BRUSSELS — EU ambassadors are close to a deal on a €90 billion loan to finance Ukraine’s defense against Russia thanks to a draft text that spells out the participation of third countries in arms deals, three diplomats said Wednesday. The ambassadors are scheduled to meet on Wednesday afternoon to finalize talks after a week of difficult negotiations. The final hurdle was deciding how non-EU countries would be able to take part in defense contracts financed by the loan. The draft deal, seen by POLITICO, would allow Ukraine to buy key weapons from such countries — including the U.S. and the U.K. — either when no equivalent product is available in the EU or when there is an urgent need. The list of weapons Kyiv will be able to buy outside the bloc includes air and missile defense systems, fighter aircraft ammunition and deep-strike capabilities. If the U.K. wants to take part in procurement deals beyond that, it will have to contribute financially to help cover interest payments on the loan. The text also mentions that the British contribution — to be agreed in upcoming negotiations with the European Commission — should be proportional with the potential gains of its defense firms taking part in the scheme.  France led the effort to ensure that EU countries — which are paying the interest on the loan — gain the most from defense contracts. In an effort to get Paris and its allies on board, the draft circulated late Tuesday includes new language which says that “any agreement with a third country must be based on a balance of rights and obligations,” and also that “a third country should not have the same rights nor enjoy the same benefits,” as participating member states. The draft also strengthens the control of EU countries over whether the conditions to buy weapons for Ukraine outside the bloc have been met, saying Kyiv will have to “provide the information reasonably available to it demonstrating that the conditions for the application of this derogation are met.” That will then be checked  “without undue delay” by the European Commission after consultation with a new Ukraine Defence Industrial Capacities Expert Group. The new body will include representatives from EU members countries, according to diplomats. The European Commission will raise €90 billion in debt to fund Ukraine’s war effort before Kyiv runs out of cash in April. After facing intense pressure from national capitals, the Commission agreed to deploy unused funds in its current seven-year budget to cover the borrowing costs. If that is not enough, member countries will have to pay the difference. Budget Commissioner Piotr Serafin will meet the European Parliament and the Cypriot presidency of the Council of the EU on Thursday in an attempt to solve disagreements on the repayment of the borrowing costs, said one official.

KYIV — U.S. President Donald Trump insists that Vladimir Putin kept his word on a weeklong pause in attacks on Ukrainian cities despite Russia’s massive missile barrage on Monday. Trump told reporters that Putin had made an agreement which expired on Sunday. “It was Sunday to Sunday, and it opened up and he hit them hard last night,” he said at the White House on Tuesday. “He kept his word on that … we’ll take anything, because it’s really, really cold over there.” However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the truce began last Friday, a day after Trump announced he reached a deal with Putin not to bomb Ukraine for a week, as freezing temperatures were coming. The pause was also supposedly tied to ongoing U.S.-led peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, which resumed Wednesday in Abu Dhabi. “We await the reaction of America to the Russian strikes,” Zelenskyy said in a Tuesday evening statement. “It was the U.S. proposal to halt strikes on energy during diplomacy and severe winter weather. The president of the United States made the request personally. Russia responded with a record number of ballistic missiles.” He also called for the U.S. Congress to finally approve new sanctions against Russia. “The U.S. Congress has long been working on a new sanctions bill, and there must be progress on it. European partners can take decisive steps regarding Russian oil tankers’ earnings for the war. Russia must feel pressure so that it moves in negotiations toward peace,” Zelenskyy said. Last week, Zelenskyy told journalists in Kyiv there was no formal agreement between Russia and Ukraine, but both sides agreed on the American proposal to pause strikes on each other’s energy facilities during the previous round of talks in Abu Dhabi.

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. Another round of U.S.-brokered Ukraine talks commence today in Abu Dhabi. The overall outlook remains no less bleak for Ukraine, as it inches toward the fourth anniversary of Russia’s war. Yet there are signs that what comes out of this week’s face-to-face negotiations may finally answer a key question: Is Russian President Vladimir Putin serious? On the eve of the planned two-day talks, Russia resumed its large-scale air assault on Ukraine’s battered infrastructure after a brief weekend hiatus. Striking cities including Kyiv, Dnipro, Kharkiv, Sumy and Odesa overnight with 450 drones and 71 missiles, including ballistic, Russia hit the country’s energy grid and residential houses as temperatures dropped below -20 degrees Celsius. “Putin must be deprived of illusions that he can achieve anything by his bombing, terror, and aggression,” pleaded Ukraine’s frustrated Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrii Sybiha. “Neither anticipated diplomatic efforts in Abu Dhabi this week nor his promises to the United States kept him from continuing terror against ordinary people in the harshest winter.” According to U.S. President Donald Trump, those promises included refraining from targeting Kyiv and other major cities for a whole week during a period of “extraordinary cold.” But no sooner had Trump spoken than Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov warned the break would only last a weekend. That’s hardly an auspicious launchpad to negotiations, and has many Ukrainian politicians arguing that Russia is merely going through the motions to ensure it doesn’t end up on the wrong side of an unpredictable U.S. leader — albeit one who seems inordinately patient with Putin, and much less so with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Not that Ukrainians had put much store in a week-long “energy ceasefire” to begin with. A vicious war has taught them to expect the worst. “Unfortunately, everything is entirely predictable,” posted Zelenskyy adviser Mykhailo Podolyak on Tuesday. “This is what a Russian ‘ceasefire’ looks like: during a brief thaw, stockpile enough missiles and then strike at night when temperatures drop to minus 24 Celsius or lower, targeting civilians. Russia sees no reason whatsoever to stop the war, halt genocidal practices, or engage in diplomacy. Only large-scale freezing tactics.” It’s difficult to quibble with his pessimism. Putin’s Kremlin has a long track record of using peace talks to delay, obfuscate, exhaust opponents and continue with war. It’s part of a playbook the Russian leader and his lugubrious Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov have used time and again in Ukraine, and for years in Syria. Nonetheless, according to some Ukrainian and U.S. sources familiar with the conduct of the talks, there are indications that the current negotiations may be more promising than widely credited. They say both sides are actually being more “constructive” — which, admittedly, is an adjective that has often been misused. “Before, these negotiations were like pulling teeth without anesthetic,” said a Republican foreign policy expert who has counseled Kyiv. Granted anonymity in order to speak freely, he said: “Before, I felt like screaming whenever I had to see another readout that said the discussions were ‘constructive.’ But now, I think they are constructive in some ways. I’m noticing the Russians are taking these talks more seriously.” It’s part of a playbook the Russian leader and his lugubrious Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov have used time and again in Ukraine, and for years in Syria. | Maxim Shipenkov/EPA Some of this, he said, owes to the skill of those now leading the Ukrainian team after the departure of Zelenskyy’s powerful former chief of staff, Andriy Yermak. Among the smartest and most able are: Yermak’s replacement as head of the Office of the President and former chief of the Main Intelligence Directorate Kyrylo Budanov; Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Rustem Umerov; and Davyd Arakhamia, who heads the parliamentary faction of Zelenskyy’s ruling Servant of the People party. “I am noticing since Davyd got involved … there’s been a noticeable improvement with the Russian negotiators. I think that’s because they respect them — especially Davyd — and because they see them as people who are living in reality and are prepared to compromise,” the expert explained. “I’m cautiously optimistic that we have a reasonable chance to end this conflict in the spring.” A former senior Ukrainian official who was also granted anonymity to speak to POLITICO was less optimistic, but even he concurred there’s been a shift in the mood music and a change in tone from Russia at the negotiating table. Describing the head of the Russian delegation, chief of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Igor Kostyukov, and Military Intelligence officer Alexander Zorin as practical men, he said neither were prone to giving long lectures on the conflict’s “root causes” — unlike Lavrov and Putin. “The Russian intelligence officers have been workmanlike, digging into practical details,” noted the former official, whom Zelenskyy’s office still consults. He hazards that the change may have to do with the Kremlin’s reading that Europe is getting more serious about continent-wide defense, ramping up weapons production and trying to become less dependent on the U.S. for its overall security. “Putin must be deprived of illusions that he can achieve anything by his bombing, terror, and aggression,” pleaded Ukraine’s frustrated Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrii Sybiha. | Olivier Matthys/EPA “A peace deal, an end of the war, could take a lot of the momentum out of this — European leaders would have a much tougher time selling to their voters the sacrifices that will be needed to shift to higher defense spending,” he said. Of course, Russia’s shift in tone may be another attempt to string Trump along. “Putin has almost nothing to show for the massive costs of the war. Accepting a negotiated settlement now, where he cannot claim a clear ‘win’ for Russia and for the Russian people, would be a big problem domestically,” argued retired Australian general Mick Ryan. Whatever the reasons, what emerges from Abu Dhabi in the coming days will likely tell us if Putin finally means business.

5 TIMES THE WINTER OLYMPICS GOT SUPER POLITICAL Invasions, nuclear crises and Nazi propaganda: The Games have seen it all. By SEBASTIAN STARCEVIC Illustration by Natália Delgado /POLITICO The Winter Olympics return to Europe this week, with Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo set to host the world’s greatest athletes against the snowy backdrop of the Italian Alps. But beyond the ice rinks and ski runs, the Games have long doubled as a stage for global alliances, heated political rivalries and diplomatic crises.  “An event like the Olympics is inherently political because it is effectively a competition between nations,” said Madrid’s IE Assistant Professor Andrew Bertoli, who studies the intersection of sport and politics. “So the Games can effectively become an arena where nations compete for prestige, respect and soft power.” If history is any guide, this time won’t be any different. From invasions to the Nazis to nuclear crises, here are five times politics and the Winter Olympics collided. 1980: AMERICA’S “MIRACLE ON ICE” One of the most iconic moments in Olympic history came about amid a resurgence in Cold War tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The USSR had invaded Afghanistan only months earlier, and Washington’s rhetoric toward Moscow had hardened, with Ronald Reagan storming to the presidency a month prior on an aggressive anti-Soviet platform. At the 1980 Winter Games in Lake Placid, New York, that superpower rivalry was on full display on the ice. The U.S. men’s ice hockey team — made up largely of college players and amateurs — faced off against the Soviet squad, a battle-hardened, gold medal-winning machine. The Americans weren’t supposed to stand a chance. Then the impossible happened. In a stunning upset, the U.S. team skated to a 4-3 victory, a win that helped them clinch the gold medal. As the final seconds ticked away, ABC broadcaster Al Michaels famously cried, “Do you believe in miracles? Yes!” The impact echoed far beyond the rink. For many Americans, the victory was a morale boost in a period marked by geopolitical anxiety and division. Reagan later said it was proof “nice guys in a tough world can finish first.” The miracle’s legacy has endured well into the 21st century, with U.S. President Donald Trump awarding members of the hockey team the Congressional Gold Medal in December last year. 2014: RUSSIA INVADES CRIMEA AFTER SOCHI Four days. That’s how long Moscow waited after hosting the Winter Olympics in the Russian resort city of Sochi before sending troops into Crimea, occupying and annexing the Ukrainian peninsula. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych had fled to Moscow days earlier, ousted by protesters demanding democracy and closer integration with the EU. As demonstrators filled Kyiv’s Independence Square, their clashes with government forces played on television screens around the world alongside highlights from the Games, in which Russia dominated the medal tally. Vladimir Putin poses with Russian athletes while visiting the Coastal Cluster Olympic Village ahead of the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics. | Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images No sooner was the Olympic flame extinguished in Sochi on Feb. 23 than on Feb. 27 trucks and tanks rolled into Crimea. Soldiers in unmarked uniforms set up roadblocks, stormed Crimean government buildings and raised the Russian flag high above them. Later that year, Moscow would face allegations of a state-sponsored doping program and many of its athletes were ultimately stripped of their gold medals. 2022: RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE … AGAIN There’s a theme here. Russian President Vladimir Putin made an appearance at the opening ceremony of Beijing’s Winter Games in 2022, meeting on the sidelines with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping and declaring a “no limits” partnership. Four days after the end of the Games, on Feb. 24, Putin announced a “special military operation,” declaring war on Ukraine. Within minutes, Russian troops flooded into Ukraine, and missiles rained down on Kyiv, Kharkiv and other cities across the country. According to U.S. intelligence, The New York Times reported, Chinese officials asked the Kremlin to delay launching its attack until after the Games had wrapped up. Beijing denied it had advance knowledge of the invasion. 2018: KOREAN UNITY ON DISPLAY As South Korea prepared to host the Winter Games in its mountainous Pyeongchang region, just a few hundred kilometers over the border, the North Koreans were conducting nuclear missile tests, sparking global alarm and leading U.S. President Donald Trump to threaten to strike the country. The IOC said it was “closely monitoring” the situation amid concerns about whether the Games could be held safely on the peninsula. South Korean Vice Unification Minister Chun Hae-Sung, shakes hands with the head of North Korean delegation Jon Jong-Su after their meeting on January 17, 2018 in Panmunjom, South Korea. | South Korean Unification Ministry via Getty Images But then in his New Year’s address, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un signaled openness to participating in the Winter Olympics. In the end, North Korean athletes not only participated in the Games, but at the opening ceremony they marched with their South Korean counterparts under a single flag, that of a unified Korea. Pyongyang and Seoul also joined forces in women’s ice hockey, sending a single team to compete — another rare show of unity that helped restart diplomatic talks between the capitals, though tensions ultimately resumed after the Games and continue to this day. 1936: HITLER INVADES THE RHINELAND Much has been said about the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, in which the Nazi regime barred Jewish athletes from participating and used the Games to spread propaganda. But a few months earlier Germany also hosted the Winter Olympics in the town of Garmisch-Partenkirchen, allowing the Nazis to project an image of a peaceful, prosperous Germany and restore its global standing nearly two decades after World War I. A famous photograph from the event even shows Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels signing autographs for the Canadian figure skating team. Weeks after the Games ended, Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, a major violation of the Treaty of Versailles that was met with little pushback from France and Britain, and which some historians argue emboldened the Nazis to eventually invade Poland, triggering World War II.

KYIV — Russia broke an energy truce brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump after just four days on Tuesday, hitting Ukraine’s power plants and grid with more than 450 drones and 70 missiles. “The strikes hit Sumy and Kharkiv regions, Kyiv region and the capital, as well as Dnipro, Odesa, and Vinnytsia regions. As of now, nine people have been reported injured as a result of the attack,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a morning statement. The Russian strike occurred half-way through a truce on energy infrastructure attacks that was supposed to last a week, and only a day before Russian, Ukrainian and American negotiators are scheduled to meet in Abu Dhabi for the next round of peace talks.   The attack, especially on power plants and heating plants in Kyiv, Kharkiv and Dnipro, left hundreds of thousands of families without heat when the temperature outside was −25 degress Celsius, Ukrainian Energy Minister Denys Shmyhal said. “Putin waited for the temperatures to drop and stockpiled drones and missiles to continue his genocidal attacks against the Ukrainian people. Neither anticipated diplomatic efforts in Abu Dhabi this week nor his promises to the United States kept him from continuing terror against ordinary people in the harshest winter,” said Andrii Sybiha, the Ukrainian foreign minister. Last Thursday, Trump said Putin had promised he would not bomb Ukraine’s energy infrastructure for a week. Zelenskyy had said that while it was not an officially agreed ceasefire, it was an opportunity to de-escalate the war and Kyiv would not hit Russian oil refineries in response. “This very clearly shows what is needed from our partners and what can help. Without pressure on Russia, there will be no end to this war. Right now, Moscow is choosing terror and escalation, and that is why maximum pressure is required. I thank all our partners who understand this and are helping us,” Zelenskyy said.

Anxiety is mounting among officials from several Gulf nations that President Donald Trump may be inexorably driving the United States toward another attack against Iran, despite their ongoing efforts to counsel restraint. According to three people familiar with conversations between the administration and its Gulf allies, the White House is giving few assurances about heeding that counsel. And the three people believe Trump’s tough public rhetoric — not to mention his continued shifting of military resources toward the Gulf — are boxing him in to the point that some kind of strike on Iran may beinevitable. After the U.S. operation weeks ago to remove former Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, “there is no doubt about the U.S. military’s capabilities,” said one of the people familiar, a senior Gulf official. Like others interviewed for this report, the official was granted anonymity to speak candidly about a fluid and highly sensitive geopolitical situation. What has been harder to assess, the senior Gulf official said, is whether Trump has settled on a clear objective for another assault on Iran — whether to pursue regime change in Tehran or simply to send a message — not to mention the tactics. Trump has repeatedly vaguely promised protestors in Iran that “help is on the way.” “It’s still unclear to us what both sides want, even after a lot of dialogue,” said the second person familiar, a senior Arab diplomat who’s been in contact with the administration. Five countries — Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Turkiye — have been working together to stave off another flare-up or all-out war that could destabilize the Gulf region. Trump has long prioritized deepening business and diplomatic ties in a modernizing, more peaceful Middle East, an objective that at times has come into conflict with his approach to Iran, where he continues to hold out the threat of military force in his pursuit of a deal. The Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, went public this week with his promise to Iran’s president that Riyadh would not allow its airspace to be used for any attack on Iran. That followed a similar statement from the UAE. Through various channels, officials from those nations have urged Iran’s leaders to the negotiating table. But they privately acknowledge that a deal to further eradicate the country’s nuclear program, which was severely degraded in a U.S. bombing blitz last year at the end of a 12-day war with Israel, seems unlikely. On Friday while speaking with reporters in the Oval Office, Trump, who was warned Iran’s leaders both about restarting its nuclear program and any violence used to quell mass protests, again drew attention to the fact that a “large armada” of American warships was headed to the Gulf at his direction. He noted that this show of force is one that’s “even larger than in Venezuela.” That new naval deployment rivals that sent in the spring before the joint U.S.-Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier is newly arrived in the region, alongside five guided missile destroyers and two smaller littoral combat ships which can be used to track missiles launched by Iran. While the U.S. and allies have significant air defenses in the region, some systems that were rushed there in the spring, like a Patriot battery normally stationed in South Korea, have returned home. While Trump pointed out the armada’s fire power, he expressed that his preference would be finding a diplomatic solution. “If we do make a deal, that’s good. If we don’t make a deal. We’ll see what happens,” he said, adding that Iran wants to make a deal.

KYIV — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said late Thursday he couldn’t say whether U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposal of a weeklong truce would work, but cast the initiative as an “opportunity.” Trump’s ceasefire initiative is an attempt to spare the residents of Ukrainian cities from an onslaught of Russian attacks that have plunged civilians into sub-zero conditions by devastating their power grids and central heating systems. The U.S. president had said Thursday that he secured an assurance from Russian President Vladimir Putin that Moscow’s forces would not fire on Ukrainian cities during a period of bitter cold. “This is an initiative of the American side and personally of the president of the United States. We can regard it as an opportunity rather than an agreement. Whether it will work or not, and what exactly will work, I cannot say at this point. There is no ceasefire. There is no official agreement on a ceasefire, as is typically reached during negotiations,” Zelenskyy told reporters Thursday evening. Zelenskyy said the prospect of such a truce reopened a long-running discussion to de-escalate the war via an agreement that the Kremlin would stop destroying Ukrainian energy infrastructure, and Kyiv would halt attacks on Russian oil depots and refining facilities. Zelenskyy said the Russians had not accepted such a deal last year and he sounded skeptical about their sincerity this time. “At that time, Russia’s responses to such de-escalation steps were negative. We will see how it unfolds now,” he told the reporters. DAMAGE ALREADY DONE A truce would come very late, given the scale of damage already wrought by the Russians. In Kyiv, Russian forces have destroyed an entire power plant in the biggest residential district, depriving almost 500,000 residents of heating and electricity. The situation is so dire that the European Commission had to send 447 emergency generators worth €3.7 million, with individual countries, such as Germany and Poland, also sending other energy equipment worth millions of euros to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe in Kyiv and other cities. The Ukrainians have hit back by striking Russian oil refineries and power plants in Belgorod, and some other Russian cities within the range of strike capabilities. “The Americans said they want to raise the issue of de-escalation, with both sides demonstrating certain steps toward refraining from the use of long-range capabilities to create more space for diplomacy,” Zelenskyy said.   He added that Kyiv has agreed with the U.S. initiative, as it always agrees to “all American rational ideas.” “If Russia does not strike our energy infrastructure — generation facilities or any other energy assets — we will not strike theirs. I believe this is the answer the mediator of the negotiations, namely the United States of America, was expecting,” Zelenskyy said. Whether Russia is really serious about a ceasefire was another question, Zelenskyy cautioned. NEW BOMBARDMENT Indeed, there was little sign of goodwill from the Russian side on Friday. The Russian armed forces shelled Ukraine with more than 112 drones and various missiles, the Ukrainian Air Force reported Friday.  Although Kyiv has not been attacked on Friday, and no strikes on energy facilities were reported, the eastern region of Kharkiv was heavily shelled. Two people there were wounded, and one person was killed, the governor, Oleh Synegubov, said in a Telegram statement. Civilian infrastructure was hit and power cables were damaged by the attacks. The air force also reported Russian drones in Sumy, Dnipro and Chernihiv regions, as the attacks continued. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also sounded skeptical about a ceasefire on Thursday. “We have spoken many times. President Vladimir Putin has often reminded us that a truce, which is again being sought by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, at least for 60 days, and preferably longer, is unacceptable for us,” he told Turkish media. Lavrov claimed all the previous periods in which Russia has slowed its offensives were used by the West “to pump Ukraine with weapons, and restore the strength of its army.”

BRUSSELS — The EU is closing in on adding Iran’s feared paramilitary forces to its list of terrorist organizations in response to a brutal crackdown on protests, after France dropped its opposition to the move. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could be added to the list if it secures support at a meeting of the bloc’s foreign affairs ministers in Brussels on Thursday, where they are set to impose other sanctions on the Iranian regime. If added to the list, the branch of the Iranian military would be in the same category as al Qaeda and Daesh. Several countries, including France and Italy, had opposed the move, arguing it would close the limited diplomatic channels with Tehran. However, France, which was the staunchest opponent of the terror designation, on Wednesday evening dropped its opposition, the Elysée Palace told POLITICO. Earlier, Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said that “it is essential to combat the impunity of the perpetrators of this bloody repression.” Rome changed camps in the lead-up to the summit, citing the brutality of the Iranian crackdown, and Madrid now also supports the move, according to a statement shared with POLITICO by the Spanish foreign ministry. Designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terror group would require unanimous support from the EU’s 27 countries. The latest footage leaking out of Tehran of the brutal crackdown had crossed “a big line” for EU countries, said Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel, “so hopefully we will see some movement” on the Revolutionary Guard terror designation at Thursday’s meeting. “At least it will be something that’s on the table.” The exact number of those killed in the crackdown is difficult to confirm due to an internet blackout, but estimates start at around 6,000 and could be much higher, he said. Before dropping its opposition, Paris had cautioned that designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terror group may harm French interests and undercut the leverage it could use to try to rein in the theocratic government. For European countries with embassies in Tehran, one EU diplomat said, the Revolutionary Guard would be “among the main interlocutors” with the regime, so banning contact with its personnel would be difficult to manage. The diplomat was granted anonymity to speak freely. According to Alex Vatanka, an Iran expert at the Middle East Institute in Washington, the Revolutionary Guard “is the state within the state.” He added: “They are integrated into the highest parts of the regime and involved in many of the things the West cares about; the nuclear program, the missiles, Iran’s regional activities.” One of the arguments against putting the Revolutionary Guard on the terror list was fear of potential reprisals. Iran has repeatedly used a strategy of arresting Europeans to use as bargaining chips in international diplomacy, including former EU official Johan Floderus, who was released from the notorious Evin Prison in 2024. Paris has secured the release from Evin of two of its nationals — Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris — who are now under house arrest at the French Embassy in Tehran. “We need to send a strong signal,” van Weel said. The Revolutionary Guard “is the glue and the backbone holding this regime together, directing most of the violence, being in charge of most of the economic activity, whilst the rest of the country is in poverty, so I think it’s a key enabler of the atrocities that we’ve seen happening not only in Iran but also in the region,” he added. Separately, ministers meeting Thursday are expected to approve asset freezes and visa bans on 21 Iranian individuals and entities over the human rights violations, and a further 10 over Tehran’s supply of weapons to Russia for its war on Ukraine. The U.S. designated the Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization in 2019 and has repeatedly pressed the EU to follow suit. U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday warned “time is running out” for the regime and that a “massive Armada” was “moving quickly, with great power, enthusiasm, and purpose” toward the country. “Like with Venezuela, it is ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary,” Trump said, referring to the U.S. operation to capture Nicolás Maduro. He added that he hoped Tehran would “Come to the Table” to negotiate a deal to abandon its nuclear weapon ambitions. Clea Caulcutt contributed to this article.

President Donald Trump’s quest to control Greenland is driving the news — and this time, it’s not a punchline. Trump has backed off threats of using force to take the island in favor of what he calls a framework that will give the U.S. access to the island. And on Friday, Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said the situation is still “serious” adding that the Scandinavian nation has “a path that we are in the process of trying with the Americans. We have always said that we are of course willing to make an agreement.” But whether the deal will work remains vague. Meanwhile, all of this has resulted in a flood of questions in Washington and abroad about whether Trump’s threats have been strategy, bluster, or something in between — and the long-term consequences for America’s standing with allies. We attempt to answer some of the most asked questions about the issue. What’s Trump’s interest in Greenland all about? Trump’s obsession with obtaining Greenland — which for decades has been controlled by U.S. ally Denmark — is ostensibly about keeping Americans safe. The president and his advisers increasingly describe Greenland as essential to ensuring American – and even European – security against encroaching threats from China and Russia. Why? Greenland sits astride key Arctic sea lanes that are becoming increasingly navigable as ice melts. It also hosts Pituffik Space Base, a critical U.S. military installation for missile warning, space surveillance and Arctic operations. To Trump, Greenland represents leverage: strategic location, military value and untapped natural resources. His interest in the island isn’t new. In 2019, Trump publicly floated buying Greenland, later describing it as “a large real estate deal.” At the time, it was mostly dismissed as a pipe dream from a mercurial president. But six years later, the once frivolous threat has alienated European allies and become one of the administration’s most important goals. Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, a global risk assessment firm in New York, said that Trump having captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by force has made his assertive “Donroe Doctrine” a “brand” — and emboldened him to take a more hostile posture toward Greenland and European allies. “He’s all in on having the brand,” said Bremmer, who is in Davos speaking with European allies. “Now he needs to populate it and have more ornaments on the tree. There has to be a next thing for the Donroe Doctrine. And Greenland was that thing.” Was Trump serious about invading Greenland? No. There is no legal or political pathway for the U.S. to seize Greenland without violating the sovereignty of NATO allies. Doing so would essentially end the alliance — not to mention violate international law. Trump and his aides were never seriously contemplating an invasion but refusing to rule it out publicly was an effort to increase Trump’s negotiating leverage. In the process, he incensed European leaders, who responded more forcefully than they ever had to his pressure, sending troops to Greenland for military exercises and weighing whether to deploy the European Union’s anti-economic coercion “bazooka” in response to increased Trump’s threat to impose U.S. tariffs. “For his first year, Europe has bit its tongue but worked with Trump to keep him on side,” said Charles Kupchan, a Europe specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations. “When the president of the United States is threatening to invade a NATO ally, it’s time for a different approach.” The stronger response worked. With global markets starting to plummet over fears of an escalating crisis, Trump finally made clear in his speech to Davos on Wednesday that he would not look to acquire Greenland with military force. But Trump’s new assurances have not fully allayed European anger or ongoing anxieties about a leader known for changing his mind and who has repeatedly treated force, coercion and brinkmanship as negotiating tools rather than a last resort. Trump’s governing style thrives on maximalist threats followed by selective walk-backs, leaving allies and adversaries alike unsure which statements are bluster, which are trial balloons and which could harden into policy. And so with this president, even ideas he claims are off the table, never fully are. What does Greenland — and Europe — think about all of this? They’re pissed. Greenland is a semi-autonomous, self-governing territory within Denmark, and its leaders have repeatedly said the island is not for sale. Local officials have also bristled at rhetoric that treats Greenland as an object rather than a society of 56,000 people with their own political aspirations, including long-term independence. “We are not in the situation where we are thinking that a takeover of the country might happen overnight,” Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said at a press conference earlier this month. “You cannot compare Greenland to Venezuela. We are a democratic country.” At the same time, Greenland’s government welcomes U.S. investment, security cooperation, and diplomatic engagement — so long as it comes with respect for Greenlandic autonomy. The Trumpian approach has strained that balance, fueling local skepticism even as U.S. military and economic ties deepen. Though Trump has backed off his invasion threats, “the damage was done,” Bremmer said. “They feel completely disrespected. They feel like Trump treats them with contempt.” How’s this playing in America? The reaction at home has been equally searing. “If there was any sort of action that looked like the goal was actually landing in Greenland and doing an illegal taking … there’d be sufficient numbers here to pass a war powers resolution and withstand a veto,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who recently traveled to Copenhagen, said last week. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) called Trump’s Greenland quest “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.” According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, only 17 percent of Americans support the effort to acquire Greenland, while 47 percent disapprove and 35 percent remain unsure. Is the “framework” deal going to put an end to the effort to take Greenland? Trump announced in a vague post this week that he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had agreed to a “framework of a future Arctic deal” on Greenland, which he described as giving the U.S. significant access to the island. But Denmark and Greenland have both strongly rejected any notion that sovereignty is negotiable or that a concrete transfer of control is underway. Though details are sparse, Trump said the U.S. got “everything we wanted,” adding that the deal is “infinite” and will last “forever.” He told reporters he’ll give more clarity on whether Denmark is on board in two weeks. How does it affect our European alliances? It reinforces a core anxiety many European allies already have about Trump: U.S. security commitments can blur into coercion when they collide with his personal priorities. “The European leaders believe it is primarily about ego,” Bremmer said. “When Trump is acting as an individual and not acting on behalf of the country, you can see how this is going to create conflict. It’s set up to create mistrust and conflict and undermine the relationship.” Even as Trump and his advisers insist his hunger for Greenland aligns with NATO interests, European leaders have warned that questioning a country’s sovereignty — even rhetorically — crosses a red line. In joint statements and public remarks, officials in NATO countries have stressed that Arctic security cooperation does not confer consent over territory, pushing back on what they see as a dangerous conflation of alliance coordination and unilateral pressure. “The American leadership of the transatlantic community was based on mutual trust, common values and interests, not on domination and coercion,” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Friday. “That is why it was accepted by all of us. Let’s not lose it, dear friends,” adding that is what he conveyed to other EU leaders on Thursday. Trump’s Greenland push has only intensified a clear undercurrent of administration-wide disdain for Europe, articulated over his first year in office via speeches, social media posts and an official national security strategy. In the weeks following his renewed Greenland push, Trump has only further alienated our European allies, claiming NATO has not been in America’s corner in the past. “We’ve never needed them,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News on Friday. “We have never really asked anything of them. You know, they’ll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan or this or that. And they did. They stayed a little back, a little off the front lines.” More than 40 countries following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks deployed troops to Afghanistan when the U.S. invoked NATO Article 5 for the first time ever. At peak years, allied forces made up roughly half of all non-Afghan troops in the country. More than 1,100 non-U.S. coalition troops were killed in Afghanistan, alongside many thousands wounded. Canada alone lost 158 soldiers and the U.K. lost 457. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer slammed Trump’s remarks Friday morning. “I consider President Trump’s remarks to be insulting and frankly appalling,” Starmer said. “I am not surprised they have caused such hurt to the loved ones of those who were killed or injured and, in fact, across the country.”

Russia launched its largest aerial assault on Ukraine so far this year overnight, killing civilians and plunging much of the country into darkness — just hours after Ukrainian, Russian and U.S. officials held trilateral peace talks in Abu Dhabi. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said Russian President Vladimir Putin’s forces deliberately attacked while efforts at diplomacy were underway. “Cynically, Putin ordered a brutal massive missile strike against Ukraine right while delegations are meeting in Abu Dhabi to advance the America-led peace process,” Sybiha wrote on X. Moscow’s missiles “hit not only our people, but also the negotiation table,” he added. The Russian strikes hit Kyiv and Kharkiv hardest, Sybiha said, with dozens of ballistic and air-launched missiles and hundreds of drones used. He said Moscow again targeted energy infrastructure and residential areas, calling the assault further evidence that the Kremlin is waging “a genocidal war against civilian people.” Ukraine’s air force said Russia fired more than 370 drones and 21 missiles overnight, while other estimates put the total number of aerial weapons at nearly 400, including hypersonic, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. Vitaliy Zaichenko, CEO of UkrEnergo, the state energy company, told local media that 80 percent of Ukraine will face emergency power outages on Saturday. Explosions were reported shortly after delegations from Kyiv, Moscow and Washington wrapped up the first round of negotiations in Abu Dhabi. The discussions in Abu Dhabi are expected to continue on Saturday. The talks brought together senior military and intelligence officials from Russia, top diplomats and security officials from Ukraine, and a U.S. delegation that includes President Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, his son-in-law Jared Kushner and White House adviser Josh Gruenbaum. Ukraine’s lead negotiator, Rustem Umerov, said the discussions focused on achieving a “dignified and lasting peace,” adding that further meetings were scheduled. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky struck a more cautious tone, saying it was “too early” to draw conclusions and stressing that Russia must demonstrate a genuine willingness to end the war.