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

Moscow said its military launched a “massive strike” against Ukraine overnight, including a nuclear-capable missile, calling the attack retaliation for an unverified claim of a Ukrainian assault on a residence belonging to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Oreshnik ballistic missile struck the Lviv region, near the eastern border of the EU and NATO, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha wrote in a post on X, saying the strike represents “a grave threat to the security on the European continent.” The strike marks only the second known combat use of the hypersonic Oreshnik missile, which is capable of carrying nuclear weapons, following its first firing against the Ukrainian region of Dnipro in November 2024. The strike on the Lviv region was part of a wider Russian barrage across Ukraine. Russia’s defense ministry said the assault was retaliation for an alleged Ukrainian attack on Putin’s residence on Dec. 29 — a claim that Kyiv has denied. “It is absurd that Russia attempts to justify this strike with a fake ‘Putin residence attack’ that never happened,” Ukraine’s Sybiha said on X. “This is further proof that Moscow does not need real reasons for its terror and war.” Ukraine’s Western Air Command said in a Facebook post that the intermediate-range Oreshnik missile was traveling at approximately 13,000 kilometers per hour, with social media reports indicating the strike occurred only minutes after air-raid sirens sounded. The Lviv regional military administration said specialists conducted on-site tests and laboratory analyses following the strike. “The radiation background is within normal limits,” they said, adding that no harmful substances were detected in the air. Sybiha announced that Ukraine will be calling for an urgent United Nations Security Council meeting in response to the strike. “Such a launch near the borders of the EU and NATO is a serious threat to security on the European continent and a test for the transatlantic community,” Sybiha wrote. “We demand a decisive response to Russia’s reckless actions.”

PALM BEACH, Florida — U.S. President Donald Trump said Monday that he would back an Israeli attack on Iran if it rebuilds its nuclear capabilities, vowing that “we will knock the hell out of them.” Ahead of a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his Palm Beach estate, Trump said he heard Iran is trying to grow its ballistic missiles program. “Now I hear that Iran is trying to build up again. And if they are, we’re going to have to knock them down,” he said alongside Netanyahu. “We’ll knock the hell out of them, but hopefully that’s not happening.” The president added that he heard Iran wants to make a deal, but said he supports an Israeli attack if either ballistic missiles or nuclear weapons programs continue. “If they will continue with the missiles, yes. The nuclear, fast,” Trump said. Trump ordered a U.S. military strike on Iranian nuclear sites in June, after which he said the country’s capabilities were “totally obliterated.” The Israeli prime minister met with Trump on Monday to discuss the growing threat from Iran, as well as the ceasefire in Gaza. Ahead of his sit-down with Netanyahu, he also endorsed the idea of a pardon for the prime minister from Israeli President Isaac Herzog. “I think he will, how do you not? He’s a wartime prime minister who’s a hero,” Trump said. “I spoke to the president, he told me it’s on the way.” Netanyahu is in the middle of a corruption trial and has requested that Herzog grant him a preemptive pardon before any conviction. Netanyahu is the second foreign leader to meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in a week’s time — he hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Sunday, where he expressed optimism that they were on the precipice of a deal to end the war with Russia.

PARIS — The military recruitment center across from the Eiffel Tower, in the posh 7th district’s historic École Militaire, is filled with promotional posters for the armed forces. In the lobby, I met 26-year-old Charlotte, who currently works in marketing for a private company but is considering joining the French army. “The geopolitical context is inspiring me to sign up and serve, using my skills,” she told me. “I’m sometimes wondering why I am doing marketing when I could be a linguist in the army or an intelligence agency.” The geopolitical context she’s referring to is obvious to everyone in France, which has been at the forefront of Europe’s efforts to cope with the changing U.S. attitude toward its NATO and EU allies. Charlotte, who I agreed to identify by her first name to protect her privacy, told me that she studied Russian and recognizes that Europeans need to become more “sovereign” because they cannot rely on U.S. President Donald Trump to defend the continent against Russia. And she’s ready to help. Trump continues to antagonize the United States’ traditional European allies, deriding them as he did in an interview with POLITICO earlier this month as “weak” and a “decaying group of nations.” And for its part, France wants to prove him wrong. Like many other European nations, France sees Russia has a growing threat to the continent. So it is preparing to defend itself against what the country’s chief of defense staff, Gen. Fabien Mandon, called a “violent test” from Russia in the next three to four years that it would need to counter without much, if any, help from Washington. To do that, France is boosting military spending, increasing weapons production and doubling the reserve forces. As of next year, France will also reintroduce voluntary military service for young adults, primarily 18- and 19-year-olds. The goal is to enroll 3,000 new recruits next summer, 10,000 in 2030 and 50,000 in 2035. These defense efforts come as most of Europe’s nations are having to rethink their security posture in the most meaningful way since the Cold War ended. The challenge is even higher as it’s becoming increasingly clear they can no longer rely on the United States as a primary security provider. Successive U.S. presidents — including Barack Obama and Joe Biden — have warned over the past decade that Washington would eventually have to focus on the Indo-Pacific region instead of Europe, but the Trump administration has already matched those words with action. That is putting the spotlight on France, the EU’s only nuclear power and a country with independent weapons makers that has long warned the continent should become more autonomous in areas such as technology and defense. According to Guillaume Lagane, an expert on defense policy and a teacher at the Sciences Po public research university, the way France and Germany, the EU’s largest countries, respond in the coming months and years will determine whether other European countries will turn to them for Europe’s defense or try to retain bilateral ties with Washington at the expense of EU and NATO unity. “If France and Germany propose credible options, European countries may hesitate, otherwise they will not,” he said. “If only the American guarantee is credible, they will do everything they can to buy it.” To come across as a credible leader, he added, France could look into stationing nuclear-capable Rafale fighter jets in Germany or Poland; compensate for the capability gaps potentially left behind by the U.S.; and replace U.S. soldiers who are leaving Europe with French troops. They are going to need a lot of Charlottes. In Paris’ corridors of power, the French elite has always known this moment would come. “We’re neither surprised, in shock or in denial,” a high-ranking French defense official told me in an interview. “Our first short-term test is Ukraine. We Europeans must organize ourselves to face this reality and adapt without being caught off guard.” For the past week, I’ve been talking to French and European officials in Paris and elsewhere to gauge how they are metabolizing the antagonism from Washington. In many cases, I agreed to withhold their names so they could speak more candidly at a moment of high tension with the United States and among European allies. France’s distrust of America dates back to 1956, when U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower forced it and Britain to back down from a military intervention to regain control of the Suez Canal from Egypt, leaving Paris feeling betrayed and humiliated. Since then, unlike most other European countries, France’s defense policy has been based on the assumption that the U.S. is not a reliable ally and that the Western European nation should be able to defend itself on its own if need be. The memory of the Suez incident contributed to former French President Charles de Gaulle’s decision to leave NATO and develop its own nuclear program. Now, European capitals — who until now have been reluctant to think about the continent’s security architecture without the U.S. — are starting to increasingly realize France might have been right all along. “There is a kind of intellectual validation of the French position, which recognizes that interests do not always converge between allies and that the U.S. involvement in European security was the result of an alignment that was not eternal,” said Élie Tenenbaum, director of the Paris-based IFRI security studies center. Since Trump came back to power in January, the clues of Washington’s disengagement from — if not disdain of — Europe have been hard to ignore. Trump’s disparaging comments about Europe earlier this month came only a few days after a U.S. National Security Strategy made thinly-veiled calls for regime change in European countries. A leaked longer version of the document openly says the U.S. should pull Austria, Hungary, Italy and Poland away from the EU. In the months leading up to the strategy’s release, the Trump administration has repeatedly cast doubt on America’s commitment to NATO’s collective defense pact, Article 5 of the NATO charter, and announced a U.S. troop reduction from frontline state Romania. Even more strikingly, the U.S. threatened to annex Greenland by force and is cozying up to Russia, including in peace talks to end the war in Ukraine. Less than one year after Trump returned to the White House, influential German voices — in one of Europe’s most transatlanticist countries — are no longer looking at Washington as an ally. Denmark’s military intelligence service has now classified the U.S. as a security risk. In this context, smaller European nations expect the larger ones to step up. “We need the bigger countries to lead the way,” a European defense official from a mid-size nation emphasized in a private briefing. “France has been consistent on that for quite some time, Germany is also important. It’s always helpful if they lead by example.” A Paris-based European diplomat echoed that call for French leadership: “We need Macron to take the initiative [on European defense], who else is going to do it if not France?” Another European official said France could become a “political and military hub,” adding that Paris is ready to lead together with other capitals such as London, Berlin, Rome and Warsaw. Since the war in Ukraine started in 2022, Paris has pivoted to Europe and reinvested in NATO. For decades, Paris had neglected the alliance — rejoining its integrated military command only in 2009 — and focused mainly on faraway lands such as the African Sahel region, from which the French military ultimately had to withdraw after a series of coups d’état. Now, France is leading a multinational NATO battlegroup in Romania, has beefed up its military footprint in Estonia and is in talks to deploy soldiers in Finland. For frontline states, having a nuclear power present on their soil remains a crucial deterrent against Russia. In a first test for Europe’s ability to think about its own security without the U.S., Paris — otherwise a laggard in terms of military aid to Kyiv — has set up alongside London a so-called coalition of the willing to plan security guarantees for post-war Ukraine. That’s a significant step in European-led defense planning and France’s leadership role has been welcomed in European capitals. However, many of them are still reluctant to deploy military assets to Ukraine without American backing. While the French elite has seen this moment coming, not everyone in France is on board, at least not yet. At this year’s Congress of France’s mayors — an influential gathering held annually in Paris — Mandon told the country’s local elected officials to ready their constituents for a potential war against Russia in the coming years. Standing on a white, round platform in front of French and EU flags, he warned them that France is in danger unless it’s prepared to sacrifice. “If our country falters because it is not prepared to accept losing its children …[or] … to suffer economically because priorities will go to defense production,” he said, “If we are not prepared for that, then we are at risk. But I think we have the moral fortitude.” About 24 hours later, that was all the country was talking about. Far-right and far-left parties alike accused Mandon of war-mongering and overstepping. It’s not up to him to speak to the mayors, they argued; his job is to follow political orders. Even in Emmanuel Macron’s camp, lawmakers privately admitted the general’s wording was ill-advised, even if the message was valid. Eventually, the French president publicly backed him. France’s moment to demonstrate leadership is arriving at a challenging time for Europe’s heavyweight. “If you’re right too early, then you’re wrong,” a high-ranking French military officer told me. Macron’s ill-fated decision to call for a snap election in 2024 has embroiled the country in a political crisis that is still unresolved, and the far-right, NATO-skeptic, EU-skeptic National Rally is on the rise and could come to power as soon as 2027. “Intellectually, we are mentally equipped to understand what is happening in terms of burden shifting, but we don’t really have the means to lead the way at the European level,” said IFRI’s Tenenbaum, adding that Germany is currently in a better position to do so. “French leadership makes sense, it is logical given our relative weight, experience, and capabilities, and European countries recognize this, but there is a mismatch between words and deeds,” he added. Even as Macron pledged more defense spending, it’s very unlikely that France’s fragmented National Assembly will pass the 2026 budget by Dec. 31. The French president said France’s military expenditures will increase by €6.7 billion next year, bringing the country’s total defense spending to more than €57.1 billion. In comparison, German lawmakers this week greenlit €50 billion in weaponry procurement — Germany’s military expenditures are expected to reach more than €82 billion next year. “There will be a new balance between France and Germany in the coming years,” said a third Paris-based European diplomat. Since Macron’s snap election in 2024, European embassies in Paris monitor France’s political situation like milk on the stove — especially in the run-up to a presidential election in 2027 where the far-right National Rally is currently leading the polls. While Germany and the U.K. could also see nationalists come to power, their next general elections aren’t scheduled before 2029. Paris-based European diplomats speaking to POLITICO have compared a presidency by National Rally leaders Marine Le Pen or Jordan Bardella to Trump’s return to the White House in terms of changes for France’s security and defense policy. Just a day after Macron pledged that France would join a multinational force to enforce peace in Ukraine if a deal is signed with Russia, Bardella, leader of the National Rally, reaffirmed his party’s opposition to sending French troops. Marine Le Pen confirmed in September she would leave NATO’s integrated command if she’s elected president. A second high-ranking French military officer downplayed that pledge, arguing top French military brass would be able to convince her otherwise. However, he conceded, the National Rally’s refusal to send boots on the ground in Ukraine would “become a problem” for the coalition of the willing. Le Pen also vowed to completely overturn Macron’s offer to have a discussion with European countries about how France’s nuclear deterrent could contribute to the bloc’s security. In a bid to show leadership, the French president is currently engaging with some nations to talk about the role French nukes could play to deter Russia beyond the French borders. Asked whether she’d be open to storing French nuclear weapons in Poland and Germany (something even Macron hasn’t suggested), she replied: “Give me a break. It’s an absolute no, because nuclear power belongs to the French.” Some European countries want to do as much as possible with Macron now, in anticipation of a potential drastic policy change in 2027. Others are concerned about France’s political future, worrying how a leadership change could affect Paris’ commitments. According to an influential French lawmaker who works on defense policy, Poland’s recent decision to award a submarine contract to Sweden instead of France was partly driven by concerns in Warsaw about France’s political future. “The instability of French political life is frightening. Poland is scared to death of Bardella,” the lawmaker said. Countries such as Romania continue to see France as a crucial security provider and would welcome more troops to compensate for the outgoing U.S. soldiers. But officials from the southeastern European country know there could be an expiration date to Paris’ involvement. “There is an election in two years’ time, Macron’s successor will be less inclined to have troops outside of France,” one of them told me. Amid the uncertainty, the French military will continue to try to strengthen the ranks of its armed forces and attract young people like Charlotte. She is still deciding whether she actually wants to join, and regardless of who’s elected president in 2027, the geopolitical environment is unlikely to improve. “It is very important that our generation is aware and knows how to serve their country,” she said.

Sprawling defense legislation set for a vote as soon as this week would place new restrictions on reducing troop levels in Europe, a bipartisan rebuke of Trump administration moves that lawmakers fear would limit U.S. commitments on the continent. A just-released compromise version of the National Defense Authorization Act — which puts Congress’ stamp on Pentagon programs and policy each year — has been in the works for months. The measure stands in stark contrast to President Donald Trump’s new national security strategy, which sharply criticizes European allies and suggests the continent is in cultural decline. Lawmakers also endorsed a slight increase in the Pentagon budget with a price tag that is $8 billion more than Trump requested. And it would repeal decades-old Middle East war powers, a small win for lawmakers who’ve been fighting to reclaim a sliver of Congress’ war-declaring prerogatives. The final bill is the result of weeks of negotiations between House and Senate leadership in both parties, heads of the Armed Services panels and the White House. The measure had been slowed in recent days by talks on issues unrelated to defense, including a major Senate-backed housing package and greater scrutiny of U.S. investment in China. The defense bill typically passes with broad bipartisan support. Speaker Mike Johnson will likely need to win back some Democrats who opposed the House GOP’s hard-right initial bill in September. And the speaker will have to contend with fellow Republicans upset that their priorities weren’t included. But both House and Senate-passed defense bills reflected bipartisan concerns that the Trump administration would seek to significantly reduce the U.S. military footprint in Europe. Both measures included language that imposes requirements the Pentagon must meet before trimming military personnel levels on the continent below certain thresholds. Republicans, led by Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), broke with the Trump administration, arguing that troop reductions — such as a recent decision to remove a rotational Army brigade from Romania — would invite aggression from Russia. The final bill blocks the Pentagon from reducing the number of troops permanently stationed or deployed to Europe below 76,000 for longer than 45 days until Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the head of U.S. European Command certify to Congress that doing so is in U.S. national security interests and that NATO allies were consulted. They would also need to provide assessments of that decision’s impact. The legislation applies the same conditions to restrict the U.S. from vacating the role of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, a role that the U.S. officer who leads European Command chief has held simultaneously for decades. Negotiators included similar limitations on reducing the number of troops on the Korean Peninsula below 28,500, a provision originally approved by the Senate. Lawmakers agreed to a slight increase to the bill’s budget topline, reflecting some momentum on Capitol Hill for more military spending. The final agreement recommends an $8 billion hike to Trump’s $893 billion flat national defense budget, for a total of roughly $901 billion for the Pentagon, nuclear weapons development and other national security programs. The House-passed defense bill matched Trump’s budget request while the Senate bill proposed a $32 billion boost. Republicans separately approved a $150 billion multi-year boost for the Pentagon through their party-line tax cut and spending megabill earlier this year. Regardless of the signal the topline budget agreement sends, the defense policy bill does not allocate any money to the Pentagon. Lawmakers must still pass annual defense spending legislation to fund Pentagon programs. House Armed Services ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) described the agreement as a “placeholder” that would allow lawmakers to finish the NDAA, while congressional appropriators continue their talks on a separate full-year Pentagon funding measure. A House Republican leadership aide who, like others, was granted anonymity to discuss details of the bill ahead of its release, said the revised topline is a “fiscally responsible increase that meets our defense needs.” The bill also would repeal a pair of old laws that authorize military action in the Middle East, including 2002 legislation that preceded the invasion of Iraq and the 1991 Gulf War. Those repeals were included in both the House and Senate defense bills as bipartisan support for scrubbing the old laws — which critics contend could be abused by a president — overcame opposition from some top Republicans. Repealing those decades-old measures is a win for critics of expansive presidential war powers, who argued the measures aren’t needed anymore. They point to the potential for abuses — citing Trump’s use of the 2002 Iraq authorization to partly justify a strike that killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in Iraq in 2020. A second House GOP leadership aide said the repeal of the two Iraq authorizations won’t impact Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief. But the repeal is ultimately a minor win for lawmakers seeking to reclaim congressional power. The 2001 post-9/11 authorization that undergirds much of the U.S. counterterrorism operations around the world remains on the books. And the bill is silent on Trump’s ongoing campaign against alleged drug smuggling vessels in the Caribbean. Many lawmakers — including some Republicans — have questioned the administration’s legal justification for the lethal strikes. The final bill also doesn’t include an expansion of coverage for in-vitro fertilization and other fertility services for military families under the Tricare health system. The provision, backed by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) and others, was included in both Senate and House bills before it was dropped. Johnson reportedly was seeking to remove the provision, which similarly was left out of last year’s bill.

PARIS — The British defense secretary has insisted Donald Trump is capable of persuading Vladimir Putin to enter peace talks on Ukraine even as negotiations continue to stall. Asked by POLITICO if a ceasefire in Ukraine would be more difficult to achieve than that in Gaza, John Healey said a comparison could not be drawn between the two — with one exception. “President Trump is the figure that can bring Putin to the table, that can potentially deliver an end to the fighting,” he said, speaking on a flight from Norway to Paris as he traveled to meet the new French defense minister. Trump played a key role in brokering the shaky ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Healey stressed that the work of the coalition of the willing — allies of Ukraine pledged to offer security in the event of a ceasefire — was being “regularly refreshed so that we can genuinely feel we’re ready at the point of peace, whenever that comes, to step in and help secure that.” The headquarters of the coalition is now up and running in Paris, and includes senior British military personnel. Healey made his comments following a meeting of the Joint Expeditionary Force in Bodø where they signed a new partnership with Ukraine. Putin has not budged since a planned meeting with Trump in Hungary was canceled, and the U.S. president decided to sanction Russia’s two largest oil companies. Tensions have only grown between the U.S. and Russia since, with both sides threatening to resume nuclear weapons testing. At his recent meeting with Xi Jinping, Trump said China and the U.S. are working together on ending the war in Ukraine, but “sometimes, you have to let them fight.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered top officials to come up with proposals for the potential resumption of nuclear testing for the first time since the end of the Cold War more than three decades ago. Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump instructed the Pentagon to “immediately” start testing nuclear weapons “on an equal basis” with nuclear testing programs in other nations. Putin, speaking at Russia’s Security Council, told the country’s foreign and defense ministers, its special services and the relevant civilian agencies to study the matter and “submit coordinated proposals on the possible commencement of work to prepare for nuclear weapons testing.” Defense Minister Andrei Belousov told Putin at the meeting that it would be “appropriate to immediately begin preparations for full-scale nuclear tests.” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov later clarified that “the president did not give the order to begin preparations for the test” but merely ordered a feasibility study. Russia announced last week that it had successfully tested a nuclear-powered torpedo, dubbed Poseidon, that was capable of damaging entire coastal regions as well as a new cruise missile named the Burevestnik, prompting Trump to respond. The U.S. today launched an intercontinental ballistic missile, Minuteman III, in a routine test. The Cold War was characterized by an intense nuclear arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union as the superpowers competed for superiority by stockpiling and developing nuclear weapons. It ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the signing of nuclear treaties such as START, which aimed to reduce and control nuclear arsenals. The Soviet Union conducted its last test in 1990 and the U.S. in 1992. Defense Minister Andrei Belousov told Putin at the meeting that it would be “appropriate to immediately begin preparations for full-scale nuclear tests.” | Contributor/Getty Images A report this year by the SIPRI think tank warned that the global stockpile of nuclear weapons is increasing, with all nine nuclear-armed states — the U.S., U.K., Russia, France, China, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea — upgrading existing weapons and adding new versions to their stockpiles.

Belgium’s defense minister is officially beefing with Russia’s former president over nuclear war — in an Instagram post set to “Calm Down” by Selena Gomez.  Yes, that’s the world we’re living in. Theo Francken, the Belgian defense chief, vowed earlier this week that NATO “will flatten Moscow” if the Kremlin ever attacks Brussels in an interview with Belgian news website HUMO.  That triggered a ferocious response from Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president and current deputy chairman of its Security Council, who is prone to outbursts on social media.   Medvedev called Francken an “imbecile” and warned the Kremlin’s Poseidon nuclear super-weapon had been tested this week, calling it a “true doomsday weapon.” In response to an X user who suggested using Belgium as a testing ground, Medvedev added, “Then Belgium will disappear.”  On Thursday morning Francken hit back at Medvedev in an Instagram post, saying, “Russia’s bully-in-chief never stops threatening and insulting.”  “NATO is not at war with the Russian Federation, and certainly doesn’t want to be … But the ‘strike back’ principle of our alliance has been undisputed for 76 years,” he said. “That’s what I meant in the HUMO interview, and I don’t retract a word of it.”  The post was set to American pop singer Selena Gomez’s 2023 hit song “Calm Down,” apparently a plea from Francken to the Kremlin to chill. The song was first released by Nigerian singer Rema in 2022 and remixed with Gomez in 2023. 

President Donald Trump said he’s restarting U.S. nuclear missile testing on Wednesday hours before meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, further escalating the stakes of the high-profile summit between the two leaders. Trump wrote in a social media post he instructed the Pentagon to “immediately” begin testing nuclear weapons “on an equal basis” with nuclear testing programs in other nations, specifically noting the nuclear stockpiles of Russia and China. “The United States has more Nuclear Weapons than any other country. This was accomplished, including a complete update and renovation of existing weapons, during my First Term in office,” Trump wrote. “Russia is second, and China is a distant third, but will be even within 5 years.” “Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis,” he continued. “That process will begin immediately.” When asked during his official greeting with Xi about the decision, Trump paused and replied: “Thank you very much everybody.” The tests would likely be seen by foreign adversaries as a proclamation of U.S. military force. The U.S. has not conducted a nuclear test since 1992. Trump’s statement comes shortly after Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Wednesday that Russia successfully tested a nuclear torpedo capable of damaging entire coastal regions. Trump’s statement amplifies the significance of his meeting with Xi in South Korea, already a high-stakes affair as the two nations circle another potential trade dispute that could send shockwaves through the market.

The U.S. administration is reportedly weighing a meeting between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in the coming weeks, according to CNN. This would be the fourth time two leaders meet, and the first in Trump’s second term. “I’d like to meet [Kim Jong Un] this year,” Trump said in August as he welcomed South Korea’s new president, Lee Jae Myung, to the White House for the first time. Trump will travel to Asia later this month to attend the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Malaysia and an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea. He is also expected to stop in Japan. But officials have yet to do “any of the serious logistical planning,” CNN reported, as they are more focused on arranging a meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping as trade tensions flare up between Beijing and Washington. Kim has also said he’d be open to meeting with Trump again. “Personally, I still have good memories of U.S. President Trump,” Kim said last month. “If the U.S. drops its hollow obsession with denuclearization and wants to pursue peaceful coexistence with North Korea based on the recognition of reality, there is no reason for us not to sit down with the U.S.,” he said.