Russian President Vladimir Putin entered the new year facing a painful choice — limit his so-called special military operation in Ukraine or risk serious damage to his economy. Almost overnight, U.S. President Donald Trump handed him the solution. U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran have sent oil prices soaring, boosting the Kremlin’s main source of revenue and making it easier for Putin to sustain his war effort. After Israel bombed Iranian oil facilities this weekend, benchmark crude prices soared to above $100 per barrel, hitting their highest mark since the summer of 2022, when markets spiked following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. For Russia, the surge in oil prices amounts to an economic windfall at a crucial moment, as the cost of four years of war in Ukraine threatened to spill over into a domestic economic crisis. The assault on Iran may undermine Moscow’s claim to stand by its allies, but it is already benefiting Russia’s economy and, by extension, its war against Ukraine — leaving the Kremlin well placed to emerge as one of the main beneficiaries of the expanding conflict in the Middle East. ECONOMIC TURNAROUND Only several weeks ago, the mood among Russia’s economic elite was grim. The Russian finance ministry’s budget plan for this year assumed a baseline benchmark of $59 per barrel of Urals crude, the country’s main export blend. But in January, energy revenues plunged to their lowest level since 2020, compounding a disappointing tax haul. As Western sanctions, high interest rates and labor shortages strained the economy, tension between the finance ministry and the central bank on how to mitigate the damage became increasingly visible. “It was far from a collapse,” said Sergey Vakulenko, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. “But the government was facing tough choices, had to cut its spending and raise taxes and even consider some reduction in military expenditure.” Stopping the war in Ukraine was never on the table, Vakulenko added, but it was becoming clear that even on that front, Russia would have to “economize a bit.” Then Israel and the U.S. attacked Iran. As Tehran retaliated and the conflict spilled over into a regional war, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has stalled, sending oil prices soaring. “Suddenly, Moscow received this gift,” said Vladimir Milov, a former deputy energy minister turned Kremlin critic in exile. “They had their lifeline.” These days, he said, Russian officials are “very, very happy.” ‘STRATEGIC MISTAKE’ Instead of selling at a discount because of Western sanctions, Russian crude may now fetch premium prices as its main buyers — India and China — scramble to secure supplies. What’s more, they’ll have Washington’s blessing.  Last Friday, the U.S. Treasury issued a 30-day waiver allowing India to buy Russian crude to “enable oil to keep flowing into the global market.” A day later, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the United States could “unsanction other Russian oil,” a sharp reversal from last year’s policy of penalizing countries for buying Russian energy. Unsurprisingly, the Kremlin is using the moment to maximum advantage.  “Russia was and continues to be a reliable supplier of both oil and gas,” Putin’s spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Friday in what sounded like a sales pitch, adding that demand for Russian energy products had increased. Meanwhile, Kremlin aide Kirill Dmitriev gloated in a series of posts on X that “the oil shock tsunami is just beginning,” criticizing Europe’s decision to cut itself off from Russian energy as “a strategic mistake.”  On Monday, pro-Kremlin commentators circulated a Wall Street Journal article predicting oil prices could skyrocket to $215. LONG GAME Energy experts warn it is too soon for Moscow to claim victory. Whether the Iran crisis proves a cure for Russia’s economy depends directly on how long it lasts. Milov, the former deputy energy minister, said that, to make a meaningful difference for the economy, Russia would need oil prices to remain at current levels for roughly a year. “One or two months of high prices would certainly help, but it won’t save it,” he said. A brief spike in prices will only “help to postpone the difficult decisions,” added Vakulenko, the analyst at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center.  There’s another reason why Moscow will be hoping the war drags on: With every day of fighting, the U.S. is depleting the weapon stocks Ukraine is relying upon to defend itself.  According to media reports, Russia has been providing Iran with intelligence to help it target U.S. warships and aircraft.  The assassination of Iran’s leader Ali Khamenei in a U.S.-Israeli airstrike may have dealt a blow to Russia’s promise to defend its allies, but Putin may ultimately decide it was a price worth paying.

When U.S., Mexican and Canadian soccer officials fanned out across the globe nearly a decade ago to sell the 2026 World Cup, they traveled in threes — one representative from each country — to underscore a simple message: North America’s three largest countries were in lockstep. “It was so embedded into everything we did that this was a united bid. Our success was tied to the joint nature of the bid. That was the anchor regarding the premise of what we were trying to do,” said John Kristick, former executive director of the 2026 United Bid Committee. The pitch worked. In 2018, FIFA members awarded the tournament to North America, marking the first time three countries would co-host a men’s World Cup. Bid strategists were delighted when The Washington Post editorial page approvingly called it ”the NAFTA World Cup.” The North American Free Trade Agreement is no more, a victim of President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw during his first term, and the successor U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is now teetering. At almost exactly the midway point of the 39-day tournament, trade ties that link the three countries’ economies will expire. The trilateral relationship is more frayed than it has ever been, tensions reflected in this year’s World Cup itself. Instead of one continental showcase, the 2026 World Cup increasingly resembles three distinct tournaments, with different immigration regimes, security plans and funding models, all a function of different policy choices in each host country. Soccer governing body FIFA “is the only glue that’s holding it together,” said one person intimately involved in the bid who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the sensitive political dynamics. The “United” in the United Bid, once the anchor of the entire project, now competes with three national agendas, each running on its own track. POLITICO spoke to eight people involved in developing a World Cup whose path from conception to execution reflects the crooked arc of North American integration. “When these events are awarded, they’re concepts. They’re ideas. They feel good,” said Lee Igel, a professor of global sport at NYU who has advised the U.S. Conference of Mayors on sports policy. “But between the award and the event itself, the world changes. Politics change. Leaders change.” THE TRUMP TOURNAMENT At the start of the extravagant December event that formally set the World Cup schedule, Trump stood next to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to ceremonially draw the first lottery ball. FIFA officials touted the moment at the Kennedy Center as a milestone: the first time the three leaders had appeared together in person, united by soccer. The trio also met for 90 minutes off stage in a meeting — facilitated by FIFA as part of World Cup planning. That novelty was notable. While each national government has named a “sherpa” to serve as its lead, those officials — including Canadian Secretary of State for Sport Adam van Koeverden and Mexican coordinator Gabriela Cuevas — have met only a handful of times in formal trilateral settings. At a January security summit in Colorado Springs, White House FIFA Task Force director Andrew Giuliani did not mention Canada or Mexico during his remarks. Only when FIFA security officer GB Jones took the stage was the international nature of the tournament acknowledged. “We have been and continue to work very closely with officials from all three host countries on topics including safety, security, logistics, transportation and other topics related to hosting a successful FIFA World Cup,” a FIFA spokesperson wrote via email. “This is one World Cup presented across all three host countries and 16 host cities, while showcasing the uniqueness of each individual location and culture.” The soccer federations behind the United Bid have been largely sidelined, with FIFA — rather than national governments — serving as the link between them. It has brought personnel of local host-city organizing committees for quarterly workshops and other meetings, and situated nearly 1,000 of its own employees across all three countries, according to a FIFA spokesperson who says they are “working seamlessly in a united effort.” (The number will swell to more than 4,000 when the tournament is underway.) But those FIFA staff are forced to navigate wildly varied fiscal conditions depending on where they land. Mexico, which will have matches in three cities, has imposed a tax exemption to stimulate investment in the World Cup and related tourist infrastructure in its three host cities. The Canadian government has dedicated well over $300 million to tournament costs, with more than two-thirds going directly to host-city governments. “The federal government are contributing significantly to both Vancouver and Toronto in terms of funding,” said Sharon Bollenbach, the executive director of the FIFA World Cup Toronto Secretariat, which unlike American host committees is run directly out of city hall. American cities, however, have been left to secure their own funding, largely through the pursuit of commercial sponsorships and donations to local organizing committees. Congress has allocated $625 million for the federal government to reimburse host cities in security costs via a grant program. But the partial government shutdown and an attendant decision by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to stop approving FEMA grants is exacerbating a logjam for U.S. states and municipalities — including not only those with World Cup matches but hosting team training camps — that rely on federal funds to coordinate counterterrorism and security efforts. That has left American host cities in very different financial situations just months before the tournament starts. Houston and Dallas-area governments can count on receiving a share of state revenue from Texas’ Major Events Reimbursement Program. The small Boston suburb of Foxborough, Massachusetts, however, is refusing to approve an entertainment license for matches at Gillette Stadium because of an unresolved $7.8 million security bill. Because of the budget squeeze, American cities have cut back on “fan festival” gatherings that will run extend during the tournament’s full length in Canadian and Mexican cities. Jersey City has canceled the fan fest planned at Liberty State Park in favor of smaller community events, and Seattle’s fan fest will be scaled down into a “distributed model” spread cross four locations. The tournament has become tightly intertwined with Trump, as FIFA places an outsized emphasis on courting the man who loves to be seen as the consummate host. Public messaging from the White House has focused almost exclusively on the United States’ role, and Trump rarely mentions Canada or Mexico from the Oval Office or on Truth Social. Since returning to office, Trump has had eight in-person meetings with FIFA President Gianni Infantino — besides the lottery draw at the Kennedy Center — whereas Sheinbaum and Carney have only had one each. While taking questions from the media during a November session with Infantino in the Oval office, Trump did not rule out the use of U.S. military force, including potential land actions, within Mexico to combat drug cartels. Guadalajara, which is set to host four World Cup matches, this weekend erupted in violence after Mexican security forces killed the head of a cartel that Trump last year labeled a “foreign terrorist organization.” A White House spokesperson wrote in a social-media post that the United States provided “intelligence support” to the mission. It is part of a more significant set of conflicts than Trump had with the United States’ neighbors during his first term. In January, Trump claimed that Sheinbaum is “not running Mexico,” while Carney rose to office promising Canadians he would “stand up to President Trump.” Since then, Trump has regularly proposed annexing Canada as the 51st state, as his government offers support to an Alberta separatist movement that could split the country through an independence vote on the province’s October ballot. The July 1 renewal deadline for the five-year-old USMCA has injected urgency into relations among the three leaders. Without an extension, the largely tariff-free trade that underpins North America’s economy would come into question, and governments and businesses would begin planning for a rupture. Trump, who recently called the pact “irrelevant,” has signaled he would be content to let it lapse. Suspense around the free trade zone’s future will engulf preparations for the World Cup, potentially granting Trump related in unrelated negotiations. “In the lead-up to mega-events, geopolitical tensions tend to hover in the background,” Igel said. “Once the matches begin, the show can overwhelm everything else, unless something dramatic like a boycott intervenes. But in the months before? That’s when you see the friction.” THE ORIGINS OF THE UNITED BID It was not supposed to be this way. When North American soccer officials first decided, in 2016, to fuse three national campaigns to host the World Cup into one, they saw unity as the strategic advantage that would distinguish their bid from any competitors. Each country had considered pursuing the World Cup on its own. Canada, looking to build on its success as host of the 2015 Women’s World Cup, wanted to host the larger men’s competition. Mexico, the first country to host it twice, wanted another shot. The United States dusted off an earlier bid for the 2022 tournament, which was awarded to Qatar. Sunil Gulati, a Columbia University economist serving as the U.S. Soccer Federation’s president, envisioned an unprecedented compromise: Instead of competing with one another they would work together — with the United States using its economic primacy and geographical centrality to ensure it remained the tournament’s focal point. The three countries’ economies had been deeply intertwined for nearly a quarter-century. Their leaders signed NAFTA in 1992, lowering trade barriers and snaking supply chains across borders that had previous isolated economic activity. But the trade pact triggered a broad backlash in the United States that allied labor unions on the left and isolationists on the right. That political disquiet exploded with the candidacy of Donald Trump, who called NAFTA “the worst trade deal” and immediately moved to renegotiate it upon taking office. Gulati, meanwhile, was pitching Emilio Azcárraga Jean, CEO and chair of Mexican broadcaster Grupo Televisa, and Canada Soccer President Victor Montagliani, on his own plan for regional integration. They agreed to sketch out a tournament that would have 75 percent of the games held in the U.S. with the remainder split between Canada and Mexico. “I’d rather have a 90 percent chance of winning 75 percent of the World Cup than a 75 percent chance of, you know, winning all of it,” Gulati told the U.S. Soccer board, according to two people who heard him say it. Montagliani and Mexico Football Federation President Decio de María joined Gulati to formally announce the so-called United Bid in New York in April 2017. The three federation presidents knew that the thrust of their pitch had to be more emotional and inclusive than “we are big, rich and have tons of ready-built stadiums,” as one of the bid organizers put it. Kristick laced a theme of “community” through the 1,500-page prospectus known to insiders as a bid book. “In 2026, we can create a bold new legacy for players, for fans and for football by hosting a FIFA World Cup that is more inclusive, more universal than ever,” declared a campaign video that the United Bid showed to the organization’s voting members. “Not because of who we are as nations, but because of what we believe in as neighbors. To bid together, countries come together.” It was a sentiment increasingly out of sync with the times. The same month that Gulati had stood with his counterparts in New York announcing the joint bid, Trump was busy demanding that Congress include funding for a wall along the border with Mexico. He told then-Mexico President Enrique Peña Nieto and then-Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, using aluminum and steel tariffs as a cudgel. Carlos Cordeiro, who displaced Gulati as U.S. Soccer president during the bid process in 2018, became the driving force of the lobbying effort to sell the idea to 211 national federations that would vote on it. In Cordeiro’s view, according to two Americans intimately involved in the bid at the time, the bid’s biggest challenge was assuring voters that the tournament would be more than a U.S. event dressed up with the flags of its neighbors. Teams fanned out across each of soccer’s six regional confederations to make their pitch, each presentation designed to paint a picture of tri-national cooperation, and returned to a temporary base in London to debrief. “It was very pragmatic. It was like Carlos, or another U.S. representative, would say this and talk about this. The Canada representative will then talk about this. The Mexico representative will talk about this. And it was very much trying to be even across the three in terms of who was speaking,” one person on the traveling team said. When the United Bid finally prevailed in June 2018, defeating a rival bid from Morocco, Trump celebrated it as an equal triumph for the three countries. “The U.S., together with Mexico and Canada, just got the World Cup,” he wrote on Twitter, now known as X. “Congratulations — a great deal of hard work!” THREE DIFFERENT TOURNAMENTS What began with a united bid is turning into parallel tournaments: with different fan bases, security procedures and off-field programs, all a function of different policy choices in each host country. Fans from Iran and Haiti are barred from entering the United States under travel restrictions imposed by Trump, while other World Cup countries are subject to elevated scrutiny that could block travel plans. (Official team delegations are exempt.) Canada and Mexico do not impose the same restrictions, creating uneven access across the tournament: fans traveling from Ivory Coast will likely find it much easier to reach Toronto for a June 20 match against Germany than one in Philadelphia five days later against Curaçao. “FIFA recognizes that immigration policy falls within the jurisdiction of sovereign governments,” read a statement provided by the FIFA spokesperson. “Engagement therefore focuses on dialogue and cooperation with host authorities to support inclusive tournament delivery, while respecting national law.” A fan who does cross borders will encounte a patchwork of security régimes depending on which government is in charge. Mexican authorities draw from deep experience policing soccer matches, with a mix of traditional crowd-control tactics and advanced technology like four-legged robots. The United States is emphasizing novel drone defenses and asked other countries for lists of its most problematic fans. Ongoing immigration enforcement actions in the U.S. have also prompted concern among the international soccer community and calls for a boycott of the tournament. The White House this month issued clarifying talking points to host cities to buttress the “shared commitment to safety, hospitality, and a successful tournament experience for all.” The document confirms that U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement “may have a presence” at the tournament to assist with non-immigration-related functions like aviation security and anti-human trafficking efforts. No where is the fragmentation more glaring among countries than on human rights. After previous World Cups were accused of “sportswashing” autocratic regimes in Qatar and Russia, the United Bid made “human rights and labor standards” a centerpiece of its proposal to FIFA. The bid stipulated that each host city by August 2025 must submit concrete plans for how the city would protect individual rights, including respect for “indigenous peoples, migrant workers and their families, national, ethnic and religious minorities, people with disabilities, women, race, LGBTQI+, journalists, and human rights defenders.” “Human rights were embedded in the bid from the beginning,” said Human Rights Watch director of global initiatives Minky Worden, who worked closely with Mary Harvey, a former U.S. goalkeeper and soccer executive who now leads the Centre for Sport and Human Rights, on the language. Harvey consulted with 70 civil-society groups across the three countries while developing the strategy. That deadline passed without a single U.S. city submitting their plan on time. Now just months before the kickoff, host cities have finally started to release their reports, creating a patchwork of approaches. While Vancouver’s report makes multiple references to respecting LGBTQ+ populations, Houston’s has no mention of sexual orientation and identity at all. The FIFA spokesperson says the organization has embedded inclusion and human rights commitments directly into agreements signed by host countries, cities and stadium operators, and that dedicated FIFA Human Rights, Safeguarding and Anti-Discrimination teams will monitor implementation and hold local organizers to account for violations. “All of these standards were supposed to be uniform across these three countries,” said Worden. “It wasn’t supposed to be the lowest common denominator with the U.S. being really low.”

BERLIN —  Germany’s pro-business Free Democrats, on the brink of political extinction, face a make-or-break state vote this Sunday that party leaders believe may well be their last chance to claw back relevance. Leaders of the fiscally conservative Free Democratic Party (FDP) — which was part of Germany’s previous, ill-fated coalition government under former Chancellor Olaf Scholz — have long pinned their hopes for a national revival on this Sunday’s election in the southwestern state of Baden-Württemberg, traditionally one of the party’s strongholds. Instead, the vote now may end up being a death knell for a party that long played a central role in postwar German politics, wielding outsized influence as a kingmaker between the two major centrist parties that once dominated the political landscape. With the FDP now hovering just above the 5 percent threshold of support needed to make it into the Baden-Württemberg legislature, according to polls, the party is at risk of crashing out of the state parliament for the first time in its history. That result would prove disastrous for a party that already failed to make it into the federal parliament in a snap national election last year, an outcome that sent then party leader, Christian Lindner — once deemed a wunderkind of European free-market liberalism — into early political retirement. In an unmistakable symbol of the party’s decline, Lindner, who served as finance minister in the previous government under Scholz, has since taken on a key management role at a national car dealership business. The FDP’s prospects of turning things around with a resurgence in Baden-Württemberg are looking next to impossible. Current polls show it losing almost half of its support in the state since the last election there, while Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservatives maintain a small lead in the state over the second-place Greens. “If we fail to enter parliament in Baden-Württemberg, it would be hard to explain why it would be different elsewhere,” Wolfgang Kubicki, the party’s deputy national leader, told POLITICO. DISAPPEARING CENTER The FDP’s decline can be seen as part of a larger hollowing-out of the political middle ground in Germany that is likely to be evident in numerous state and local elections set to take place this year across the country. This Sunday’s vote in Baden-Württemberg — a state of some 11 million people and the cradle of Germany’s increasingly troubled auto industry — is the first in a series of five state votes seen as key tests of the national mood, particularly as the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) vies for first place in many national polls. For most of Germany’s postwar history, national elections have been dominated by either the the center-right Christian Democrats or the center-left Social Democrats, with the FDP choosing at varying times to form coalition governments with both of these parties. It served as a junior coalition partner in 18 out of 25 federal governments since the founding of West Germany. As parties on Germany’s political fringes, including the AfD, have risen in popularity across Germany, the pro-business FDP has been particularly hard hit, seeing its support collapse to just 3 percent in national polls. The FDP’s new leader, Christian Dürr, is trying to revive the party’s fortunes with a policy platform he refers to as “radical centrism.” | Bernd Weißbrod/picture alliance via Getty Images Yet other classical liberal parties across Europe — which fuse market-oriented policies with libertarianism on social issues — have performed far better. In the Netherlands, Rob Jetten and his liberal-progressive D66 party came in first in a national election in October, edging out Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom (PVV). In Austria, the liberal NEOS take part in a three-party coalition with the conservatives and the Social Democrats. In Denmark, both the Venstre party and Liberal Alliance have maintained stable support for years, and are each polling at roughly 10 percent. Germany’s FDP, however, has been punished by German voters for their role in bringing down the previous, three-party government under Scholz. The party never recovered after details of its “D-Day” plot to blow up the coalition emerged in 2024. In the snap election that followed the Scholz government’s collapse, FDP voters defected in droves to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservative bloc as well as to the AfD. A similar trend can now be seen in Baden-Württemberg. While the FDP in the state has seen its support plummet, the conservatives boast a moderate increase in support. At the same time the AfD has nearly doubled its support in the state compared with the last election, according to polls, and may emerge as the clearest winner on Sunday in terms of vote share gained. ‘RADICAL CENTRISM’ The FDP’s new leader, Christian Dürr, is trying to revive the party’s fortunes with a policy platform he refers to as “radical centrism,” though the specifics of that agenda remain vague. “People expect real reform policy,” Dürr told POLITICO. “What drives them mad is that all debates are overlaid with ideology. They expect rational politics in the center.” The party says it wants to implement market-friendly reforms to boost Germany’s economy, including by easing access to the labor market for skilled migrants and reforming the state pension system to allow contributions to be invested in equity markets. These positions, however, don’t necessarily strike many voters as particularly fresh — nor sweeping enough to reverse Germany’s manufacturing decline. In Baden-Württemberg, it’s the car industry that has been particularly affected. Overall, around 100,000 positions or around 8 percent of jobs in the car sector are expected to disappear by 2030 in Germany, according to a 2025 study carried out for the economy ministry in Berlin. The FDP’s biggest problem is that voters’ have lost trust in the party’s ability to rectify this. “What’s really dramatic is that the economy has been a major, important issue — not only during the federal election — and now the FDP has very poor competence ratings in that area,” said Simon Franzmann, a political scientist at the University of Göttingen. As economic worries grow in the state, anxious voters are increasingly drawn not to the FDP’s “radical centrism,” it seems, but to other centrist parties — or the AfD’s plain radicalism. That’s just another reason the FDP, a fixture of German postwar politics, may well be on its last gasps. For transparency: The author of this article briefly worked for a FDP lawmaker in 2024.

PARIS ― American companies operating in France believe President Emmanuel Macron’s years long quest to make his country more business friendly is in danger, a survey found. The annual study by the American Chamber of Commerce in France found widespread pessimism among executives from the 140 U.S. companies with a footprint in France that were surveyed. Marc-André Kamel, a partner at Bain & Company and a vice president of AmCham France, said most of the survey’s respondents respondents believe “that a huge part of the remarkable efforts that had been undertaken since 2017 have now been wiped out.” “We are back to where we were 10 years ago in terms of France’s attractiveness,” Kamel said while presenting the findings Wednesday. Only 17 percent of respondents said France had a positive economic outlook in the next two to three years, with the top concerns being the high cost of labor and complex French labor law and political instability, while 77 percent believe Macron won’t be able to deliver more reforms before his term ends next year. Since taking office in 2017, Macron, a former investment banker, worked hard to dispel France’s reputation as a stifled, overtaxed bureaucratic abyss by cutting corporate taxes, eliminating red tape and courting major multinationals fleeing post-Brexit Britain. France has regularly topped consultancy EY’s ranking of the EU investment destinations. The French Trade Ministry, expecting the bleak results, tried to get ahead of the curve and play down the findings Tuesday. An official from the minister’s office stressed in a briefing to reporters that the AmCham survey was conducted between December and January, before France had passed a budget and while lawmakers were still debating major corporate tax hikes. The monthslong deadlock over the budget concluded in early February when Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu successfully pushed fiscal plans for 2026 through parliament.

BERLIN — Chancellor Friedrich Merz has picked a risky political fight with Germany’s workforce of some 46 million people. His message, in short: Don’t be so lazy. Germans don’t work enough hours and take too many sick days, hampering economic growth, Merz has argued in recent weeks. It’s not the most expedient political message in a pivotal year of regional elections, even in a country whose traditional self-image extols diligence and hard work as moral imperatives. Merz’s plea for people to work harder comes as he struggles to revive Germany’s long-stagnant economy and pushes market-oriented policies to boost competitiveness — partly by addressing skilled labor shortages — at home and across the EU. But it also comes at a politically sensitive moment ahead of a series of state elections that are seen as key tests of the national mood, with his own conservative party struggling to ward off a rising far right. This has not stopped the chancellor from taking an almost chastising tone with Germans for not working more and for not working harder. “The overall productivity of our national economy is not high enough,” Merz said during a recent speech to industry groups in eastern Germany, flagging part-time work as a problem. “To put it even more bluntly: Work-life balance and a four-day week will not be enough to maintain our country’s current level of prosperity in the future, which is why we need to work harder.” During a recent campaign stop in the southwestern state of Baden-Württemberg, where conservatives are clinging to a single-digit lead in polls ahead of a March 8 election, Merz doubled down, decrying the number of sick days working Germans take on average — nearly three weeks per year, he said, well above the EU average. “Is that really right? Is that really necessary?” Merz said with a clenched fist. “Can we talk about how we can create better incentives to encourage people to work rather than taking sick leave when they are ill?” He added, “In this Federal Republic of Germany, we must achieve a higher economic performance together than we are currently achieving.” ‘PART-TIME LIFESTYLE’ Germans rank near the bottom of the EU — third to last — in terms of average weekly hours worked, according to recent figures compiled by the country’s statistics agency. A big part of the reason is that the share of German workers choosing part-time employment is at a record high. Merz’s conservatives recently proposed a measure to boost overall work hours by ending the “legal entitlement” to part-time work unless an employee has a special reason, such as childcare obligations or continuing education. The proposal — titled “No legal right to a part-time lifestyle”— angered many Germans for what they perceived as its admonishing tenor. Many German women, who work part-time far more frequently than men, felt particularly targeted. Merz’s conservatives recently proposed a measure to boost overall work hours by ending the “legal entitlement” to part-time work unless an employee has a special reason, such as childcare obligations or continuing education. | Markus Scholz/picture alliance via Getty Images “This is not a lifestyle choice I have made,” said one woman who identified herself as a part-time worker from Rhineland-Palatinate — a western German state that will hold an election March 22 — in an interview for German public television, explaining that she provides care for her son and mother. Merz’s statements on part-time work and sick days were also roundly mocked on social media, with Germans turning the phrase “part-time lifestyle” into a variety of widely shared memes. “I can still work!” said the voiceover in one online video post depicting a scene from the 1975 comedy film “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” in which a knight who has just lost his limbs in battle declares he still wants to fight — or in this case, work. “Go ahead, send me an email!” the voiceover continues. “Give me something to print!” The political damage to Merz and his conservatives appears substantial. Two-thirds of Germans oppose the proposal of his Christian Democratic Union (CDU) to make it harder to work part-time, according to Germany’s benchmark ARD-DeutschlandTrend survey. More consequentially for Merz, his conservatives are losing points on their core issue: the economy. Only 31 percent of Germans surveyed said they trust the chancellor’s conservatives to improve the economy. That still beats other parties, but is 6 percentage points less than last year — tying the conservatives’ lowest economy rating on record. So it came as no surprise, earlier this month, when Merz’s party struck the phrase “part-time lifestyle” from the proposal on increasing work hours to be considered at a CDU party conference in late February. GREECE AS A MODEL? Topping the list of the most hours worked in the EU is Greece, a country whose people many German conservatives scorned as lazy during the European debt crisis over a decade ago. Merz now holds up Greece as something of a model, although Germany’s labor productivity remains far higher. Germans rank near the bottom of the EU — third last — in terms of average weekly hours worked, according to recent figures compiled by the country’s statistics agency. | Katrin Luxenburger/picture alliance via Getty Images During a visit by conservative Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis to Berlin last year, Merz praised Athens for deregulating its labor market, enabling a six-day workweek. “I recommend that everyone in Germany who thinks it is terrible and unreasonable to work 40 hours a week … take a look at Greece,” Merz said alongside Mitsotakis. “We can certainly learn something from Greece in this regard.” But given fierce German resistance to such proposals — and the fact Merz governs in coalition with the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), which is protective of current labor-market regulations — the chancellor has few immediate remedies for Germany’s chronic skilled labor shortage and stagnating productivity.  In fact, Merz’s more immediate problem may not be a work-avoiding electorate but rather the growing dearth of jobs in the industrial sector that long propelled the country’s export-oriented economy. Germany’s unemployment rate recently surpassed the 3 million mark to hit a 12-year high. “We’ve already decided on many measures to help the economy,” Merz said on a post on X after the figures emerged. “But it is not enough.” Nette Nöstlinger contributed to this report.

The European Union must implement an ambitious package of reforms covering labor mobility, capital markets and simplified bureaucracy by the end of 2026, a discussion paper backed by the governments of Germany, Italy and Belgium said. The one-page document obtained by POLITICO is meant to serve as the basis for discussions between 15 leaders to take place on Thursday before an EU summit later in the day in Alden Biesen, Belgium, where the focus will be on competitiveness. The paper urges the EU to complete the Single Market, slash bureaucratic red tape and chase further trade deals to “open new markets and opportunities for Europe’s economy.” It also spells out a desired timeline for carrying out these reforms. “Our objective is to reach agreement at the March EUCO (European Council gathering) and to anchor this agenda in its conclusions through concrete initiatives, mandates and deadlines, so as to fully implement it by the end of 2026,” the paper reads.

ATHENS — Greece’s parliament is expected to pass double-edged legislation on Wednesday that will help recruit tens of thousands more South Asian workers, while simultaneously penalizing migrants that the government says have entered the country illegally. Greece’s right-wing administration seeks to style itself as tough on migration but needs to pass Wednesday’s bill thanks to a crippling labor shortfall in vital sectors such as tourism, construction and agriculture. The central idea of the new legislation is to simplify bringing in workers through recruitment schemes agreed with countries such as India, Bangladesh and Egypt. There will be a special “fast track” for big public-works projects. The New Democracy government knows, however, that these measures to recruit more foreign workers will play badly with some core supporters. For that reason the bill includes strong measures against immigrants who have already entered Greece illegally, and also pledges to clamp down on the non-government organizations helping migrants. “We need workers, but we are tough on illegal immigration,” Greece’s Migration Minister Thanos Plevris told ERT television. The migration tensions in Greece reflect the extent to which it remains a hot button issue across Europe, even though numbers have dropped significantly since the massive flows of 2015, when the Greek Aegean islands were one of the main points of arrival. More than 80,000 positions for immigrants have been approved by the Greek state annually over the past two years. There are no official figures on labor shortages, but studies from industry associations indicate the country’s needs are more than double the state-approved number of spots, and that only half of those positions are filled. The migration bill is expected to pass because the government holds a majority in parliament. Opposition parties have condemned it, saying it ignores the need to integrate the migrants already in Greece and adopts the rhetoric of the far right. Under the new legislation, migrants who entered the country illegally will have no opportunity to acquire legal status. The bill also abolishes a provision granting residence permits to unaccompanied minors once they turn 18, provided they attend school in Greece. “Whoever is illegal right now will remain illegal, and when they are located they will be arrested, imprisoned for two to five years and repatriated,” Plevris told lawmakers. Human-rights groups also oppose the legislation, which they say criminalizes humanitarian NGOs by explicitly linking their migration-related activities to serious crimes.  The bill envisages severe penalties such as mandatory prison terms of at least 10 years and heavy fines for assisting irregular entry, providing transport for illegal migration, or helping those migrants stay. “Whoever is illegal right now will remain illegal,” Thanos Plevris told lawmakers. | Orestis Panagiotou/EPA Wednesday’s legislation also grants the migration minister broad powers to deregister NGOs based solely on criminal charges against one member, and will allow residence permits to be revoked on the basis of suspicion alone — undermining the presumption of innocence. Greece’s national ombudsman has expressed serious concerns about the bill, arguing that punishing people for entering the country illegally contravenes international conventions on the treatment of refugees. Lefteris Papagiannakis, director of the Greek Council for Refugees, was equally damning. “This binary political approach follows the global hostile and racist policy around migration,” he said.

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

German industrial giant Bosch on Friday confirmed plans to cut 20,000 jobs after profits nearly halved last year, underlining the mounting strain on Germany’s once-dominant manufacturing sector and increasing the pressure on politicians in Berlin to find a solution. Official data released Friday also showed Germany’s unemployment rate, unadjusted for seasonal factors, rising to 6.6 percent — the highest level in twelve years. The number of unemployed people surpassed three million in January. “Economic reality is also reflected in our results,” Bosch CEO Stefan Hartung said, describing 2025 as “a difficult and, in some cases, painful year” for the company, which is a leading supplier of parts for cars. The move lands amid a deepening slump in the country’s automotive industry, long the backbone of German manufacturing. The sector has been shedding jobs rapidly: A 2025 study by EY found that more than 50,000 automotive positions were cut in Germany last year alone. Germany’s automotive downturn has become a wider political test for the government in Berlin and Europe more widely. Once the economy’s crown jewel, the industry is now being challenged by current policy on electric vehicles, energy costs and aggressive competition from Chinese manufacturers. As suppliers weaken, the risk is shifting from lower profits to a lasting loss of competitiveness. With layoffs rising and investment decisions being delayed, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government is coming under growing pressure from workers, unions and industry leaders to rethink Germany’s industrial strategy — as doubts spread domestically and across Europe about the country’s ability to remain an economic powerhouse.