BERLIN — Chancellor Friedrich Merz is mounting an unusually assertive effort to project German leadership at the heart of the EU, positioning himself as the defender not only of Ukraine but, by his own account, of Europe as a whole. This represents a stark shift in Germany’s approach to world affairs. Merz’s predecessors, Olaf Scholz and Angela Merkel, were reluctant to put the country in such an outspoken lead role internationally or within the EU. Rather, Germany tended to hang back and avoid undue risk. Germans even coined a slang verb — “to Merkel,” or Merkeln — to connote dithering. Merz has taken a far more active stance inside the EU — assuming a role more traditionally played by France’s now weakened President Emmanuel Macron. He has placed himself as Europe’s most visible advocate of a risk-laden EU plan to replenish Ukraine’s war chest with a €210 billion loan backed by Russian frozen assets. Earlier this month he visited Belgium’s prime minister, Bart De Wever, who has rejected the plan, along with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in an effort to convince the Belgian to drop his opposition. “When it comes to managing European issues, Merz is truly the polar opposite of Merkel,” an Italian diplomat said of that effort. Outside of EU affairs, the Trump administration’s wavering on military aid for Ukraine and the erosion of the transatlantic alliance have compelled Merz to push Germany beyond long familiar limits when it comes to foreign policy. Given this seismic realignment, Merz has repeatedly vowed that Germany will play a “leading role” internationally. “Ukraine’s fate is the fate of all of Europe,” Merz said on Monday alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. “And in this respect, it is a key task, and I have taken it upon myself to closely support Ukraine in the negotiations that are currently taking place here in Berlin.” IS EUROPE CAPABLE OF ‘STANDING TOGETHER?’ Merz’s attempt to make good on the promise to lead has been on full display this week. While praising Donald Trump for pressing for a peace deal, the chancellor has in many ways set himself in direct opposition to the U.S. president, working to ensure that Washington doesn’t impose an unfavorable deal. The Trump administration has also opposed the EU proposal on Russia’s frozen reserves, hoping instead to turn a profit on those assets as part of a potential peace agreement. “Washington is now exerting tremendous pressure here, which is why it is also a question of asserting ourselves against Washington,” Norbert Röttgen, a senior German lawmaker belonging to Merz’s conservatives, told POLITICO.  Ahead of a key meeting of European leaders on Thursday, Merz is depicting the looming decision on whether to leverage frozen Russian central bank assets in the EU as a test of whether Europe can still stand up for itself. “Let us not deceive ourselves. If we do not succeed in this, the European Union’s ability to act will be severely damaged for years, if not for a longer period,” Merz said on Monday. “And we will show the world that, at such a crucial moment in our history, we are incapable of standing together and acting to defend our own political order on this European continent.”  Friedrich Merz’s predecessors, Olaf Scholz and Angela Merkel, were reluctant to put the country in such an outspoken lead role internationally or within the EU. | Maja Hitij/Getty Images In a reflection of his government’s new assertiveness, Merz has made Berlin a nexus of diplomacy over a potential peace deal. On Sunday and Monday he hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. On Monday evening, many of Europe’s most powerful leaders converged over dinner in Berlin to discuss the outlines of a possible deal. “Berlin is now at the center of very important diplomatic talks and decisions,” Zelenskyy said Monday. “These talks are always complex, never easy, but they were very productive.” Merz, too, standing alongside the Ukrainian leader, appeared to play up the role Germany has assumed in recent negotiations. “We have seen great diplomatic momentum — perhaps the greatest since the start of the war,” he said. “We now have the chance for a genuine peace process for Ukraine. This seedling is still small, but the opportunity is real.” MERZ OVERSTEPS But Merz’s efforts to put Germany forward as a key EU leader on Ukraine and other matters, from defense to trade, are also replete with risk. European leaders have largely welcomed Merz’s willingness to take on a greater leadership role — particularly the chancellor’s decision, even before he took office, to unlock hundreds of billions of euros in borrowing to bolster Germany’s military. But as Europe’s biggest economy, Germany’s exercise of power within a union of 27 countries requires a delicate balancing act, and at times of late, Merz has appeared to overstep. After the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy, which depicted the EU as a transnational body that “undermines political liberty and sovereignty,” Merz condemned the document as “unacceptable.” At the same time he offered Trump a workaround that seemed to undermine the EU even more: “If you can’t get on board with Europe, then at least make Germany your partner.” Merz has tried to assert German interests in EU trade negotiations as well as on the issue of the EU’s proposed combustion engine ban, successfully watering it down. However, the greater risk for Merz lies in whether his latest efforts succeed or fail. By depicting European leaders’ looming decisions on Russian assets this week as a make-or-break moment for the EU and for Ukraine, Merz may be setting himself up for embarrassment given Belgian and Italian opposition to the plan. “It is a very active role that [Merz] is playing,” Röttgen told POLITICO. “Not because there is great competition for a leadership role, but because, in my view, Germany is currently best suited to take this initiative.” “This also has something to do with the fiscal possibilities that exist in Germany. We are by far the biggest supporter of Ukraine at the moment. But this should not take the form of national support, but rather European support. It needs to be organized, and in my view, that is a task for Merz.” Gerardo Fortuna contributed to this report from Brussels.

The U.S. is offering Ukraine security guarantees similar to those it would receive as part of NATO, American officials said Monday. The offer is the strongest and most explicit security pledge the Trump administration has put forward for Ukraine, but it comes with an implicit ultimatum: Take it now or the next iteration won’t be as generous. The proposal of so-called Article 5-like guarantees comes amid marathon talks among special envoy Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner and Ukrainian and European officials in Berlin as Washington tries to pressure Kyiv into accepting terms that will end the war. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and many European leaders have been reluctant to reach a deal without an explicit U.S. security guarantee, fearful that Russia, after a period of time, would attack again. This latest U.S. offer appears to be an effort to assuage those concerns but also to push Zelenskyy to act quickly. “The basis of that agreement is basically to have really, really strong guarantees, Article 5-like,” a senior U.S. official said. “Those guarantees will not be on the table forever. Those guarantees are on the table right now if there’s a conclusion that’s reached in a good way.” President Donald Trump said later Monday that he had spoken with Zelenskyy and European leaders by phone. Trump also said he had spoken to Russian President Vladimir Putin, but did not say when. “I think we’re closer now than we have been ever, and we’ll see what we can do,” Trump told reporters at the White House. Asked if the offer for security guarantees had a time limit, he said “the time limit is whenever we can get it done.” The discussions over the weekend largely focused on detailing the security guarantees that the U.S. and Europe would provide Ukraine, but they also included territory and other matters. Witkoff and Kushner were joined by Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, head of U.S. European Command as well as the top commander for NATO. The U.S. expects that Russia would accept such an arrangement in a final deal, as well as permit Ukraine to join the European Union. That could prove to be an overly optimistic assessment, given the Kremlin’s refusal to give ground in peace talks so far. And Moscow has yet to weigh in on any of the new agreements being worked out in Europe over the last few days. “We believe the Russians, in a final deal, will accept all these things which allow for a strong and free Ukraine. Russia, in a final deal, has indicated they were open to Ukraine joining the EU,” a second U.S. official said. Both officials were granted anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the negotiations. It was not clear when or how the Trump administration would bring the new details to Moscow. Russia expects the U.S. side will update it on the talks, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said. He added Putin “is open to peace, to a serious peace and serious decisions. He is absolutely not open to any tricks aimed at stalling for time.” The Kremlin said Monday it expected to be updated on the Berlin talks by the U.S. side. Asked whether the negotiations could be over by Christmas, Peskov said trying to predict a potential time frame for a peace deal was a “thankless task.” The second U.S. official said the Ukrainian delegation was pleasantly “surprised” by Trump’s willingness to agree to firmer security guarantees and to have them ratified by Congress so that they will endure beyond his presidency. The U.S. side also spoke highly of its European counterparts, who have been worried for months that the Trump team would force Ukraine to agree to unfavorable conditions. European officials also sounded upbeat. “The legal and material security guarantees that the U.S. has put on the table here in Berlin are remarkable,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told reporters during a press conference after the talks Monday. Merz, along with his counterparts from Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, U.K., Sweden and the EU put out a statement welcoming “significant progress” in the U.S. effort and committing to helping Ukraine to end the war and deter Russian aggression, including through a European-led multinational force for Ukraine supported by the U.S. Over the weekend Zelenskyy conceded that Ukraine would not seek NATO membership, a condition that Russia has repeatedly sought. Trump, who skipped this week’s meetings in Berlin but has been briefed twice by Witkoff and Kushner, planned to call into a dinner Monday for attending heads of state, foreign ministers and security officials, the U.S. officials said. “He’s really pleased with where [things] are,” the first U.S. official said. Witkoff and Kushner also sought to narrow disputes between Ukraine and Russia over what territory Moscow would control in a final deal. Russia has so far insisted on controlling Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region, even parts that Moscow hasn’t captured. One of the U.S. officials said the talks focused on many of the specific territorial considerations, stating that there is a proposal in the works but yet to be finalized for Russia and Ukraine to split control of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant with each country having access to half of the energy produced by the plant. But the American officials mostly avoided specifics on how they aimed to bridge other gaps on territorial disputes. They said they left Zelenskyy with “thought-provoking ideas” on how to do so. After Zelenskyy responds to the proposals, Witkoff and Kushner will discuss the matter with Russia. “We feel really good about the progress that we’ve made, including on territories,” the first official said. Next the U.S. will convene working groups, likely in Miami this weekend, where military officials will pore over maps to solve the remaining territorial issues. “We believe that we have probably solved for … 90 percent of the issues between Ukraine and Russia, but there’s some more things that have to be worked out,” the first U.S. official said. Hans Joachim Von Der Burchard in Berlin contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump filed suit Monday against the British Broadcasting Company, seeking more than $5 billion from the venerable news outlet over what he contends was deliberately misleading editing of a speech he gave on Jan. 6, 2021, as the Capitol riot was getting underway. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Miami, complains that the BBC “maliciously” strung together two comments Trump made more than 54 minutes apart in order to convey the impression that he’d urged his supporters to engage in violence as electoral votes were set to be tabulated by Congress. “It would have been impossible for BBC’s journalists and producers to splice together two distinct parts of the Speech from nearly 55 minutes apart unless they were acting intentionally,” the suit claims. “Such a dramatic distortion could never have occurred by accident.” The BBC apologized to Trump last month over the splicing, but argued that it did not amount to the basis for a defamation suit. A network spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. The new suit is Trump’s latest bid to extract a large payout from news organizations he has routinely attacked. One recent suit against CNN — demanding damages from the network over its use of the term “big lie” to describe Trump’s false claims of fraud in the 2020 election — was tossed by a federal appeals court. Trump has also, however, reached multimillion-dollar settlements with ABC and CBS in lawsuits he brought accusing them of false reporting or deceptive editing. Trump’s suits against The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal remain pending. Trump is facing a lawsuit in Washington, D.C. stemming from his Jan. 6 speech, with lawmakers and police officers injured that day alleging that his remarks incited the violent riot at the Capitol that threatened the transfer of presidential power. The judge presiding over that case found that despite Trump’s claim to have encouraged supporters to march “peacefully” to the Capitol, many had already departed his rally by the time he issued the call for order, and his speech was so full of incendiary rhetoric that his belated mention of “peaceful” behavior may not have been sufficient to calm the crowd’s fury. Legal experts have said they expect the BBC to challenge the federal court’s jurisdiction over the case, particularly in light of the network’s claim that the documentary did not air in the U.S. and the digital version was not available to U.S. audiences. Trump’s suit seeks to counter that argument by noting that at least two websites published instructions about how to watch the documentary in the U.S. via a virtual private network or VPN, although one of those posts came in recent months. Trump’s attorneys also contend that the BBC shot many of the scenes in Florida, including in and around Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach. The complaint also notes that the BBC maintains an office in Coral Gables, just south of Miami.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday classifying fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction, giving the U.S. government additional legal firepower in its efforts to combat illegal trafficking of the synthetic drug. The executive order cites the lethality of the drug, which kills tens of thousands of Americans every year, and the fact that transnational criminal groups the Trump administration has designated as foreign terrorist organizations use the sale of fentanyl to fund activities that undermine U.S. national security. Speaking in the Oval Office as he signed the order, the president said the amount of drugs coming into the U.S. by sea has decreased by 94 percent (most drugs, including fentanyl, enter the U.S. via land ports of entry). Trump added that drug flows are “a direct military threat to the United States of America.” The administration has focused considerable resources on combating fentanyl as part of its efforts to secure the U.S. border with Mexico. Top administration officials have argued that Trump’s strict immigration limits and border security measures have led to a drop in domestic consumption of fentanyl. “With a secure border, lives are being saved every day, sex trafficking has plummeted, fentanyl has plummeted,” White House border czar Tom Homan said Monday. While classifying a narcotic as a WMD is a nearly unprecedented presidential action, there has been public debate about characterizing fentanyl that way before. The Biden administration had previously faced pressure from a bipartisan contingent of attorneys general to classify fentanyl as a WMD. And fentanyl, even in tiny quantities, is potent enough to kill large numbers of people very quickly through overdoses. The synthetic drug, which has some limited legal pharmacological uses, mostly comes to the United States via Mexico, where drug cartels manufacture fentanyl using “precursor chemicals” imported from China. Fentanyl production is also booming in the Golden Triangle region of southeast Asia, which includes the countries of Laos, Myanmar and Thailand. Fentanyl can be easily made in makeshift labs, adding to the challenge authorities have faced in eradicating production within their borders. The administration, meanwhile, has accused cartels operating in Venezuela of trafficking fentanyl into the United States as a justification for the use of lethal force against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean Sea. Venezuela, while seen as a hub for cocaine trafficking, is not viewed as a major contributor to global fentanyl trafficking. The timing of the designation is striking, as speculation mounts that the U.S. will carry out land strikes against alleged drug trafficking targets on Venezuelan soil as part of its pressure campaign against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Declaring fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction would give the U.S. additional legal justification to use military force against Venezuela. Claims that Iraq still possessed WMDs were used as a legal justification for the invasion of the Middle Eastern country and the overthrow of its then-leader Saddam Hussein under the George W. Bush administration. The U.S. has also previously floated military strikes against Colombian and Mexican drug cartels, and it has been expected that the U.S. will eventually turn its focus away from Venezuela toward threats from groups in those countries.

LONDON — Green Party leader Zack Polanski is open to forming a discrete non-aggression pact with Labour in order to stop right-winger Nigel Farage from ever entering Downing Street, according to two senior Green officials. Polanski, the leader of the “eco-populist” outfit that is helping squeeze the incumbent Labour government’s progressive vote, has been keen to make the case that his radical politics can halt Farage — whose insurgent Reform UK is riding high in the polls — in his tracks. But the recently elected party chief, who has overseen a big boost to Green polling with his punchy defenses of leftist causes on social media and television, has told allies he “couldn’t live with myself” if he contributed to Farage’s victory, according to a second senior Green official, granted anonymity like others in this piece to speak about internal thinking. Such a move would stop short of a formal Green-Labour deal, instead tapping into tactical voting. Green officials are discussing the prospect of informal, local prioritizations of resources so the best-placed progressive challenger can win, as seen in elections past with Labour and the centrist Liberal Democrats. At the same time, Green advisers are keen to lean into the deep divisions within Labour about whether Starmer should be replaced with another leader to prevent electoral oblivion. Starmer appears deeply unpopular with Green supporters. One YouGov study has him rated just as unfavorably as Conservative chief Badenoch with backers of Polanski’s party. The first Green official argued there is “no advantage in working electorally with Labour under Starmer.” Instead, they’re eyeing up — even expecting — a change in Labour leadership. Polanski has talked up Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester Labour mayor who is seen as one potential challenger to Starmer.  LABOUR: WE ARE NOT EVEN THINKING ABOUT THAT As the party in power, Labour — which has ramped up its attacks on the Greens in recent weeks — is keen to tamp down talk of working together. Asked about the Greens, a senior U.K. government adviser said: “We are not even thinking about that. We need to focus on being a viable government.”  They expect Polanski’s polling to plummet once there’s more scrutiny of his politics, including his criticism of NATO, as well as his more colorful comments. Back in 2013, as a hypnotherapist, Polanski suggested to a reporter he could enlarge breasts with his mind. “The hypnotist thing goes down in focus groups like a bucket of cold sick,” the government adviser added. There’s skepticism that a non-aggression deal could work anyway, not least because the Greens will be vying for the kind of urban heartlands Labour can’t afford to back down from. Neither party “has an incentive to go soft on one another,” as a result, Luke Tryl, a director at the More in Common think tank, said. “I really doubt they’re going to forgo taking more seats off us in London or Bristol in the greater interest of the left,” said a Labour MP with a keen eye on the polling. “They’re trying to replace us — they’re not trying to be our little friends.” The Labour MP instead argued that voters typically make their minds up in the lead-up to elections as to how best to stop a certain outcome, whether that’s due to past polling or activities on the ground. Zack Polanski has been keen to make the case that his radical politics can halt Nigel Farage — whose insurgent Reform UK is riding high in the polls — in his tracks. | Lesley Martin/Getty Images That can well work against Labour, as seen in the Caerphilly by-election in October. The constituency of the devolved Welsh administration had been Labour since its inception in 1999 — but no more. Voters determined to stop Farage decided it was the center-left Welsh nationalists of Plaid Cymru that represented the best party to coalesce around. Reform’s success was thwarted — but Labour’s vote plummeted in what were once party heartlands.  “There’s no doubt the Greens risk doing to Labour what Farage did to the Conservatives,” said Tryl of More in Common, who pointed out that the Greens may not even win many seats as a result of the fracturing (party officials internally speak of winning only 50 MPs as being a huge ask).   “Labour’s hope instead will have to be that enough disgruntled progressives hold their nose and opt for PM Starmer over the threat of PM Farage.” Labour and the Greens are not the only parties dealing with talk of a pact, despite a likely four-year wait for Britain’s next general election. Ever since 1918, it’s been either the Conservatives or Labour who’ve formed the British government, with Westminster’s first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all system across 650 constituencies meaning new parties rarely get a look in. But the general election in July last year suggested this could be coming apart. Farage has already been forced to deny a report that he views an electoral deal with establishment Conservatives as the “inevitable” route to power. His stated aim is to replace the right-wing party entirely. Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch is publicly pretty firm that she won’t buddy up with Reform either. “I am the custodian of an institution that has existed for nigh on 200 years,” she said in February. “I can’t just treat it like it’s a toy and have pacts and mergers.” Robert Jenrick, the right-winger who’s widely tipped as her successor, has been more circumspect, however. That appears to be focusing minds on the left. Farage may be polling the highest — but there’s still a significant portion of the public horrified by the prospect of him entering No.10. A YouGov study on tactical voting suggested that Labour would be able to count on a boost in support from Liberal Democrat and Green voters to stave off the threat of Farage. Outwardly, Polanski is a vocal critic of Labour under Starmer and wants to usurp the party as the main vehicle for left-wing politics. The Green leader is aiming to win over not just progressives, but also disenchanted Reform-leaning voters, with his support for wider public ownership, higher taxes on the wealthy, and opposition to controversial measures like scaling back jury trials and introducing mandatory digital IDs. But privately, Polanski is more open to doing deals because in his mind, “at the general election, stopping Farage is the most important objective,” as the first senior Green adviser put it. “We expect to be the main challengers to Reform, but of course we are open to discussing what options exist to help in that central mission of stopping Farage,” they said.

BERLIN — European leaders welcomed “significant progress” in talks on a potential peace deal on Monday after nearly four years of full-scale war in Ukraine, for the first time outlining how security guarantees could prevent Vladimir Putin from invading again.  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy gave an upbeat assessment of a dramatic new offer from American officials to provide NATO-style security guarantees to Ukraine. The proposals look “pretty good,” Zelenskyy said at the end of two days of talks with Donald Trump’s negotiators and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin.  But the Ukraine president cautioned that the plans were only a “first draft,” with major questions remaining unresolved. For example, there was still no deal on what should happen to contested territory in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, much of which is occupied by Russian troops. And there’s no indication that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin will agree to any of it. Merz, however, welcomed what he called the “remarkable” legal and “material” security guarantees that American negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, had proposed.  “For the first time since 2022, a ceasefire is conceivable,” Merz said at a press conference with Zelenskyy. “It is now entirely up to Russia whether a ceasefire can be achieved by Christmas.”  The emergence of an outline security guarantee marks a potentially critical step forward in the negotiations. Ukraine has consistently said it cannot consider any solution to the question of what happens to territories occupied by Russian troops until it receives a security package that would deter Putin from invading again.  Putin, meanwhile, has refused to countenance Ukraine joining NATO, and earlier this year Trump said American forces would not have a role in any peacekeeping mission.  However, recent days have seen a steady improvement in the mood among negotiators. “This is a truly far-reaching and substantial agreement, which we have not had before, namely that both Europe and the U.S. are jointly prepared — and President Zelenskyy has referred to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty — to give similar security guarantees to Ukraine,” Merz said. Article 5 is the cornerstone of the alliance’s collective defense: It states that an attack on one member will be treated as an attack on all. “In my view, this is a really big step forward. And, as I said, the American side has also committed itself politically and, in perspective, legally to do this,” Merz added. Zelenskyy also, for the first time, suggested a solution could be in sight. “Before we take any steps on the battlefield, we need to see very clearly what security guarantees are in place,” he said. “It is important that the U.S. is considering Article-5-like guarantees. There is progress there.” In a subsequent joint statement the leaders of Denmark, Finland, France, the U.K., Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Norway joined Merz in welcoming the “significant progress” in the talks. The statement was also signed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa, president of the European Council, who joined the national leaders for a dinner discussion with Zelenskyy in Berlin.  Their statement also laid out more detail on what the new peace plan might include, suggesting that “the US” had “committed” alongside European leaders to guarantee the future security of Ukraine and to foster its economic recovery. This, the leaders’ statement said, would include commitments to support Ukraine’s army to maintain a “peacetime” strength of 800,000 to be able to “deter” and “defend.”  Peace would be enforced in part by a European-led “multinational force Ukraine” made up of contributions from willing nations and “supported by the U.S.” This force would secure Ukraine’s skies, support security at sea, and build up the Ukrainian armed forces, “including through operating in Ukraine.” The statement is not clear on exactly what role the U.S. would play in supporting this force.  Separately, the U.S. would be responsible for a mechanism to monitor the ceasefire and provide early warning of any future attack. There would also be a legally binding commitment to take measures to restore peace if Russia attacks again, potentially including “armed force, intelligence and logistical assistance.” Further points in the proposal include joint efforts to reconstruct Ukraine and invest in its future prosperity, and continuing Ukraine’s pathway toward joining the EU.  On the matter of ceding territory, the European leaders said it would be for Zelenskyy to decide —if necessary by consulting the Ukrainian people.  The developments represent significant movement after weeks of stalemate. But there were suggestions from the American side that their offer may be time-limited, as the White House seeks to push the warring sides toward a peace deal by Christmas.  “The basis of that agreement is basically to have really, really strong guarantees, Article 5-like,” a senior U.S. official said. “Those guarantees will not be on the table forever. Those guarantees are on the table right now if there’s a conclusion that’s reached in a good way.” Hans von der Burchard, Victor Jack, Nicholas Vinocur and Eli Stokols contributed reporting.  

The European Commission is set to water down the EU’s 2035 de facto combustion engine ban by requiring automakers to lower their emissions by 90 percent instead of the original 100 percent, multiple officials with knowledge of the discussions told POLITICO. The change effectively marks the end of the ban, giving the center-right political parties and the automotive sector a massive win after months of heavy lobbying. Under the deal, which is still being negotiated at the time of publication, automakers can sell plug-in hybrids and range extenders after 2035. But those flexibilities will be tied to automakers “offsetting” the 10 percent extra emissions by using green steel and alternative fuels. How the offsets will work and what percentage of fuels or steel will need to be consumed in production is still being negotiated. The industry argues the law banning the new sale of CO2-emitting vehicles cuts them off at the knees and makes them less able to compete against Chinese incumbents that are ahead of them on electric vehicles.  Automakers are facing further headwinds courtesy of a trade war launched by U.S. President Donald Trump and sluggish sales at home. Climate advocates say the Commission needs to stay the course.  “The EU is playing for time when the next game has already started. Every euro diverted into plug-in hybrids is a euro not spent on EVs while China races further ahead,” said William Todts, executive director of green NGO Transport & Environment. The deal mirrors one announced by Manfred Weber, head of the European People’s Party, on Dec. 11. He told German media that the combustion engine ban had been overturned, with the 2035 target of 100 percent CO2 reduction cut to only 90 percent. The Financial Times was the first to report the 10 percent reduction. New details are emerging, however, about what powertrains will be allowed after 2035. In the current plan, range extenders — small combustion engines that give batteries more range — will count for a further emissions reduction than plug-in hybrids, which have both a combustion engine and an electric motor. Essentially, the scheme would give automakers more emission credits for range extenders than plug-in hybrids because they emit less CO2 than the hybrids, two officials said. The 2035 reform is part of a broader automotive package being put forward by the Commission on Tuesday that will include a new regulation on greening corporate fleets — vehicles owned or leased by companies for business purposes — and an automotive omnibus that was obtained by POLITICO. Essentially, the scheme would give automakers more emission credits for range extenders than plug-in hybrids because they emit less CO2 than the hybrids, two officials said. | Lorenzo Di Cola | Getty Images For the 2035 legislation, automakers will be allowed to pool, meaning that a brand that doesn’t meet the 90 percent target can buy credits from an automaker that over delivers. The pooling scheme is a lucrative business for all-electric manufacturers like Tesla. A separate initiative will focus on boosting small electric vehicles — a demand put forward by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in her State of the Union address in September. Companies that produce the small cars would get a coefficient of 1.3 in the target calculations. So if a carmaker sold 10 of the small EVs, they would get the emissions credit of 13 cars. Manufacturers will have to comply with yet-to-be-defined local content requirements when creating the small EVs in order for the automaker to get the emission credit. France has long demanded that any flexibilities around the ban be tied to local content requirements — a request it put forward in October alongside Spain. The draft marks the first step in a long, politically fraught journey to becoming law. It will now go to Parliament and the EU capitals, where political groups remain divided over how far the Commission should go to rescue the automotive sector. The EPP has pushed hard to overturn the ban and the far right has campaigned on the issue, too, which could prompt yet another alliance between the two in Parliament to push to further weaken the law. EU capitals also have competing ideas. Spain wants the target to remain unchanged, while Germany is balking at France’s push for “Buy European” requirements, over fears it will spark a global trade war with the U.S. and China.

HELSINKI — Europe’s easternmost countries have a blunt message for Brussels: Russia is testing their borders, and the EU needs to start paying for the response. Leaders from eight EU states bordering Russia will use a summit in Helsinki on Tuesday to press for dedicated defense funding in the bloc’s next long-term budget, arguing that frontline security can no longer be treated as a national expense alone, according to three European government officials. “Strengthening Europe’s eastern flank must become a shared responsibility for Europe,” Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal said Monday. The first-of-its-kind summit, spearheaded by Finnish Premier Petteri Orpo, underscores a growing anxiety among the EU’s so-called Eastern flank countries about Russia’s increasingly brazen efforts to test their defenses and stir panic among their populations. In recent months Russia has flown fighter jets into Estonian airspace and sent dozens of drones deep into Polish and Romanian territory. Its ally Belarus has repeatedly brought Lithuanian air traffic to a standstill by allowing giant balloons to cross its borders. And last week, Moscow’s top envoy Sergey Lavrov issued a veiled threat to Finland to exit NATO.  “Russia is a threat to Europe … far into the future,” Orpo told Finnish daily Helsingin Sanomat on Saturday. “There is always a competition for resources in the EU, but [defense funding] is not something that is taken away from anyone.” Tuesday’s confab, attended by Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, comes during a critical week for Europe. On Monday several EU leaders met with U.S. officials as they strain to hammer out a peace deal in Ukraine, just three days before all 27 EU countries reconvene for a crucial summit that will determine whether they unlock €210 billion in frozen Russian cash for Kyiv. OPEN THE VAULTS At the heart of Tuesday’s discussion will be unblocking EU money.  The frontline countries want the EU to “propose new financial possibilities for border countries and solidarity-based financial tools,” said one of the government officials. As part of its 2028-2034 budget proposal, the European Commission plans to raise its defense spending fivefold to €131 billion. Frontline countries would like some of that cash to be earmarked for the region, two of the government officials said, a message they are likely to reiterate during Thursday’s European Council summit in Brussels. “Strengthening Europe’s eastern flank must become a shared responsibility for Europe,” Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal said. | Hendrik Schmidt/Getty Images In the meantime, the EU should consider new financial instruments similar to the bloc’s €150 billion loans-for-weapons program, called the Security Action For Europe, the same two officials said. European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen told POLITICO last week she had received calls to set up a “second SAFE” after the first iteration was oversubscribed. The frontline countries also want to throw their political weight behind two upcoming EU projects to buttress the bloc’s anti-drone and broader defenses, the two officials said. EU leaders refused to formally endorse the Eastern Flank Watch and European Drone Defense Initiative at a summit in October amid opposition by countries like Hungary, France and Germany, who saw them as overreach by Brussels on defense, two EU diplomats said at the time. A request to reserve part of the EU budget for a specific region may also face opposition from other countries. To get around this, Eastern flank countries should link defense “infrastructure improvements to overall [EU] economic development,” said Jamie Shea, a senior defense fellow at the Friends of Europe think tank and a former NATO spokesperson. Frontline capitals should also look at “opening up [those infrastructure projects] for competitive bidding” to firms outside the region, he added. DIFFERENT REGION, DIFFERENT VIEW Cash won’t be the only divisive issue in the shadows of Tuesday’s gathering. In recent weeks Donald Trump’s administration has repeatedly rebuked Europe, with the U.S. president branding the continent’s leaders “weak” in an interview with POLITICO. Countries like Germany and Denmark have responded to growing U.S. admonishments by directly rebutting recent criticisms and formally branding Washington a “security risk”.  But that approach has rankled frontline countries, conscious of jeopardizing Washington’s commitment to NATO’s collective defense pledge, which they see as a last line of protection against Moscow. This view also reflects a growing worry inside NATO that a peace deal in Ukraine will give Moscow more bandwidth to rearm and redirect its efforts toward frontline countries. “If the war stops in Ukraine … [Russia’s] desire is to keep its soldiers busy,” said one senior NATO diplomat, arguing those troops are likely to be “relocated in our direction.” “Europe should take over [its own] defenses,” the diplomat added. But until the continent becomes militarily independent, “we shouldn’t talk like this” about the U.S., they argued. “It’s really dangerous [and] it’s stupid.” Jacopo Barigazzi contributed to this report from Brussels.

BRUSSELS — EU leaders meeting this week will remain locked in talks until they find a solution to Ukraine’s funding crisis, Cyprus said, insisting the issue won’t be kicked to Jan. 1 when it takes over the EU’s legislative agenda. Cypriot Deputy EU Minister Marilena Raouna told POLITICO on Monday that leaders have “a critical decision to make at the upcoming European Council,” which begins Thursday. Discussions over how to ensure Kyiv does not run out of money by the middle of next year have been “challenging,” she went on, but “there is a readiness by all to stay in Brussels until we are able to have a decision on this issue of financing.” European officials have repeatedly warned Thursday’s negotiations could take hours, or even days, to produce a result and may run into the weekend despite pressures on leaders’ schedules. The alternative, officials say, is Ukraine running out of money — which will not be allowed to happen. The EU is working to agree on a plan to use frozen Russian assets to underwrite a €210 billion loan to support Kyiv’s state budget and help repair the damage done by Russia’s full-scale invasion. However, Belgium — which hosts the bulk of the funds — has been joined by Italy, Malta and Bulgaria in raising legal questions over the proposals, which are already opposed on principle by Kremlin-friendly countries Hungary and Slovakia. “A number of member states have said we need to ensure there is legal certainty; I think safeguards are being put in place in this regard. And that will pave the way, I hope, for a decision,” said Raouna. “I think we need to exhaust all possibilities … We also need to be aware of what message it would send if we don’t reach a decision.” Talks between ambassadors on the technical framework behind the move were canceled on Sunday and will run late into the night on Monday instead, ahead of a summit of leaders under the auspices of the European Council on Thursday. Four diplomats told POLITICO they remain convinced the plan is workable and no alternative exists given capitals’ opposition to borrowing the money directly. Despite that, there are growing concerns that failing to consider other options would mean major delays if the assets plan is rejected. “I think we are on the right path. I am cautiously optimistic that we will be able to deliver at the European Council,” Raouna said. Cyprus takes over the six-month rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union from the beginning of next year, giving one of the smallest countries in the bloc an influential role overseeing diplomatic talks. Along with Ireland, it is one of two militarily neutral countries to take on the role in 2026.

LONDON — A mutated influenza strain is spreading early in Europe this winter, but some experts warn talk of a “superflu” is misleading, erodes public trust and distracts from the underlying problems of the National Health Service. The new strain has triggered dramatic headlines in the U.K., where health leaders are warning of a “worst-case scenario” for the country’s NHS. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described it as a “tidal wave of flu tearing through our hospitals” and labelled it a “challenge unlike any [the NHS] has seen since the pandemic.” While hospital admissions have been rising sharply due to the early arrival of flu season, there is currently no evidence that this season’s variant is more deadly or transmissible, experts at the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) told POLITICO. Neither does the data suggest hospital admissions will peak higher than previous years — although this is possible — just that they’re a few weeks early. But some experts in the U.K. have criticized the government’s “superflu” narrative, suggesting it’s being used as leverage in talks on doctor pay and conditions ahead of a looming strike. Prime Minister Keir Starmer wrote in The Guardian Friday it was “beyond belief” doctors would consider striking in these “potentially dire” circumstances, citing “a superflu epidemic.” The British Medical Association (BMA), the union representing resident doctors due to go on strike Wednesday, claimed it was “irresponsible to portray the current winter flu crisis as unprecedented” given that rates of infection and hospitalization were “comparable to most years,” a spokesperson told POLITICO. Mathematician Christina Pagel, a professor at University College London, said the “superflu” line was based on the “highly misleading use of statistics” and had more to do with the impending doctors’ strike than real trends. When contacted by POLITICO, the U.K. government stood by its health leaders’ warnings of the current flu season, in which they described it as an “unprecedented wave of super flu.” They said staff were being “pushed to the limit.” The government also pointed to stats showing the NHS is under pressure. A DHSC spokesperson told POLITICO the government had offered the BMA an extended mandate so they could strike in January instead, but the union rejected it. The BMA told POLITICO the extension included “several restrictive conditions.” THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUST The government and NHS bosses have warned the heavy burden on hospitals in December could set the health system up for a very severe winter. NHS statistics published last week show an average of 2,660 patients in hospital with flu per day, a record for this time of year, while the Health Foundation has said the NHS could face “major pressures” if cases continue to climb rapidly in the weeks ahead. Yet, while NHS staff are stretched, Pagel and others argue this year is largely consistent with previous severe flu seasons. However, without being clear about this with the public, some experts are concerned the government’s messaging could do more harm than good. “One of the real issues we have with governments everywhere is trust,” Martin McKee, professor of public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told POLITICO. While NHS staff are stretched, experts argue this year is largely consistent with previous severe flu seasons. | Geography Photos/Getty Images “The difficulty is we’ve seen them do all sorts of things for all sorts of motives. That then becomes a problem whenever they are saying something accurate,” McKee said, adding that the government should be more careful in its flu messaging given the declining trust in science. POLITICO put these concerns over trust in science to DHSC, but the department did not respond by the time of publication. A spokesperson for government-sponsored NHS England told POLITICO: “The NHS is not misleading the public — this is the earliest flu season we have seen in recent years with the latest data showing the numbers of patients in hospital with flu is extremely high for this time of year.” The NHS is struggling as it often does in winter, with a spike in delayed discharges — people who are ready to leave hospital but have nowhere to go — posing an extra challenge for hospitals, The Guardian reported Sunday. Hospital admissions for flu per 100,000 rose 23 percent in last week’s data, compared to 69 percent the previous week, but this doesn’t rule out another surge in the weeks ahead. McKee said the NHS was paying the price for chronic underinvestment. “We almost seem surprised that it’s arrived,” he said of the current flu wave, citing a “massive shortage” in beds, IT equipment and scanners.  WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY There is no reason to think the current flu strain (H3N2 sub-clade K) causes more severe disease than other types of flu, Hans Kluge, head of the World Health Organization’s Europe office, told POLITICO. Nor is there any solid evidence that it is more transmissible, said Edoardo Colzani, a flu expert at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. It’s possible the lower level of immunity to this strain could lead to more cases “but this is still speculative at this stage,” Colzani said. “The epidemiological situation at the moment [in the EU] does not seem worse than in previous years apart from the fact that it is two-to-three weeks earlier,” Colzani said. Kluge said it was “about 4 weeks earlier than usual,” which “is not out of the ordinary” and trending similar to the 2022–2023 influenza season. There were some concerns the available flu vaccine might not be a “perfect match” for the current strain, Kluge said, but early data from the U.K. suggests it provides “meaningful protection” and may prevent severe disease and death, especially among vulnerable groups. “We [could] end up having a much bigger wave than usual but we have no evidence,” Pagel said, adding she thought it was “most likely” to peak “in a couple of weeks.” But the available data can’t tell us whether it will be a normal wave that starts and ends early, or an especially bad season, she added.  “We don’t know when it will turn the corner but the actual shape of the wave doesn’t look that different from previous years,” McKee said. The NHS has previously warned of the risk of a “long and drawn-out flu season” due to the early start. According to the WHO, some countries in the southern hemisphere had unusually long flu seasons this year.  “Based on previous trends, this season is expected to peak in late December or early January,” Kluge said. The advice from EU and U.K. authorities remains the same — get a flu vaccine as soon as possible, especially for those in a vulnerable group.

LONDON — The U.K. government is “dragging its heels” on whether to classify China as a major threat to Britain’s national security, the parliament’s intelligence watchdog warned on Monday. Lawmakers on the Intelligence and Security Committee — which has access to classified briefings as part of its work overseeing Britain’s intelligence services — said they are “concerned” by apparent inaction over whether to designate Beijing as a top-level threat when it comes to influencing Britain. Ministers have been under pressure to put China on the “enhanced tier” of Britain’s Foreign Influence Registration Scheme — a tool to protect the economy and society from covert hostile activity. Both Iran and Russia have been placed on the top tier, which adds a new layer of restrictions and accountability to their activities in Britain. The government has so far resisted calls to add China to that list, even though Beijing has been accused of conducting state-threat activities in the U.K. such as industrial espionage, cyber-attacks and spying on politicians.  In its annual report the Committee said British intelligence agency MI5 had previously told them that measures like the registration scheme would “have proportionately more effect against … Chinese activity.” The Committee said “hostile activity by Russian, Iranian and Chinese state-linked actors is multi-faceted and complex,” adding that the threat of “state-sponsored assassination, attacks and abductions” of perceived dissidents has “remained at a higher level than we have seen in previous years.”  It added that while there are “a number of difficult trade-offs involved” when dealing with Beijing, it has “previously found that the Government has been reluctant to prioritise security considerations when it comes to China.” “The Government should swiftly come to a decision on whether to add China to the Enhanced Tier of the [Foreign Influence Registration Scheme],” the Committee said, demanding that it be provided a “full account” to “ensure that security concerns have not been overlooked in favour of economic considerations.” The pressure comes as U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer prepares to visit China in January — the first British leader to visit the country since Theresa May in 2018.  A government spokesperson said: “National security is the first duty of this government. We value the [Intelligence and Security Committee]’s independent oversight and the thoroughness of their scrutiny. “This report underscores the vital, complex work our agencies undertake daily to protect the UK. “This Government is taking a consistent, long term and strategic approach to managing the UK’s relations with China, rooted in UK and global interests. We will cooperate where we can and challenge where we must.”

KYIV — In another deep-strike attack against Russia, Ukraine blew up a Russian submarine docked in a secure naval base, Ukrainian counterintelligence agency Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) said Monday. The SBU said it critically damaged the Class 636.3 submarine “Varshavyanka” (NATO reporting name: Kilo) in its home base at the port of Novorossiysk on the Black Sea. “Ukraine’s underwater drone Sub Sea Baby attacked a Russian submarine. The explosion critically damaged the submarine and effectively disabled it. The submarine was carrying four Kalibr cruise missile launchers, which Russia uses to strike at the territory of Ukraine,” the SBU’s press service said, providing video of the blast as evidence. POLITICO could not independently verify the video. The Russian ministry of defense so far has not issued any statements about the attack on Novorossiysk, but Russian military bloggers claim the damage was insignificant as the drone hit a nearby pier, nevertheless stating that such a close call attack is a wake-up call. The attack, if it was as destructive as the SBU claims, will be financially costly for the Russian military. “The cost of a Varshavyanka-class submarine is about $400 million. Given the international sanctions imposed, the construction of a similar submarine could currently cost up to $500 million,” the SBU’s press service said. It’s not known if any personnel were harmed. The attack on Novorossiysk has become the latest in Ukraine’s deep-strike campaign inside Russia against military and energy targets, now happening every day. Earlier today, the SBU hit Russia’s oil rigs in the Caspian Sea for the third time, days after Ukraine’s drones hit Russia’s oil refineries and several cargo ships of the Russian shadow fleet. “While diplomatic processes and negotiations are underway that could bring the end of the war closer, we must not forget that Russian strikes continue every day. [Vladimir] Putin is using the brutality of the strikes as leverage in negotiations,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a statement at the German-Ukrainian economic forum on Monday. “Our ability to recover from strikes, our ability to produce weapons and strike back, our ability to shoot down Russian missiles and drones — are our leverage in negotiations,” Zelenskyy added, urging partners to keep supporting Ukraine’s ability to resist Russian invasion.