BRUSSELS — Ukraine’s war chest stands to get a vital cash injection after EU envoys agreed on a €90 billion loan to finance Kyiv’s defense against Russia, the Cypriot Council presidency said on Wednesday. “The new financing will help ensure the country’s fierce resilience in the face of Russian aggression,” Cypriot Finance Minister Makis Keravnos said in a statement. Without the loan Ukraine had risked running out of cash by April, which would have been catastrophic for its war effort and could have crippled its negotiating efforts during ongoing American-backed peace talks with Russia. EU lawmakers still have some hurdles to clear, such as agreeing on the conditions Ukraine must satisfy to get a payout, before Brussels can raise money on the global debt market to finance the loan — which is backed by the EU’s seven-year budget. A big point of dispute among EU countries was how Ukraine will be able to spend the money, and who will benefit. One-third of the money will go for normal budgetary needs and the rest for defense. France led efforts to get Ukraine to spend as much of that as possible with EU defense companies, mindful that the bloc’s taxpayers are footing the €3 billion annual bill to cover interest payments on the loan. However, Germany, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian nations pushed to give Ukraine as much flexibility as possible. The draft deal, seen by POLITICO, will allow Ukraine to buy key weapons from third countries — including the U.S. and the U.K. — either when no equivalent product is available in the EU or when there is an urgent need, while also strengthening the oversight of EU states over such derogations. The list of weapons Kyiv will be able to buy outside the bloc includes air and missile defense systems, fighter aircraft ammunition and deep-strike capabilities. If the U.K. or other third countries like South Korea, which have signed security deals with the EU and have helped Ukraine, want to take part in procurement deals beyond that, they will have to contribute financially to help cover interest payments on the loan. The European Parliament must now examine the changes the Council has made to the legal text. | Philipp von Ditfurth/picture alliance via Getty Images The text also mentions that the contribution of non-EU countries — to be agreed in upcoming negotiations with the European Commission — should be proportional to how much their defense firms could gain from taking part in the scheme. Canada, which already has a deal to take part in the EU’s separate €150 billion SAFE loans-for-weapons scheme, will not have to pay extra to take part in the Ukraine program, but would have detail the products that could be procured by Kyiv. NEXT STEPS Now that ambassadors have reached a deal, the European Parliament must examine the changes the Council has made to the legal text before approving the measure. If all goes well, Kyiv will get €45 billion from the EU this year in tranches. The remaining cash will arrive in 2027. Ukraine will only repay the money if Moscow ends its full-scale invasion and pays war reparations. If Russia refuses, the EU will consider raiding the Kremlin’s frozen assets lying in financial institutions across the bloc. While the loan will keep Ukrainian forces in the fight, the amount won’t cover Kyiv’s total financing needs — even with another round of loans, worth $8 billion, expected from the International Monetary Fund. By the IMF’s own estimates, Kyiv will need at least €135 billion to sustain its military and budgetary needs this year and next. Meanwhile, U.S. and EU officials are working on a plan to rebuild Ukraine that aims to attract $800 billion in public and private funds over 10 years. For that to happen, the eastern front must first fall silent — a remote likelihood at this point. Veronika Melkozerova contributed reporting from Kyiv.

BRUSSELS — EU ambassadors are close to a deal on a €90 billion loan to finance Ukraine’s defense against Russia thanks to a draft text that spells out the participation of third countries in arms deals, three diplomats said Wednesday. The ambassadors are scheduled to meet on Wednesday afternoon to finalize talks after a week of difficult negotiations. The final hurdle was deciding how non-EU countries would be able to take part in defense contracts financed by the loan. The draft deal, seen by POLITICO, would allow Ukraine to buy key weapons from such countries — including the U.S. and the U.K. — either when no equivalent product is available in the EU or when there is an urgent need. The list of weapons Kyiv will be able to buy outside the bloc includes air and missile defense systems, fighter aircraft ammunition and deep-strike capabilities. If the U.K. wants to take part in procurement deals beyond that, it will have to contribute financially to help cover interest payments on the loan. The text also mentions that the British contribution — to be agreed in upcoming negotiations with the European Commission — should be proportional with the potential gains of its defense firms taking part in the scheme.  France led the effort to ensure that EU countries — which are paying the interest on the loan — gain the most from defense contracts. In an effort to get Paris and its allies on board, the draft circulated late Tuesday includes new language which says that “any agreement with a third country must be based on a balance of rights and obligations,” and also that “a third country should not have the same rights nor enjoy the same benefits,” as participating member states. The draft also strengthens the control of EU countries over whether the conditions to buy weapons for Ukraine outside the bloc have been met, saying Kyiv will have to “provide the information reasonably available to it demonstrating that the conditions for the application of this derogation are met.” That will then be checked  “without undue delay” by the European Commission after consultation with a new Ukraine Defence Industrial Capacities Expert Group. The new body will include representatives from EU members countries, according to diplomats. The European Commission will raise €90 billion in debt to fund Ukraine’s war effort before Kyiv runs out of cash in April. After facing intense pressure from national capitals, the Commission agreed to deploy unused funds in its current seven-year budget to cover the borrowing costs. If that is not enough, member countries will have to pay the difference. Budget Commissioner Piotr Serafin will meet the European Parliament and the Cypriot presidency of the Council of the EU on Thursday in an attempt to solve disagreements on the repayment of the borrowing costs, said one official.

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. Another round of U.S.-brokered Ukraine talks commence today in Abu Dhabi. The overall outlook remains no less bleak for Ukraine, as it inches toward the fourth anniversary of Russia’s war. Yet there are signs that what comes out of this week’s face-to-face negotiations may finally answer a key question: Is Russian President Vladimir Putin serious? On the eve of the planned two-day talks, Russia resumed its large-scale air assault on Ukraine’s battered infrastructure after a brief weekend hiatus. Striking cities including Kyiv, Dnipro, Kharkiv, Sumy and Odesa overnight with 450 drones and 71 missiles, including ballistic, Russia hit the country’s energy grid and residential houses as temperatures dropped below -20 degrees Celsius. “Putin must be deprived of illusions that he can achieve anything by his bombing, terror, and aggression,” pleaded Ukraine’s frustrated Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrii Sybiha. “Neither anticipated diplomatic efforts in Abu Dhabi this week nor his promises to the United States kept him from continuing terror against ordinary people in the harshest winter.” According to U.S. President Donald Trump, those promises included refraining from targeting Kyiv and other major cities for a whole week during a period of “extraordinary cold.” But no sooner had Trump spoken than Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov warned the break would only last a weekend. That’s hardly an auspicious launchpad to negotiations, and has many Ukrainian politicians arguing that Russia is merely going through the motions to ensure it doesn’t end up on the wrong side of an unpredictable U.S. leader — albeit one who seems inordinately patient with Putin, and much less so with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Not that Ukrainians had put much store in a week-long “energy ceasefire” to begin with. A vicious war has taught them to expect the worst. “Unfortunately, everything is entirely predictable,” posted Zelenskyy adviser Mykhailo Podolyak on Tuesday. “This is what a Russian ‘ceasefire’ looks like: during a brief thaw, stockpile enough missiles and then strike at night when temperatures drop to minus 24 Celsius or lower, targeting civilians. Russia sees no reason whatsoever to stop the war, halt genocidal practices, or engage in diplomacy. Only large-scale freezing tactics.” It’s difficult to quibble with his pessimism. Putin’s Kremlin has a long track record of using peace talks to delay, obfuscate, exhaust opponents and continue with war. It’s part of a playbook the Russian leader and his lugubrious Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov have used time and again in Ukraine, and for years in Syria. Nonetheless, according to some Ukrainian and U.S. sources familiar with the conduct of the talks, there are indications that the current negotiations may be more promising than widely credited. They say both sides are actually being more “constructive” — which, admittedly, is an adjective that has often been misused. “Before, these negotiations were like pulling teeth without anesthetic,” said a Republican foreign policy expert who has counseled Kyiv. Granted anonymity in order to speak freely, he said: “Before, I felt like screaming whenever I had to see another readout that said the discussions were ‘constructive.’ But now, I think they are constructive in some ways. I’m noticing the Russians are taking these talks more seriously.” It’s part of a playbook the Russian leader and his lugubrious Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov have used time and again in Ukraine, and for years in Syria. | Maxim Shipenkov/EPA Some of this, he said, owes to the skill of those now leading the Ukrainian team after the departure of Zelenskyy’s powerful former chief of staff, Andriy Yermak. Among the smartest and most able are: Yermak’s replacement as head of the Office of the President and former chief of the Main Intelligence Directorate Kyrylo Budanov; Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Rustem Umerov; and Davyd Arakhamia, who heads the parliamentary faction of Zelenskyy’s ruling Servant of the People party. “I am noticing since Davyd got involved … there’s been a noticeable improvement with the Russian negotiators. I think that’s because they respect them — especially Davyd — and because they see them as people who are living in reality and are prepared to compromise,” the expert explained. “I’m cautiously optimistic that we have a reasonable chance to end this conflict in the spring.” A former senior Ukrainian official who was also granted anonymity to speak to POLITICO was less optimistic, but even he concurred there’s been a shift in the mood music and a change in tone from Russia at the negotiating table. Describing the head of the Russian delegation, chief of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Igor Kostyukov, and Military Intelligence officer Alexander Zorin as practical men, he said neither were prone to giving long lectures on the conflict’s “root causes” — unlike Lavrov and Putin. “The Russian intelligence officers have been workmanlike, digging into practical details,” noted the former official, whom Zelenskyy’s office still consults. He hazards that the change may have to do with the Kremlin’s reading that Europe is getting more serious about continent-wide defense, ramping up weapons production and trying to become less dependent on the U.S. for its overall security. “Putin must be deprived of illusions that he can achieve anything by his bombing, terror, and aggression,” pleaded Ukraine’s frustrated Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrii Sybiha. | Olivier Matthys/EPA “A peace deal, an end of the war, could take a lot of the momentum out of this — European leaders would have a much tougher time selling to their voters the sacrifices that will be needed to shift to higher defense spending,” he said. Of course, Russia’s shift in tone may be another attempt to string Trump along. “Putin has almost nothing to show for the massive costs of the war. Accepting a negotiated settlement now, where he cannot claim a clear ‘win’ for Russia and for the Russian people, would be a big problem domestically,” argued retired Australian general Mick Ryan. Whatever the reasons, what emerges from Abu Dhabi in the coming days will likely tell us if Putin finally means business.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Kiew im tiefsten Winter: minus 20 Grad, Angriffe auf Energieanlagen, Menschen ohne Strom und Heizung. Trotz angekündigter Feuerpause setzt Russland seine Attacken fort. Während Präsident Wolodymyr Selenskyj gemeinsam mit NATO-Generalsekretär Mark Rutte Blumen niederlegt, heulen in der Hauptstadt erneut die Sirenen. Im Gespräch mit dem Sicherheits- und Ukraine-Experten Nico Lange wird deutlich, wie dramatisch die Lage ist und warum Europas Reaktion weit hinter dem Notwendigen zurückbleibt. Es geht um fehlende Luftverteidigung, zu langsame Lieferungen von Patriot-Systemen, die weiterhin aktive russische Schattenflotte und die politischen Illusionen rund um schnelle Deals und große Friedensversprechen. 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. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

BRUSSELS — The EU and U.K. must overcome historic gripes and “reset” their relationship to be able to work together in an increasingly uncertain world, the bloc’s top parliamentarian said. European Parliament President Roberta Metsola used an address to the Spanish senate on Tuesday to call for closer ties with the U.K. as London steps up efforts to secure smoother access to European markets and funding projects, after the country voted to leave the bloc in 2016. “Ten years on from Brexit … and in a world that has changed so profoundly, Europe and the U.K. need a new way of working together on trade, customs, research, mobility and on security and defense,” Metsola said. “Today it is time to exorcize the ghosts of the past.” Metsola called for a “reset” in the partnership between Britain and the EU as part of a policy of “realistic pragmatism anchored in values that will see all of us move forward together.” Her speech comes after British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he intended to try and ensure his country’s defense industries can benefit from the EU’s flagship SAFE scheme — a €150 billion funding program designed to boost procurement of military hardware. That push has been far from smooth, with a meeting of EU governments on Monday night failing to sign off U.K. access to SAFE, despite France — which has consistently opposed non-EU countries taking part — supporting the British inclusion. Starmer has also signaled in recent days that he is seeking closer integration with the EU’s single market. Brussels has so far been reluctant to reopen the terms of the U.K.’s relations with the bloc just six years after it exited. While those decisions lie with the remaining 27 EU member countries, rather than the Parliament, Metsola’s intervention marks a shift in tone that could bolster the British case for closer relations. In the context of increasingly tense relations with the U.S., capitals are depending on cooperation with British intelligence and military capabilities and in key industries. Europe must take “the next steps towards a stronger European defense, boosting our capabilities and cooperation, and working closely with our NATO allies so that Europe can better protect its people,” Metsola said.

Domènec Ruiz Devesa is a senior researcher at Barcelona Centre for International Affairs and a former member of the European Parliament. Emiliano Alessandri is an affiliated researcher at Austrian Institute for International Affairs. When NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte told the European Parliament the continent can’t defend itself without the U.S., and that those who think otherwise should “keep dreaming,” he did more than just describe Europe’s military dependence — he turned that dependence into a political doctrine. He also positioned himself not so much as the head of an alliance of would-be equals but as the spokesperson of Europe’s strategic resignation. Rutte’s view of European defense follows a familiar but increasingly untenable logic: Nuclear deterrence equals U.S. protection; U.S. protection equals European security; therefore, European strategic sovereignty is an illusion. But this chain of reasoning is far more fragile than it sounds. First of all, even though Europe’s overall strategic stability does depend on nuclear deterrence, most real-world security challenges in the Euro-Atlantic space — from hybrid operations to limited conventional scenarios — have and will continue to develop well below the nuclear threshold. This is something NATO’s own deterrence posture recognizes. And overstating the nuclear dimension risks overlooking the decisive importance of conventional mass, resilience, logistics, high-quality intelligence, air defense and industrial depth — areas where Europe is weak by political choice. Moreover, the nuclear debate in Europe isn’t binary. The continent isn’t condemned to choose between total dependence on the U.S. umbrella and total vulnerability. A serious discussion regarding the role of the French and British deterrents within a European framework — politically complex, yes, but strategically conceivable — is no longer taboo. And by pointing at the prohibitively high cost of developing a European nuclear force from scratch, Rutte’s sweeping dismissal of Europe’s strategic agency in the nuclear field sidesteps this evolution instead of engaging with it. Plus, the NATO chief is being too hasty in his dismissal of the increasingly accepted notion of a “European pillar” within NATO. Sure, the EU added value is, at present, best exemplified in the creation of a more integrated and dynamic European defense market, which the European Commission is actively fostering. But Rutte is underestimating existing European military capabilities. European countries already collectively field advanced air forces, world-class submarines, significant naval power, cutting-edge missile and air-defense systems, cyber expertise, space assets and one of the largest defense-industrial bases in the world. And when it comes to the defense of Ukraine, European allies — including France — have significantly expanded their intelligence contributions. The problem, therefore, isn’t so much scarcity but national and industrial fragmentation, coupled with the risk of technological stagnation and insufficient investment in key enablers like munitions production, military mobility, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, satellites, air-to-air refueling and integrated command structures. As demonstrated by satellite projects like the EU’s Governmental Satellite Communications and IRIS² Satellite Constellation, these are areas that can be improved in the space of months and years rather than decades. But telling Europeans that sovereignty is a fantasy can easily kill the political momentum needed to fix them. Regardless of what one may think of Trump and his disruptive politics, the direction of travel in U.S. foreign policy is unmistakable. | Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images Finally, Rutte’s message is oddly out of sync with Washington too. U.S. presidents have long demanded Europe take far greater responsibility for its own defense, and in his second term, U.S. President Donald Trump has taken this message to new heights, from burden-sharing to burden-shifting. But to simultaneously tell Europe it must take care of itself, provided it continues purchasing U.S.-manufactured weapons, and that it can never truly succeed isn’t strategic clarity, it’s cognitive dissonance. Europe can no longer ignore political reality. Regardless of what one may think of Trump and his disruptive politics, the direction of travel in U.S. foreign policy is unmistakable: Europe is no longer a priority. The center of U.S. strategic gravity now lies in the Indo-Pacific, and U.S. dominance in the Western hemisphere ranks higher than Europe’s defense. In this mutated context, placing all of Europe’s security eggs in the U.S. basket isn’t sensible. However, none of this means Europe abandoning NATO or actively severing transatlantic ties. Rather, it means recognizing that alliances between equals are stronger than those built on dependence. A Europe that can militarily, industrially and politically rely on itself makes a more credible and valuable ally. And the 80-year transatlantic alliance will only endure if the U.S. and Europe strike a new bargain. So, as transatlantic allies grapple with a less straightforward alignment of interests and values, Rutte needs to be promoting a more balanced NATO with a strong European pillar — not undermining it.

The center-right European People’s Party is eyeing “better implementation” of the Lisbon Treaty to better prepare the EU for what it sees as historic shifts in the global balance of power involving the U.S., China and Russia, EPP leader Manfred Weber said on Saturday. Speaking at a press conference on the second day of an EPP Leaders Retreat in Zagreb, Weber highlighted the possibility of broadening the use of qualified majority voting in EU decision-making and developing a practical plan for military response if a member state is attacked. Currently EU leaders can use qualified majority voting on most legislative proposals, from energy and climate issues to research and innovation. But common foreign and security policy, EU finances and membership issues, among other areas, need a unified majority. This means that on issues such as sanctions against Russia, one country can block agreement, as happened last summer when Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico vetoed a package of EU measures against Moscow — a veto that was eventually lifted. Such power in one country’s hands is something that the EPP would like to change.  As for military solidarity, Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty obliges countries to provide “aid and assistance by all the means in their power” if an EU country is attacked. For Weber, the formulation under European law is stronger than NATO’s Article 5 collective defense commitment. However, he stressed that the EU still lacks a clear operational plan for how the clause would work in practice. Article 42.7 was previously used when France requested that other EU countries make additional contributions to the fight against terrorism, following the Paris terrorist attacks in November 2015.  Such ideas were presented as the party with a biggest grouping in the European Parliament — and therefore the power to shape EU political priorities — presented its strategic focus for 2026, with competitiveness as its main priority.  Keeping the pulse on what matters in 2026  The EPP wants to unleash the bloc’s competitiveness through further cutting red tape, “completing” the EU single market, diversifying supply chains, protecting economic independence and security and promoting innovation including in AI, chips and biotech, among other actions, according to its list 2026 priorities unveiled on Saturday. On defense, the EPP is pushing for a “360-degree” security approach to safeguard Europe against growing geopolitical threats, “addressing state and non-state threats from all directions,” according to the document. The EPP is calling for enhanced European defense capabilities, including a stronger defense market, joint procurement of military equipment, and new strategic initiatives to boost readiness. The party also stressed the need for better protection against cyberattacks and hybrid threats, and robust measures to counter disinformation campaigns targeting EU institutions and societies. On migration and border security, the EPP backs tougher asylum admissibility rules, faster returns, and strengthened external borders, including reinforced Frontex operations and improved digital systems like the Entry/Exit System.  The party also urged a Demographic Strategy for Europe amid the continent’s shrinking and aging population. The text, initiated by Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), member of the EPP, wants to see demographic considerations integrated into EU economic governance, cohesion funds, and policymaking, while boosting family support, intergenerational solidarity, labor participation, skills development, mobility and managed immigration.  Demographic change is “the most important issue, which is not really intensively discussed in the public discourse,” Weber said. “That’s why we want to highlight this, we want to underline the importance.” 

BRUSSELS — U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will send his deputy to a meeting of NATO defense ministers next month, according to a U.S. official and a European diplomat, a decision likely to raise further questions about Washington’s dedication to the transatlantic alliance. NATO’s 32 defense chiefs will gather Feb. 12 for the first ministerial-level meeting since U.S. President Donald Trump brought the alliance to the brink of implosion by repeatedly suggesting he could seize Greenland from Denmark by force.  But Hegseth, who prompted outrage at the same meeting last year by delivering a blistering attack on Europeans for not spending enough on their defense, is not expected to participate, said the two officials, both of whom were granted anonymity to speak freely.  Instead, Elbridge Colby, the undersecretary for defense policy, is set to attend in his place, the diplomat and official said, a decision that is still subject to change. Colby is the third-highest-ranking civilian defense official at the Pentagon and a close ally of U.S. Vice President JD Vance. The U.S. Department of Defense didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment by POLITICO. Colby, nicknamed “Bridge,” is seen as a hardliner on Europe inside the Pentagon and is a staunch supporter of an isolationist U.S. foreign policy that advocates a less active American role — especially militarily — worldwide. He is also responsible for drafting plans on an expected drawdown of U.S. troops from Europe, which has faced repeated delays.  Colby was responsible for crafting the new American defense strategy, published last week, which downgraded Europe and said Washington would instead “prioritize” defending the U.S. homeland and China. Before publication, the document underwent deep revisions by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who pushed for changes to the China section in light of trade talks between Beijing and Washington. Bessent’s input also toned down the China language in the White House’s National Security Strategy, released late last year.   The defense strategy also makes clear that in Europe “allies will take the lead” against threats that are “less severe” for the United States — a euphemism for Russia. It’s not the first time Hegseth has skipped a NATO meeting. But it marks the second time in a row a top U.S. official has missed a high-level gathering after Secretary of State Marco Rubio similarly dispatched his deputy to a meeting of NATO foreign ministers last month. Oana Lungescu, a former NATO spokesperson, said the move “risks sending a further signal that the U.S. isn’t listening as closely as it should to the concerns of its allies, especially after Marco Rubio skipped the last meeting.” “Having said that, there is also an upside,” said Lungescu, who now works as a senior fellow at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, “in that Elbridge Colby … is best placed to explain [the new U.S. defense strategy’s] intent and implications, and to hear the views of allies.” 

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Vor Südspanien, im Militärhafen von Rota, startet das größte NATO-Verlege-Manöver des Jahres. Rund 10.000 Soldaten, mehr als ein Dutzend Schiffe, der Weg führt von Südeuropa bis nach Deutschland und weiter Richtung Osten. Das Ziel: zeigen, wie schnell die Allianz im Ernstfall reagieren kann.  Rixa Fürsen berichtet vom Deck des spanischen Kriegsschiffs Castilla und spricht mit Matthias Gebauer (SPIEGEL) über die Allied Reaction Force, die Lehren aus dem Ukrainekrieg und die wachsende Unsicherheit über das amerikanische Schutzversprechen.  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. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

Czechia will go ahead with the purchase of 24 American F-35 fighter jets but is seeking to improve the conditions of the deal, Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš said on Thursday. “We will definitely want to work on this and improve the contract, because the project is at such a stage that it must continue,” Babiš told journalists following a visit to Čáslav air base. “I certainly see a great opportunity to improve the terms of the contract, especially in terms of financing and, of course, in terms of budgeting regarding exchange rate differences,” he added. The deal to purchase the jets was agreed to by Czechia’s previous government, led by Petr Fiala, in 2023. Babiš and his right-wing populist party ANO campaigned on criticism of deal, calling the jets “useless and overpriced,” and vowed to reconsider the agreement. His post-election statements, however, indicated a more pragmatic approach. The decision is likely to come as good news to U.S. President Donald Trump, who pressured Babiš to move ahead with the deal shortly after his inauguration in December. “Andrej knows how to get deals done, and I expected incredible things from him, including on F-35s. Congratulations Andrej!” Trump said in a Dec. 17 post on social media.