BRUSSELS — When it comes to support for Ukraine, a split has emerged between the European Union and its English-speaking allies. In France and Germany, the EU’s two biggest democracies, new polling shows that more respondents want their governments to scale back financial aid to Kyiv than to increase it or keep it the same. In the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, meanwhile, respondents tilt the other way and favor maintaining material support, according to The POLITICO Poll, which surveyed more than 10,000 people across the five countries earlier this month. The findings land as European leaders prepare to meet in Brussels on Thursday for a high-stakes summit where providing financial support to Ukraine is expected to dominate the agenda. They also come as Washington seeks to mediate a peace agreement between Moscow and Kyiv — with German leader Friedrich Merz taking the lead among European nations on negotiating in Kyiv’s favor. Across all five countries, the most frequently cited reason for supporting continued aid to Ukraine was the belief that nations should not be allowed to seize territory by force. The most frequently cited argument against additional assistance was concerns about the cost and the pressure on the national economy.  “Much of our research has shown that the public in Europe feels the current era demands policy trade-offs, and financial support for Ukraine is no exception,” said Seb Wride, head of polling at Public First, an independent polling company headquartered in London that carried out the survey for POLITICO.  “In a time where public finances are seen as finite resources, people’s interests are increasingly domestic,” he added.  WESTERN DIVIDE Germans were the most reluctant to ramp up financial assistance, with nearly half of respondents (45 percent) in favor of cutting financial aid to Kyiv while only 20 percent wanted to increase it. In France 37 percent wanted to give less and 24 percent preferred giving more. In contrast to the growing opposition to Ukrainian aid from Europe, support remains strikingly firm in North America. In the U.S., President Donald Trump has expressed skepticism toward Kyiv’s chances of defeating Moscow and has sent interlocutors to bargain with the Russians for peace. And yet the U.S. had the largest share of respondents (37 percent) in favor of increasing financial support, with Canada just behind at 35 percent. Support for Ukraine was driven primarily by those who backed Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in the 2024 election in the U.S. Some 29 percent of Harris voters said one of the top three reasons the U.S. should support Ukraine was to protect democracy, compared with 17 percent of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump. “The partisan split in the U.S. is now quite extreme,” Wride said. In Germany and France, opposition to assistance was especially pronounced among supporters of far-right parties — such as the Alternative for Germany and France’s National Rally — while centrists were less skeptical. “How Ukraine financing plays out in Germany in particular, as a number of European governments face populist challenges, should be a particular warning sign to other leaders,” Wride said. REFUGEE FATIGUE Support for military assistance tracked a similar divide. Nearly 40 percent of respondents in the U.S., U.K. and Canada backed higher levels of military aid, with about 20 percent opposed. In Germany 26 percent supported increased military aid to Ukraine while 39 percent opposed it. In France opinions were evenly split, with 31 percent favoring an increase and 30 percent favoring cuts. Germany was also the only country where a majority of respondents said their government should accept fewer Ukrainians displaced by the war.  In a country that has taken in more than a million Ukrainian refugees since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, 50 percent of Germans said Berlin should admit fewer.  Half of respondents also said Germany should reduce support for Ukrainians already settled in the country — a sign that public fatigue is extending beyond weapons and budgets to the broader social and political pressures of the conflict. The softer support for Ukraine in France and Germany does not appear to reflect warmer feelings toward Moscow, however. Voters in all five countries backed sanctions against Russia, suggesting that even where publics want to pare back aid they remain broadly aligned around punishing the aggressor and limiting Russia’s ability to finance the war. This edition of The POLITICO Poll was conducted from Dec. 5 to Dec. 9 and surveyed 10,510 adults online, with at least 2,000 respondents each from the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France and Germany. The results for each country were weighted to be representative in terms of age, gender and geography, and have an overall margin of sampling error of ±2 percentage points for each country. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error. The survey is an ongoing project from POLITICO and Public First, an independent polling company headquartered in London, to measure public opinion across a broad range of policy areas. You can find new surveys and analysis each month at politico.com/poll. Have questions or comments? Ideas for future surveys? Email us at poll@politico.com.

LONDON — The Council of Europe’s most senior human rights official warned European leaders not to create a “hierarchy of people” as they pursue reforms to migration policy. Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, said “middle-of-the-road politicians” are playing into the hands of the populist right. His comments, in an interview with the Guardian newspaper, come after 27 countries in the Council of Europe issued a statement Wednesday setting out how they want the European Convention on Human Rights to be applied by courts, including on familial ties and the risk of degrading treatment. The nations hope to reach a political declaration in spring 2026. O’Flaherty warned against any approach that would downgrade human rights, echoing calls he made in a speech to European ministers Wednesday morning. “The idea that we would create or foster the impression of a hierarchy of people, some more deserving than others, is a very, very worrying one indeed,” he said. He added: “For every inch yielded, there’s going to be another inch demanded,” telling the paper: “Where does it stop? For example, the focus right now is on migrants, in large part. But who is it going to be about next time around?” He also hit out at the “lazy correlation” of migration and crime which he said “doesn’t correspond with reality.” Prime Minister Keir Starmer and fellow center-left Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen wrote in the Guardian Tuesday the best way of “fighting against the forces of hate and division” was showing “mainstream, progressive politics” could deal with the challenge. Britain’s chief interior minister Shabana Mahmood has proposed tougher policies for irregular migrants including a 20 year wait for permanent settlement and assessing refugee status every 30 months.

Wies De Graeve is the executive director of Amnesty International Belgium’s Flemish branch. Tomorrow, Seán Binder will stand trial before the Mytilene Court of Appeals in Lesvos, Greece for his work as a volunteer rescuer, helping those in distress and at risk of drowning at sea. Alongside 23 other defendants, he faces criminal charges including membership in a criminal organization, money laundering and smuggling, with the risk of up to 20 years in prison if convicted. I first met Seán in 2019. A bright, articulate Irish activist in his twenties, he was our guest at the Belgian launch of Amnesty International’s annual end-of-year campaign. And there, he shared his equally inspiring yet shocking story of blatant injustice, as he and others were being prosecuted for saving lives. Two years earlier, Seán had traveled to Lesvos as a volunteer, joining a local search-and-rescue NGO to patrol the coastline for small boats in distress and provide first aid to those crossing from Turkey to Greece. Since 2015, the war in Syria has forced countless individuals to flee their homes and seek safety in Europe via dangerous routes — including the perilous journey across the Aegean Sea. In 2017 alone, more than 3,000 people were reported dead or missing while attempting to cross the Mediterranean, and when authorities failed to step in, many volunteers from across Europe did so instead. Seán was one of them. He did what any of us would hope to do in his position: save lives and help people. Yet, in 2018, he was arrested by Greek authorities and held in pretrial detention for over 100 days before being charged with a range of crimes alongside other humanitarian workers. These charges aim to portray those who help people on the move as criminals. And it’s part of a trend sweeping across Europe that’s criminalizing solidarity. In Malta, three teenagers from West Africa stand accused of helping to bring more than 100 people rescued at sea to safety, and are facing charges that carry a lifelong sentence. In Italy, ships operated by search-and-rescue organizations are being impounded. And in France, mountain guides have faced prosecution for assisting people at the border with Italy. European governments are not only failing people seeking protection, they’re also punishing those who try to fill that dangerous gap. I met Seán again in 2021 and 2023, both times outside the courthouse in Mytilene on Lesvos. In 2023, the lesser misdemeanor charges against him and the other foreign defendants — forgery, espionage and the unlawful use of radio frequencies — were dropped. Then, in 2024, the rest of the defendants were acquitted of those same charges. While leaving the courthouse that day, still facing the more serious felony charges along with the other 23 aid workers, Seán said: “We want justice. Today, there has been less injustice, but no justice.” As Amnesty International, we’ve been consistently calling for these charges to be dropped. The U.N. and many human rights organizations have also expressed serious concerns about the case, while thousands across Europe and around the world have stood by Seán’s side in defense of solidarity with migrants and refugees, signing petitions and writing letters. This trial should set off alarms not only for Europe’s civil society but for any person’s ability to act according to their conscience. It isn’t just Seán who is on trial here, it’s solidarity itself. The criminalization of people showing compassion for those compelled to leave their homes because of war, violence or other hardships must stop. This trial should set off alarms not only for Europe’s civil society but for any person’s ability to act according to their conscience. | Manolis Lagoutaris/AFP via Getty Images Meanwhile, a full decade after Syrians fleeing war began arriving on Europe’s shores in search of safety and protection, Europe’s leaders need to reflect. They need to learn from people like Seán instead of prosecuting them. And instead of focusing on deterrence, they need to ensure the word “asylum,” from the Greek “asylon,” still means a place of refuge or sanctuary for those seeking safety in our region. People who save lives should be supported, not criminalized. This week, six years after our first encounter, Seán and I will once again meet in front of the Mytilene courthouse as his trial resumes. I will be there in solidarity, representing the thousands who have been demanding that these charges be dropped. I hope, with all my heart, to see him finally receive the justice he is entitled to. Humanity must win.

DUBLIN — Ukraine cannot accept any U.S.-Russian ceasefire formula that would allow Russia to “come back with a third invasion,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Monday. During his first visit to Ireland as president, Zelenskyy received fulsome backing from Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin, who stood shoulder to shoulder with him and condemned Russian leader Vladimir Putin. “Putin has shown a complete indifference to the value of human life and to international laws and norms,” Martin told their joint press conference. “He must never be allowed to succeed.” Zelenskyy’s whirlwind visit to Dublin — where he also received a standing ovation from the joint houses of parliament and met Ireland’s newly elected and NATO-critical President Catherine Connolly — coincided with resumed Moscow talks between Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff. Zelenskyy said he spoke Monday with Witkoff and expected a post-talks update call Tuesday night — but downplayed hopes of reaching a speedy accord that would permanently end Russia’s attacks on his nation. He dismissed as unrealistic any proposed agreement that fails to include clear-cut security guarantees from both the U.S. and European allies, a commitment that Trump appears loath to give. “We have to stop the war in such a manner that in one year Russia would not come back with a third invasion,” he said, referring to Russia’s initial 2014 seizure of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine as well as its full-scale assault on Ukraine launched in 2022. Martin said making any ceasefire permanent would require, in part, that Russia pays a punitive price for the costs of Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction. That would mean, he said, approving the European Commission’s plan to tap frozen Russian funds largely banked in Belgium. Martin expressed hopes that Belgium would drop its objections at the next European Council this month. “When the U.N. charter is violated in such a brutal manner,” Martin said, referring to Russia’s ongoing invasion, “there has to be a deterrence of such behavior. There has to be some responsibility on the aggressor who has wreaked such devastation.” “There’s a very practical issue of the enormity of the reconstruction of Ukraine and the cost of that, and who’s going to pay for that,” Martin said. “It cannot only be the European taxpayer. Europe did not start this war.” But Ireland — a militarily neutral nation that will hold the EU’s rotating presidency in the second half of 2026 — did use Zelenskyy’s visit to boost its own financial support to Ukraine. Martin signed an agreement with Ukraine pledging a further €100 million in nonlethal military equipment, including for minefield clearance, and €25 million to help rebuild Ukraine’s besieged energy utilities. Ireland, a non-NATO member with virtually no defense industries of its own, has declined to provide any finance for acquiring weapons. Ireland, a country of 5.4 million people, also hosts more than 80,000 Ukrainian refugees — but, against a wider tide of anti-immigrant sentiment, is trimming the housing and welfare supports it has provided since 2022 to the Ukrainians. Zelenskyy said he couldn’t concern himself with the level of Irish support, and was grateful it keeps being provided at all. “The question is not about the size of assistance. It’s about the choice,” he said.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz has a simple message for many of the hundreds of thousands of Syrians who found sanctuary in Germany during their country’s long and brutal civil war: It’s time to go back to Syria. In reality, it will be hard for Merz to compel a large share of the roughly one million Syrians living in Germany to leave. But under pressure from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, whose leaders vow to forcibly return Syrian refugees en masse, the chancellor is taking a harder line on Germany’s Syrian population, and says he’ll work with Syria’s president, former rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, to do so. “The civil war in Syria is over,” Merz said earlier this week. “There are now no longer any grounds for asylum in Germany, which means we can begin repatriating people.” Merz’s comments reflect his latest push to move his conservatives sharply to the right on the AfD’s signature issue of migration. Until now, the broad strategy doesn’t appear to have worked, with the AfD only rising in popularity and coming in slightly ahead of Merz’s conservatives in many recent polls. Merz is seeking to undo the legacy of one of his conservative predecessors as chancellor, Angela Merkel, whose generous asylum policies — particularly during the refugee crisis of 2015 — made Germany the prime European destination for Syrians and other migrant groups fleeing war and poverty. During Merkel’s tenure and beyond, hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees fled to Germany. Aside from Ukrainians, Syrians constitute the largest group of refugees now living in the country. Merz blames Merkel’s migration policies for enabling the rise of the AfD, now the largest opposition party in the German parliament. Over the summer, Merz said his conservatives were “trying to correct” Merkel’s past policies. His pledge to repatriate Syrians is one of his most direct efforts yet to do so. It also echoes similar recent efforts of his government to establish contact with Taliban officials to arrange deportations of Afghans living in Germany, beginning with those convicted of crimes. Human rights groups have sharply criticized those plans, saying returnees may be subject to harsh punishment and persecution in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Merz on Monday said he had invited al-Sharaa, a former al-Qaida member, to Berlin in order to discuss deportations of Syrians convicted of crimes. Merz also suggested that Syrians in Germany have a duty to return home to rebuild their war-torn country. “Without these people, reconstruction will not be possible,” Merz said. “Those in Germany who then refuse to return to the country can, of course, be deported in the near future.” ‘THEY MUST BE DEPORTED, WITH FORCE’ Merz’s deportation threat belies a far more complex reality on the ground. In the several years that many Syrians have lived in Germany, a large number have found jobs and become citizens. Some 287,000 Syrian citizens were working in Germany last year, and about 83,000 became German citizens. Despite the tough rhetoric, Merz has not said he will forcibly repatriate Syrians outside of those who have committed crimes — at least not yet. His government’s strategy for now appears to be to incentivize others to depart of their own accord. Yet experts say conditions in Syria are not stable and secure enough to allow for many of the millions of Syrians who have fled the country to return anytime soon. | Louai Beshara/Getty Images But his government may also choose to model steps taken in the 1990s, when some 320,000 Bosnians came to Germany, fleeing the Bosnian War. By the next decade, Germany had repatriated most of them. Yet experts say conditions in Syria are not stable and secure enough to allow for many of the millions of Syrians who have fled the country to return anytime soon. This is a point Merz’s own foreign minister and fellow conservative, Johann Wadephul, seemed to make during a visit to the ruins of a destroyed city near Damascus last week, where he said it would be hard for many Syrians to promptly return. “I have never personally seen such extensive destruction,” Wadephul said. “I could not have imagined it either. It is truly difficult for people to live with dignity here.” Those comments sparked pushback from within Merz’s conservative ranks as well as among far-right politicians. Germans had rebuilt their country after World War II, some argued — and now Syrians should do the same. “Germans also lent a hand, especially a large number of women, to rebuild the cities destroyed after World War II, so that cannot now be used as a fundamental argument to say that it is impossible to return to this country and rebuild it,” Stephan Mayer, a conservative parliamentarian from Bavaria told German newspaper Welt. The right-wing debate around Wadephul’s comments seems to have forced Merz to contradict his foreign minister and take a harder stance on Syrian repatriations — though it remains to be seen how far his government will really go, particularly as Merz is governing in coalition with the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), whose members advocate a softer approach. SPD leaders, in fact, praised Wadephul for what they saw as his realism on the matter. That’s one reason it will be hard for Merz to outcompete the AfD on his new tough-on-migration turn. AfD leaders, from a comfortable perch in the opposition, are taking a maximalist position, depicting Syrians in Germany — hundreds of thousands of whom continue to receive basic income support — as a unnecessary drain on German taxpayers for which only Merz’s conservatives can be held responsible. “We say quite clearly: Syrians must now have their protected status revoked because the reason for their fleeing no longer applies,” AfD co-leader Alice Weidel said on Tuesday. “These people must return to their homeland,” she went on. “If they do not leave voluntarily, they must be deported, with force.”

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Außenminister Johann Wadephul sorgt mit seiner Syrien-Aussage für Aufruhr in der Union. Gemeinsam mit Nikolaus Doll von WELT analysiert Gordon Repinski, wie Wadephuls Worte die Partei spalten, warum der Kanzler eingreifen muss und welches Kommunikationsproblem sich in der Regierung zeigt. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview spricht Manuela Schwesig, Ministerpräsidentin von Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, über ihre Erwartungen an den Kanzler, über Wirtschaft und Arbeitsplätze im Norden und über den wachsenden Druck durch die AfD in ihrem Bundesland. Außerdem geht es nach New York, wo der Demokrat Zoran Mamdani bei den Bürgermeisterwahlen den Wahlsieg holen könnte.  Jonathan Martin von POLITICO in den USA erklärt, warum der 34-Jährige trotz radikaler Positionen Chancen hat, Bürgermeister der Hauptstadt des Kapitalismus zu werden und was das für die US-Demokraten bedeutet. 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.

Ivo Daalder, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, is a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center and host of the weekly podcast “World Review with Ivo Daalder.” He writes POLITICO’s From Across the Pond column. U.S. President Donald Trump loves the 19th century. His heroes are former presidents William McKinley who “made our country very rich through tariffs,” Teddy Roosevelt who “did many great things” like the Panama Canal, and James Monroe who established the policy rejecting “the interference of foreign nations in this hemisphere and in our own affairs.” These aren’t just some throw-away lines from Trump’s speeches. They signify a much deeper and broader break from established modern national security thinking. Trump is now the first U.S. president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to believe the principal threats to the U.S. aren’t in far-away regions or stem from far-away powers — rather, they’re right here at home. For him, the biggest threats to America today are the immigrants flooding across the country’s borders and the drugs killing tens of thousands from overdoses. And to that end, his real goal is to dominate the entire Western hemisphere — from the North Pole to the South Pole — using America’s superior military and economic power to defeat all “enemies,” both foreign and domestic. Of course, at the top of Trump’s list of threats to the U.S. is immigration. He campaigned incessantly on the idea that his predecessors had failed to seal the southern border, and promised to deport every immigrant without legal status — some 11 million in all — from the U.S. Those efforts started on the first day, with the Trump administration deploying troops to the southern border to interdict anyone seeking to cross illegally. It also instituted a dragnet to sweep people off the streets — whether in churches, near schools, on farmlands, inside factories, at court houses or in hospitals. Even U.S. citizens have been caught up in this massive deportation effort. No one is safe. The resulting shift is also expectedly dramatic: Refugee admissions have halted, with those promised passage stuck in third countries. In the coming year, the only allotment for refugees will be white South Africans, who Trump has depicted as genocide victims. Illegal crossings are down to a trickle, while large numbers of immigrants — legal as well as illegal — are returning home. And 2025 will likely be the first time in nearly a century where net migration into the U.S. will be negative. For Trump, immigrants aren’t the only threat to the homeland, though. Drugs are too. That’s why on Feb. 1, the U.S. leader imposed tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China because of fentanyl shipments — though Canada is hardly a significant source of the deadly narcotic. Still, all these tariffs remain in place. Then, in August, he called in the military, signing a directive that authorizes it to take on drug cartels, which he designated as foreign terrorist organizations. “Latin America’s got a lot of cartels and they’ve got a lot of drugs flowing,” he later explained. “So, you know, we want to protect our country. We have to protect our country.” And that was just the beginning. Over the past two months, the Pentagon has deployed a massive array of naval and air power, and some 10,000 troops for drug interdiction. Over the past five weeks, the U.S. military has also been directed to attack small vessels crossing the Caribbean and the Pacific that were suspected to be running drugs. To date, 16 vessels have been attacked, killing over 60 people. For Donal Trump, immigrants aren’t the only threat to the homeland, though. Drugs are too. | oe Raedle/Getty Images When asked for the legal justification of targeting vessels in international waters that posed no imminent threat to the U.S., Trump dismissed the need: “I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. Okay? We’re going to kill them. You know, they’re going to be, like, dead.” But now the U.S. leader has set his sights on bigger fish. Late last month, the Pentagon ordered a carrier battle group, Gerald R. Ford, into the Caribbean. Once that carrier and its accompanying ships arrive at their destination later this week, the U.S. will have deployed one-seventh of its Navy — the largest such deployment in the region since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. If the target is just drug-runners in open waters, clearly this is overkill — but they aren’t. The real reason for deploying such overwhelming firepower is for Trump to intimidate the leaders and regimes he doesn’t like, if not actually force them from office. Drugs are just the excuse to enable such action. The most obvious target is Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro, who blatantly stole an election to retain power last year. The White House has declared Maduro “an illegitimate leader heading an illegitimate regime,” and Trump has made clear that “there will be land action in Venezuela soon.” However, Maduro isn’t the only one Trump has his eye on. After Colombian President Gustavo Petro accused the U.S. of killing innocent fishermen, Trump cut off all aid to the country and accused Petro of being “an illegal drug leader,” which potentially sets the stage for the U.S. to go after another regime. All this firepower and rhetoric is meant to underscore one point: To Trump, the entire Western hemisphere is America’s. Leaders he doesn’t like, he will remove from power. Countries that take action he doesn’t approve of — whether jailing those convicted of trying to overthrow a government like in Brazil, or running ads against his tariffs as in Canada — will be punished economically. Greenland will be part of the U.S., as will the Panama Canal, and Canada will become the 51st state. Overall, Trump’s focus on dominating the Western hemisphere represents a profound shift from nearly a century’s-long focus on warding off overseas threats to protect Americans at home. And like it or not, for Trump, security in the second quarter of the 21st century lies in concepts and ideas first developed in the last quarter of the 19th century.

BERLIN — Politicians in Germany and Poland — home to the biggest Ukrainian refugee populations within the European Union — are threatening to yank back the welcome mat amid a sharp increase in the number of young Ukrainian men entering their countries in recent weeks after Kyiv loosened exit rules. While sentiment within both countries is generally favorable toward Ukrainians, their growing presence is increasingly becoming a flashpoint wielded by far-right parties. With Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine going into its fourth winter, the debate is expected to intensify as millions risk being left without heating, water or electricity in the coming months due to ongoing attacks by the Kremlin. In Germany, members of Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s governing conservatives are warning that while the country will continue taking in Ukrainian refugees, public support for the Ukrainian cause could wane if young male emigrants are seen to be avoiding military service. “We have no interest in young Ukrainian men spending their time in Germany instead of defending their country,” Jürgen Hardt, a senior foreign policy lawmaker from Merz’s conservatives, told POLITICO on Tuesday. “Ukraine makes its own decisions, but the recent change in the law has led to a trend of emigration that we must address.” Poland’s far-right Confederation party went further, saying in a statement: “Poland cannot continue to be a refuge for thousands of men who should be defending their own country, while burdening Polish taxpayers with the costs of their desertion.”  Ukrainian arrivals in both countries have increased significantly following the relaxation of Ukrainian exit rules over the summer — a move that ironically was intended to alleviate military recruitment issues by making it easier for young men to come and go. Nearly 45,300 Ukrainian men between 18 and 22 years of age crossed the border to Poland from the beginning of 2025 until the loosening of exit restrictions at the end of August, according to numbers the Polish border guard sent to POLITICO. In the next two months that number soared to 98,500, or 1,600 per day.   And many of the newcomers appear to have kept moving west: The number of young Ukrainian men aged 18 to 22 entering Germany rose from 19 per week in mid-August to between 1,400 and 1,800 per week in October, according to German media reports citing numbers from the German interior ministry.   NEW RULES Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy loosened the exit rules for men who aren’t yet eligible for military service, which begins at 25, at the end of August. Previously, men between the ages of 18 and 60 weren’t allowed to leave the country; under the new regulations, men aged between 18 and 22 can leave and return without risking prosecution.      The change meant that young Ukrainian men already abroad were able to return without fearing they wouldn’t be allowed to leave again. The hope was they might remain and agree to be drafted when they turned 25.     A second reason was to discourage parents from moving their sons abroad at the age of 16 or 17 — a trend authorities have flagged. Announcing the rule change in the summer, Zelenskyy argued: “If we want to keep boys in Ukraine, we really need them to finish school here first and for their parents not to take them away.” He said he feared they could otherwise “lose their connection with Ukraine.”    DEBATE OVER SOCIAL BENEFITS Germany and Poland host the most Ukrainian refugees within the European Union by far. About 1.2 million people who fled Ukraine after Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022 live in Germany and nearly one million in Poland — over half of all Ukrainians with protected status in the bloc, according to Eurostat data. Although Ukrainians account for over 6 percent of the Polish workforce and contribute significantly to economic growth, far-right politicians argue they’re getting too many social benefits. Nationalist President Karol Nawrocki recently vetoed legislation on helping Ukrainians, saying only those who work and pay taxes in Poland should get benefits.   Similar demands have repeatedly been made by the ascendant far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in Germany, which is now polling in first place. Along with demanding a stop to welfare payments to Ukrainians, the party is known for its skepticism toward military aid for Ukraine — at a time when Germany is Kyiv’s largest donor after the U.S. Friedrich Merz’s coalition is working on a draft law that would deny the right to such benefits. | Magali Cohen and Hans Lucas/Getty Images Around 490,000 Ukrainian citizens of working age receive long-term unemployment benefits in Germany, according to data from the country’s employment agency. Merz’s coalition — which is under increasing budgetary pressure and generally wants to reduce welfare spending — is working on a draft law that would deny the right to such benefits. “Many people have mixed feelings about how we should deal with young Ukrainian men of military age who have fled to us and may be receiving social benefits. That is understandable,” Sebastian Fiedler, a lawmaker from the Social Democratic Party (SPD), which governs in a coalition with Merz’s conservatives, told POLITICO.   But Fiedler, who heads the SPD group in the interior committee, added that his faction doesn’t see a need to act immediately — unlike Merz’s conservatives.   “The SPD parliamentary group in the Bundestag remains committed to supporting Ukraine to the best of our ability,” he said. “Part of our dealings with Ukraine also means that we do not dictate to it when its own citizens can enter and leave the country. It is fundamentally not Germany’s job to decide which young people Ukraine sends to war and which it does not.”  WAIT AND SEE Others in Germany’s political leadership want to wait to see if arrivals numbers remain high before making any changes. Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt, a member of the conservatives, said through a spokesperson that he wanted more data. “Currently, the possibility is being considered that this is an initial phase of increased migration following the entry into force of the regulation adopted by Ukraine in the summer, and that the number of young men seeking protection may decline again,” the spokesperson said.  The ongoing debate in Germany was initiated by Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söder, leader of the Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU), which the interior minister belongs to. Söder proposed to restrict the so-called Temporary Protection Directive at the EU level if Kyiv doesn’t voluntarily reduce arrivals. The rules provide Ukrainians who entered the bloc after February 2022 with an automatic protected status.    “Our solidarity remains,” he said. “But it requires clear rules and responsibility on both sides.”    Miłka Fijałkowska contributed to this report from Berlin, Wojciech Kość contributed from Warsaw.

HOW TO WATCH THE DUTCH ELECTION LIKE A PRO POLITICO lays out everything you need to know about a critical vote that is currently too close to call, as far-right Geert Wilders takes on the mainstream again. By EVA HARTOG Illustration by Natália Delgado/POLITICO Europe is holding its breath: Will the Netherlands swing left or maintain its rightward course? The Dutch head to the polls Wednesday for a vote that could cement the far right as the most popular political party in the Netherlands — and expose the wider struggle European centrists face to beat back anti-establishment forces. But even if anti-immigration firebrand Geert Wilders wins the election, as current opinion polls suggest he might, he is short of allies and has next to no chance of becoming prime minister, or even being in government — likely setting off a scramble to form a coalition that excludes the far right. The last Dutch government was in office for less than a year — 336 days to be exact — before it collapsed, triggering the third election in five years, as the Netherlands struggles to govern itself. To get you prepared for more drama, we’ve compiled this essential guide to everything you need to know ahead of the big reveal Wednesday evening. WHO’S RUNNING? Twenty-seven parties spanning the political spectrum will be competing for 150 seats in parliament, and a chance at having one of their own appointed as Dutch prime minister. WHEN DO WE GET THE RESULTS? Polls open Wednesday at 7:30 a.m. CET and close at 9 p.m. Exit polls are announced as soon as voting ends — and around midnight, national news agency ANP publishes preliminary results. Figures per municipality will trickle in over the course of the evening, and final results can be expected the next day. WHAT SHOULD I WATCH OUT FOR? The main question is not just whether Dutch voters will lean left or right, but also which of the many competing parties on each side they’ll go for. Whether supporters of the far-right populist Party for Freedom (PVV) will stick with founder Geert Wilders, shift to another hard-right or right-wing party, or stay home altogether will be critical. In short: it’s a political battle royal. WHAT ARE THE POLLS SAYING?  For weeks, polls have suggested that the PVV will come out on top — while its former coalition partner, the center-right liberal People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), is lagging. The centrist D66 is having a real moment, with all eyes on its leader Rob Jetten, who is giving the large traditional parties a run for their money in his bid to become the party’s first prime minister in Dutch history. THE NETHERLANDS NATIONAL PARLIAMENT ELECTION POLL OF POLLS All 3 Years 2 Years 1 Year 6 Months Smooth Kalman For more polling data from across Europe visit POLITICO Poll of Polls. In a tightly contested election, the Christian Democratic Appeal’s down-to-earth Henri Bontenbal is another candidate who has been floated as the potential next prime minister — given no one wants to team up with Wilders — a prospect that would’ve shocked anyone watching two years ago when voters ditched the conservative CDA en masse Green-Left Labor, led by veteran politician Frans Timmermans, is also in the mix. But as the Dutch say: Don’t sell the hide before the bear is shot. In the last election, most voters didn’t make up their minds until the final moments. This means that for Wilders especially, turnout will be critical. No matter what his result, he is expected to be frozen out of coalition talks, having burned too many bridges in The Hague. If he wins the most votes but is still sidelined from government, he’s likely to use it as ammunition to argue his followers are being ignored and Dutch democracy is dead. A RECAP The Dutch are still reeling from the electoral earthquake that upended the political landscape in 2023, when Wilders’ PVV won the most votes for the first time ever.  After decades of being politically sidelined for its anti-Islam, anti-immigrant and anti-establishment standpoints, the PVV was suddenly at the center of the most right-wing government in modern Dutch history.  To form a coalition, it teamed up with three other forces right of center, including the VVD and two smaller newcomer parties. But from Day One, the alliance was plagued by infighting and public drama worthy of a soap opera. And Wilders, considered too toxic for the post of prime minister, criticized his own coalition relentlessly from the parliament benches. And since we’re already dragging up old cows out of the ditch (Nederglish for bringing up old grievances) … … THE (MOST RECENT) COLLAPSE That brings us to this past June, when Wilders suddenly quit the coalition, arguing it wasn’t strict enough on migration despite the fact that the asylum and migration minister wore a PVV badge. The question now is: Will Dutch voters opt for stability by moving back to the center, or will they forgive Wilders for triggering a political meltdown and opt for more far-right disruption? For weeks, polls have suggested that the PVV will be the big winner. | Carl Court/Getty Images The answer could have wide-ranging repercussions.  In a September report, the group Democracy Monitor warned of “urgent” democratic backsliding in the Netherlands, citing, among other factors, increased support for authoritarian leadership styles and declining public trust in politics overall.  WHAT ARE THE CAMPAIGN ISSUES?  Unsurprisingly, after the last two Cabinets collapsed over migration, limiting the number of asylum-seekers in the Netherlands is a central topic. One one end of the spectrum, the PVV is calling for a complete asylum ban (which goes against EU rules); while, on the other side, Green-Left Labor proposes a refugee quota and cooperation with Brussels.  Other major matters dominating the debate include housing, health care and — to a lesser extent — the climate. There is broad agreement on raising defense spending to the NATO target of 5 percent of gross domestic product, though parties disagree on exactly how to finance this increase. Overall, the campaign has been rather tepid. VVD leader Dilan Yeşilgöz took on a cursing Wilders in a game of Mario Kart; D66’s Rob Jetten showed off his IQ in a TV game show; and CDA’s Bontenbal tried to charm online voters with a video of him making a his own kapsalon.  But the temperature has risen somewhat in the last few days, with Timmermans threatening legal action after media linked PVV parliamentarians to an AI-driven attack against him online, while rising star Jetten was reprimanded by a TV host for making a “sexist” remark about a Dutch princess. SO, WILL THE DUTCH HAVE A NEW LEADER THE DAY AFTER THE VOTE?  Ha! No.  The election result is only the starting gun for a long and convoluted negotiation process that rivals the choosing of a new pope. First, a scout is appointed to explore which parties could work together based on their electoral result and their views (a majority coalition requires 76 seats). Then, the baton is passed to a so-called informateur, who takes the talks a step further and draws up a preliminary coalition agreement.  45,000 demonstrators marched demanding the Dutch government improve its policy on climate change, just three days before the Dutch general election. | Charles M. Vella/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Finally, the informateur is replaced with a formateur, who is usually also the next prime minister, and who divvies up various ministries across the coalition parties. Once the Cabinet is assembled, they pay a traditional visit to the Dutch King and — voilà—white smoke. WHEN WILL WE KNOW WHAT THE NEXT GOVERNMENT WILL LOOK LIKE?  That is anyone’s guess. The last Cabinet formation took 223 days. The all-time record stands at 299 days. (If that makes your jaw drop, we kindly refer you to neighboring Belgium, where the record is 541 days.)  If we Dutch people can manage it, you won’t have to read another one of these again until the next planned election — in four years.  Koen Verhelst contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — The EU is ratcheting up pressure on governments reluctant to agree on funding for war-ravaged Ukraine — telling them if they don’t force Russia to foot the bill, they’ll have to do it themselves. The European Commission is acutely aware that its plan B — joint EU borrowing known as eurobonds — is even more unpalatable for funding a €140 billion reparations loan for Kyiv than its idea of using frozen Russian state assets, which hit a roadblock last week. Governments historically hostile to big spending, especially Germany and the Netherlands, nicknamed the “frugals,” loathe the prospect of piling greater debt onto taxpayers. Spendthrift nations, France and Italy in particular, are too indebted to take on more.  But that’s the point. European officials are betting that Belgium, which houses nearly all the assets and has expressed concerns about the legitimacy of seizing them, along with other countries that have raised objections more quietly, will be won over to the plan by the prospect of the joint borrowing alternative, which they’ve long considered toxic. “The lack of fiscal discipline [in some EU countries] is so high that I don’t believe that eurobonds will be accepted, certainly by the frugals over the next 10 years,” said Karel Lannoo, chief executive of the influential Centre for European Policy Studies, a Brussels think tank. That’s why using the frozen Russian assets looks like the only game in town. “€140 billion is a ton of money and we have to use it. We have to show that we’re not afraid.” European governments and the European Central Bank have slowly come round to using seized Russian assets to fund the €140 billion. Initially they were wary, considering snatching another country’s cash ― no matter how badly that country had acted ― legally and morally dubious. But Ukraine’s pressing needs, and Washington’s uncertain approach, has focused minds. At last week’s summit of EU leaders, however, Belgium’s Bart De Wever refused to budge on the plan, which needs the backing of all 27 governments, forcing the bloc to postpone its approval until December at the earliest. ‘THIS IS DIPLOMACY’ Now the EU is in a race against time on two fronts. First, Ukraine is set to run out of money by the end of March. And second, decision-making of any kind could be about to become far tougher as Hungary looks to join forces with Czechia and Slovakia to form a Ukraine-skeptic alliance. There’s a sense that it’s now or never. That means Commission officials are engaged in a delicate balancing act to get the assets plan across the line, three EU diplomats said. “This is diplomacy,” said one of the diplomats with knowledge of the choreography, granted anonymity to speak freely about the plans. “You offer people something they don’t want to do, so they accept the lesser option.” A second diplomat familiar with the situation was equally dismissive of plan B. “The idea that eurobonds could seriously be on the table is simply laughable,” they said. So although De Wever told his fellow leaders at the EU summit last week that the Commission had underestimated the complexity of using Russian assets and the legal knock-on effect it could have in Belgium, the EU doesn’t think he’ll hold out past December, when leaders are scheduled to meet again. The Russian asset-backed loan “is going to happen,” an EU official said. “Not a question of if ― but when.”  STEP UP SUPPORT Many European nations have long opposed the idea of eurobonds, believing they shouldn’t be on the hook for indebted governments they perceive as unable to keep their finances in order. The Covid pandemic weakened their resolve, with governments agreeing to joint borrowing to finance an €800 billion recovery fund to revive the bloc’s economy. Brussels has continued to mutualize EU debt since then to fund other initiatives, most recently involving a series of loans to help capitals procure military contracts to bolster their defenses against Russia, but capitals are still broadly against its widespread use. “Support for Ukraine and pressure on Russia, that is ultimately what could bring Putin to the table and that’s why it’s so important that the European countries step up,” Swedish Europe Minister Jessica Rosencrantz told reporters after Thursday’s summit. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images There is a third option on the table: The EU could embark on a €25 billion treasure hunt for Russian assets in other countries across the bloc. This, though, is likely to take more time than Ukraine has so it could look as if Europe is taking its foot off the gas. “Support for Ukraine and pressure on Russia, that is ultimately what could bring Putin to the table and that’s why it’s so important that the European countries step up,” Swedish Europe Minister Jessica Rosencrantz told reporters after Thursday’s summit. COLLECTIVE RISK The vast majority of the assets are under the guardianship of a financial depository called Euroclear in Belgium, leaving the country with considerable financial and legal risk. “The Commission has engaged in intensive exchanges with the Belgian authorities on the matter and stands ready to provide further clarifications and assurances as appropriate,” a Commission spokesperson said. “Any proposal will build on the principle of collective risk sharing. While we see no indication that the Commission`’s original approach would lead to new risks, we certainly do agree that any risk coming with our future proposal will of course have to be shared collectively by member states and not only by one.” The Commission has played down the risks to Belgium, stressing that the €140 billion would only be repaid to Russia if the Kremlin ends the war and pays reparations to Ukraine. The chance of that happening is so remote that the money is unlikely ever to be repaid.  But Belgium fears Moscow could send in an army of lawyers to get its money back, especially considering the country signed a bilateral investment treaty with Russia in 1989. The officials and diplomats interviewed for this article remain confident of an agreement. “I really expect that at the next European Council [scheduled for Dec. 18] there will be finally progress,” Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys told POLITICO. Gerardo Fortuna contributed to this article.