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.

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

Denmark’s military intelligence service has for the first time classified the U.S. as a security risk, a striking shift in how one of Washington’s closest European allies assesses the transatlantic relationship. In its 2025 intelligence outlook published Wednesday, the Danish Defense Intelligence Service warned that the U.S. is increasingly prioritizing its own interests and “using its economic and technological strength as a tool of power,” including toward allies and partners. “The United States uses economic power, including in the form of threats of high tariffs, to enforce its will and no longer excludes the use of military force, even against allies,” it said, in a pointed reference to Washington trying to wrest control of Greenland from Denmark. The assessment is one of the strongest warnings about the U.S. to come from a European intelligence service. In October, the Dutch spies said they had stopped sharing some intelligence with their U.S. counterparts, citing political interference and human rights concerns. The Danish warning underscores European unease as Washington leverages industrial policy more aggressively on the global stage, and highlights the widening divide between the allies, with the U.S. National Security Strategy stating that Europe will face the “prospect of civilizational erasure” within the next 20 years. The Danish report also said that “there is uncertainty about how China-U.S. relations will develop in the coming years” as Beijing’s rapid rise has eroded the U.S.’s long-held position as the undisputed global power. Washington and Beijing are now locked in a contest for influence, alliances and critical resources, which has meant the U.S. has “significantly prioritized” the geographical area around it — including the Arctic — to reduce China’s influence. “The USA’s increasingly strong focus on the Pacific Ocean is also creating uncertainty about the country’s role as the primary guarantor of security in Europe,” the report said. “The USA’s changed policy places great demands on armaments and cooperation between European countries to strengthen deterrence against Russia.” In the worst-case scenario, the Danish intelligence services predict that Western countries could find themselves in a situation in a few years where both Russia and China are ready to fight their own regional wars in the Baltic Sea region and the Taiwan Strait, respectively.

BRUSSELS ― Europe’s strategy for convincing the Belgians to support its plan to fund Ukraine? Warn them they could be treated like Hungary. At their summit on Dec. 18, EU leaders’ key task will be to win over Bart De Wever, the bloc’s latest bête noire. Belgium’s prime minister is vetoing their efforts to pull together a €210 billion loan to Ukraine as it faces a huge financial black hole and as the war with Russian grinds on. De Wever has dug his heels in for so long over the plan to fund the loan using frozen Russian assets ― which just happen to be mostly housed in Belgium ― that diplomats from across the bloc are now working on strategies to get him on board. De Wever is holding out over fears Belgium will be on the hook should the money need to be paid back, and has now asked for more safety nets. Nearly all the Russian assets are housed in Euroclear, a financial depository in Brussels. He wants the EU to provide an extra cash buffer on top of financial guarantees and increased safeguards to cover potential legal disputes and settlements — an idea many governments oppose. Belgium has sent a list of amendments it wants, to ensure it isn’t forced to repay the money to Moscow alone if sanctions are lifted. De Wever said he won’t back the reparations loan if his concerns aren’t met. Leaders thought they’d have a deal the last time they all met in October. Then, it was unthinkable they wouldn’t get one in December. Now it looks odds-on. All hope isn’t lost yet, diplomats say. Ambassadors will go line by line through Belgium’s requests, figure out the biggest concerns and seek to address them. There’s still room for maneuver. The plan is to come as close to the Belgian position as they can. But a week before leaders meet, the EU is turning the screws. If De Wever continues to block the plan ― a path he’s been on for several months, putting forward additional conditions and demands ― he will find himself in an uncomfortable and remarkable position for the leader of a country that for so long has been pro-EU, according to an EU diplomat with knowledge of the discussions taking place. The Belgium leader would be frozen out and ignored, just like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán has been given the cold shoulder over democratic backsliding and his refusal to play ball on sanctioning Russia. The message to Belgium is that if it does not come on board, its diplomats, ministers and leaders will lose their voice around the EU table. Officials would put to the bottom of the pile Belgium’s wishlist and concerns related to the EU’s long-term budget for 2028–2034, which would cause the government a major headache, particularly when negotiations get into the crucial final stretch in 18 months’ time. Nearly all the Russian assets are housed in Euroclear, a financial depository in Brussels. | Ansgar Haase/Getty Images Its views on EU proposals will not be sought. Its phone calls will go unanswered, the diplomat said. It would be a harsh reality for a country that is both literally and symbolically at the heart of the EU project, and that has punched above its weight when it comes to taking on leading roles such as the presidency of the European Council. But diplomats say desperate times call for desperate measures. Ukraine faces a budget shortfall next year of €71.7 billion, and will have to start cutting public spending from April unless it can secure the money. U.S. President Donald Trump has again distanced himself from providing American support. Underscoring the high stakes, EU ambassadors are meeting three times this week — on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday — for talks on the Commission’s proposal for the loan, published last week.   PLAN B — AND PLAN C — FOR UKRAINE The European Commission put forward one other option for funding Ukraine: joint debt backed by the EU’s next seven-year budget. Hungary has formally ruled out issuing eurobonds, and raising debt through the EU budget to prop up Ukraine requires a unanimous vote. That leaves a Plan C: for some countries to dig into their own treasuries to keep Ukraine afloat. That prospect isn’t among the Commission’s proposals, but diplomats are quietly discussing it. Germany, the Nordics and the Baltics are seen as the most likely participants. But those floating the idea have a warning: The most significant benefit conferred by EU membership to countries around the bloc is solidarity. By forcing some member countries to carry the financial burden of supporting Ukraine alone, the bloc risks a serious split at its core. Germany in future may not choose to prop up a failing bank in a country that doesn’t stump up the cash for Kyiv now, the thinking goes. “Solidarity is a two-way street,” a diplomat said. For sure, there is another way — but only in theory. De Wever’s fellow EU leaders could band together and pass the “reparation loan” plan via so-called qualified majority voting, ignoring Belgium’s rejections and just steamrollering it through. But diplomats said this is not being seriously considered. Bjarke Smith-Meyer and Gregorio Sorgi contributed reporting.

Lithuania on Tuesday declared a nationwide state of emergency over a surge in contraband-carrying balloons flying over the border from Belarus. “It’s clear that this emergency is being declared not only because of disruptions to civil aviation, but also due to national security concerns and the need for closer coordination among institutions,” Lithuanian Interior Minister Vladislav Kondratovič said during a government meeting Tuesday. Kondratovič added that the government had asked the parliament to grant the military additional powers to work with the law enforcement authorities during the state of the emergency. “By introducing a state of emergency today, we are legitimizing the participation of the military … and indeed, every evening, a number of crews go out together with the police, conduct patrols, monitor the territory, and detect cargo,” he said. Lithuania has accused its neighbor Belarus of repeatedly smuggling contraband cigarettes into the country using balloons, prompting air traffic disruptions and a border closure with Belarus. Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko has called Vilnius’ response “petty.” According to Lithuanian Interior Ministry data, at least 600 balloons and 200 drones entered Lithuania’s airspace this year, disrupting more than 300 flights, affecting 47,000 passengers and leading to around 60 hours of airport closures. Lithuanian Prime Minister Inga Ruginienė said the state emergency will help coordination between joint response teams to better intercept the balloons, which both Lithuania and the EU consider to be hybrid attacks. Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys told POLITICO in an interview in October that the EU must prepare new sanctions against Belarus to deprive it of the ability to wage hybrid war.

BERLIN — Before Leif-Erik Holm became one of the German far right’s leading figures, he was a morning radio DJ in his home state in eastern Germany celebrated, by his station, for making “the best jokes far and wide.” Ahead of regional elections across Germany next year, Holm, 55, is now set to become the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party’s top candidate in the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, a largely rural area bordering Poland and the Baltic Sea. With polls showing the AfD in first place at 38 percent support in the state, it’s one of the places where the party — now the largest opposition group in Germany’s national parliament — is within striking distance of taking significant governing power for the first time since its formation over a decade ago. Holm embodies the type of candidate at least some AfD leaders increasingly want at the top of the ticket. With an avuncular demeanor, he eschews the kind of incendiary rhetoric other politicians in the party have embraced and says he seeks dialogue with his political opponents. Asked what his party would do if it takes power in his state next year, Holm rattled off some innocuous-sounding proposals: invest more in education, including STEM subjects, and ensure children of immigrants learn German before they start school. “I’m actually a nice guy,” Holm said. Underneath the guy-next-door image, however, there’s a clear political calculus. National co-head of the party, Alice Weidel, is attempting something of a rebrand, believing that the AfD won’t be able to make the jump to real political power unless it moves away from candidates who embrace openly extreme positions. That means moving away from controversial leaders like Björn Höcke — found guilty by a court for uttering a banned slogan used by Adolf Hitler’s SA storm troopers — and Maximilian Krah, who last year said he would “never say that anyone who wore an SS uniform was automatically a criminal.” Instead, the preferred candidate, at least for Weidel and people in her camp, is someone like Holm, who can present a more sanitized face of the party. But the makeover is proving to be only skin deep, and even Weidel, despite her national leadership role, can’t prevent the mask from slipping. NEW LOOK, SAME POLITICS Since its creation in 2013 as a Euroskeptic party, the AfD has grown more extreme, mobilizing its increasingly radicalized base primarily around the issue of migration. Earlier this year, Germany’s federal domestic intelligence agency — which is tasked with surveilling groups found to be anti-constitutional — deemed the AfD an extremist group. Weidel is now trying to tamp down on the open extremism. The effort is intended to make the AfD more palatable to mainstream conservatives — and to make it harder for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s center-right alliance to refuse to govern in coalition with the party by maintaining the postwar “firewall” around the far right. Weidel’s push to present a more polished party image isn’t necessarily supported by large swaths of the AfD’s rank and file — especially in its strongholds in the former East Germany — who point to the fact that the party’s political ascent coincided with its radicalization. The argument isn’t without merit. Despite its rising extremism, the party came in second in the snap federal election early this year — the best national showing for a far-right party since World War II. The party is now ahead of Merz’s conservatives in polls. Alice Weidel’s push to present a more polished party image isn’t necessarily supported by large swaths of the AfD’s rank and file. | Sean Gallup/Getty Images  Weidel is nevertheless pressing ahead with her drive to try to soften the AfD’s image. As part of this effort, Weidel has tried to somewhat shift her party from its proximity to the Kremlin — seeking closer ties with Republicans in the U.S. From now on, the party will “fight alongside the white knight rather than the black knight,” a person familiar with Weidel’s thinking said. In another remake attempt, earlier this year, an extremist youth group affiliated with the AfD dissolved itself to avert a possible ban that might have damaged the party. Last weekend, a new youth wing was formed that party leaders will have direct control over. Other far-right parties across Europe have made their own rebranding efforts. In France, far-right leader Marine Le Pen has attempted to normalize her party — an effort referred to as dédiabolisation, or “de-demonization” — ditching the open antisemitism of its founders. As part of that push, Le Pen moved to disassociate her party from the AfD in the European Parliament. In Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has moderated her earlier anti-EU, pro-Russia stances. For the AfD, however, the attempted transformation is less a matter of substance — and more a matter of optics. Underneath Weidel’s effort to burnish her party’s reputation, many of its most extreme voices continue to hold sway. THE POLISHED RADICAL Perhaps no AfD leader embodies that tension more than Ulrich Siegmund, the lead candidate for the party in the state of Saxony-Anhalt, where it is polling first at 40 percent support ahead of a regional vote next September. It’s here, in this small state of just over 2 million people, where AfD leaders pin most of their hopes of getting into state government next year — possibly even with an absolute majority. Like Holm, Siegmund too tries to cultivate a regular-guy persona. Even members of opposing parties in the state parliament describe him as friendly and approachable. With over half a million followers on TikTok, he reaches more people than any other state politician in Germany. Perhaps no AfD leader embodies that tension more than Ulrich Siegmund, the lead candidate for the party in the state of Saxony-Anhalt. | Emmanuele Contini/NurPhoto via Getty Images At the same time, Siegmund is clearly connected to the extreme fringe of the party. He was one of the attendees at a secret meeting of right-wing extremists in which a “master plan” to deport migrants and “unassimilated citizens” was reportedly discussed. When news of the meeting broke last year, it sparked sustained protests against the far right across Germany and temporarily dented the AfD’s popularity in polls. Speaking to POLITICO, Siegmund minimized the secret meeting as “coffee klatsch,” claiming the real scandal is how the media overblew the episode. He described himself not as a dangerous extremist — but as a regular guy concerned for his country. “I am a normal citizen, taxpayer and resident of this country who simply wants a better home, especially for his children, for his family, for all of our children,” Siegmund said. “Because I simply cannot stand by and watch our country develop so negatively in such a short time.” Yet, when pressed, Siegmund could not conceal his extremism. He defended the use of the motto “Everything for Germany!” — the banned Nazi phrase that got his party colleague, Höcke, into legal trouble. “I think it goes without saying that you should give your all for your own country,” Siegmund said. “And I think that should also be the benchmark for every politician — to do everything they can for their own country, because that’s what they were elected to do and what they are paid to do.” Siegmund also took issue with the notion that the Nazis perpetrated history’s greatest crime against humanity, so therefore Germans have a special responsibility to avoid such terms. Ulrich Siegmund also took issue with the notion that the Nazis perpetrated history’s greatest crime against humanity, so therefore Germans have a special responsibility to avoid such terms. | Heiko Rebsch/picture alliance via Getty Images “I find this interpretation to be grossly exaggerated and completely detached from reality,” he said. “For me, it is important to look forward and not backward. And of course, we must always learn from history, but not just from individual aspects of history, but from history as a whole.” Siegmund said he couldn’t judge whether the Nazis had perpetrated history’s worst crime, relativizing the Holocaust in a manner reminiscent of some of the most extreme voices in his party. “I don’t presume to judge that,” he said, “because I can’t assess the whole of humanity.” One lesson from Germany’s history, Siegmund added, is that there should be no “language police” or attempts to ban the AfD as extremist, as some centrist politicians advocate. “If you want to ban the strongest force in this country according to opinion polls, then you’re not learning from history either,” he said. INTERNATIONAL NATIONALISTS The AfD’s national leaders privately smarted at Siegmund’s comments for making their faltering rebrand more difficult. (Holm did not respond to a request for comment on the statements.) That’s especially the case because Weidel and other AfD leaders are increasingly looking abroad for the legitimacy they crave at home and fear such rhetoric will complicate the effort. Weidel and people in her circle have sought to forge closer ties to the Trump administration and other right-wing governments, seeing connections with MAGA Republicans in the U.S. and other populist-right parties in Europe as a way of winning credibility for the AfD domestically. In Europe, Weidel has repeatedly visited Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán at his official residence in Budapest. The party is also making an effort to reestablish connections with members of Le Pen’s party in the European Parliament, according to a high-ranking AfD official. Not everyone in the AfD, however, sees eye to eye with Weidel on the attempt to moderate the party image, especially when it comes to relations with Moscow. The AfD’s other national co-leader, Tino Chrupalla, recently told an interviewer on German public television that Vladimir Putin’s Russia poses no threat to Germany. Chrupalla’s rhetoric is much more friendly to the Kremlin, and he’s the preferred party leader among many of the AfD’s most radical supporters in eastern Germany — where pro-Moscow sympathies are more prevalent. Many of the AfD’s followers in the former East Germany, where the party polls strongest, see Weidel, born in the former West Germany, as too mild in her approach. Ultimately, the direction of the AfD — in next year’s state elections and beyond — may well depend on which leader’s vision prevails.

Romania’s Defense Minister Ionuț Moșteanu resigned Friday over false claims on his resume, marking the second time in recent weeks that a NATO country close to Russia has had to change its defense leadership. “Romania and Europe are under attack from Russia. Our national security must be defended at all costs. I do not want discussions about my education and the mistakes I made many years ago to distract those who are now leading the country from their difficult mission,” he said. According to local media, Moșteanu wrote in his official resume that he graduated from Athenaeum University in Bucharest even though he never attended the school. He also added the Faculty of Automation at the Polytechnic University of Bucharest to his CV despite dropping out. Moșteanu’s resignation just months into the job follows the ousting of Dovilė Šakalienė as Lithuania’s defense minister over a dispute about the Baltic country’s defense budget — and as Europe mulls how to respond to intensifying Russian hybrid attacks. Romania’s Economy Minister Radu Miruță is expected to take over the defense portfolio on an interim basis, the government said. Moșteanu’s departure comes with Romania facing regular Russian drone incursions. Bucharest is also 48 hours away from a deadline for EU countries to submit a plan to the European Commission for how they will spend money from the EU’s loans-for-weapons SAFE program. Romania is set to be the second-largest beneficiary of the scheme, in line for a €16.6 billion pot of cash.

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel has rejected accusations that she partially held Poland and the Baltic states responsible for the outbreak of Russia’s war on Ukraine. “You have to call it fake news, meaning that it wasn’t said at all,” Merkel told German public broadcaster Phoenix in an interview published Thursday, saying her comments had been misrepresented. “It was simply a discussion about chronological developments, as they already appear in my book “Freiheit”[Freedom]. For a whole year, no one had an issue with it … And then a big uproar arose because hardly anyone reads the original anymore,” she said.  Asked whether she meant to blame the outbreak of the war on Poland or the Baltic states, Merkel replied: “No. We all failed — I, everyone else — we all failed to prevent this war, including in our talks with the Americans.” In an October interview with Hungarian media outlet Partizán, Merkel noted the refusal by Poland and the Baltic states to permit direct talks between her, French President Emmanuel Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin in response to Moscow’s troop buildup near the Ukrainian border in summer 2021. Baltic and Polish leaders reacted furiously to Merkel’s comments, perceiving it as partly blaming them for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine half a year later. On Thursday, Merkel elaborated on that statement, saying: “A few days before I made this proposal at the European Council, U.S. President Joe Biden had met with Vladimir Putin. And I simply didn’t think it was good that we Europeans were not also seeking a conversation with Putin and were leaving that entirely to the American administration.” “That’s why I advocated for this new proposal, and there was opposition,” she added, emphasizing that no “attribution of blame” regarding responsibility for the war was implied in her statement.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission will provide a financial band-aid next year to Baltic nations suffering collateral economic damage from EU sanctions against Russia. The region is being hit particularly hard because of falls in tourism and investment, along with the collapse of cross-border trade. Regions Commissioner Raffaele Fitto is leading the plan, which aims to kickstart the economies of Finland and its Baltic neighbors, according to diplomats and Commission officials who were granted anonymity to speak freely. The intended recipients are also heading to Brussels with a lengthy wish list, hoping Fitto’s plan will reignite their economies. Their concerns will take center stage during a summit of leaders from Eastern European countries in Helsinki on Dec. 16. “We want to have special attention to our region — the eastern flank, including Lithuania — because we see the negative impact coming from the geopolitical situation,” Lithuania’s Europe minister, Sigitas Mitkus, said in an interview with POLITICO earlier this month. “Sometimes it’s difficult to convince [investors] that … we have all the facilities in place.” But skeptics warn that any immediate financial support Fitto can provide will be meager, given the scale of the challenge and with the bloc’s seven-year budget running low. The EU has agreed 19 sanction packages against Moscow in a bid to cripple the Russian war economy, which has bankrolled the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine since February 2022. In doing so, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have all taken a hit. While the threat of a Kremlin invasion has deterred tourists and investors, the sanctions have choked off cross-border trade with Russia, and everything has been made worse by skyrocketing inflation after the pandemic. Dwindling housing prices have also made it more difficult for businesses to provide collateral to secure loans from banks. “People who had cross-border connections with some economic consequences have lost them,” Jürgen Ligi, Estonia’s finance minister, told POLITICO. A native of Tartu on Estonia’s eastern flank, Ligi has witnessed these problems first-hand as he owns a house only four kilometers from the Russian border. “Estonia’s economy has suffered the most from the war [which caused] problems with investments and jobs,” Ligi added. According to the Commission’s latest forecast, Estonia is expected to grow by only 0.6 percent in 2025 — well below the EU average — even though economic activity is expected to pick up in 2026 and 2027. The EU has agreed 19 sanction packages against Moscow in a bid to cripple the Russian war economy, which has bankrolled the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine since February 2022. | Sefa Karacan/Getty Images In another sign of financial strain, Finland breached the Commission’s spending rules in 2025 due to excessive spending and an economic slowdown caused by the war. “We will be acknowledging the difficult economic situation Finland is facing, including the geopolitical and the closure of the Russian border,” EU Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis, said on Tuesday. SCRAPING THE BARREL But Fitto’s options could be limited until the bloc’s new seven-year budget, known as the multi-annual financial framework (MFF), is in place by 2028. “My sense is that the communication won’t come with fresh money but with ideas that can be pursued in the next MFF,” said an EU diplomat who was granted anonymity to discuss upcoming legislation. Mindful of dwindling resources in the EU’s current cash pot, Lithuania’s Mitkus is demanding that Baltic firms get preferential access to the EU’s new funding programs from 2028 — something that is currently lacking in the Commission’s budget proposal from July. Officials from the frontline states are exploring other options. These include Brussels loosening state aid rules so they can subsidize struggling firms, and getting the European Investment Bank to provide guarantees to companies that want to invest in the region. While the upcoming strategy will draw attention to these problems, officials privately admit that it’s unlikely to mobilize enough cash to solve them immediately. “It will build the narrative that in the next MFF you can do something for [pressing issues for Eastern regions such as] drones production,” said the EU diplomat quoted above. But until 2028, “I don’t expect any new money.”

LONDON — European officials congratulated themselves on Monday after talks in Geneva suggested Donald Trump will listen to their concerns about forcing a bad peace deal on Ukraine.  “While work remains to be done, there is now a solid basis for moving forward,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said as she hailed “good progress” resulting from “a strong European presence” at the talks. It was certainly “progress” for top advisers from the EU and the U.K. to be invited to join Sunday’s meeting in Switzerland after they were cut out of America’s original 28-point plan, which they feared was so biased it would embolden Russia to launch further attacks.  But the celebration was short-lived.  On Monday evening, Russia rejected the updated text of the deal, which had been redrafted with input from Ukraine and its allies during the lengthy talks with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.  The risk for Ukraine now is that Vladimir Putin will drag the American president back to his starting position: A 28-point ceasefire agreement that triggered a meltdown among officials in Brussels because it would force Kyiv to give up swathes of land to Moscow, abandon hope of ever joining NATO, and cut the size of its army to 600,000 troops from nearly 1 million.   If that happens, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will face a miserable choice: Either take the offer cooked up by Trump and Putin, or gamble his country’s future in the hope of one day getting enough help from his European friends.  These are the same friends who, after nearly four years of war, won’t send him their troops, or the weapons he wants, or even raid Russia’s frozen assets from their banks to help him buy supplies of his own.  UNWILLING TO FIGHT For some U.S. Republicans, Europeans who object to Trump’s deal and the compromises it will require are deluding themselves. “What is the alternative?” Greg Swenson, chairman of Republicans Overseas in the U.K., asked POLITICO. “You can talk a good game, you can attend all these diplomatic meetings and you can send all your best people to Geneva, but the only way to beat Putin is to fight — and none of them are willing to do that,” Swenson said. “So it’s all talk. It all sounds great when you talk about democracy and defending Ukraine, but they’re just not willing to do it.” European politicians and officials would disagree, pointing to the huge sums of money and weapons their governments have sent to Kyiv since the war started nearly four years ago, as well as to the economic challenge of cutting back on Russian trade, especially imported fossil fuels. Since the U.S. pulled back on its support, Europe has conspicuously moved to fill the gap. But in truth, Trump’s original proposal panicked officials and diplomats in Brussels and beyond because they knew Zelenskyy could not rely on Europe to do enough to help Ukraine on its own.  European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said as she hailed “good progress” resulting from “a strong European presence” at the talks. | Nicolas Economou/Getty Images A month ago, EU leaders turned up for a summit in Brussels bullishly predicting they would secure a landmark agreement on using €140 billion in frozen Russian assets as a “reparations loan” to put Kyiv on a secure financial footing for at least the next two years. But in a major diplomatic and political blunder, the plan has fallen apart amid unexpected objections from Belgium.  NO BREAKTHROUGH ON ASSETS Talks are now intensifying among officials in the European Commission and EU governments, especially the Belgians, but there has as yet been no breakthrough, according to multiple officials granted anonymity, like others, to speak candidly about sensitive matters.  Some diplomats hope that the pressure from Trump will force Belgium and those other EU countries with reservations on the frozen assets plan to get on board. One idea that hasn’t been ruled out is to make use of some of the assets alongside joint EU bonds or potentially direct financial contributions from EU governments, officials said.  But some EU diplomats fear the whole idea of a reparations loan to Ukraine using the frozen assets will crumble if the final peace blueprint contains a reference to using those same funds.  The initial blueprint suggested using the assets in an investment drive in Ukraine, with half the proceeds going to the U.S., a concept Europeans rejected as “scandalous.” Yet once sanctions on Russia are eventually lifted, Euroclear — the Belgium-based financial depository holding the immobilized assets — could end up having to wire the money back to Moscow.  This could leave EU taxpayers on the hook to repay the cash, a scenario that is likely to weigh heavily on EU governments as they consider whether to support the loan idea in the weeks ahead.  Then there’s the question of keeping the peace. Earlier this year, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer led efforts to assemble support for an international peacekeeping force from volunteer countries who would form a “coalition of the willing.” A year earlier, Macron even floated the idea of “boots on the ground” before the conflict is over.  He no longer talks like that.  In a sign of how difficult any conversation on sending troops to Ukraine would be in France, an impassioned call last week from France’s new top general, Fabien Mandon, for mayors to prepare citizens for a possible war with Russia sparked an uproar, and drew condemnation from major political parties. Mandon had warned that if France “is not prepared to accept losing its children, to suffer economically because priorities will be given to defense production, then we are at risk.” Macron tried to tamp down the controversy and said Mandon’s words had been taken out of context. French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer led efforts to assemble support for an international peacekeeping force. | Leon Neal/Getty Images In Germany, Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Berlin was “already making a special contribution to the eastern flank” by stationing a combat-ready brigade in Lithuania. “The entire Baltic region is a key area on which the Bundeswehr will focus. I think that this is also sufficient and far-reaching support for Ukraine.” The Ukrainians would have wanted a deeper commitment on their soil, but Western Europeans are wary of incurring high casualties by sending soldiers to the front lines. “At least Trump is honest about it,” Swenson said. “We could beat Russia. We would beat them, I would think, quickly, assuming there was no nuclear weapons.” “We would beat Russia, but a lot of people would die.” Esther Webber, Gabriel Gavin and Nicholas Vinocur contributed reporting.