BRUSSELS ― There’s no turning back now. That was the message from European leaders who gathered in Brussels on Thursday. And even though this emergency summit, called in response to Donald Trump’s threats to seize Greenland, turned into something far less dramatic because the U.S. president backed down 24 hours earlier, the quiet realization that Europe’s post-1945 rubicon had been crossed was, if anything, all the more striking for it. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the EU’s two most powerful leaders, who haven’t seen eye-to-eye of late, were united in warning that the transatlantic crisis had catapulted the bloc into a harsh new reality — one in which it must embrace independence. “We know we have to work as an independent Europe,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters at the end of the five-hour gathering. And while, in contrast to recent EU summits, there was no tub-thumping or quarrels or even any decisions to be made, the gathering quietly signaled a tacit understanding, according to four EU diplomats and one official with knowledge of the leaders’ discussion, that there’s a fateful break between the old order and the new, the way the West has functioned since World War II and whatever lies ahead. While the mental shift toward independence has been gestating for years ― ever since Trump first moved into the White House in 2017 ― his unprecedented threats to Greenland acted as a sudden warning, forcing them to take steps that would have been unthinkable even just a few months ago, they said. All the officials interviewed for this article were granted anonymity to enable them to speak freely about the summit, which was held in private. “This is the Rubicon moment,” said an EU diplomat from an eastern flank country, with knowledge of the leaders’ discussions. “It’s shock therapy. Europe cannot go back to the way it was before. They [the leaders] have been saying this for days.” What that new way would look like is — as usual — a conversation for another day. But there have been hints at it this week. The initial response from EU leaders to the Greenland crisis — suspending an EU-U.S. trade agreement, sending troops to Greenland, threatening to deploy sweeping trade retaliation against the U.S. — served as a taste of what might come. EVERYTHING, ALL AT ONCE Between them, and then in public, leaders underscored that the speedy, unified response this month couldn’t be a one-off. Instead, it would need to define the bloc’s approach to just about everything “It cannot be energy security or defense, it cannot be economic strength or trade dependence, it has to be everything, all at once,” one of the diplomats said. France’s President Emmanuel Macron arrives for the summit. France is no longer an outlier in advocating for “strategic autonomy” for Europe. | Olivier Matthys/ EPA A key feature of Europe’s newfound quest for independence is a degree of unity that has long eluded the bloc. For countries on the bloc’s eastern flank, their location in the path of an expansionist Russia has long underpinned a quasi-religious belief in NATO ― in which a reliable U.S. had the biggest military and guaranteed the defense of all other members ― and its ability to deter Moscow. A sense of existential reliance on the U.S. has kept these countries firmly in Washington’s camp, leading to disagreements with countries further west, like France, that advocate “strategic autonomy” for Europe. Now, France isn’t the outlier. Even countries directly exposed to Russia’s expansionism are showing willingness to get on board with the independence push. Estonia is a case in point. The tiny Baltic country said last week it would consider deploying troops to Greenland as part of a “scoping mission” organized by NATO. Tallinn didn’t end up sending any soldiers — but the mere fact that it raised the possibility was remarkable. “When Europe is not divided, when we stand together, and when we are clear and strong, also in our willingness to stand up for ourselves, then results will show,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said. “I think we have learned something in the last days and weeks.” Poland, one of the staunchest U.S. backers, also stepped out of its traditional comfort zone. In discussions about how to respond, Prime Minister Donald Tusk has signaled openness to deploying the EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument — a powerful trade retaliation tool that allows for limiting investments from threatening nations, according to the diplomats. Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk speaks to the media as he arrives for the summit. Even Poland, one of the staunchers backers of the U.S., has stepped out of its comfort zone. | Olivier Matthys/EPA “We always respected and accepted American leadership,” Tusk said. “But what we need today in our politics is trust and respect among our partners here, not domination and not coercion. It doesn’t work.” LEARNING THE LESSON A similar realization is taking hold in Europe’s free-trading northern countries.  While nations like Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands have historically opposed any move that risks imperiling their trading relationship with the U.S., those countries also signaled openness to retaliation against Trump. “This is a new era where we’re not going to rely on them anymore,” said a fourth EU diplomat. “At least not for three years,” while Trump is still in office. “This [Greenland crisis] was a test. We’ve learned the lesson.” Even Germany, whose political culture has been defined for decades by faith in the transatlantic relationship, is questioning old assumptions. Merz has hinted that Germany could be onboard with a tough trade response against the U.S. While EU diplomats and officials credited those moves with helping to change Trump’s mind on his tariff threats, they warned that further tough choices were now in order. “We need to own our agenda,” added the fourth diplomat. “Ukraine, productivity, competitiveness, security, strategic autonomy. The lesson is not to say no to everything.” Tim Ross, Zoya Sheftalovich, Seb Starcevic, Victor Jack, Nette Nöstlinger, Ferdinand Knapp, Jacopo Barigazzi, Carlo Martuscelli, Ben Munster, Camille Gijs, Gerardo Fortuna, Jakob Weizman, Bartosz Brzeziński, Gabriel Gavin and Giedre Peseckyte contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — The European factions who hold different views on dealing with Donald Trump each have a figurehead. Let’s meet them. Their roles are crucial as EU leaders meet in Brussels Thursday evening, hours after the U.S. president said he had formed “the framework of a future deal” on Greenland with NATO chief Mark Rutte. The announcement throws the emergency European Council into uncertainty and will see those around the table trying to get a handle on what has actually been agreed, and how they respond to it. Trump’s declaration that tariffs won’t be imposed on EU countries as part of the spat means it’s unlikely leaders will sign off on a range of planned retaliatory trade measures that had been on the table. However, three officials and diplomats — granted anonymity to speak freely — told POLITICO that the working dinner remains vital for discussing a range of issues affecting relations with the U.S., including Washington’s new push for talks between Russia and Ukraine, as well as its creation of a Gaza Peace Board. European Council President António Costa, who is chairing the meeting, will have to contend with different camps when it comes to how to deal with Trump. Here’s who to watch at the summit (and you can keep up with all the news and analysis on our live blog). THE FIREBRAND: FRENCH PRESIDENT EMMANUEL MACRON Macron has emerged at the helm of a small but growing band of countries that want to take Trump on. In Davos on Tuesday, the French centrist branded the Greenland push as “imperialism or new colonialism” and bemoaned Trump’s “useless aggressivity.” France has consistently pushed for Europe to be less dependent on the U.S., and its arms industry stands to benefit from its call on allies to buy more weaponry made on the continent. Behind the scenes, French diplomats were pushing for the deployment of the ACI, making it clear in no uncertain terms that the bloc will stand up to economic blackmail. But texts published by Trump show that Macron — who once had a warmer relationship with the American president — has tried to continue his charm offensive out of view of the cameras. Macron is backed up by leaders such as Belgium’s Bart De Wever, who has said publicly that “there’s no point in being soft anymore” and he would be prepared for a “trade war” if needed. Spain’s Pedro Sánchez, one of the few socialist leaders in the Council, has also been vocal in his condemnation of Trump. That group will be emboldened by the fact that the White House seemingly backed down in the face of diplomatic and economic pressure over Greenland. The fact European leaders are taking this so seriously and holding emergency talks “was clearly part of changing [Trump’s] mind,” said a senior European diplomat about Thursday’s meeting. THE RELUCTANT SUPPORTER: GERMAN CHANCELLOR FRIEDRICH MERZ Despite Berlin’s fragile governing coalition initially sending mixed messages about its intentions, Merz appears to be coming around to Macron’s strategy. With his focus firmly on economics, Merz effectively speaks for the countries that would rather not be dragged into fresh rows with Trump but are starting to feel there may be no other option. He has publicly said “we want to avoid any escalation in this dispute, if at all possible,” but vowed “we will of course protect our European interests, as well as our German national interests.” Like many others, Merz has tried charm — sitting awkwardly through an Oval Office meeting with Trump last year as the president brought up Germany’s Nazi past. Now, the chancellor seems resigned to the prospect that more will need to be done. In private, German diplomats have joined forces with their French counterparts in a rare show of unity to signal they would be ready to support beginning the ACI process. “There is indeed a convergence in the positions between France and Germany, which was previously unthinkable,” said the EU diplomat. THE LITMUS TEST: ITALIAN PRIME MINISTER GIORGIA MELONI All eyes are on Meloni, who has simultaneously carved out a special relationship with Trump while also playing a key role in the development of the EU’s foreign affairs policy as part of an elite group of big economies. When she joins forces with those who want to be more assertive, it’s a significant sign that Trump has probably gone too far. Meloni spoke to the president over the weekend by telephone. “Our goal is not to fight with the Americans,” her foreign minister, Antonio Tajani, told POLITICO after the call, arguing a “win-win” solution could be found. While Meloni is often reluctant to sacrifice her communications channel with the White House, there’s an expectation she will ultimately side with her fellow Europeans. “Meloni understands. She is serious,” a second senior diplomat said, arguing that if her line to Trump fails to produce results, there’s little point continuing to protect it. Another notably cautious figure around the Council table will be Dick Schoof, the prime minister of the Netherlands, who has been reluctant to openly criticize Trump despite his country being one of the targets of the new tariff threats. The Dutch government has emphasized the need to try to work through the Greenland issue without escalation. THE UNDECIDED: POLISH PRIME MINISTER DONALD TUSK A long-standing pro-EU politician, Tusk nevertheless faces a tough moment — navigating public opinion and a Trump-friendly president in Warsaw. Along with the Baltic nations, Poland borders Russia and is dependent on Washington to continue its military role in the region. Three diplomats told POLITICO that this group of countries, while supportive of standing up for European sovereignty, is more hesitant to do anything they think could be seen as an escalation. They will be breathing a sigh of relief that they don’t have to make any major decisions — yet. THE SYMPATHIZER: CZECH PRIME MINISTER ANDREJ BABIŠ The summit is the second Brussels sit-down for billionaire businessman Babiš since he returned to office. He could be key to demonstrating unity. So far, he has joked that he has bought a globe “to see where Greenland is,” and said Trump’s fears about Russia and China are legitimate, but called for a peaceful agreement to preserve NATO. Another leader to keep an eye on is Slovakia’s Robert Fico. He has frequently criticized the EU and dug in his heels over efforts to diversify away from Russia, but ultimately tends to fall in line on major decisions. He met Trump in Mar-a-Lago over the weekend and agreed on joint nuclear power projects, saying he had a special relationship with the president because he is “not a Brussels parrot.” One politician whom those in the room can depend on to oppose almost anything the others might agree on is Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán — a longtime fan of Trump. Diplomats say Budapest is worried by an increasingly unpredictable Washington but, according to one envoy, Orbán “doesn’t want to rock the boat” given he has a critical election test of his own in April. Victor Jack contributed to this report.

Denmark’s top military commander in the Arctic pushed back against claims that Greenland is facing an imminent security threat from Russia or China, undercutting a narrative repeatedly advanced by U.S. President Donald Trump. “No. We don’t see a threat from China or Russia today,” Major General Søren Andersen, commander of Denmark’s Joint Arctic Command in Greenland, said in an interview with the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, of which POLITICO is a part. “But we look into a potential threat, and that is what we are training for.” Andersen, who has headed the Joint Arctic Command since 2023, stressed that the stepped-up Danish and allied military activity around Greenland is not a response to an immediate danger, but preparation for future contingencies.  Once the war in Ukraine ends, he said, Moscow could redirect military resources to other regions. “I actually expect that we will see Russian resources that are being taken from the theater around Ukraine into other theaters,” Andersen said, pointing to the Baltic Sea and the Arctic region. That assessment has driven Denmark’s decision to expand exercises and invite European allies to operate in and around Greenland under harsh winter conditions, part of what Copenhagen has framed as strengthening NATO’s northern flank. Troops from several European countries have already deployed under Denmark’s Operation Arctic Endurance exercise, which includes air, maritime and land components. The remarks stand in contrast to Trump’s repeated claims that Greenland is under active pressure from Russia and China and his insistence that the island is vital to U.S. national security.  “In the meantime, you have Russian destroyers and submarines, and China destroyers and submarines all over the place,” Trump told reporters on Sunday about his pursuit to make Greenland part of the United States. “We’re not going to let that happen.” Trump has argued Washington cannot rule out the use of force to secure its interests, comments that have alarmed Danish and Greenlandic leaders. Andersen declined to engage directly with those statements, instead emphasizing NATO unity and longstanding cooperation with U.S. forces already stationed at Pituffik Space Base. He also rejected hypothetical scenarios involving conflict between allies, saying he could not envision one NATO country attacking another. Despite rising political tensions with Washington, Andersen said the United States was formally invited to participate in the exercise. “I hope that also that we will have U.S. troops together with German, France or Canadian, or whatever force that will train, because I think we have to do this together.”

BRUSSELS — Germany and the Netherlands are at odds with France in seeking to ensure Kyiv will be able buy U.S. weapons using the EU’s €90 billion loan to Ukraine. EU countries agreed the crucial lifeline to Kyiv at a European Council summit in December, but the capitals will still have to negotiate the formal conditions of that financing after a European Commission proposal on Wednesday. This sets up tense negotiations with Paris, which is leading a rearguard push to prevent money flowing to Washington amid a growing rift in the transatlantic alliance. French President Emmanuel Macron is keen to give preferential treatment to EU military companies to strengthen the bloc’s defense industry — even if that means Kyiv can’t immediately buy what it needs to keep Russian forces at bay. A majority of countries, led by governments in Berlin and The Hague, respond that Kyiv must have more leeway in how it spends the EU’s financial package to help fund its defense, according to position papers seen by POLITICO. These frictions are coming to a head after years of debate over whether to include Washington in EU defense purchasing programs. Divisions have only worsened since U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration threatened a military takeover of Greenland. Critics retort France’s push to introduce a strict “Buy European” clause would tie Kyiv’s hands and limit its ability to defend itself against Russia. “Ukraine also urgently requires equipment produced by third countries, notably U.S.-produced air defense systems and interceptors, F-16 ammunition and spare parts and deep-strike capacities,” the Dutch government wrote in a letter to other EU countries seen by POLITICO. While most countries including Germany and the Netherlands support a general “Buy European” clause, only Greece and Cyprus — which currently maintains a neutral stance as it is chairing talks under its rotating presidency of the Council of the EU — are backing the French push to limit the scheme to EU firms, according to multiple diplomats with knowledge of the talks. CASH FOR KYIV EU leaders agreed last month to issue €90 billion in joint debt to support Ukraine, after Belgium and others derailed a separate plan to mobilize Russian frozen state assets. Over two-thirds of the Commission’s funding is expected to go toward military expenditure rather than ordinary budget support, according to two EU diplomats briefed on the discussions. With only a few days until the Commission formally unveils its plan, EU capitals are trying to influence its most sensitive elements. French President Emmanuel Macron is keen to give preferential treatment to EU military companies to strengthen the bloc’s defense industry. | Pool photo by Sarah Meyssonnier via AFP/Getty Images Germany broke with France by proposing to open up purchases to defense firms from non-EU countries. “Germany does not support proposals to limit third country procurement to certain products and is concerned that this would put excessive restrictions on Ukraine to defend itself,” Berlin’s government wrote in a letter sent to EU capitals on Monday and seen by POLITICO. The Netherlands suggested earmarking at least €15 billion for Ukraine to buy foreign weapons that are not immediately available in Europe.  “The EU’s defence industry is currently either unable to produce equivalent systems or to do so within the required timeframe,” the Dutch government wrote in its letter. The French counterargument is that Brussels should seek to extract maximum value from its funding to Ukraine. Critics say that boosting Ukraine’s defense against Russia should take precedence over any other goal.    “It’s very frustrating. We lose the focus on our aim, and our aim is not to do business,” said a third EU diplomat. Another diplomat said that a potential French veto can be easily overcome as the proposal can be agreed by a simple majority of member countries. GERMANY FIRST In a further point of controversy, the German government, while rejecting the EU preference sought by France, still suggested giving preferential treatment to firms from countries that provided the most financial support to Ukraine. This would play to the advantage of Berlin, which is among the country’s biggest donors. “Germany requests for the logic of rewarding strong bilateral support (as originally proposed for third countries by the Commission) to be applied to member states, too,” Berlin wrote in the letter. Diplomats see this as a workaround to boost German firms and incentivize other countries to stump up more cash for the war-torn country. Giovanna Faggionato contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — If European governments didn’t realize before that Donald Trump’s threats to seize Greenland were serious, they do now. Policymakers are no longer ignoring the U.S. president’s ramped-up rhetoric — and are desperately searching for a plan to stop him. “We must be ready for a direct confrontation with Trump,” said an EU diplomat briefed on ongoing discussions. “He is in an aggressive mode, and we need to be geared up.” U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday that he planned to discuss a U.S. acquisition of Greenland with Danish officials next week. The White House said Trump’s preference would be to acquire the territory through a negotiation and also that it would consider purchasing the island — but that a military takeover was possible. As diplomatic efforts intensified in Europe, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said he and his counterparts from Germany and Poland had discussed a joint European response to Trump’s threats. “What is at stake is the question of how Europe, the EU, can be strengthened to deter threats, attempts on its security and interests,” Barrot told reporters. “Greenland is not for sale, and it is not for taking … so the threats must stop.” POLITICO spoke with officials, diplomats, experts and NATO insiders to map out how Europe could deter the U.S. president from getting that far, and what its options are if he does. They were granted anonymity to speak freely. “Everyone is very stunned and unaware of what we actually have in the toolbox,” said a former Danish MP. “No one really knows what to do because the Americans can do whatever they want. But we need answers to these questions immediately. They can’t wait three or five or seven years.” On Wednesday, POLITICO set out the steps Trump could take to seize Greenland. Now here’s the flip side: What Europe does to stop him. OPTION 1: FIND A COMPROMISE Trump says Greenland is vital for U.S. security interests and accuses Denmark of not doing enough to protect it against increasing Chinese and Russian military activity in the Arctic.  A negotiated settlement that sees Trump come out of talks with something he can sell as a win and that allows Denmark and Greenland to save face is perhaps the fastest route out of trouble. A former senior NATO official suggested the alliance could mediate between Greenland, Denmark and the U.S., as it has done with alliance members Turkey and Greece over their disputes. U.S. NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker said on Wednesday that Trump and his advisers do not believe Greenland is properly secured. | Omar Havana/Getty Images U.S. NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker said on Wednesday that Trump and his advisers do not believe Greenland is properly secured. “As the ice thaws and as the routes in the Arctic and the High North open up … Greenland becomes a very serious security risk for the mainland of the United States of America.” NATO allies are also mulling fresh overtures to Trump that could bolster Greenland’s security, despite a widely held view that any direct threat from Russian and Chinese ships to the territory is overstated. Among other proposals, the alliance should consider accelerating defense spending on the Arctic, holding more military exercises in the region, and posting troops to secure Greenland and reassure the U.S. if necessary, according to three NATO diplomats.  The alliance should also be open to setting up an “Arctic Sentry” scheme — shifting its military assets to the region — similar to its Eastern Sentry and Baltic Sentry initiatives, two of the diplomats said. “Anything that can be done” to bolster the alliance’s presence near Greenland and meet Trump’s demands “should be maxed out,” said one of the NATO diplomats cited above. Trump also says he wants Greenland for its vast mineral deposits and potential oil and gas reserves. But there’s a reason Greenland has remained largely untapped: Extracting resources from its inhospitable terrain is difficult and very expensive, making them less competitive than Chinese imports. Denmark’s envoys say they tried for years to make the case for investment in Greenland, but their European counterparts weren’t receptive — though an EU diplomat familiar with the matter said there are signs that attitude is shifting. OPTION 2: GIVE GREENLAND A TON OF CASH The Trump administration has thrown its weight behind Greenland’s independence movement. The pitch is that if the Arctic territory leaves the Kingdom of Denmark and signs up to a deal with the U.S., it will be flooded with American cash.  While Trump has repeatedly refused to rule out using military force to take Greenland, he has also insisted he wants it to come willingly. The EU and Denmark are trying to convince Greenlanders that they can give them a better deal. Brussels is planning to more than double its spending on Greenland from 2028 under long-term budget plans drawn up after Trump started to make claims on the Danish-held territory, according to a draft proposal from the European Commission published in September. Under the plans, which are subject to further negotiations among member countries, the EU would almost double spending on Greenland to €530 million for a seven-year period starting in 2028.  That comes on top of the money Denmark sends Greenland as part of its agreement with the self-governing territory. Greenland would also be eligible to apply for an additional €44 million in EU funding for remote territories associated with European countries, per the same document. Danish and European support currently focuses mainly on welfare, health care, education and the territory’s green transition. Under the new spending plans, that focus would expand to developing the island’s ability to extract mineral resources. “We have many, many people below the poverty line, and the infrastructure in Greenland is lagging, and our resources are primarily taken out without good profit to Greenland but mostly profit to Danish companies,” said Kuno Fencker, a pro-independence Greenlandic opposition MP.  An attractive offer from Denmark and the EU could be enough to keep Greenlanders out of America’s grasp. OPTION 3: RETALIATE ECONOMICALLY Since Trump’s first term in office, “there’s been a lot of effort to try and think through how we ensure European security, Nordic security, Arctic security, without the U.S. actively involved,” said Thomas Crosbie, a U.S. military expert at the Royal Danish Defense College, which provides training and education for the Danish defense force. “That’s hard, but it’s possible. But I don’t know if anyone has seriously contemplated ensuring European security against America. It’s just crazy,” Crosbie said. The EU does have one strong political tool at its disposal, which it could use to deter Trump: the Anti-Coercion Instrument, the “trade bazooka” created after the first Trump administration, which allows the EU to retaliate against trade discrimination. The EU threatened to deploy it after Trump slapped tariffs on the bloc but shelved it in July after the two sides reached a deal. With the U.S. still imposing tariffs on the EU, Brussels could bring the bazooka back out. “We have exports to the United States a bit above €600 billion, and for around one-third of those goods we have a market share of more than 50 percent and it’s totally clear that this is also the power in our hands,” said Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee. But Trump would have to believe the EU was serious, given that all its tough talk amounted to nothing the last time around. OPTION 4: BOOTS ON THE GROUND If the U.S. does decide to take Greenland by military force, there’s little Europeans could do to prevent it.  “They are not going to preemptively attack Americans before they claim Greenland, because that would be done before an act of war,” said Crosbie, the Danish military educator. “But in terms of responding to the first move, it really depends. If the Americans have a very small group of people, you could try and arrest those people, because there’d be a criminal act.” It’s a different story if the U.S. goes in hard. Legally speaking, it’s possible Denmark would be forced to respond militarily. Under a 1952 standing order, troops should “immediately take up the fight without waiting for, or seeking orders” in “the event of an attack on Danish territory.” European countries should weigh the possibility of deploying troops to Greenland — if Denmark requests it — to increase the potential cost of U.S. military action, an EU diplomat said, echoing suggestions that Berlin and Paris could send forces to deter any incursion. While those forces are unlikely to be able to withstand a U.S. invasion, they would act as a deterrent. “You could have a tripwire effect where you have some groups of people who are physically in the way, like a Tiananmen Square-type situation, which would potentially force the [U.S.] military to use violence” or to back down, said Crosbie.  But that strategy comes at a high cost, he said. “This is completely unexplored territory, but it is quite possible that people’s lives will be lost in the attempt to reject the American claim over Greenland.” Gerardo Fortuna, Clea Caulcutt and Eli Stokols contributed reporting.

A cargo ship that sailed from Russia was detained in the Gulf of Finland on Wednesday following damage to an underwater data cable linking Finland and Estonia. “A ship that was in the area at the time of the cable damage between Helsinki and Tallinn has been diverted to Finnish waters,” Prime Minister Petteri Orpo posted on X. “The government is closely monitoring the situation.” The Fitburg, which was under the flag of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, had departed St. Petersburg, Russia on Dec. 30 and was en route to Israel with crew from Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan. Telecoms provider Elisa notified authorities at 5 a.m. of a cable break in Estonia’s exclusive economic zone, which extends 200 nautical miles from its coast. Hours later a Finnish patrol vessel caught the Fitburg with its anchor in the water in Finland’s exclusive economic zone, the country’s coast guard reported. “At the moment we suspect aggravated disruption of telecommunications and also aggravated sabotage and attempted aggravated sabotage,” Helsinki police chief Jari Liukku told media. “Finland is prepared for security challenges of various kinds, and we respond to them as necessary,” President Alexander Stubb said on X. Earlier this year the NATO military alliance launched its “Baltic Sentry” program to stop attacks against subsea energy and data cables in the Baltic Sea that have multiplied following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The sabotage has included the severing of an internet cable between Finland and Germany in November 2024 and another between Finland and Sweden the following month. A July study by the University of Washington found that 10 subsea cables in the Baltic Sea had been cut since 2022. “A majority of these incidents have raised suspicions of sabotage by state actors, specifically Russia and China, who have been particularly active in the region,” the study noted.

BRUSSELS — European leaders failed to reach a deal to use frozen Russian assets to send billions of euros in financial aid to Ukraine after 14 hours of discussions at an EU summit in Brussels. In a blow for EU unity, leaders will now consider a solution based on joint borrowing to send €90 billion to Ukraine over two years. This plan won’t include Hungary, Slovakia and Czechia. Leaders broke from the summit briefly about 1:30 a.m. and will continue their discussions into the night. With a deal on Ukraine’s long-term financing still up in the air, leaders are talking about a potential bridge funding option to ensure Kyiv doesn’t run out of money. Two EU officials told POLITICO that a new draft version of the conclusions ― the joint statement from the summit ― would see a temporary financing solution put into place in the medium term. The latest proposal on the EU’s plan to keep Ukraine afloat over the next years, obtained by POLITICO, sets out that leaders agree “to provide a loan to Ukraine … based on EU borrowing on the capital markets backed by the EU budget headroom.” That outcome would be a massive blow for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who was pushing the assets plan — and a victory for Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever.

One trillion US dollars of gross domestic product (GDP) has been surpassed. Poland has entered the ranks of the world’s 20 largest economies, symbolically ending a phase of chasing the West that has lasted more than three decades. The Polish Development Fund’s (PFR) new strategy seeks to address the challenge of avoiding the medium-level development trap and transitioning from the role of subcontractor to that of investor. This year marks a turning point in Polish economic history. After years of transformation, reforms and overcoming civilizational deficits, Poland has reached a point that the generation of ‘89 could only dream of. GDP crossed the symbolic barrier of US$1 trillion, and we proudly enter the exclusive club of the world’s 20 largest economies. Diversified Polish exports are breaking records, and innovative companies are conquering global markets. Sound like a happy ending? Not necessarily. Via PFR Investing for future generations Poland’s past success invites tougher challenges in a brutal world. The cheap labor growth model is dead; demographics are relentless. PFR analyses highlight declining employment as a core issue — without bold changes, stagnation looms. Piotr Matczuk, PFR president, says Poland needs an impetus for resilience, innovation and growth. PFR’s 2026-2030 strategy is that roadmap, urging a shift to high gear. On Dec. 10, it unveiled investments for future generations. Geopolitics enters the balance sheet PFR’s strategy marks a paradigm shift: integrating economics with security. Business now anchors state security, with “economic and defence resilience” as a core pillar — viewing security spending as essential insurance, not cost. > The PFR’s strategy is clear: the competitiveness of the Polish economy depends > directly on access to cheap and clean energy. PFR has invested in WB Electronics, Poland’s defense leader in command systems and drones. It expands beyond arms via dual-use tech: algorithms, encrypted communications and autonomous drones often from civilian startups. This spring’s PFR Deep Tech program backs venture capital (VC) for scaling these firms; IDA targets innovations for logistics, cybersecurity and future defense. The focus is Poland’s technological sovereignty. Controlling key security links — from ammo to artificial intelligence — ensures economic maturity resilient to geopolitical shocks. > Poland needs a boost to our resilience, innovation and growth rate. That is > why the new strategy emphasizes investment in new technologies, infrastructure > and the financial security of Poles. We want the PFR to be a catalyst for > change and a partner of choice — an institution that invests for future > generations, sets quality standards in development financing and supports > Polish entrepreneurs in boosting their international presence. > > Piotr Matczuk, President, PFR Piotr Matczuk, President, PFR / Via PFR Energy: to be or not to be for the industry If defense is the shield, then energy is the bloodstream. The PFR’s strategy is clear: the competitiveness of the Polish economy depends directly on access to cheap and clean energy. Without accelerating the transformation, Polish companies, instead of increasing their share in foreign markets, may lose their position. This is why the fund wants to enter the game as an investor where the risks are high, but the stakes are even higher — into an investment gap that the commercial market alone will not fill.  The concept of local content, in other words the participation of domestic companies in the supply chain, is key to the new strategy. This is where the circle closes. The Baltic Hub is not just a container terminal. Investment in the T5 installation terminal is the foundation, as the Polish offshore will not be built with the appropriate participation of a domestic port. This is a classic example of how the PFR works: building ‘hard’ infrastructure that becomes a springboard for a whole new sector of the economy.  The end of being a subcontractor: capital emancipation Taking inspiration from, among others, France’s Tibi Initiative, in mid-November 2025 the Polish minister of finance and economy, Andrzej Domański, announced the Innovate Poland program. The PFR plays a leading role in what will be the largest initiative in the history of the Polish economy to invest in innovative projects. Thanks to cooperation with Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego (BGK), PZU and the European Investment Fund, Innovate Poland is already worth 4 billion złoty, and the program multiplier may reach as much as 3-4. The combined development and private capital will be invested by experienced VC and private equity funds. The aim is to further Poland’s economic development — driven by innovative companies that make a profit. In the first phase, it is expected to finance up to 250 companies at various stages of development. Via PFR The expansion of Polish companies abroad is also part of the effort for advancement in the global hierarchy. Their support is one of the pillars of the new PFR strategy. For three decades, Poland has played the role of the assembly plant of Europe — solid, cheap and hard-working. However, the highest margins, flowing from having a global brand and market control, went overseas. Polish companies need to stop being anonymous subcontractors and become owners of assets in foreign markets.  Here, the PFR acts as financial leverage. The support for the Trend Group is a prime example of this maturing process. This is a transaction with a symbolic dimension: it reverses the investment vector of the 1990s, when German capital was consolidating Polish assets. Today, it is Polish entities that are increasingly becoming leaders in offering industrial solutions in the European Union. > Polish companies need to stop being anonymous subcontractors and become owners > of assets in foreign markets. However, these ambitions extend beyond the Western direction. The strategy strongly emphasizes Poland’s role in the future reconstruction of Ukraine and the consolidation of the Central and Eastern European region. The involvement of the PFR in the operations of the Euvic Group on the Ukrainian IT market is a good example. In the digital world, big players have more power, and the PFR strives to ensure that the decision-making centers of those growing giants remain in Poland. Most importantly, Polish businesses are no longer alone in this struggle. The strategy institutionalizes the concept of ‘Team Poland’. In this initiative, the PFR provides capital; BGK, a state development bank, offers debt solutions; the KUKE, an insurance company, insures the risk; and the Polish Investment and Trade Agency provides promotional support. Acting like a one-stop shop, all these institutions enable Polish capital to compete as a partner in the global league. This is part of the Polish government’s modern economic diplomacy strategy, led by Domański. Capital for generations. From an employee to a stakeholder in the economy  All grand plans need fuel. Mature economies like the Netherlands and the United Kingdom harness citizens’ savings via capital markets. PFR’s strategy boldly demands Poland’s success create generational wealth: turning the average Kowalski from an employee into a stakeholder. Diagnosis is brutal: Poles save little (6.38 percent compared with the EU’s 14.32 percent in Q1 2024) and inefficiently, favoring low-interest deposits. Employee Capital Plans (PPK) drive cultural change. Hard data demonstrate this: 67 percent average returns over five years crush traditional savings. It’s a virtuous cycle — PPK capital feeds stock markets, finances company growth and loops profits back to future pensioners. An architect, not a firefighter  The new PFR strategy for 2026-30 is a clear signal of a paradigm shift. The company, which many Polish entrepreneurs still see as a firefighter extinguishing the flames of the pandemic with billions from the Anti-Covid Financial Shields, is definitively taking off its helmet and putting on an engineer’s hard hat. It is shifting from interventionist to creator mode, abandoning the role of ‘night watchman’ of the Polish economy to that of its ‘chief architect’. This is an ambitious attempt to establish an institution in Poland that not only provides capital, but also actively shapes the country’s economic landscape, setting the direction for development for decades to come.

BRUSSELS — Thursday’s European Council is the bloc’s last chance to show it can be more than a talking shop. Facing a growing rift with the U.S., and a Ukraine that is set to run out of cash in the first half of next year, the summit will show whether the EU’s leaders can actually deliver — or if their national differences are too big to overcome. The burning question is whether the EU can convince Belgium to get on board with its plan to syphon billions in frozen Russian assets to Ukraine to keep it solvent. If the EU fails it will be “severely damaged” for years to come, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned. POLITICO’s liveblog is in full flight with all the details — but here’s your cheat sheet on what to watch for. THE €210 BILLION QUESTION  After failing to reach a deal at the last European Council in October — or in the several rounds of urgent talks and behind-the-scenes wrangling that have taken place since — Thursday is the last chance for EU leaders to green-light a proposal to leverage €210 billion in Russian assets across the bloc to fund a loan to Ukraine.  Belgium’s support is crucial, as the bulk of the frozen assets lie in the Brussels-based financial depository Euroclear, and its government fears being on the hook for substantial damages or retaliation from Moscow. Despite weeks of persuasion, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever — a Flemish right-winger with a reputation for intransigence — hasn’t budged and continues to enjoy strong domestic support. Less than 24 hours before crunch time the Belgian ambassador told peers during closed-door talks that “we’re going backward.” Italy, Bulgaria and Malta have also signaled their opposition.   This is all bad news for Ukraine, which faces a €71.7 billion budget shortfall next year and will have to start cutting public spending as of April.  COULD BELGIUM BE SIDELINED?  Some member countries, such as Germany and Latvia, have suggested making the decision to seize the assets by qualified majority voting, rather than by unanimity, effectively sidelining Belgium.   In that case, 15 out of 27 member states would need to vote in favor. But Belgian officials told POLITICO there’s no point in trying to overrule their concerns as the funds in the Euroclear depository would simply not be released.  A senior EU official, granted anonymity to speak freely, told POLITICO the whole point of Thursday’s summit is to convince Belgium to drop its opposition, even if it means meeting late into the night.  IF NOT ASSETS, THEN WHAT?   If there’s no deal on the assets then the EU will have to find another way to prop up Ukraine, which it committed to doing one way or another at the last summit in October.  On Wednesday evening Europe’s leaders were split into irreconcilable camps, at least publicly, and seemed unlikely to agree on how to fund Kyiv. But the first contours of a potential route out of the impasse — one that would have to be hashed out during hours of negotiations — are beginning to take shape, with diplomats working on a long-shot 11th-hour compromise to salvage a deal. If the EU fails it will be “severely damaged” for years to come, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned. | Nadja Wohlleben/Getty Images European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has cautiously opened the door to joint debt, backed by the EU’s next seven-year budget, as a back-up plan. “I proposed two different options for this upcoming European Council, one based on assets and one based on EU borrowing. And we will have to decide which way we want to take,” she said during a speech at the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Wednesday morning. The key to such a plan would be carving Hungary and Slovakia — which both oppose giving further aid to Ukraine — out of the joint debt scheme, four EU diplomats told POLITICO. A deal could still be agreed at the Council among the 27 EU countries, but the ultimate arrangement would stipulate that only 25 would be involved in the funding.  ABOUT THAT PEACE DEAL   Washington shocked Ukraine and its European allies when it produced a plan to end the war that was replete with major concessions to Russia, including handing over large swathes of Ukrainian territory and capping the size of Kyiv’s military. After frenzied talks from Geneva to Berlin, Kyiv and its allies successfully lobbied for an alternative plan, which includes an offer by American officials to provide a NATO-style security assurance to protect Ukraine.  “For the first time since 2022, a ceasefire is conceivable,” Merz said at a press conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Monday. Zelenskyy is expected to attend the summit and to update leaders on the progress of the negotiations. U.S. and Russian officials are expected to meet in Miami this weekend to continue talks. According to draft conclusions obtained by POLITICO, the EU will commit to providing “robust and credible security guarantees for Ukraine” — and, in a thinly veiled rebuke to Washington calling the shots, the bloc is set to declare that it “will decide on matters of its competence or affecting its security.”  MAKING THE EU COMPETITIVE  As the EU launches various measures to revitalize its sputtering economy, the focus of talks will be how external pressures (read: the U.S. and China) are impacting the bloc’s drive to become competitive. The draft conclusions are light on details or deliverables, saying simply that the EU’s leaders “held a strategic discussion about the geoeconomic situation and its implications for the EU’s competitiveness.”  A senior EU official clarified to POLITICO that the leaders are set to discuss how to handle the U.S. and Chinese postures in the global economy. Washington has shaken up the global trade order with its punishing tariffs while Beijing has alarmed Brussels by ramping up its rare earth export controls. AND … MERCOSUR? One thing that is not officially on the agenda is the Mercosur trade deal, which would create an enormous free trade zone with the South American bloc of countries and is finally on the cusp of being agreed after 25 years of talks.   France, and now Italy, want to delay a crucial vote on the deal over concerns about safeguards for the agricultural sector. But Denmark, which holds the presidency of the Council of the EU, has vowed to hold the vote in time for von der Leyen to fly to Brazil on Dec. 20 to sign the deal.   While the vote isn’t set to be discussed on Thursday, that doesn’t mean it won’t come up when the leaders gather. ENLARGEMENT IS BACK ON THE AGENDA  On Wednesday, leaders from the Western Balkans countries convened in Brussels to discuss taking forward their countries’ bids to join the bloc. Montenegro, the most advanced candidate, closed five accession chapters this week and is vying to join the bloc by 2028. With enlargement finally a real possibility in the not-too-distant future, the topic — which was not on the agenda at the summit in October — has returned to the fore. Leaders are set to endorse growing the bloc and to discuss “internal reforms,” according to draft conclusions. That’s shorthand for overhauling how the EU makes decisions so that a bloc with 30-plus members isn’t paralyzed.   Gabriel Gavin, Gregorio Sorgi and Camille Gijs contributed to this report. 

BRUSSELS — The European Union faces a critical week as it seeks to shield Ukraine from a humiliating peace deal carved out by the U.S. and Russia while attempting to salvage an agreement to fund a multi-billion euro loan to keep Kyiv afloat. After a series of stinging attacks from Washington ― including Donald Trump telling POLITICO that European leaders are “weak” ― the coming days will be a real test of their mettle. On Monday leaders will attempt to build bridges and use their powers of persuasion over the peace agreement when they meet Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. officials in Berlin. At the same time in Brussels, EU foreign ministers and diplomats will battle to win over a growing number of European governments that oppose the loan plan. By Thursday, when all 27 leaders gather in the Belgian capital for what promises to be one of the most pivotal summits in years, they’ll hope to have more clarity on whether the intense diplomacy has paid off. With Trump’s stinging put-downs ― Europe’s leaders “talk, but they don’t produce” ― and NATO chief Mark Rutte’s stark warnings about the the threat from Russia ringing in their ears, they’re taking nothing for granted. “We are Russia’s next target, and we are already in harm’s way,” Rutte said last week. “Russia has brought war back to Europe and we must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents and great grandparents endured.” Little wonder then that European officials are casting the next few days as existential. The latest shot of 11th-hour diplomacy will see the leaders of the U.K., Germany and possibly France, potentially with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and his special envoy Steve Witkoff, meeting with Zelenskyy in Berlin. As if to underscore the significance of the meeting, “numerous European heads of state and government, as well as the leaders of the EU and NATO, will join the talks” after the initial discussion, said Stefan Kornelius, spokesperson for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. French President Emmanuel Macron hasn’t confirmed his attendance but spoke to Zelenskyy by telephone on Sunday. The discussion will represent Europe’s attempt to influence the final settlement, weeks after a 28-point peace plan drafted by Witkoff  — reportedly with the aid of several Kremlin officials — provoked a furious backlash in both Kyiv and European capitals. They’ve since scrambled to put together an alternative. Further European disunity this week would send a “disastrous signal to Ukraine,” said one EU official. That outcome wouldn’t just be a hammer blow to the war-struck nation, the official added: “It’s also fair to say that Europe will then fail as well.” EMPTYING TERRITORIES This time the focus will be on a 20-point amendment to the plan drafted by Kyiv and its European allies and submitted to Washington for review last week. The contents remain unclear, and nothing is decided, but the fate of the Ukrainian territories under Russian occupation is particularly thorny. Trump has pitched emptying out the territories of Ukrainian and Russian troops and establishing a demilitarized “free economic zone” where U.S. business interests could operate. Ukraine has rejected that proposal, according to a French official, who was granted anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations. The U.S. has insisted on territorial concessions despite fierce European objections, the official added, creating friction with the Trump administration. Leaders will attempt to build bridges and use their powers of persuasion over the peace agreement when they meet Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. officials in Berlin. | Antonio Masiello/Getty Images Europe’s leaders insist there can be no progress on territory before Ukraine is offered security guarantees. In a sign of movement toward some kind of deal, Zelenskyy said over the weekend he was willing to “compromise” and not demand NATO membership for Ukraine. Instead, the country should be afforded an ad-hoc collective defense arrangement, he told journalists in a WhatsApp conversation. “The bilateral security guarantees between Ukraine and the United States … and the security guarantees from our European colleagues for us, as well as from other countries such as Canada and Japan ― these security guarantees for us provide an opportunity to prevent another outbreak of Russian aggression,” he said. REPEATED SETBACKS Europe will have further opportunities to discuss the way forward after Monday. EU affairs ministers will continue on Tuesday in Brussels to thrash out plans for Thursday’s summit. In between, Wednesday will see the leaders of Europe’s “Eastern flank” ― with countries including the Baltics and Poland represented ― huddle in Helsinki. The EU has been trying for months to convince Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever to consent to a plan to use the cash value of the €185 billion in Russian state assets held in Brussels-based depository Euroclear to fund and arm Ukraine. (The remainder of the total €210 billion financial package would include €25 billion in frozen Russian assets held across the bloc.) In a sign the chances of a deal at Thursday’s summit are worsening rather than improving, Italy — the EU’s third-largest country — sided with Belgium’s demands to look for alternative options to finance Ukraine in a letter on Friday that was also signed by Malta and Bulgaria. Czechia’s new Prime Minister Andrej Babiš also rejected the plan on Sunday. “The more such cases we have the more likely it is that we will have to find other solutions,” an EU diplomat said. The five 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 this week. A meeting of EU ambassadors originally planned for Sunday evening was postponed until Monday. While the last-minute diplomatic effort has left many concerned the money might not be approved before the end of the year, with Ukraine in desperate need of the cash, three diplomats insisted they were sticking to the plan and that no alternatives were yet being considered. Belgium is engaging constructively with the draft measures, actively making suggestions and changes in the document to be considered when ambassadors meet on Monday, one of the diplomats and an EU official said. The decision on the Russian assets is “a decision on the future of Europe and will determine whether the EU is still a relevant actor,” a German official said. “There is no option B.” Bjarke Smith-Meyer, Nick Vinocur, Victor Jack and Zoya Sheftalovich in Brussels, Veronika Melkozerova in Kyiv, Clea Caulcutt and Laura Kayali in Paris and Nette Nöstlinger in Berlin contributed to this report.