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.

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 — U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to restore “European greatness” by bolstering the continent’s nationalist parties is already being put into action. Trump administration officials and European far-right leaders from Paris to Washington have taken part in a flurry of meetings in the days since the release of the U.S. National Security Strategy, underscoring that the U.S. president’s desire to bolster “patriotic European parties” is not an abstract vision but rather a manual for change that is being pursued from the ground up. Last week, U.S. Under Secretary of State Sarah Rogers met with far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party politician Markus Frohnmaier in Washington. Frohnmaier said the two discussed the recently released National Security Strategy, which asserted that Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to migration and the loss of national identity, a message that AfD politicians embrace. “Washington is looking for a strong German partner who is willing to take on responsibility,” Frohnmaier wrote in an online post following the meeting. “Germany should re-establish itself as a capable leading power through a decisive shift in migration policy and the independent organization of European security.” Frohnmaier was one of about 20 AfD politicians who travelled to Washington and New York last week to meet with sympathizers and Trump administration officials. AfD leaders have increasingly sought to forge links with MAGA Republicans, viewing the Trump administration’s backing as a way to secure domestic legitimacy and end their political ostracization. Frohnmaier, the deputy chair of the AfD’s parliamentary group, was also an “honored guest” at the annual gala of the the New York Young Republican Club on Saturday. The New York City-based group has openly backed the AfD, declaring “AfD über alles” (AfD above all) — an adaptation of a nationalist phrase associated with Germany’s Nazi past. “The alliance between American and German patriots is the nightmare of the liberal elites, and it is the hope of the free world,” Frohnmaier said in a speech during the event. The recent meetings are a continuation of ongoing outreach efforts between Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement and ideologically aligned European parties. British Reform leader Nigel Farage, a longtime Trump ally, stopped off at the Oval Office during a U.S. visit in September. In November Trump political adviser Alex Brusewitz met with AfD leaders in Berlin, where he proclaimed that the MAGA movement in the U.S. had common cause with the German party. AfD leaders have increasingly sought to forge links with MAGA Republicans. | Jan-Philipp Strobel/Getty Images Trump has also long expressed support for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, although he told POLITICO’s Dasha Burns in an interview last week for a special edition of “The Conversation” that he had not promised an Argentina-style bailout to boost Orbán’s election chances next year. In Paris, U.S. Ambassador to France Charles Kushner met with French far-right leaders Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella days after the publication of the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy. Kushner said he “appreciated the chance” to learn about the far-right leaders’ “economic and social agenda and their views on what lies ahead for France.” As the father of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and diplomatic adviser, the elder Kushner has a direct line to the White House. In his POLITICO interview last week Trump said he could move to endorse political candidates aligned with his own vision for Europe. Kushner has also met the heads of at least two other French parties in recent weeks, but a spokesperson for the U.S. Embassy in France suggested the meetings weren’t part of a coordinated effort to support the far right in Europe: “As a matter of standard practice, the U.S. Mission in France engages regularly with a broad range of political parties and leaders, and we will continue to do so.” Yet unlike Germany’s AfD leaders, Le Pen and Bardella — as well as other politicians in their far-right National Rally — have been reluctant to fully embrace Trump given his unpopularity in France, even among many members of their own party. As for the AfD, its outreach to willing partners in the U.S. is set to continue. Frohnmaier said he would invite U.S. lawmakers to a Berlin congress in February aimed at deepening ties with MAGA Republicans. Pauline von Pezold contributed to this report.

A fair, fast and competitive transition begins with what already works and then rapidly scales it up.  Across the EU commercial road transport sector, the diversity of operations is met with a diversity of solutions. Urban taxis are switching to electric en masse. Many regional coaches run on advanced biofuels, with electrification emerging in smaller applications such as school services, as European e-coach technologies are still maturing and only now beginning to enter the market. Trucks electrify rapidly where operationally and financially possible, while others, including long-haul and other hard-to-electrify segments, operate at scale on HVO (hydrotreated vegetable oil) or biomethane, cutting emissions immediately and reliably. These are real choices made every day by operators facing different missions, distances, terrains and energy realities, showing that decarbonization is not a single pathway but a spectrum of viable ones.  Building on this diversity, many operators are already modernizing their fleets and cutting emissions through electrification. When they can control charging, routing and energy supply, electric vehicles often deliver a positive total cost of ownership (TCO), strong reliability and operational benefits. These early adopters prove that electrification works where the enabling conditions are in place, and that its potential can expand dramatically with the right support. > Decarbonization is not a single pathway but a spectrum of viable ones chosen > daily by operators facing real-world conditions. But scaling electrification faces structural bottlenecks. Grid capacity is constrained across the EU, and upgrades routinely take years. As most heavy-duty vehicle charging will occur at depots, operators cannot simply move around to look for grid opportunities. They are bound to the location of their facilities.  The recently published grid package tries, albeit timidly, to address some of these challenges, but it neither resolves the core capacity deficiencies nor fixes the fundamental conditions that determine a positive TCO: the predictability of electricity prices, the stability of delivered power, and the resulting charging time. A truck expected to recharge in one hour at a high-power station may wait far longer if available grid power drops. Without reliable timelines, predictable costs and sufficient depot capacity, most transport operators cannot make long-term investment decisions. And the grid is only part of the enabling conditions needed: depot charging infrastructure itself requires significant additional investment, on top of vehicles that already cost several hundreds of thousands of euros more than their diesel equivalents.  This is why the EU needs two things at once: strong enablers for electrification and hydrogen; and predictability on what the EU actually recognizes as clean. Operators using renewable fuels, from biomethane to advanced biofuels and HVO, delivering up to 90 percent CO2 reduction, are cutting emissions today. Yet current CO2 frameworks, for both light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty trucks, fail to recognize fleets running on these fuels as part of the EU’s decarbonization solution for road transport, even when they deliver immediate, measurable climate benefits. This lack of clarity limits investment and slows additional emission reductions that could happen today. > Policies that punish before enabling will not accelerate the transition; a > successful shift must empower operators, not constrain them. The revision of both CO2 standards, for cars and vans, and for heavy-duty vehicles, will therefore be pivotal. They must support electrification and hydrogen where they fit the mission, while also recognizing the contribution of renewable and low-carbon fuels across the fleet. Regulations that exclude proven clean options will not accelerate the transition. They will restrict it.  With this in mind, the question is: why would the EU consider imposing purchasing mandates on operators or excessively high emission-reduction targets on member states that would, in practice, force quotas on buyers? Such measures would punish before enabling, removing choice from those who know their operations best. A successful transition must empower operators, not constrain them.  The EU’s transport sector is committed and already delivering. With the right enablers, a technology-neutral framework, and clarity on what counts as clean, the EU can turn today’s early successes into a scalable, fair and competitive decarbonization pathway.  We now look with great interest to the upcoming Automotive Package, hoping to see pragmatic solutions to these pressing questions, solutions that EU transport operators, as the buyers and daily users of all these technologies, are keenly expecting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is IRU – International Road Transport Union  * The ultimate controlling entity is IRU – International Road Transport Union  More information here.

Europe prides itself on being a world leader in animal protection, with legal frameworks requiring member states to pay regard to animal welfare standards when designing and implementing policies. However, under REACH — Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) — the EU’s cornerstone regulation on chemical safety, hundreds of thousands of animals are subjected to painful tests every year, despite the legal requirement that animal testing should be used only as a ‘last resort’. With REACH’s first major revamp in almost 20 years forthcoming, lawmakers now face a once-in-a-generation opportunity to drive a genuine transformation of chemical regulation.  When REACH was introduced nearly a quarter of a century ago, it outlined a bold vision to protect people and the environment from dangerous chemicals, while simultaneously driving a transition toward modern, animal-free testing approaches. In practice, however, companies are still required to generate extensive toxicity data to bring both new chemicals and chemicals with long histories of safe use onto the market. This has resulted in a flood of animal tests that could too often be dispensed, especially when animal-free methods are just as protective (if not more) of human health and the environment.  > Hundreds of thousands of animals are subjected to painful tests every year, > despite the legal requirement that animal testing should be used only as a > ‘last resort’. Despite the last resort requirement, some of the cruelest tests in the books are still expressly required under REACH. For example, ‘lethal dose’ animal tests were developed back in 1927 — the same year as the first solo transatlantic flight — and remain part of the toolbox when regulators demand ‘acute toxicity’ data, despite the availability of animal-free methods. Yet while the aviation industry has advanced significantly over the last century, chemical safety regulations remain stuck in the past.   Today’s science offers fully viable replacement approaches for evaluating oral, skin and fish lethality to irritation, sensitization, aquatic bioconcentration and more. It is time for the European Commission and member states to urgently revise REACH information requirements to align with the proven capabilities of animal-free science.   But this is only the first step. A 2023 review projected that animal testing under REACH will rise in the coming years in the absence of significant reform. With the forthcoming revision of the REACH legal text, lawmakers face a choice: lock Europe into decades of archaic testing requirements or finally bring chemical safety into the 21st century by removing regulatory obstacles that slow the adoption of advanced animal-free science.   If REACH continues to treat animal testing as the default option, it risks eroding its credibility and the values it claims to uphold. However, animal-free science won’t be achieved by stitching together one-for-one replacements for legacy animal tests. A truly modern, European relevant chemicals framework demands deeper shifts in how we think, generate evidence and make safety decisions. Only by embracing next-generation assessment paradigms that leverage both exposure science and innovative approaches to the evaluation of a chemical’s biological activity can we unlock the full power of state-of the-art non-animal approaches and leave the old toolbox behind.  > With the forthcoming revision of the REACH legal text, lawmakers face a > choice: lock Europe into decades of archaic testing requirements or finally > bring chemical safety into the 21st century. The recent endorsement of One Substance, One Assessment regulations aims to drive collaboration across the sector while reducing duplicate testing on animals, helping to ensure transparency and improve data sharing. This is a step in the right direction, and provides the framework to help industry, regulators and other interest-holders to work together and chart a new path forward for chemical safety.   The EU has already demonstrated in the cosmetics sector that phasing out animal testing is not only possible but can spark innovation and build public trust. In 2021, the European Parliament urged the Commission to develop an EU plan to replace animal testing with modern scientific innovation. But momentum has since stalled. In the meantime, more than 1.2 million citizens have backed a European Citizens’ Initiative calling for chemical safety laws that protect people and the environment without adding new animal testing requirements; a clear indication that both science and society are eager for change.   > The EU has already demonstrated in the cosmetics sector that phasing out > animal testing is not only possible but can spark innovation and build public > trust. Jay Ingram, managing director, chemicals, Humane World for Animals (founding member of AFSA Collaboration) states: “Citizens are rightfully concerned about the safety of chemicals that they are exposed to on a daily basis, and are equally invested in phasing out animal testing. Trust and credibility must be built in the systems, structures, and people that are in place to achieve both of those goals.”  The REACH revision can both strengthen health and environmental safeguards while delivering a meaningful, measurable reduction in animal use year on year.  Policymakers need not choose between keeping Europe safe and embracing kinder science; they can and should take advantage of the upcoming REACH revision as an opportunity to do both.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Humane World for Animals * The ultimate controlling entity is Humane World for Animals More information here.

Europe’s chemical industry has reached a breaking point. The warning lights are no longer blinking — they are blazing. Unless Europe changes course immediately, we risk watching an entire industrial backbone, with the countless jobs it supports, slowly hollow out before our eyes. Consider the energy situation: this year European gas prices have stood at 2.9 times higher than in the United States. What began as a temporary shock is now a structural disadvantage. High energy costs are becoming Europe’s new normal, with no sign of relief. This is not sustainable for an energy-intensive sector that competes globally every day. Without effective infrastructure and targeted energy-cost relief — including direct support, tax credits and compensation for indirect costs from the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) — we are effectively asking European companies and their workers to compete with their hands tied behind their backs. > Unless Europe changes course immediately, we risk watching an entire > industrial backbone, with the countless jobs it supports, slowly hollow out > before our eyes. The impact is already visible. This year, EU27 chemical production fell by a further 2.5 percent, and the sector is now operating 9.5 percent below pre-crisis capacity. These are not just numbers, they are factories scaling down, investments postponed and skilled workers leaving sites. This is what industrial decline looks like in real time. We are losing track of the number of closures and job losses across Europe, and this is accelerating at an alarming pace. And the world is not standing still. In the first eight months of 2025, EU27 chemicals exports dropped by €3.5 billion, while imports rose by €3.2 billion. The volume trends mirror this: exports are down, imports are up. Our trade surplus shrank to €25 billion, losing €6.6 billion in just one year. Meanwhile, global distortions are intensifying. Imports, especially from China, continue to increase, and new tariff policies from the United States are likely to divert even more products toward Europe, while making EU exports less competitive. Yet again, in 2025, most EU trade defense cases involved chemical products. In this challenging environment, EU trade policy needs to step up: we need fast, decisive action against unfair practices to protect European production against international trade distortions. And we need more free trade agreements to access growth market and secure input materials. “Open but not naïve” must become more than a slogan. It must shape policy. > Our producers comply with the strictest safety and environmental standards in > the world. Yet resource-constrained authorities cannot ensure that imported > products meet those same standards. Europe is also struggling to enforce its own rules at the borders and online. Our producers comply with the strictest safety and environmental standards in the world. Yet resource-constrained authorities cannot ensure that imported products meet those same standards. This weak enforcement undermines competitiveness and safety, while allowing products that would fail EU scrutiny to enter the single market unchecked. If Europe wants global leadership on climate, biodiversity and international chemicals management, credibility starts at home. Regulatory uncertainty adds to the pressure. The Chemical Industry Action Plan recognizes what industry has long stressed: clarity, coherence and predictability are essential for investment. Clear, harmonized rules are not a luxury — they are prerequisites for maintaining any industrial presence in Europe. This is where REACH must be seen for what it is: the world’s most comprehensive piece of legislation governing chemicals. Yet the real issues lie in implementation. We therefore call on policymakers to focus on smarter, more efficient implementation without reopening the legal text. Industry is facing too many headwinds already. Simplification can be achieved without weakening standards, but this requires a clear political choice. We call on European policymakers to restore the investment and profitability of our industry for Europe. Only then will the transition to climate neutrality, circularity, and safe and sustainable chemicals be possible, while keeping our industrial base in Europe. > Our industry is an enabler of the transition to a climate-neutral and circular > future, but we need support for technologies that will define that future. In this context, the ETS must urgently evolve. With enabling conditions still missing, like a market for low-carbon products, energy and carbon infrastructures, access to cost-competitive low-carbon energy sources, ETS costs risk incentivizing closures rather than investment in decarbonization. This may reduce emissions inside the EU, but it does not decarbonize European consumption because production shifts abroad. This is what is known as carbon leakage, and this is not how EU climate policy intends to reach climate neutrality. The system needs urgent repair to avoid serious consequences for Europe’s industrial fabric and strategic autonomy, with no climate benefit. These shortcomings must be addressed well before 2030, including a way to neutralize ETS costs while industry works toward decarbonization. Our industry is an enabler of the transition to a climate-neutral and circular future, but we need support for technologies that will define that future. Europe must ensure that chemical recycling, carbon capture and utilization, and bio-based feedstocks are not only invented here, but also fully scaled here. Complex permitting, fragmented rules and insufficient funding are slowing us down while other regions race ahead. Decarbonization cannot be built on imported technology — it must be built on a strong EU industrial presence. Critically, we must stimulate markets for sustainable products that come with an unavoidable ‘green premium’. If Europe wants low-carbon and circular materials, then fiscal, financial and regulatory policy recipes must support their uptake — with minimum recycled or bio-based content, new value chain mobilizing schemes and the right dose of ‘European preference’. If we create these markets but fail to ensure that European producers capture a fair share, we will simply create new opportunities for imports rather than European jobs. > If Europe wants a strong, innovative resilient chemical industry in 2030 and > beyond, the decisions must be made today. The window is closing fast. The Critical Chemicals Alliance offers a path forward. Its primary goal will be to tackle key issues facing the chemical sector, such as risks of closures and trade challenges, and to support modernization and investments in critical productions. It will ultimately enable the chemical industry to remain resilient in the face of geopolitical threats, reinforcing Europe’s strategic autonomy. But let us be honest: time is no longer on our side. Europe’s chemical industry is the foundation of countless supply chains — from clean energy to semiconductors, from health to mobility. If we allow this foundation to erode, every other strategic ambition becomes more fragile. If you weren’t already alarmed — you should be. This is a wake-up call. Not for tomorrow, for now. Energy support, enforceable rules, smart regulation, strategic trade policies and demand-driven sustainability are not optional. They are the conditions for survival. If Europe wants a strong, innovative resilient chemical industry in 2030 and beyond, the decisions must be made today. The window is closing fast. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is CEFIC- The European Chemical Industry Council  * The ultimate controlling entity is CEFIC- The European Chemical Industry Council  More information here.

Mathias Döpfner is chair and CEO of Axel Springer, POLITICO’s parent company. America and Europe have been transmitting on different wavelengths for some time now. And that is dangerous — especially for Europe. The European reactions to the new U.S. National Security Strategy paper and to Donald Trump’s recent criticism of the Old Continent were, once again, reflexively offended and incapable of accepting criticism: How dare he, what an improper intrusion! But such reactions do not help; they do harm. Two points are lost in these sour responses. First: Most Americans criticize Europe because the continent matters to them. Many of those challenging Europe — even JD Vance or Trump, even Elon Musk or Sam Altman — emphasize this repeatedly. The new U.S. National Security Strategy, scandalized above all by those who have not read it, states explicitly: “Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete, and to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe.” And Trump says repeatedly, literally or in essence, in his interview with POLITICO: “I want to see a strong Europe.” The transatlantic drift is also a rupture of political language. Trump very often simply says what he thinks — sharply contrasting with many European politicians who are increasingly afraid to say what they believe is right. People sense the castration of thought through a language of evasions. And they turn away. Or toward the rabble-rousers. My impression is that our difficult American friends genuinely want exactly what they say they want: a strong Europe, a reliable and effective partner. But we do not hear it — or refuse to hear it. We hear only the criticism and dismiss it. Criticism is almost always a sign of involvement, of passion. We should worry far more if no criticism arrived. That would signal indifference — and therefore irrelevance. (By the way: Whether we like the critics is of secondary importance.) Responding with hauteur is simply not in our interest. It would be wiser — as Kaja Kallas rightly emphasized — to conduct a dialogue that includes self-criticism, a conversation about strengths, weaknesses and shared interests, and to back words with action on both sides. Which brings us to the second point: Unfortunately, much of the criticism is accurate. Anyone who sees politics as more than a self-absorbed administration of the status quo must concede that for decades Europe has delivered far too little — or nothing at all. Not in terms of above-average growth and prosperity, nor in terms of affordable energy. Europe does not deliver on deregulation or debureaucratization; it does not deliver on digitalization or innovation driven by artificial intelligence. And above all: Europe does not deliver on a responsible and successful migration policy. The world that wishes Europe well looked to the new German government with great hope. Capital flows on the scale of trillions waited for the first positive signals to invest in Germany and Europe. For it seemed almost certain that the world’s third-largest economy would, under a sensible, business-minded and transatlantic chancellor, finally steer a faltering Europe back onto the right path. The disappointment was all the more painful. Aside from the interior minister, the digital minister and the economics minister, the new government delivers in most areas the opposite of what had been promised before the election. The chancellor likes to blame the vice chancellor. The vice chancellor blames his own party. And all together they prefer to blame the Americans and their president. Instead of a European fresh start, we see continued agony and decline. Germany still suffers from its National Socialist trauma and believes that if it remains pleasantly average and certainly not excellent, everyone will love it. France is now paying the price for its colonial legacy in Africa and finds itself — all the way up to a president driven by political opportunism — in the chokehold of Islamist and antisemitic networks. In Britain, the prime minister is pursuing a similar course of cultural and economic submission. And Spain is governed by socialist fantasists who seem to take real pleasure in self-enfeeblement and whose “genocide in Gaza” rhetoric mainly mobilizes bored, well-heeled daughters of the upper middle class. Hope comes from Finland and Denmark, from the Baltic states and Poland, and — surprisingly — from Italy. There, the anti-democratic threats from Russia, China and Iran are assessed more realistically. Above all, there is a healthy drive to be better and more successful than others. From a far weaker starting point, there is an ambition for excellence. What Europe needs is less wounded pride and more patriotism defined by achievement. Unity and decisive action in defending Ukraine would be an obvious example — not merely talking about European sovereignty but demonstrating it, even in friendly dissent with the Americans. (And who knows, that might ultimately prompt a surprising shift in Washington’s Russia policy.) That, coupled with economic growth through real and far-reaching reforms, would be a start. After which Europe must tackle the most important task: a fundamental reversal of a migration policy rooted in cultural self-hatred that tolerates far too many newcomers who want a different society, who hold different values, and who do not respect our legal order. If all of this fails, American criticism will be vindicated by history. The excuses for why a European renewal is supposedly impossible or unnecessary are merely signs of weak leadership. The converse is also true: where there is political will, there is a way. And this way begins in Europe — with the spirit of renewal of a well-understood “Europe First” (what else?) — and leads to America. Europe needs America. America needs Europe. And perhaps both needed the deep crisis in the transatlantic relationship to recognize this with full clarity. As surprising as it may sound, at this very moment there is a real opportunity for a renaissance of a transatlantic community of shared interests. Precisely because the situation is so deadlocked. And precisely because pressure is rising on both sides of the Atlantic to do things differently. A trade war between Europe and America strengthens our shared adversaries. The opposite would be sensible: a New Deal between the EU and the U.S. Tariff-free trade as a stimulus for growth in the world’s largest and third-largest economies — and as the foundation for a shared policy of interests and, inevitably, a joint security policy of the free world. This is the historic opportunity that Friedrich Merz could now negotiate with Donald Trump. As Churchill said: “Never waste a good crisis!”

BRUSSELS — Italy is throwing its weight behind Belgium in opposing the EU’s plan to send €210 billion of Russia’s frozen state assets to Ukraine, according to an internal document seen by POLITICO. The intervention by Rome, the EU’s No.3 in terms of population and voting power — less than a week before a crucial meeting of EU leaders in Brussels — undermines the European Commission’s hopes of finalizing a deal on the plan. The Commission is pushing for EU member countries to reach an agreement in a European Council summit on Dec.18-19 so that the billions of euros in Russian reserves held in the Euroclear bank in Belgium can be freed up to support Kyiv’s war-battered economy.  Belgium’s government is holding out over fears it will be on the hook to repay the full amount if Russia claws back the money, but has so far lacked a heavyweight ally ahead of the December summit. Now Italy has shaken up the diplomatic dynamics by drafting a document with Belgium, Malta and Bulgaria urging the Commission to explore alternative options to using the Russian assets to keep Ukraine afloat over the coming years. The four countries said they “invite the Commission and the Council to continue exploring and discussing alternative options in line with EU and international law, with predictable parameters, presenting significantly less risks, to address Ukraine’s financial needs, based on an EU loan facility or bridge solutions.” The four countries are referring to a Plan B to issue joint EU debt to finance Ukraine over the coming years. However, this idea has its own problems. Critics note it will add to the high debt burdens of Italy and France, and requires unanimity — meaning it can be vetoed by Hungary’s Kremlin-friendly Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. The four countries — even if joined by pro-Kremlin Hungary and Slovakia — would not be able to build a blocking minority but their public criticism erodes the Commission’s hopes of striking a political deal next week. While Italy’s right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has always supported sanctions against Russia, the government coalition she leads is divided over supporting Ukraine. Hard-right Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini has embraced a Russia-friendly stance and endorsed U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to end the war in Ukraine. EMERGENCY RULE Offering a further criticism, the four countries expressed skepticism toward the Commission seizing on emergency powers to overhaul the current sanctions rules and keep Russia’s assets frozen in the long-term. Despite voting in favor of this move to preserve EU unity, they said they were wary of then progressing to use the Russian assets themselves. “This vote does not pre-empt in any circumstances the decision on the possible use of Russian immobilised assets that needs to be taken at Leaders’ level,” the four countries wrote. The legal mechanism for long-term freeze is meant to reduce the chance that pro-Kremlin countries in Europe, such as Hungary and Slovakia, will hand back the frozen funds to Russia. Officials claim this workaround undermines the Kremlin’s chances of liberating its assets as part of a post-war peace settlement — and therefore strengthens the EU’s separate plan to make use of that money.   However, the four countries wrote that the legal clause “implies very far reaching legal, financial, procedural, and institutional consequences that might go well beyond this specific case.”

The International Olympic Committee said Thursday that youth athletes with Russian or Belarusian passports should be allowed to compete under their national flag and anthem, easing restrictions on Russian athletes that have been in place since the country’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The updated position applies to the 2026 Youth Olympic Games in Dakar, Senegal, but it did not mention the Milan Cortina Winter Games next year, where Russian athletes are expected to compete as neutral competitors under stringent regulations. “With its considerations today, the Olympic Summit recognised that athletes, and in particular youth athletes, should not be held accountable for the actions of their governments — sport is their access to hope, and a way to show that all athletes can respect the same rules and each another,” the IOC said in a statement. Still, the IOC maintained its guidance that Russia should not be allowed to host international sports events, although it said events could be hosted in Belarus. It also reiterated that restrictions on government officials from Russia and Belarus should stay in place for both youth and adult sports events. Russia has long faced scrutiny from the IOC over allegations of doping, with a number of Russian athletes who competed in the 2014 Sochi Olympics being stripped of their medals. IOC President Kirsty Coventry, who took the helm of the organization in June, has signaled that she would be open to seeing Russia compete in the 2026 Olympic Games, sparking a fierce backlash from Ukraine. The decision came out of this week’s Olympic Summit in Switzerland, at which key stakeholders decided to take up a recommendation from the committee’s Executive Board to change its guidance for Russian youth athletes. In its statement, the IOC said, “The Summit also reaffirmed that athletes have a fundamental right to access sport across the world, and to compete free from political interference or pressure from governmental organisations.” European soccer governing body UEFA attempted to allow Russian youth to participate in its competitions in 2023 but ultimately scuttled the effort following opposition from countries including Ukraine.

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