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.

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

A senior German football executive has urged Europe to consider boycotting the 2026 FIFA World Cup, as U.S. President Donald Trump’s escalating rhetoric over Greenland and broader foreign policy moves spark unease across the continent. Oke Göttlich, president of Bundesliga club St. Pauli and a vice president of the German Football Association, said in an interview with German media that the time had come to “seriously consider and discuss” a boycott, comparing the current moment to the Cold War-era Olympic boycotts of the 1980s. “What were the justifications for the boycotts of the Olympic Games in the 1980s?” Göttlich told the Hamburger Morgenpost. “By my reckoning, the potential threat is greater now than it was then. We need to have this discussion.” Göttlich also took aim at FIFA President Gianni Infantino — widely seen as a close ally of Trump — accusing football’s leadership of applying double standards. “Qatar was too political for everyone, and now we’re completely apolitical?” he said. “That really, really bothers me.” His comments add momentum to a growing debate in Europe over whether global sport can remain insulated from politics as Trump ramps up pressure on allies — from threats surrounding Greenland to U.S. military action in Venezuela — while treating the World Cup as a major soft-power trophy of his second term. Not all governments are receptive. France’s sports minister said this week there was “no desire” in Paris to boycott the tournament, which will be co-hosted by the U.S., Canada and Mexico, arguing that sport should remain separate from politics. Still, several European football leaders have already shown a willingness to wade into political disputes. The president of Norway’s football federation, Lise Klaveness, has repeatedly criticized human rights issues tied to major tournaments, while Ireland’s football association pushed to exclude Israel from international competition before the Gaza peace agreement last year. Göttlich also dismissed concerns that a boycott would unfairly punish players, including St. Pauli’s international stars. “The life of a professional player is not worth more than the lives of countless people in various regions who are being directly or indirectly attacked or threatened by the World Cup host,” he said.

BRUSSELS — The trade war is back. Donald Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on European countries over Greenland has blown up last year’s transatlantic trade truce and forced the EU into a familiar dilemma: hit back hard, or try to buy time.  On paper, Brussels has options. It could target politically sensitive U.S. exports like Republican-state soybeans. Or it could unleash its trade “bazooka,” the Anti-Coercion Instrument. Here are the actions that EU leaders can consider when they gather for an emergency summit on Thursday: HITTING BACK AGAINST U.S. PRODUCTS Retaliatory tariffs on €93 billion worth of U.S. goods are still sitting in the EU’s pantry. These date back to Trump’s first round of tariffs last year and were frozen for six months in August. This package will automatically kick into force on Feb. 7 unless the Commission proposes to extend the freeze and the 27 EU countries agree with that. Such a suspension can happen very quickly, however, as the Commission typically sounds out support from capitals several times a week. Part of the package targets distinctively American products like Levi’s jeans, Harley Davidson motorcycles and Kentucky bourbon. Other goods would be targeted because they originate in states that lean towards the Republican side of the spectrum. A tariff on soy beans, for instance, would target the red state of Louisiana from which House Speaker Mike Johnson hails. DEPLOYING THE TRADE “BAZOOKA” The biggest weapon in the EU’s arsenal is its Anti-Coercion Instrument. This all-purpose tool is meant to deter other countries from using trade tactics to extort concessions in other areas. With it, Brussels can impose or increase customs duties, restrict exports or imports through quotas or licenses, and impose restrictions on trade in services. It also can curb access to public procurement, foreign direct investment, intellectual property rights and access to the bloc’s financial markets.  But in a case like this, it would take a few months to first clear diplomatic hurdles between the Commission and the Trump administration. Because it has never been triggered before, the EU is in uncharted waters. That is especially true for the dynamics between the Commission and national capitals. Brussels needs to propose launching the mechanism, and would only do so if it knows enough capitals will agree. France is keen, but Germany and other countries? Not so much. Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images “It’s one of the cards,” but “it’s really not the first in the line that you use,” Lithuanian Finance Minister Kristupas Vaitiekūnas told POLITICO in an interview. PLAYING THE CHINA CARD Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney did something unprecedented last Friday. Turning the page on the acrimonious relationship between Canada and China born out of the arrest of a high-profile Huawei executive, the Canadian leader struck a preliminary trade deal with Beijing to liberalize imports of Chinese electric vehicles in exchange for a steep reduction in tariffs on Canadian agricultural goods. Carney didn’t mention Trump by name, but the message was clear: Canada has other partners, and it won’t sit quietly while Washington tries to strong-arm it.   A blueprint for Brussels? It’s not that simple. While the EU has tried to thread the needle on its trade relations with Beijing — the Asian country remains its second-largest trading partner  — policymakers are keenly aware of the competitive threat posed by China, Inc. Germany’s automotive industry is reeling from high energy prices and fierce competition from China (now the world’s top automotive exporter). In general, overcapacity — the term for China’s dizzying output of products that, unable to be absorbed by its domestic market, are sold abroad — keeps EU business leaders up at night. Compared with Canada, for the EU China is a “whole different can of worms,” said trade expert David Kleimann. “The Chinese are outcompeting us on all of our main exports and domestic production,” he said. “We will need more barriers, more managed trade with China.”  AN ASSET FIRESALE America’s enormous debt pile is one Achilles heel. The U.S. loves to spend, and Europeans, in turn, snap up that debt. George Saravelos, head of foreign exchange research at Deutsche Bank, said that European public and private sector entities hold a combined total of $8 trillion of U.S. stocks and debt — “twice as much as the rest of the world combined.”  “In an environment where the geoeconomic stability of the western alliance is being disrupted existentially, it is not clear why Europeans would be as willing to play this part,” the analyst wrote in a note to clients. If European governments order their banks and pension funds to dump their holdings, that would almost certainly spark a financial crisis, sending America’s borrowing costs soaring. The ensuing financial Armageddon would engulf Europe as well, though. The firesale of financial assets would crush prices, and European lenders would book huge losses — the financial equivalent of nuclear mutually assured destruction.  Increasing decoupling from the U.S. financial system looks likely, but a violent wholesale break is extremely unlikely.  PLAYING FOR TIME Restraint is the EU’s weapon of choice for now. “The priority here is to engage, not escalate, and avoid the imposition of tariffs,” Olof Gill, deputy chief spokesperson for the European Commission, said on Monday. Under their trade deal struck last year, the United States has already lowered tariffs on most EU products to 15 percent, while the EU has yet to make good on its pledge to cut its tariffs on U.S. industrial goods to zero. That’s because Trump’s threats have derailed a vote in the European Parliament on lowering tariffs for U.S. products. While this stalemate lasts, EU companies actually benefit from lower costs while the reverse is not true for their American counterparts. “Trade continues to flow, investment continues to flow,” Gill added. “So we need to be very sensible in how we approach the difference between a threat and operational reality.” With Trump trying to drive a wedge between European leaders by threatening tariffs against some countries, including France and Germany, while sparing others, like Italy, maintaining cohesion will be a huge challenge. Any serious retaliation, such as wielding the bloc’s trade “bazooka,” the Anti-Coercion Instrument, would require very broad support. WHAT COMES NEXT The U.S. Supreme Court might rule on some of Trump’s tariffs as soon as Tuesday. If the administration loses the case, Trump would have to deal with the fallout while he’s attending this week’s World Economic Forum in Davos.  “On a purely economic warfare basis, that would play in our favor,” said Kleimann. “But we haven’t considered Trump’s ambitions to actually put boots on the ground.” At Davos, Trump might meet with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, although no bilateral is yet confirmed. Von der Leyen will speak at Davos on Tuesday; Trump is due to arrive the day after.  Then on Thursday, EU government leaders hold an emergency summit in Brussels to discuss transatlantic relations and the latest tariff threats. The meeting is not expected to create a glitzy attack plan but rather to sound out whether the EU should indeed target the U.S. goods or maybe shoulder its trade bazooka. By Feb. 1, the U.S. tariffs on the European allies would kick in, if Trump follows through on his threats. A week later, the EU’s retaliation package automatically kicks in if no solution is found. If that happens, we really will be in a trade war.

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 — Spanish center-right lawmakers have quietly pulled back from their once-robust public support for the EU–Mercosur trade deal, sending jitters through the European People’s Party as backers warn the agreement could now be in serious trouble. The mammoth trade deal, which has been in the making for 25 years, will be formally sealed when European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen flies to Paraguay on Saturday to sign it. But the accord still requires a formal green light from the European Parliament before it can enter into force. The shift by the Spanish center right will deliver a first test for the Mercosur accord by as early as next week. MEPs are due to vote on Wednesday on motions calling to refer the text to the Court of Justice of the European Union to review whether it complies with the bloc’s treaties — a process that could take up to two years. Only if the deal receives the necessary backing would it then go forward for a consent vote later this year, where a majority would again be needed for it to go into effect. With support breaking along national, rather than party lines, a defection by the Spanish center right threatens to turn next week into a cliffhanger. Spanish People’s Party (PP) president, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, telegraphed the shift in position at a party rally last weekend, when he declared Spain’s “farmers are right.” His statement reflected broader concerns that farmers could be undercut by an influx of produce from the South American bloc. While stopping short of rejecting the deal outright, Feijóo said Spanish farmers were right to demand “more control over what comes from abroad,” and “fair trade agreements with guarantees — guarantees that will be honored.” “We are the party of the countryside, the party of farmers,” Feijóo added. “The one that defends them, the one that listens to them, and the one that makes real policy for them.” Alberto Nadal, the PP’s vice-secretary for economic affairs, was more explicit in a post on X in which he said the party will “only support the EU-Mercosur agreement if safeguards are guaranteed and border controls are strengthened.” The PP’s press departments in Brussels and Madrid did not respond to repeated requests to clarify what these statements mean for the party’s voting intentions in the European Parliament. Direct requests for comment to the party’s top EU lawmakers went similarly unanswered. SPANISH PIVOT The pivot from the Spanish lawmakers, traditionally the staunchest supporters of deepening ties with Latin America, reflects the sky-high pressure building upon the European Parliament.  In the Parliament’s hallways, EPP lawmakers from other countries have noticed the shift. “We always thought they were rock solid, but then lately there was some nervousness,” said one senior MEP, who was granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive situation. They added that the Spaniards had not expressed themselves directly to the group yet but expressed confidence they will ultimately support the deal. “It seems they have a heated internal debate ongoing,” one EPP official said. “Members of the group are feeling the heat of farmers and the Spaniards have three elections upcoming.” French, Polish, and Austrian center-right lawmakers are opposed to the deal over concerns it will hurt farmers.  A second center-right MEP warned that a Spanish rejection of the deal “would be the end” of Mercosur, adding that Madrid’s backing is as instrumental as that of Germany’s, which both countries described as the “motor” of the agreement. Were they to turn against the deal, the Spaniards — who are the second biggest national delegation within the EPP, with 22 seats in the hemicycle — could blow the deal as a whole. The vote is expected to be tight, with four Parliament officials from the EPP, S&D, and Renew groups agreeing the result will be “50-50,” with a margin of just a few votes.  DOMESTIC PRESSURES The PP’s doubts about the Mercosur deal are driven by electoral considerations at home. Regional elections are set to be held in Aragón on Feb. 8, in Castille and León on March 15, and in Andalucía later this spring, and the rural vote is decisive. The Aragonese economy depends on livestock,  Castille and León is Spain’s breadbasket and Andalucía is the country’s largest agricultural producer. Ever since Brussels announced the Mercosur deal, farmers and ranchers in all three regions have taken part in major protests, and even larger mobilizations are planned for the coming weeks. The far-right Vox party — which is already the third-largest group in the Spanish parliament, and which continues to grow in the polls — is actively campaigning against the agreement, which it argues “turns its back on thousands of Spanish producers [by allowing]  the massive influx of foreign products.” It is also using the issue to characterize the PP as a mainstream political force that is virtually identical to the governing Socialist Party, and that does not fight for the interests of average voters. That’s a big problem for the PP, which is desperate to score governing majorities in Aragón, Castille and León, and Andalucía and deal fresh defeats to Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s weak minority government. Spain’s left-wing coalition is in dire straits, lacking sufficient support to pass legislation or a fresh budget, and there are doubts that it will remain in power until national elections scheduled to be held in July 2027. Major Socialist losses in Aragón, Castille and León, and Andalucía would increase pressure on Sánchez to call snap elections, but the PP is itself under pressure to score decisive majority wins in both regions. The party is wary of having to form coalition governments with Vox, as it did in the Balearic Islands, Extremadura, Aragon, Valencia and Murcia following nationwide regional elections in 2023. That summer, that partnership became a major liability when Sánchez called snap elections and based his successful campaign on the fear that a vote for the PP amounted to a vote for a far-right national government. Aitor Hernández-Morales reported from Madrid.

CAMP VIKING, Norway — In the deep snow of the Arctic mountains, Britain’s Royal Marines are readying for war with Russia. The elite troops are introduced to the wilderness by camping in the snow in temperatures below minus 20C. They finish by jumping through ice holes and shouting their name, rank and number before they can be pulled out of the water. Then they roll in the snow, drink a tot of rum, and toast King Charles III. Britain’s extreme weather training in this area dates to the Cold War, but Camp Viking — its facility in Skjold, northern Norway — is new and growing. It opened in 2023 after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and is due to reach a peak of 1,500 personnel this spring, followed by 2,000 next year. Britain is “effectively doubling” the number of its Royal Marines in Norway over three years, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper told POLITICO in an interview. Exercises mirror missions the troops would conduct if NATO’s Article 5 on collective defense was triggered — reflecting the reality that “we are no longer at peace,” Brigadier Jaimie Norman, commander of the U.K. Commando Forces, told Cooper and her Norwegian counterpart Espen Barth Eide on a visit to the site Thursday. “We see ourselves on a continuum that has war on one end to peace on the other, and we are somewhere on that continuum.” Yet this is only one hemisphere of the Arctic. On the other, U.S. President Donald Trump is stoking a very different crisis by pushing for ownership of Greenland. The risks that link the two regions — which have shipping lanes busier than ever with Russian and Chinese vessels as the polar ice caps melt — are similar, albeit less immediate for Greenland than Norway. Yet Greenland is consuming huge global bandwidth. It is little wonder that Eide, greeting Cooper after he spent two days in Ukraine, lamented that they could not focus more on Ukraine and “less on other things.” Trump has left them with no other choice. FIRE UP THE ‘ARCTIC SENTRY’ Cooper and Eide’s response is to publicly back the idea of an “Arctic Sentry” NATO mission, a military co-operation that would aim to counter Russian threats — while reassuring Trump of Europe’s commitment to the region. Details of the mission — including the number of troops it would involve and whether it would comprise land, sea or air deployments — remain hazy. It could mean that exercises like those in northern Norway are deployed in Greenland too, as well as the shipping lanes around them. Lanes in northern Europe have seen a rise in shadow fleets carrying sanctioned oil and alleged sabotage of communications cables. Yvette Cooper’s message to Trump, and everyone else, was to insist there is no real division between the eastern and western Arctic. | Stefan Rousseau/Getty Images But as with so many issues, they have yet to discover whether Trump will take heed. Cooper’s intervention came one day after U.S. Vice President JD Vance met Danish and Greenlandic representatives at the White House amid growing tensions over Trump’s repeatedly stated intention to take control of Greenland. Cooper’s message to Trump, and everyone else, was to insist there is no real division between the eastern and western Arctic. “The security of the Arctic is all linked,” she said — citing Russia’s northern fleet, shadow fleet, oil tankers, non-military assets, spy ships and threats to undersea cables.  “Look at the map of the Arctic and where you have the sea channels,” she added. “You can’t look at any one bit of Arctic security on its own, because the whole point of the Arctic security is it has an impact on our transatlantic security as a whole. “Some of the Russian threat is through its Northern Fleet and into the Atlantic. That is a transatlantic threat. That is something where clearly you can’t simply revert to Europe’s defense on its own.” Yet in parts of Britain and Europe, there are plenty of people who fear Trump is asking Europe to do exactly that. European allies have long pushed the U.S. president to nail down commitments to Ukraine. A mere hint of this frustration is visible in Eide. He was keen to point out that the risk to his end of the Arctic is more immediate. “Just to the east of our eastern border, you come to the Kola Peninsula and Murmansk,” he said, standing on a snowy outcrop. “That region has the largest conglomeration of nuclear weapons in the world — and particularly, the second strike capability of Russia is there. They need access to the open oceans, and in a wartime situation, we don’t want them to have that access.” He added: “If there is a crisis, this area will immediately be a center of gravity because of the importance of the nuclear capabilities of Russia, the submarine base and so on. It will go from low tension to being in the midst of it in a very short time. That’s why we need to plan for rapid reinforcement, for rapid stepping up, and also to have a constant military pressure presence in this area.”  Managing this Trump reassurance is a tricky balance. Rachel Ellehus, director general of the non-partisan foreign affairs think tank RUSI and a former U.S. representative at NATO, said: “You want to signal solidarity and presence and engagement, and send a message that Europe is stepping up for this alleged Russian and Chinese threat in and around Greenland.  “But you don’t want to kind of stick your finger in the eye of the United States or signal that you’re looking for some sort of confrontation.” Perhaps for this reason, Ellehus suggested NATO itself is holding back. “The one voice that has been quite silent is that of NATO,” she said. “It’s quite odd that Mark Rutte has not issued a secretary general statement expressing solidarity with Denmark and underscoring that any security concerns that the United States might have could legitimately be addressed through the NATO alliance, because both Denmark and Greenland are members of their territories covered by the Article Five guarantee. “I think it does have consequences in terms of the credibility of the alliance, and I think we could see an intensification of the practice whereby allies are turning to bilateral or regional relationships, score and meet their security to meet their security needs, rather than relying on multinational alliances like NATO.” A NEW ERA A reminder of how fast multilateralism is changing hangs on the library wall in the quaint, pink and white British embassy in Helsinki. The photo, dated July 1975, shows British Prime Minister Harold Wilson in the embassy garden with U.S. President Gerald Ford, Henry Kissinger and others on the cusp of signing the Helsinki Accords. The agreement, emphasizing the rights of sovereignty and territorial integrity, was part of a drumbeat toward the end of the Cold War. Britain’s extreme weather training in this area dates to the Cold War, but Camp Viking — its facility in Skjold, northern Norway — is new and growing. | Ben Dance / FCDO Across the street in Helsinki is the fortress-like embassy of the U.S. — where Trump is one of those calling the shots on territorial integrity these days. As well as his designs on Greenland, the president recently said NATO “would not be an effective force or deterrent” without American military power and said he did not need international law. Britain and many of its allies are loath to accept any suggestion of any cracks in the alliance. Asked by POLITICO if NATO was in crisis, Finland’s Foreign Minister Elisa Valtonen insisted: “NATO is stronger than it’s ever been.” Cooper, too, said NATO is “extremely strong” — and argued that those who describe his administration as a destabilising force are being too simplistic. She pointed to the presence of Marco Rubio, a more traditional Republican than Trump who Europeans have found easier to work with than the president, along with work on security guarantees for Ukraine, collaboration on “Five Eyes” intelligence and the plan for Gaza, much of which was led by the U.S. “Of course, everyone can see this administration operates in a different way,” she said, but “in every discussion I’ve had with … Rubio, there has always been a really strong commitment to NATO.” The Gaza plan, she added pointedly, “was actually drawing on international law, the UN framework.” But one U.K. official, not authorized to speak publicly, said there were three schools of thought about Trump’s comments on Greenland. The first is the president’s stated aim that he is concerned about security threats to the Arctic; the second is that he is seeking business opportunities there. And then “there is one school of thought that ultimately, he just wants to take it … he just wants to make America bigger,” they said.

The world’s ice is disappearing — and with it, our planet’s memory of itself.  At a very southern ribbon-cutting ceremony on the Antarctic snowpack Wednesday, scientists stored long cores of ice taken from two dying Alpine glaciers inside a 30-meter tunnel — safe, for now, from both climate change and global geopolitical upheaval. Each ice sample contains tiny microbes and bubbles of air trapped in the ancient past. Future scientists, using techniques unknown today, might use the ice cores to unlock new information about virus evolution, or global weather patterns.  Extracting ice from glaciers around the world and carrying it to Antarctica involved complex scientific and diplomatic collaboration — exactly the type of work denigrated by the Trump Administration of the United States, said Olivier Poivre d’Arvor, a special envoy of France’s President Emmanuel Macron and ambassador to the Poles. Scientists are “threatened by those who doubt science and want to muzzle it. Climate change is not an hoax, as President Trump and others say. Not at all,” Poivre d’Arvor said during an online press conference Wednesday. Glaciers are retreating worldwide thanks to global warming. In some regions their information about the past will be lost forever in the coming decades, no matter what is done to curb the Earth’s temperature. “Our time machines are melting very quickly,” said Carlo Barbante, an Italian scientist who is the vice chair of the Ice Memory Foundation (IMF). The tunnel, known as the Ice Memory Sanctuary, is just under a kilometer from the French-Italian Concordia base in Antarctica. It rests on an ice sheet 3,200 meters thick and is a constant minus 52 degrees. Scientists said they believed the tunnel would stay structurally stable for more than 70 years before needing to be remade. As well as the two ice samples, which arrived by ship and plane this month, the scientists have collected cores from eight other glaciers from Svalbard to Kilimanjaro. These are currently in freezers awaiting transportation to Antarctica. Co-founder of the sanctuary Jérôme Chappellaz, a French sociologist, called for more such facilities to be opened across Antarctica, and said he expected China would soon create its own store for Tibetan ice. Poivre d’Arvor called for an international treaty that commits countries to donate ice to the Sanctuary and guarantee access for scientists. France and Italy have collaborated on building the sanctuary and provided resources to assist with the transportation of the samples. “This is not a short-term investment but a strategic choice grounded in scientific responsibility and international cooperation,” Gianluigi Consoli, an official from the Italian Ministry of Universities and Research. On the inside of the door that locks the ice away, someone had written in black marker “Quo Vadis?” Latin for “where are you going?” It’s a question that hangs over even the protected southern continent. Antarctica is governed by a 1959 treaty that suspended territorial claims and preserved the continent for the purposes of science and peace. With President Donald Trump’s grab for territory near the North Pole in Greenland, the internationalist ideals that have brought stability to the Antarctic for over half a century appear to no be longer shared by the U.S. But William Muntean, who was senior advisor for Antarctica at the State Department during Trump’s first term Trump and under President Joe Biden, said there had been “no sign” U.S. policy in Antarctica would change, nor did he expect it to. “The southern polar region is very different from the western hemisphere and from the Arctic,” Muntean said. The U.S. doesn’t claim sovereignty, military competition is negligible, nor are there commercially viable energy or mining projects at the South Pole. “Taking disruptive or significant actions in Antarctica would not advance any Trump administration priorities.” That said, he added, “you can never rule out a change.”

BRUSSELS — European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s plan to shake up how the EU spends its almost €2 trillion budget is rapidly being diluted. Von der Leyen’s big idea is to steer hundreds of billions in funds away from farmer subsidies and regional payouts — traditionally the bread and butter of the EU budget — toward defense spending and industrial competitiveness. But those modernizing changes — demanded by richer Northern European countries that pay more into the budget than they receive back from it — are difficult to push through in the face of stern opposition from Southern and Central European countries, which get generous payments for farmers and their poorer regions. A coalition of EU governments, lawmakers and farmers is now joining forces to undo key elements of the new-look budget running from 2028 to 2034, less than six months after the European Commission proposed to focus on those new priorities. Von der Leyen’s offer last week to allow countries to spend up to an extra €45 billion on farmer subsidies is her latest concession to powerful forces that want to keep the budget as close as possible to the status quo. Northern European countries are growing increasingly frustrated by moves by other national capitals and stakeholders to turn back the clock on the EU budget, according to three European diplomats. They were particularly irritated by a successful Franco-Italian push last week to exact more concessions for farmers as part of diplomatic maneuvers to get the long-delayed Mercosur trade deal with Latin America over the line. “Some delegations showed up with speaking points that they have taken out of the drawer from 2004,” said an EU diplomat who, like others quoted in this story, was granted anonymity to speak freely. The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy was worth 46 percent of the bloc’s total budget in 2004. The Commission’s proposal for 2028-2034 has reserved a minimum of roughly 25 percent of the total cash pot for farmers, although governments can spend significantly more than that. The Commission had no immediate comment when asked whether the anti-reform camp was successfully chipping away at von der Leyen’s proposal. THE ANTI-REFORM ALLIANCE The Commission’s July proposal to modernize the budget triggered shockwaves in Brussels and beyond. The transition away from sacred cows consolidated a ramshackle coalition of angry farmers, regional leaders and lawmakers who feared they would lose money and influence in the years to come. “This was the most radical budget [ever proposed] and there was resistance from many interested parties,” said Zsolt Darvas, a senior fellow at the Bruegel think tank. A protest by disgruntled farmers in Brussels during a summit of EU leaders on Dec. 18 was only the latest flashpoint of discontent. | Bastien Ohier/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images The scale of the Commission’s task became apparent weeks before the proposal was even published, as outspoken MEPs, ministers and farmers’ unions threatened to dismantle the budget in the following years of negotiations. That’s exactly what is happening now. “The Commission’s proposal was quite radical so no one thought it could go ahead this way,” said a second EU diplomat.   “We knew that this would be controversial,” echoed a Commission official working on the file. A protest by disgruntled farmers in Brussels during a summit of EU leaders on Dec. 18 was only the latest flashpoint of discontent. The terrible optics of the EU’s signing off on Mercosur as farmers took to the streets on tractors was not lost on national leaders and EU officials. Commission experts spent their Christmas break crafting a clever workaround that allows countries to raise agricultural subsidies by a further €45 billion without increasing the overall size of the budget. The extra money for farmers isn’t new — it’s been brought forward from an existing rainy-day fund that was designed to make the EU budget better suited to handling unexpected crises. By handing farmers a significant share of that financial buffer, however, the Commission is undermining its capacity to mobilize funding for emergencies or other policy areas. “You are curtailing the logic of having a more flexible budget for crises in the future,” said Eulalia Rubio, a senior fellow at the Jacques Delors Institute think tank. At the time, reactions to the budget compromise from frugal countries such as Germany and Netherlands were muted because it were seen as a bargaining chip to win Italy’s backing for the Mercosur deal championed by Berlin. The trouble was instead postponed, as it reduces budget flexibility. Darvas also argued that the Commission has not had to backtrack “too much” on the fundamentals of its proposal as countries retained the option of whether to spend the extra cash on agriculture. In a further concession, the Commission proposed additional guarantees to reduce the risk of national governments cutting payments to more developed regions. | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images ANOTHER MONTH, ANOTHER CONCESSION This wasn’t the first time von der Leyen has tinkered with the budget proposal to extract herself from a political quagmire. The Commission president had already suggested changes to the budget in November to stem a budding revolt by her own European People’s Party (EPP), which was feeling the heat from farmers’ unions and regional leaders. At the time, the EU executive promised more money for farmers by introducing a “rural spending” target worth 10 percent of a country’s total EU funds. In a further concession, the Commission proposed additional guarantees to reduce the risk of national governments cutting payments to more developed regions — a sensitive issue for decentralized countries like Germany and Spain. “The general pattern that we don’t like is that the Commission is continuing to offer tiny tweaks here and there” to appease different constituencies, an EU official said. The Commission official retorted that national capitals would eventually have made those changes themselves as the “trend of the negotiations [in the Council] was going in that direction.” However, budget veterans who are used to painstaking negotiations were surprised by the speed at which Commission offered concessions so early in the process. “Everyone is scared of the [2027] French elections [fearing a victory by the far-right National Rally] and wants to get a deal by the end of the year, so the Commission is keen to expedite,” said the second EU diplomat. Nicholas Vinocur contributed to this report.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Kyiv is moving to step up pressure on Moscow with new operations targeting Russia, following a week of Russian attacks that knocked out power to Ukrainian cities as freezing temperatures set in. “Some of the operations have already been felt by the Russians. Some are still underway,” Zelenskyy said in his nightly address Saturday. “ I also approved new ones.” Zelenskyy said Ukraine’s actions include deep strikes and special measures aimed at weakening Russia’s capacity to continue the war. “We are actively defending ourselves, and every Russian loss brings the end of the war closer,” he said. He declined to provide details, saying it was “too early” to speak publicly about certain operations, but stressed that Ukraine’s security services and special forces are operating effectively. As part of Kyiv’s efforts to reduce Russia’s offensive capabilities, Ukrainian forces attacked the Zhutovskaya oil depot in Russia’s Volgograd region overnight Saturday, the General Staff said in a post on social media. Zelenskyy’s comments come after a week of escalating Russian strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, which left the regions of Zaporizhzhia and Dnipropetrovsk without electricity and heating as temperatures plunged well below zero. In the capital, renewed attacks killed at least four people and injured 25 others. The city’s mayor urged residents who could leave to do so, as roughly half of Kyiv’s apartment buildings were left without power or heat. Russia also launched a nuclear-capable Oreshnik ballistic missile at Ukraine’s Lviv region on Thursday, striking near the EU and NATO border as part of a massive barrage.