-member Economic Community of West African States have categorically condemned Trump’s gunboat diplomacy as well. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni even had the temerity to issue a blunt dare to Washington: If American forces attempt the same trick in his country, he bragged, “we can defeat them” — a reversal of his 2018 bromance with the U.S. president, when he said he “loves Trump” because of his frankness. Africa’s forthrightness and unity over Maduro greatly contrasts with the more fractured response from Latin America, as well as the largely hedged responses coming from Europe, which is more focused on Trump’s coveting of Greenland.   Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni had the temerity to issue a blunt dare to Washington: If American forces attempt the same trick in his country, he bragged, “we can defeat them” | Badru Katumba/AFP via Getty Images Fearful of risking an open rift with Washington, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer waited 16 hours after Maduro and his wife were seized before gingerly stepping on a diplomatic tightrope, careful to avoid falling one way or the other. While highlighting his preference for observing international law, he said: “We shed no tears about the end of his regime.” Others similarly avoided incurring Trump’s anger, with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis flatly saying now isn’t the right time to discuss Trump’s muscular methods — a position shared by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. So, why haven’t African leaders danced to the same circumspect European tune? Partly because they have less to lose. Europe still harbors hope it can influence Trump, soften him and avoid an irreparable breach in the transatlantic alliance, especially when it comes to Greenland, suggested Tighisti Amare of Britain’s Chatham House. “With dramatic cuts in U.S. development funds to Africa already implemented by Trump, Washington’s leverage is not as strong as it once was. And the U.S. doesn’t really give much importance to Africa, unless it’s the [Democratic Republic of the Congo], where there are clear U.S. interests on critical minerals,” Amare told POLITICO. “In terms of trade volume, the EU remains the most important region for Africa, followed by China, and with the Gulf States increasingly becoming more important,” she added. Certainly, Trump hasn’t gone out of his way to make friends in Africa. Quite the reverse — he’s used the continent as a punching bag, delivering controversial remarks stretching back to his first term, when he described African nations as “shithole countries.” And there have since been rifts galore over travel bans, steep tariffs and the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is credited with saving millions of African lives over decades. U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a printed article from “American Thinker” while accusing South Africa President Cyril Ramaphosa of state-sanctioned violence against white farmers in South Africa. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images In May, Trump also lectured South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office over what he claimed amounted to genocide against white South Africans, at one point ordering the lights be dimmed to show clips of leaders from a South African minority party encouraging attacks on the country’s white population. Washington then boycotted the G20 summit hosted by South Africa in November, and disinvited the country from this year’s gathering, which will be hosted by the U.S. According to Amare, Africa’s denunciation of Maduro’s abduction doesn’t just display concern about Venezuela; in some part, it’s also fed by the memory of colonialism. “It’s not just about solidarity, but it’s also about safeguarding the rules that limit how powerful states can use force against more vulnerable states,” she said. African countries see Trump’s move against Maduro “as a genuine threat to international law and norms that protect the survival of the sovereignty of small states.” Indeed, African leaders might also be feeling their own collars tighten, and worrying about being in the firing line. “There’s an element of self-preservation kicking in here because some African leaders share similarities with the Maduro government,” said Oge Onubogu, director of the Africa Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “In some countries, people on the street and in even civil society have a different take, and actually see the removal of Maduro as a good thing.” The question is, will African leaders be wary of aligning with either Russian President Vladimir Putin or China’s Xi Jinping, now that Trump has exposed the impotence of friendship with either by deposing the Venezuelan strongman? According to Onubogu, even before Maduro’s ouster, African leaders understood the world order had changed dramatically, and that we’re back in the era of great power competition. “Individual leaders will make their own specific calculations based on what’s in their favor and their interests. I wouldn’t want to generalize and say some African countries might step back from engaging with China or Russia. They will play the game as they try to figure out how they can come out on top.”

BRUSSELS — European governments have launched a two-pronged diplomatic offensive to convince Donald Trump to back away from his claims on Greenland: by lobbying in Washington and pressing NATO to allay the U.S. president’s security concerns. The latest moves mark an abrupt change in Europe’s response to Trump’s threats, which are fast escalating into a crisis and have sent officials in Brussels, Berlin and Paris scrambling to sketch out an urgent way forward. Until now they have attempted to play down the seriousness of Trump’s ideas, fearing it would only add credence to what they hoped was mere rhetoric, but officials involved in the discussions say that has now changed. As if to underscore the shift, French President Emmanuel Macron became the most powerful European leader so far to starkly set out the challenges facing the continent. “The United States is an established power that is gradually turning away from some of its allies and breaking free from the international rules that it used to promote,” Macron said in his annual foreign policy address in Paris on Thursday. Trump ratcheted up his rhetoric this week, telling reporters on Sunday night “we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security.” The president has repeatedly refused to rule out military intervention, something Denmark has said would spell the end of NATO ― an alliance of 32 countries, including the U.S., which has its largest military force. Greenland is not in the EU but is a semi-autonomous territory in the Kingdom of Denmark, which is an EU member. Most of the diplomacy remains behind closed doors. The Danish ambassador to the U.S., Jesper Møller Sørensen, and the Greenlandic representative in Washington, Jacob Isbosethsen, held intensive talks with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. The two envoys are attempting to persuade as many of them as possible that Greenland does not want to be bought by the U.S. and that Denmark has no interest in such a deal, an EU diplomat told POLITICO. In an unusual show of dissent, some Trump allies this week publicly objected to the president’s proposal to take Greenland by military force. Danish officials are expected to provide a formal briefing and update on the situation at a meeting of EU ambassadors on Friday, two EU diplomats said. RUSSIAN, CHINESE INFLUENCE At a closed-door meeting in Brussels on Thursday, NATO ambassadors agreed the organization should reinforce the Arctic region, according to three NATO diplomats, all of whom were granted anonymity to talk about the sensitive discussions. Trump claimed the Danish territory is exposed to Russian and Chinese influence, and cited an alleged swarm of threatening ships near Greenland as a reason behind Washington’s latest campaign to control the territory. Experts largely dispute those claims, with Moscow and Beijing mostly focusing their defense efforts — including joint patrols and military investment — in the eastern Arctic. But U.S. Vice President JD Vance told reporters Thursday that Trump wants Europe to take Greenland’s security “more seriously,” or else “the United States is going to have to do something about it.” Europeans see finding a compromise with Trump as the first and preferred option. A boosted NATO presence on the Arctic island might convince the U.S. president that there is no need to own Greenland for security reasons. The Danish ambassador to the US and the Greenlandic representative in Washington held intensive talks with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. | Kevin Carter/Getty Images The NATO envoys meeting Thursday floated leveraging intelligence capabilities to better monitor the territory, stepping up defense spending to the Arctic, shifting more military equipment to the region, and holding more military exercises in the vicinity.  The request for proposals just days after the White House’s latest broadside reflects how seriously Europe is taking the ultimatum and the existential risk any incursion into Greenland would have on the alliance and transatlantic ties. NATO’s civil servants are now expected to come up with options for envoys, the alliance diplomats said. Thursday’s meeting of 32 envoys veered away from direct confrontation, the three NATO diplomats said, with one calling the mood in the room “productive” and “constructive.” Denmark’s ambassador, who spoke first, said the dispute was a bilateral issue and instead focused on the recent successes of NATO’s Arctic strategy and the need for more work in the region, the diplomats said — a statement that received widespread support. The Greenland issue was also raised at a closed-door meeting of EU defense and foreign policy ambassadors on Thursday even though it wasn’t on the formal agenda, the two EU diplomats said. The bloc’s capitals expressed solidarity with Denmark, they added. Jacopo Barigazzi contributed reporting.

House Speaker Mike Johnson will travel to London later this month to address the United Kingdom’s Parliament, becoming the first sitting U.S. speaker to do so. Johnson announced his invitation on Wednesday, saying he was “honored and humbled” to accept the invite from Sir Lindsay Hoyle, speaker of the U.K. House of Commons, ahead of America’s 250th anniversary of independence. “The U.S. and the UK have stood together as pillars of peace and security across generations,” Johnson said in a statement. “We forged this important friendship in the great wars of the 20th century, but the true source of our strength comes from our shared commitment to individual freedom, human dignity, and the rule of law, which together form the exceptional, joint heritage of the English-speaking world.” Johnson’s address on Jan. 20 will be one of many ceremonial events the U.S. has planned to commemorate this year’s anniversary around the country. “As America begins its Semiquincentennial celebration, I will be happy to visit one of the great shrines of democracy itself, where the principles that launched the long struggle for American liberty were debated and refined,” Johnson added. Though Johnson will be the first sitting speaker to address Parliament, Hoyle said he was pleased to continue a tradition from 50 years ago, when his predecessor invited then-Speaker Carl Albert to London to mark the 200th anniversary. Doing so, Hoyle added, continues to “acknowledge the enduring close relationship between our parliaments and people.” “Our UK Parliament is sited just miles away from where the cross-Atlantic relationship began more than 400 years ago,” Hoyle said in a statement distributed by Johnson’s office. “The courage of the Founding Fathers, who set sail on the Mayflower for the New World, built a bridge and connections across the Atlantic, which continues until today.” POLITICO London Playbook previously reported that Johnson was expected to visit Parliament.