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.

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.

Leaders of Europe’s most powerful political family want to make better use of the EU’s mutual defense clause amid growing concerns about Donald Trump’s commitment to NATO. The push came during a weekend dinner at a European People’s Party leaders’ retreat in Zagreb, Croatia featuring the likes of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, as reported in Brussels Playbook. The EPP will task two as-yet-unnamed heads of state or government with looking at how to implement the EU Treaty’s Article 42.7 (which obliges countries to provide “aid and assistance by all the means in their power” if an EU country is attacked). The EPP top brass did not make clear by when the leaders will have to deliver this plan or what exactly it will address. However, a policy paper published by the EPP on Sunday pointed to nine areas where the EU needs to develop military capacity if it’s to become independent of the U.S., including drones, space and missile defense. The EPP’s policy paper still makes mention of NATO as the cornerstone of European defense. The push to use the EU’s mutual defense clause comes amid the worst transatlantic crisis in decades, with Trump’s claim to Greenland shaking belief in the U.S. commitment to NATO. During a press conference in Zagreb, EPP President Manfred Weber praised French President Macron for his offer to extend France’s nuclear umbrella to other EU states. “Having the new U.S. developments in mind,” said Weber, “I am totally in favor that the leaders are … considering how this option of a French nuclear weapon can be used for European security.”

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.” 

BRUSSELS — Mark Rutte has one overriding mission as NATO secretary-general: Stop Donald Trump from blowing up the alliance. That focus is now putting the former Dutch prime minister on a collision course with the very European capitals he once worked alongside — and has left NATO bruised even after he successfully talked Trump down from his threats to annex Greenland. The strain was on full display Monday in the European Parliament, where Rutte bluntly defended the superpower’s primacy in the alliance. “If anyone thinks here … that the European Union or Europe as a whole can defend itself without the U.S., keep on dreaming,” he told lawmakers. “You can’t.” The reaction was swift — and angry. “No, dear Mark Rutte,” France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot shot back on X. “Europeans can and must take charge of their own security. This is the European pillar of NATO.” “It was a disgraceful moment,” said Nathalie Loiseau, a former French Europe minister and now an MEP. “We don’t need a Trump zealot. NATO needs to rebalance between U.S. and European efforts.” Spain’s Nacho Sánchez Amor was even more direct. “Are you the [U.S.] ambassador to [NATO],” the Socialist MEP asked Rutte in a heated exchange, “or the secretary-general representing the alliance and its members?” The clash is also exposing a growing fault line inside NATO: Rutte’s conviction that keeping Trump onside is the only way to keep the alliance intact — and Europe’s rising alarm that this strategy is hollowing it out. As the secretary-general strains to keep the Americans as close as possible, those efforts are opening up a rift with his EU counterparts who are increasingly calling for European security bodies and a continental army beyond NATO.  POLITICO spoke to more than a dozen NATO insiders, diplomats and current and former Rutte colleagues, many of whom were granted anonymity to speak candidly. They described a leader admired as a skilled crisis manager who recently pulled off a win on Greenland, but at the cost of deepening European unease about NATO’s long-term future. But Rutte’s defenders say he has delivered on keeping the alliance together, a task so difficult he cannot always ensure all 32 members of the alliance are satisfied. Officials familiar with how he works also insist he talks more frankly to Trump in private. Still, the Greenland standoff “did a lot of damage,” said one NATO diplomat. Rutte’s approach is a “band-aid” that has “alienated allies,” they added. “We’re an alliance of 32, not a U.S.-plus-31 club.” MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS Although Rutte insists that he represents all NATO allies, it’s clear that his overriding priority is to keep the United States under Trump from walking away from Europe. That’s opening him to criticism that the focus is now overshadowing the rest of his job. Even the secretary-general’s successful effort in helping to get Trump to back off his Greenland threats at the Jan. 19-23 Davos summit in Switzerland is raising questions about whether it’s just a temporary reprieve and if the U.S. will still attempt to take control of parts of the Arctic island. “What supposed deal have you made with President Trump?” Greens MEP and former Danish Foreign Minister Villy Søvndal asked on Monday. “Did you have a mandate as a secretary-general to negotiate on behalf of Greenland and Denmark?” Rutte denied he went outside his remit. “Of course, I have no mandate to negotiate on behalf of Denmark, so I didn’t and I will not,” he said in Parliament. Lionizing Trump also risks creating a credibility problem for the alliance. Last year, NATO agreed to dramatically step up military spending to 5 percent of GDP by 2035 — a result many in the alliance also see as helping Europe stand on its own two feet. | Pool photo by Nicolas Tucat/EPA NATO is well known for its collective defense commitment — Article 5 — but the alliance is also bound by Articles 2 and 3, which ask countries to promote economic cooperation and mutual rearmament. With his threats to impose tariffs on Europe and seize Greenland, Trump has violated both, the same NATO diplomat said. Adding to that unease, Trump has previously cast doubt on his support for Article 5, and belittled the military commitments of other allies, falsely claiming last week that Europeans had stayed “a little off the front lines” in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. Responding to the criticism, a NATO official said: “As secretaries-general before him, NATO Secretary-General Rutte is convinced that our collective security is best served by Europe and North America working together through NATO.” TRUMP CARD AT THE READY Despite that, Rutte has been sticking firmly to his strategy of buttering up Trump in public, insisting he is a positive for the alliance. Last year, NATO agreed to dramatically step up military spending to 5 percent of GDP by 2035 — a result many in the alliance also see as helping Europe stand on its own two feet. The secretary-general on Monday said there was “no way” that would have happened without pressure from the U.S. president. The White House is in full agreement with that characterization. “President Trump has done more for NATO than anyone,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly told POLITICO. “America’s contributions to NATO dwarf that of other countries, and his success in delivering a five percent spending pledge from NATO allies is helping Europe take greater responsibility for its own defense.” Kelly said that Trump has “a great relationship” with Rutte, and then added: “The United States is the only NATO partner who can protect Greenland, and the President is advancing NATO interests in doing so.” His hard-nosed approach is honed by 14 years of managing often fractious coalitions as the Netherlands’ longest-serving prime minister. “He’s anything but an idealist,” said a former colleague. “He’s pragmatic.” Immediately striking up a good rapport with Trump during his first term in the White House, Rutte realized that public flattery was the key to keeping the U.S. president onside. “He can make himself very small and humble to reach his goal,” said Petra de Koning, who wrote a 2020 biography on Rutte. That’s often taken to extremes: The Dutchman described Trump as “daddy” during last year’s NATO summit in The Hague, and lavished praise on him in messages leaked by the U.S. president. But in private, he is more forthright with Trump, according to a person familiar with Rutte’s thinking. “The relationship is trustful,” they said, but “if pushed, he will be direct.” Meanwhile, keeping all 32 NATO members aligned with every decision is “nearly impossible,” the person insisted. Although the deal to get Trump to back off his Greenland threats may have left a bad taste in Europe, NATO wasn’t destroyed. “The reality is, Rutte is delivering,” said a senior NATO diplomat. “Unlike some other leaders, he never doubted the alliance — I chalk it up to experience,” added a second senior alliance diplomat. But keeping Trump sweet risks emboldening the U.S. president to be still bolder in future. “Politicians around the world and in this country ignore Trump’s ego at their peril,” said Stephen Farnsworth, a political scientist at Virginia’s University of Mary Washington. That could also create issues for the alliance down the line. “For the benefit of the alliance, [he’s] sucking up” to Trump, the first NATO diplomat said. “But the question is, where does it end?” Esther Webber and Laura Kayali contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — Europe is incapable of defending itself without America, NATO chief Mark Rutte said on Monday, speaking just days after Donald Trump’s repeated threats to seize Greenland pushed the alliance to the brink of collapse. “If anyone thinks here … that the European Union or Europe as a whole can defend itself without the U.S., keep on dreaming,” he told lawmakers on the European Parliament’s defense and foreign affairs committees. “You can’t.” A “European pillar [of NATO] is a bit of an empty word,” Rutte said, arguing a European army would create “a lot of duplication” with the alliance. Moreover, Russian President Vladimir “Putin will love it,” he added. Rutte went on to insist that the EU allow Ukraine to spend part of the bloc’s upcoming €90 billion loan to Kyiv on weapons from the United States, despite a push by some member countries like France to spend the money on the bloc’s own military suppliers. The comments form part of a broader pattern in which Rutte has insisted that Europe has to keep channels open to the United States, and that the U.S. president remains loyal to the alliance. Washington still has a “total commitment” to the alliance’s collective defense, he said. “The U.S. needs NATO.” He also credited Trump for getting all NATO countries to boost their defense spending to at least 2 percent of GDP as of last year. “Do you really think that Spain and Italy and Belgium and Canada would have decided to move from 1.5 to 2 percent … without Trump. No way,” Rutte said. Without the U.S., defending Europe would cost a fortune, he added. “For Europe, if you really want to go it alone … forget that you can ever get there with 5 percent,” Rutte said, referencing a pledge by NATO allies to ramp up their defense spending to 5 percent of GDP by 2035. “It will be 10 percent,” he argued, and cost “billions and billions of euros” to replace America’s nuclear deterrent. The secretary-general’s reassurances that Trump is committed to NATO follow weeks of threats from the U.S. president suggesting he could take Greenland by force, and that he would levy fresh tariffs against European countries for deploying limited troops to the self-ruling Danish territory. Last week, Trump finally ruled out using force and U-turned on the tariffs after setting out a deal he said would give the U.S. more control over the giant Arctic island — although both Denmark and Greenland insist they will not compromise on sovereignty. Rutte, whom Trump credited with helping broker the alleged agreement, admitted he had “no mandate to negotiate” on behalf of Denmark. He also dismissed the idea that the talks on Greenland were linked to ensuring U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine. Mark Rutte warned that restricting Kyiv’s ability to make spending decisions would hamper its military efforts. | Maria Senovilla/EPA The EU should also not exclude U.S. weapons firms from the €90 billion loan for Ukraine, the former long-serving Dutch prime minister said. The “loan package … will make a massive difference to Ukraine’s security” Rutte told lawmakers. “But here I would really strongly urge you to ensure flexibility in how these funds can be spent and not to be overly restrictive with ‘buy EU’ caveats.” Under its proposal published this month, the European Commission said two-thirds of that cash would go toward Ukrainian military expenditures, with EU arms-makers prioritized as suppliers.  As a result, Kyiv can only tap the loan to buy non-European weapons if it has an “urgent need for a product and where no alternative [exists],” and if it has obtained approval from the EU executive and the bloc’s capitals. That came after France, backed by Greece and Cyprus, lobbied to bar non-EU countries like the U.S. from winning contracts financed with that money — a move opposed by countries like Germany and the Netherlands. Rutte warned that restricting Kyiv’s ability to make spending decisions would hamper its military efforts. “Europe is now building its defense industry … but it cannot at the moment provide … nearly enough of what Ukraine needs to defend itself today,” he said. “So as you take this loan forward, please I encourage you to keep Ukraine’s needs first in focus.” The Parliament last week agreed to fast-track the loan, designed to last until 2027, while EU capitals are in talks to broker a compromise on the legal proposal. Gregorio Sorgi contributed reporting.

With Donald Trump continuing to ramp up pressure in his bid to annex Greenland, Denmark on Monday is boosting its military presence on the Arctic island, according to local press reports. A “substantial contribution” of Danish combat soldiers is expected to arrive in Kangerlussuaq, the location of Greenland’s main international airport, on Monday evening, according to Danish broadcaster TV2. Denmark’s top military commander in the Arctic, Maj. Gen. Søren Andersen, said that about 100 Danish soldiers have already arrived in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, and a similar number in Kangerlussuaq, in western Greenland. The soldiers are due to take part in the Arctic Endurance training exercise. Andersen said last week that the deployment is a response to Russian threats and not to Trump. Copenhagen on Monday asked for a NATO mission to Greenland, Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen said, after a meeting with alliance chief Mark Rutte at NATO headquarters in Brussels. “We have proposed that, and NATO’s secretary-general has also noted that,” he told reporters. Lund Poulsen slammed Trump’s threats against Greenland as “really, really hurtful,” but warned the alliance still can’t afford to sever ties with Washington. “If the Americans withdraw from NATO tomorrow, we will have a huge challenge in fending for ourselves,” he said, adding: “it also gives us reason to do more on the European side.” The additional troops being sent to Greenland won’t be going home anytime soon. “We will continue the mission for a year, maybe two, with the cooperation of foreign soldiers. We are trying to establish a schedule for deploying troops to Greenland in 2026 and the following year, so yes, it is a long-term mission,” Andersen told Le Monde. In the past days, the European military officers participated to a reconnaissance mission and “assessed training opportunities throughout the year and are planning to return in March with different capabilities,” Andersen said. The deployments came amid intensifying pressure from Trump, who wants to annex the Arctic island, a semi-autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. He has not ruled out using military force to do so. Trump denounced the move by allied countries, warning: “These Countries, who are playing this very dangerous game, have put a level of risk in play that is not tenable or sustainable.” Trump argues that Denmark hasn’t done enough to protect Greenland from a possible attack from Russia or China, joking that Copenhagen only has two dog sleds to defend the island. In reality, Denmark said last year it would boost defense spending for Greenland by 27.4 billion krone (€3.7 billion) for naval vessels, patrol aircraft, drones and surveillance radars. Despite Trump’s contention that Chinese and Russian vessels are “all over the place” near Greenland, there is no evidence that is the case. Denmark announced last week it was boosting its presence on Greenland and that the exercise could include guarding critical infrastructure, providing assistance to local authorities, receiving allied troops, deploying fighter aircraft in and around Greenland and conducting naval operations.  Laura Kayali contributed reporting. This article has been updated.

BRUSSELS — If Donald Trump uses military force to take over Greenland, Denmark has options beyond NATO. The core of Denmark’s security rests on the transatlantic alliance — but that’s likely to be of little help in a confrontation with the U.S. as America dominates NATO. Instead, Denmark could trigger a little-known clause in the EU treaties: Article 42.7, the European Union’s common defense pact. While some analysts claim it’s actually stronger than NATO’s better-known Article 5 common defense provision, article 42.7 comes with a lot of caveats and unknowns. POLITICO took at look at five questions on the provision and whether it would make sense for Denmark to trigger it: 1. WHAT DOES IT SAY? “If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.” The clause was inserted into the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, aimed at giving EU members protection similar to that afforded by NATO. It does give neutral countries some wiggle room in opting out. For many analysts, the EU’s mutual assistance clause “is of a more compelling nature” as it states that member countries have “an obligation” to provide “all aid and assistance by all the means in their power.” NATO’s Article 5 includes the phrase “as it deems necessary” which leaves more room for national discretion. The EU version “is stronger in diplomatic language but the pool of forces is smaller than in the NATO framework,” said Alexander Mattelaer, an associate professor in international security at the Free University Brussels’ School of Governance. 2. HAS IT EVER BEEN USED? Only once. In 2015, France invoked the article in response to ISIS-led terrorist attacks. It allowed Paris to redeploy some of its troops out of Africa to use them to patrol French streets, while EU countries like Germany sent their soldiers to countries like Mali.  The request was supported unanimously by other EU defense ministers. Because the EU has no army, Paris had to negotiate with other EU countries for specific military help. 3. HOW DOES IT WORK? It would be up to Denmark to invoke it. Then, as was the case with France, it would have to be unanimously accepted by all the other member countries. But any EU response that requires unanimity means Denmark could run into problems if countries like Hungary veto its approval, two EU diplomats said. “I don’t think Denmark would invoke it without being sure it has unanimity because it would be a great risk,” said Antonio Missiroli, a former NATO assistant secretary-general who also worked at the European Commission. “Surely a country like Hungary would not take sides against the United States?” he added. There is also some ambiguity over whether it would apply to a crisis in Greenland, which withdrew from the predecessor of the EU in 1985, although it is still a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. On Sunday, EU defense chief Andrius Kubilius said 42.7 would “definitely” apply, with the European Commission last year suggesting the same. Commission spokesperson Anitta Hippe said: “Greenland is part of the territory of kingdom of Denmark and therefore in principle covered by the mutual solidarity clause in art. 42.7.” 4. WHAT HAPPENS THEN? If Denmark successfully invokes the clause, that would send a “very strong political and legal” message, said Sven Biscop, director general of the Egmont Institute think tank and a European security expert. The mechanism doesn’t require the EU itself to step in, leaving it up to the bloc’s capitals, and in particular to the country which invoked it, to determine the next steps. Options range from issuing statements in solidarity, to financial assistance and even military support, said one EU diplomat. Missiroli suggested that one of the options for Denmark could be to use this article “to ask another country to mediate.” While it’s “too early to say” what that response would look like in practice, said one European government official, “we will offer the support that we’d like to have” in a similar scenario. It could lay also the legal groundwork for proposing economic sanctions, Biscop said. Sergey Lagodinsky, a German member of the European Parliament and vice president of the Greens’ group, said the legislature should ready a “laundry list of possible countermeasures” if 42.7 is invoked, including kicking U.S. troops out of European bases, banning overflights of U.S. aircraft and restricting market access for American firms. Invoking the article could involve a limited troop deployment by the EU military committee and military staff — consultative bodies made up of the bloc’s top generals and Brussels-based military representatives, Biscop said. The probability of the EU going to war with the U.S. is zero, analysts agreed. And even if the bloc wanted to, it only has a “few dozen” military staff in Brussels, a miniature command structure able to direct “at most” 3,000 soldiers and limited experience aside from peacekeeping missions, Biscop said. However, member countries could decide on more substantial military assistance using their own resources. Meanwhile, the obligations on countries themselves remain undefined, meaning Denmark may face the “political reality” of some EU capitals making few concrete commitments to help. Because of those ambiguities over how to use the article, last month Kubilius told POLITICO he wants to open a discussion on “institutional defense readiness” this year, which could include revamping Article 42.7 to make it fully operational with a clear procedure and an integrated military command. 5. WHAT WOULD IT MEAN FOR NATO? Denmark has warned that a U.S. annexation of Greenland would spell the end of the alliance, although Trump disagrees. If the U.S. orchestrates a takeover, “it doesn’t necessarily mean … legally at least, the end of NATO, but it would mean politically the hollowing out of NATO’s credibility,” said Fabrice Pothier, CEO of Rasmussen Global, a political consultancy. That could lead to “some EU members [to] go for more EU solutions, maybe putting more flesh behind 42.7,” he added.  But that would involve creating a new security architecture for Europe without the U.S., which has been the continent’s crucial guarantor since World War II. “NATO is in charge of collective defense in the Euro-Atlantic area: it has the defense plans, command and control structures and capability targets,” said a NATO diplomat. “The EU, for its part, brings to the table its financial power, industrial policy and regulatory might.” Seb Starcevic contributed reporting. This article has been updated.

Denmark and allied countries said Wednesday they will increase their military presence in Greenland as part of expanded exercises, amid intensifying pressure from Washington over the Arctic island’s sovereignty. “Security in the Arctic is of crucial importance to the Kingdom and our Arctic allies, and it is therefore important that we, in close cooperation with allies, further strengthen our ability to operate in the region,” said Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen. “The Danish Defense Forces, together with several Arctic and European allies, will explore in the coming weeks how an increased presence and exercise activity in the Arctic can be implemented.” In a statement, Denmark’s defense ministry said additional Danish aircraft, naval assets and troops will be deployed in and around Greenland starting immediately as part of expanded training and exercise activity. The effort will include “receiving allied forces, operating fighter jets and carrying out maritime security tasks,” the ministry said. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said on X that Swedish officers are arriving in Greenland as part of a multinational allied group to help prepare upcoming phases of Denmark’s Operation Arctic Endurance exercise, following a request from Copenhagen. A European diplomat said that troops from the Netherlands, Canada and Germany were also taking part. The diplomat and another official with first-hand knowledge said France was also involved. Defense ministries in other countries did not immediately respond to requests for comment. So far, the deployment remains intergovernmental and has not been formally approved by NATO, according to two people familiar with the matter. “The goal is to show that Denmark and key allies can increase their presence in the Arctic region,” said a third person briefed on the plans, demonstrating their “ability to operate under the unique Arctic conditions and thereby strengthen the alliance’s footprint in the Arctic, benefiting both European and transatlantic security.” The announcement landed the same day U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with the Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers in Washington, following days of rising transatlantic tensions over President Donald Trump’s bid to take over the strategic island. Trump escalated the dispute earlier Wednesday in a Truth Social post, declaring that “the United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security,” calling it “vital” for his planned “Golden Dome” missile defense system.  He also insisted that seizing Greenland would not destroy NATO, despite warnings from Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen that such a move would end the Atlantic alliance. “Militarily, without the vast power of the United States … NATO would not be an effective force or deterrent — Not even close!” Trump posted. “They know that, and so do I. NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES.” Denmark and Greenland have repeatedly rejected any suggestion of a transfer of sovereignty, stressing that Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and that its future is for Greenlanders alone to decide. Greenland’s government said it is working closely with Copenhagen to ensure local involvement and transparency, with Denmark’s Arctic Command tasked with keeping the population informed. “If we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark,” Jens-Frederik Nielsen, Greenland’s prime minister, said at a press conference Tuesday. In response, Trump said, “That’s their problem. I disagree with him. I don’t know who he is. Don’t know anything about him, but that’s going to be a big problem for him.”

BRUSSELS — The European Commission on Wednesday unveiled a €90 billion loan to Ukraine aimed at saving it from financial collapse as it continues to battle Russia while aid from the U.S. dries up. About one-third of the cash will be used for normal budget expenditures and the rest will go to defense — although countries still need to formally agree to what extent Ukraine can use the money to buy weapons from outside the EU. A Commission proposal gives EU defense firms preferential treatment but allows Ukraine to buy foreign weapons if they aren’t immediately available in Europe. While the loan is interest-free for Ukraine, it is forecast to cost EU taxpayers between €3 billion and €4 billion a year in borrowing costs from 2028. The EU had to resort to the loan after an earlier effort to use sanctioned Russian frozen assets ran into opposition from Belgium. The race is now on for EU lawmakers to agree on a final legal text that’ll pave the way for disbursements in April, when Ukraine’s war chest runs out. Meetings between EU treasury and defense officials are already planned for Friday. The European Parliament could fast-track the loan as early as next week. The financing package is also crucial for unlocking additional loans to Ukraine from the International Monetary Fund. The Washington-based Fund wants to ensure Kyiv’s finances aren’t overstretched, as the war enters its fifth year next month. The €90 billion will be paid out over the next two years, as Moscow shows no sign of slowing down its offensive on Ukraine despite U.S.-led efforts to agree on a ceasefire. “Russia shows no sign of abating, no sign of remorse, no sign of seeking peace,” Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters after presenting the proposal. “We all want peace for Ukraine, and for that, Ukraine must be in a position of strength.” When EU leaders agreed on the loan, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called the deal an “unprecedented decision, and it will also have an impact on the peace negotiations.” Adding to the pressure on the EU, the U.S. under President Donald Trump has halted new military and financial aid to Ukraine, leaving it up to Europe to ensure Kyiv can continue fighting. Once the legal text is agreed, the EU will raise joint debt to finance the initiative, although the governments in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia said they will not participate in the funding drive.  The conditions on military spending are splitting EU countries. Paris is demanding strict rules to prevent money from flowing to U.S. weapons manufacturers, while Germany and other Northern European countries want to give Ukraine greater flexibility on how to spend the cash, pointing out that some key systems needed by Ukraine aren’t manufactured in Europe. MEETING HALFWAY The Commission has put forward a compromise proposal — seen by POLITICO. It gives preferential treatment to defense companies based in the EU, Ukraine and neighboring countries, including Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, but doesn’t rule out purchases from abroad. To keep the Northern European capitals happy, the Commission’s proposal allows Ukraine to buy specialized weapons produced outside the EU if they are vital for Kyiv’s defense against Russian forces. These include the U.S. Patriot long-range missile and air defense systems. The rules could be bent further in cases “where there is an urgent need for a given defense product” that can’t be delivered quickly from within Europe. Weapons aren’t considered European if more than 35 percent of their parts come from outside the continent, according to the draft. That’s in line with previous EU defense-financing initiatives, such as the €150 billion SAFE loans-for-weapons program. Two other legal texts are included in the legislative package. One proposes using the upper borrowing limit in the current budget to guarantee the loan. The other is designed to tweak the Ukraine Facility, a 2023 initiative that governs the bloc’s long-term financial support to Kyiv. The Commission will also create a new money pot to cover the borrowing costs before the new EU budget enters into force in 2028. RUSSIAN COLLATERAL Ukraine only has to repay the €90 billion loan if it receives post-war reparations from Russia — an unlikely scenario. If this doesn’t happen, the EU has left the door open to tapping frozen Russian state assets across the bloc to pay itself back. Belgium’s steadfast opposition to leveraging the frozen assets, most of which are based in the Brussels-based financial depository Euroclear, promises to make that negotiation difficult. However, the Commission can indefinitely roll over its debt by issuing eurobonds until it finds the necessary means to pay off the loan. The goal is to ensure Ukraine isn’t left holding the bill. “The Union reserves its right to use the cash balances from immobilized Russian assets held in the EU to repay the Ukraine Support Loan,” Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis said alongside von der Leyen. “Supporting Ukraine is a litmus test for Europe. The outcome of Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine will determine Europe’s future.” Jacopo Barigazzi contributed to this report from Brussels.