Moscow proposed a quid pro quo to the U.S. under which the Kremlin would stop sharing intelligence information with Iran, such as the precise coordinates of U.S. military assets in the Middle East, if Washington ceased supplying Ukraine with intel about Russia. Two people familiar with the U.S.-Russia negotiations said that such a proposal was made by Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev to Trump administration envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner during their meeting last week in Miami. The U.S. rejected the proposal, the people added. They, like all other officials cited in this article, were granted anonymity due to the sensitivity of the discussions. Nevertheless, the sheer existence of such a proposal has sparked concern among European diplomats, who worry Moscow is trying to drive a wedge between Europe and the U.S. at a critical moment for transatlantic relations. U.S. President Donald Trump has voiced anger over the refusal of allies to send warships in the Strait of Hormuz. On Friday, he lambasted his NATO allies as “COWARDS“ and said: “we will REMEMBER!” The White House declined to comment. The Russian Embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. One EU diplomat called the Russian proposal “outrageous.” The suggested deal is likely to fuel growing suspicions in Europe that the Witkoff-Dmitriev meetings are not delivering concrete progress toward a peace agreement in Ukraine, but are instead seen by Moscow as a chance to lure Washington into a deal between the two powers that leaves Europe on the sidelines. On Thursday, the Kremlin said that the U.S.-mediated Ukraine peace talks were “on hold.” Russia has made various proposals about Iran to the U.S., which has rejected them all, another person familiar with the discussions said. This person said the U.S. also rejected a proposal to move Iran’s enriched uranium to Russia, which was first reported by Axios. Russia has expanded ‌intelligence-sharing and military cooperation with Iran since the war started, a person briefed on the intelligence said. The Wall Street Journal first reported the increase and wrote that Moscow is providing satellite ⁠imagery and drone technology to help Tehran target U.S. forces in the region. The Kremlin called that report  “fake news.” Trump hinted at a link between the intelligence-sharing with Iran and Ukraine during a recent interview with Fox News, saying that Russian President Vladimir Putin “might be helping them [Iran] a little bit, yeah, I guess, and he probably thinks we’re helping Ukraine, right?” The U.S. continues to share intelligence with Ukraine, even as it has reduced other support. Washington briefly paused the exchanges last year after a disastrous Oval Office meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. That abrupt halt to U.S. intelligence sharing triggered a chaotic scramble among allies and exposed deep tensions in the partnership with Kyiv. One European diplomat sought to downplay the risk of the Russian proposal, noting that French President Emmanuel Macron had said in January that “two-thirds” of military intelligence for Ukraine is now provided by France. Still, intelligence-sharing remains a last crucial pillar of American support for Ukraine after the Trump administration stopped most of its financial and military aid for Kyiv last year. Washington is still delivering weapons to Ukraine but under a NATO-led program where allies pay the U.S. for arms. Deliveries of critical air defense munitions, however, are under strain amid the U.S.-Israel war with Iran.  Most recently, the Trump administration decided to ease sanctions on Russian oil to alleviate pressure on oil markets, causing strong concern and criticism from  European leaders like German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Hans von der Burchard reported from Berlin, Felicia Schwartz and Diana Nerozzi from Washington and Jacopo Barigazzi from Brussels.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Energy markets are on edge as Iran tensions disrupt shipping and threaten supply shocks. EU foreign ministers and energy ministers meet in Brussels to discuss what the bloc can actually do to protect global energy flows — and whether it has the tools to act. Meanwhile, Norway is positioning itself as a reliable energy lifeline as the geopolitical turmoil puts security of supply back in focus. And the U.K.’s Brexit minister is in town as the EU asks Britain to lower the tuition fees it charges students from the bloc before Brussels and London can move forward with a “Brexit reset.” Zoya Sheftalovich and Kathryn Carlson break it all down. If you have questions for us, or want to share your thoughts on the show, you can reach us on our WhatsApp at +32 491 05 06 29.

LONDON — U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has stressed since the start of the U.S. and Israeli-led war in Iran that Britain will only contribute to defensive operations, including limiting the U.S. use of British airbases, saying: “We have learned the lessons of Iraq.” The problem as the war continues into its third week is that Starmer is now getting low marks from key allies in the Gulf for how he’s applied those lessons, according to senior military figures and diplomats who spoke to POLITICO. That has left London scrambling to deploy sufficient resources and show that it can provide adequate defensive support in the region as well as protect British assets, including its sovereign bases in Cyprus.  Three people familiar with operational and planning strategies, granted anonymity to speak frankly about sensitive matters, said the U.K. had bungled defensive decision-making and failed to send the necessary resources to the area at the time of the first U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran.   Chief of the Defense Staff Richard Knighton has taken flak over delays in deploying HMS Dragon, a guided missile destroyer, to the Mediterranean for more than a week after the war started. But one former military commander familiar with conversations in government about the U.K. response said the greater fault lay in a risk-averse stance from Starmer as well as his National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell and Defense Secretary John Healey, whose fears over a domestic backlash to being embroiled in a conflict in the Middle East hobbled the U.K.’s thinking about how to support allies in the Gulf. “No. 10 was determined to downplay any risk or perception of us getting involved and now the government is playing catch-up,” the former commander said. “And that means we are showing up late.” Others POLITICO spoke with said the failure to deploy maritime assets — especially in minesweeper expertise and air defense — has shaken states ranging from Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates with longstanding close defense ties to the U.K. This perceived lapse has left Britain on the back foot both in its deployment of assets and in diplomatic relations with partners, visible in the U.K.’s concerted effort last week to demonstrate support for Gulf countries facing retaliatory strikes from Iran, as Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper travelled to Saudi Arabia. The prime minister and defense secretary have highlighted extra resources deployed to the region since widespread unrest erupted in Iran at the start of the year, including fighter jets, air defense missiles and radar systems.  The prime minister and defense secretary have highlighted extra resources deployed to the region since widespread unrest erupted in Iran at the start of the year, including fighter jets, air defense missiles and radar systems. And there are mounting signs that Starmer and Healey have understood the extent of sore feelings among allies and are seeking to assuage any tensions with Gulf allies as well as with the U.S.  In a social post on Sunday, the Ministry of Defense highlighted U.K. Typhoon and F-35 jets flying over Bahrain for the first time in “defense of British interests” and Britain’s role in air protection over the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Cyprus. Christian Turner, Britain’s ambassador to Washington, also issued a video over the weekend noting that British pilots have spent “over 300 hours in the skies above the Middle East shooting down Iranian drones and missiles” as well as drawing attention to the U.S. use of U.K. bases and sharing of intelligence.  “We acted early to protect British people and British interests and to support our allies across the region,” a Ministry of Defense spokesperson said, specifically noting defense patrols with extra Typhoons in Qatar to support that country as well as Bahrain and the UAE. “Those preparations made a real difference, enabling our troops to conduct defensive operations from Day One.” “We acted early to protect British people and British interests and to support our allies across the region,” a Ministry of Defense spokesperson said, specifically noting defense patrols with extra Typhoons in Qatar to support that country as well as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. “Those preparations made a real difference, enabling our troops to conduct defensive operations from Day One.” A Downing Street spokesperson declined to comment further, referring inquiries to the Ministry of Defense.  But a government official, granted anonymity as they were not authorized to speak on the record, insisted Starmer and Healey had “followed all military recommendations presented to them throughout the build-up” and hit out at “armchair generals who aren’t seeing the intelligence and information that our military see every day.” Yet a person with knowledge of deployment decisions said that close allies of the U.K. were “deeply disappointed” by the lack of preparation. “There had been knowledge of the preparations for U.S. action on Iran on a large scale from around Christmas and the U.K. had visibility on that,” this person said. “But the response was wholly inadequate.” If a full array of options had been considered, according to this person, a submarine presence from the Royal Navy might have been sent to the region as a deterrent under the terms of Operation Kipion, a long-standing umbrella for British security, intelligence gathering and deterrence to the Gulf. One area of concern has been the decommissioning of ships, some of which were moved for servicing and routine upgrades in recent weeks.  HMS Middleton, which was based in Bahrain, arrived back in Britain on March 1 — the day after the U.S. and Israel opened their attack — for maintenance and a technological upgrade. The vessel, ⁠which is more than 40 years old, was no longer certified to sail, according to the MOD. The U.K.’s only mine-hunting ship was brought back to Britain to save money just as strikes began, according to The Times.  Healey told reporters this week he was still considering “additional options” for protecting the Strait of Hormuz.  The former commander was frustrated by a gap between the prime minister and Healey’s robust language about Britain’s need for war-readiness and the reality of its actions.  “We have the prime minister and defense secretary talking about ‘preparing the nation for war’ on a running basis, which is ironic, as we and our allies ended up not deploying deterrent force and taking a week to deploy a major warship to defend Cyprus in good time to show our strong  defensive intentions,” this person said. A senior Gulf diplomat said the U.K.’s early response to the conflict fell short of what Gulf partners expected given Britain’s longstanding military ties in the region. There were “a lot of phone calls,” the diplomat said, but not much in the way of “serious support.” John Foreman, a former deputy head of the Combined Maritime Forces in Bahrain, said Starmer’s cautious approach was bound to cause continued problems as the conflict continues, particularly amid rising focus on protecting the Strait of Hormuz. “Wiser, less cautious heads would have got ahead of the game,” Foreman said. “It comes from Starmer ultimately and the tone of his government. It’s too late for Powell to be asking for options on the eve of war — and for Healey to still be pondering options now.”

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described European allies’ attitude over the Druzhba oil pipeline as “blackmail.” In remarks made public on Sunday, the Ukrainian leader criticized European pressure to allow oil to flow through the pipeline, which connects producer country Russia to Europe by way of Ukraine. The pipeline has been offline since January after a Russian attack, and has been at the center of a bitter row between Ukraine and Hungary. Budapest has accused Kyiv of deliberately blocking progress on repairing the infrastructure in order to engineer an energy crisis in the Hungary. In response, Hungarian Prime Viktor Orbán has been blocking the release of a €90 billion tranche of EU funding for Ukraine needed to keep the war-torn country financially afloat. On Thursday, the European Commission proposed sending a fact-finding mission to inspect the damage to the Druzhba pipeline in an attempt to resolve the dispute. “If we have decided to restore Russian oil supplies, then I want them to know that I am against it. … But if I am given conditions that Ukraine will not receive weapons, then, excuse me, I am powerless on this issue; I told our friends in Europe that this is called blackmail,” Zelenskyy said in reported remarks. The price of oil has surged passed $100 a barrel in recent days due to disruptions linked to the war in Iran, which began with American-Israeli strikes on Tehran on Feb. 28. Washington has eased sanctions on certain Russian oil consignments in response to the price pressure. On Saturday, Ukraine’s state oil and gas company, Naftogaz, announced that it had held a briefing with European and G7 ambassadors where it updated them on the state of the Druzhba pipeline. The company said the pipeline had been heavily damaged following a Russian attack in January. “Restoring such infrastructure is a complex technological process that requires time, specialized equipment, and the continuous work of teams even under constant threat,” Naftogaz said. The word druzhba means friendship in Russian.

Germany, France, Italy, Poland and the U.K. on Friday said they would work to jointly develop new low-cost autonomous drones as NATO scrambles to bolster its air defenses against Russia. Defense ministers from the five countries — known as the E5 — said they would launch an initiative called Low-Cost Effectors and Autonomous Platforms (LEAP) with the aim of producing drones within a year. “Collectively, we have some of the best kit on the entire planet for shooting down air threats,” British Deputy Defense Minister Luke Pollard told reporters after a meeting in Kraków, Poland. “We feel confident that this is the very first step of what we hope will be a series of initiatives.” The drone program “provides a call to arms for our defense industries in every single one of the five nations to respond to the challenge,” Pollard said. The initiative reflects a growing concern around protecting Europe’s skies, after a series of air incursions across NATO last year that ranged from Russian fighter jets over Estonia to swarms of drones entering Polish airspace. Although NATO neutralized the threats, it drew criticism for scrambling multimillion-dollar fighter jets to shoot down drones costing thousands of dollars. “The problem is to be effective at shooting down relatively low-cost missiles, drones and other threats facing us,” Pollard told reporters. “We need to make sure that we’re matching the cost of the threats with the cost of defense,” he said, adding that the drone initiative entailed a new “multimillion-euro” commitment from the five countries. The scheme will primarily aim to produce effectors for drones, Pollard said, a military term for the part of the equipment that acts on a target, such as the explosive payload. It also comes as part of Europe’s broader drive to become responsible for its own defense, amid intense pressure from the Trump administration and doubts around Washington’s commitment to NATO. “Europe … is motivated to move forward on defense,” Polish Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz said.

Polish President Karol Nawrocki thinks his country should start developing nuclear defenses, given the threat from Moscow. In an interview with Polsat television on Sunday, Nawrocki described himself as “a great supporter of Poland joining the nuclear project” and argued that the country should develop its security strategy “based on nuclear potential.” He added: “This path, with respect for all international regulations, is the path we should take. … We must work towards this goal so that we can begin the work. We are a country right on the border of an armed conflict. The aggressive, imperial attitude of Russia toward Poland is well known.” His comments come amid a growing debate in several European countries about developing their own nuclear weapons in the light of growing threats from Moscow and an erosion of trust in the United States. Latvia’s Prime Minister Evika Siliņa, for example, said at the Munich Security Conference this weekend that “nuclear deterrence can give us new opportunities.” Meanwhile, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said talks were ongoing with France about a European deterrent. Asked how Moscow might react to a Polish nuclear weapons program, Nawrocki was dismissive: “Russia can react aggressively to anything,” he said.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said she does not agree with the German chancellor’s assessment of the influence of MAGA culture in Europe. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that “the culture war of the MAGA movement is not ours” in Europe during his speech at the Munich Security Conference on Friday, in a strong intervention that saw him declare the U.S. leadership as “perhaps already lost.” Asked by Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera whether she agrees with Merz’s criticisms, Meloni said “No,” adding that “these are political evaluations, every leader does them as he sees fit, but it’s not a matter of concern within the European Union’s jurisdiction.” Meloni has a book coming out soon in the U.S., titled Giorgia’s Vision, with a foreword from U.S. Vice President JD Vance and a quote from Donald Trump on the front cover. The divide between Rome and Berlin is notable after the two leaders held a summit together in late January — a meeting that was billed as an effort to drive forward European priorities including on relations with Washington, in the absence of a strong Franco-German alliance. When asked if she agreed with Merz’s criticism of Trump’s America, Meloni replied: “Look, it’s clear that we’re in a very complex phase in international relations; we’re also in a particular phase in relations between Europe and the United States.” “I think Merz is correct when he says that Europe must focus on itself and do more, for example on security, starting with NATO’s European pillar. I agree with that,” she said. But she pushed back on any idea that Europe should be looking to go it alone, saying that “we must instead work towards greater integration between Europe and the United States.” “Working to enhance what unites us rather than what might divide us is very important for everyone, especially for European countries. I believe it’s very important for Italy.” In the same interview she also talked about Trump’s Board of Peace, tasked with making peace in Gaza. She said that Rome has been invited “as an observer country” and in her opinion “it is a good solution.” Meloni was a notable absence from the gathering in Munich, instead choosing to travel to Addis Ababa in Ethiopia despite suggestions she had been invited to speak immediately after Merz.

MUNICH — European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Saturday told the Munich Security Conference that the EU should get serious about its own mutual defense clause. Article 42.7 of the EU treaty has been floated as a Plan B for Europe’s security, in a world where the U.S. decreases support for NATO. Like NATO’s once-ironclad Article 5, which U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on, the EU clause obliges countries to provide “aid and assistance by all the means in their power” if another nation in the bloc is attacked. “I believe the time has come to bring Europe’s mutual defense clause to life,” von der Leyen said, without providing specifics. “Mutual defense is not optional for the EU. It is an obligation within our own Treaty — Article 42(7) … It is our collective commitment to stand by each other in case of aggression.” While Munich discussions on Friday largely centered around the need for a strong European role in the NATO military alliance, von der Leyen’s remarks underscore that Europe may need to hedge its security bets given Trump’s unpredictable attitude toward historical allies. The push to use the EU’s mutual defense clause comes amid the worst transatlantic crisis in decades, with Trump’s claim to Greenland shaking belief in the U.S. commitment to NATO.

MUNICH, Germany — European countries need to create a “rapid reaction force” of up to 100,000 troops to replace American soldiers currently stationed on the continent, EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius said in an interview with POLITICO on Friday. Kubilius shied away from calling such a force a “European army,” a term that is rejected in many countries and even causes deep dissent among his fellow European commissioners. “We need to have clarity about what we are talking about, because this title of ‘European army’ has some kind of historical legacy and sometimes it’s misleading,” he said, speaking at the POLITICO Pub during the Munich Security Conference. He recalled the term originally arose in the 1950s, when Europe was beginning to unify in the wake of World War II and leading politicians raised the possibility of creating a non-national military representing the whole continent but not individual countries. Today’s Europe is very different. “If somebody was asking me: ‘Do you want to create such a European army as in the 1950s, abandoning national armies?’ I would say that I’d be quite skeptical, at least at this moment,” he said. It’s not a new issue for Kubilius, a former Lithuanian prime minister who is acutely aware of the threat posed by Russia and of Europe’s deep dependence on American security guarantees. Last month, he said:  “We need to start to invest our money in such a way that we would be able to fight as Europe, not just as [a] collection of 27 national ‘bonsai armies.'” But fellow commissioner Kaja Kallas, the EU’s top diplomat, has cast cold water on the idea, calling it “extremely dangerous” by potentially undermining NATO. That pushback is prompting Kubilius to more precisely define his idea. “What we are talking about is a rapid reaction force of 100,000 or 80,000 capability, which should replace American forces,” if and when they reduce their presence in Europe, he said. “That’s why I started to use much more this terminology of rapid reaction force, in order not to make this misleading connection with the European army.” However, he acknowledged that even such a force would face difficulties as it would be controlled by member countries, making rapid and coherent action very difficult. He did not address whether such a European force would be part of NATO, although he did underline that Europe should continue to rely on the alliance. To get around the problem of leadership, Kubilius suggested creating a European Security Council, made up of five or six big EU countries, possibly plus the U.K, as well as smaller EU countries on a rotating basis and the Council and the European Commission. Such a body “may be the answer” to the leadership issue, he said.  

Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is STARK. * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around the European defense policy and the NATO goals for 2030. More information here.