KYIV — The Russian army sustained over 6,000 casualties in the last four days as it attempted a renewed offensive that was beaten back by the Ukrainian military. “The enemy tried to break through the defensive formations of our troops in several strategic directions at once … In total, the enemy conducted 619 assault actions during these four days,” Ukrainian Army Commander Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi said in a statement on Monday, describing the Russian operations as “a colossal pressure.” Syrskyi said the Russian command threw tens of thousands of soldiers into the “meat assaults.” While Ukrainian open source analysts at the Deep State live map project reported the Kremlin’s army managed to advance in several small villages, it came at a catastrophic cost. “Over four days of intensive assault operations, the enemy lost more than 6,090 soldiers killed and wounded,” Syrskyi said, adding that Kyiv largely managed to repel the offensive. The number of Russians killed or wounded was also reported Monday by the Ukrainian army command. The Russian ministry of defense reported targeting Ukrainian troops in more than 147 fighting districts in the Kharkiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia and Donetsk regions over the past few days, but did not reveal the number of Ukrainian or Russian losses, or any significant advances. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Russian troops have noticeably become more active, taking advantage of the better weather, and that there have been more attacks. “But this also means more Russian losses. In this week alone, more than 8,000 have been killed and seriously wounded. They also had mechanized assaults. Our drones are working well, and the positions of our army are strong,” Zelenskyy said in an evening statement to the nation on Sunday. The Institute for the Study of War think tank confirmed that so far, the Ukrainian military is forcing Russian forces to choose between defending against Ukrainian counterattacks and allocating manpower and equipment for offensive operations elsewhere on the front line. “Russia’s redeployments to southern Ukraine in response to Ukrainian counterattacks are likely disrupting the Russian military command’s plans for the Spring-Summer 2026 offensive against the (Donetsk) Fortress Belt,” ISW said in its latest war assessment, referring to Ukraine’s fortified cities in the east of the country. “Russian forces have previously failed to conduct simultaneous offensives in different sectors of the front, and it is unlikely that they will be able to make significant efforts to advance in the Fortress Belt area while contending with Ukraine’s recent successes in the Hulyaipole and Oleksandrivka directions,” it added.

Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, is a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center and host of the weekly podcast “World Review with Ivo Daalder.” He writes POLITICO’s From Across the Pond column. Like many, I used to believe that former U.S. President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was the biggest strategic mistake America had made, at least since the Vietnam War. That is, until now. U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to join Israel in a war against Iran is a far bigger strategic error, and one with far bigger strategic consequences. The reasons for this are many, ranging from the immediate impact on the region and the global economy to the longer-term upshots for Russia and China, as well as the repercussions for U.S. alliances and America’s global standing. That much is already clear — and we’re only three weeks in. Let’s start with the similarities: Much like the Iraq War, the war against Iran began based on the presumption that the regime in power would swiftly fall and that a new, more moderate and less antagonistic one would take its place. In both instances, the idea was to remove the greatest destabilizing threat in the Middle East — Saddam Hussein’s regime in the initial case, the theocratic dictatorship in Tehran in the latter — through the swift and decisive use of military force. But while Bush understood that defeating a regime required ground forces, it seems Trump simply hoped that airpower alone would suffice. As a result, Hussein’s regime fell swiftly — though Bush did vastly underestimate what would be required to rebuild a stable, let alone a democratic, Iraq in its place. But the Iranian government, as U.S. intelligence officials themselves have testified, “appears to be intact” despite Israel killing many of its key political and security leaders through targeted strikes. Focusing on the region at large, Bush’s misjudgment eventually contributed to a large-scale insurgency, which strengthened Iran’s influence in Iraq and the wider Middle East. In contrast, Trump’s miscalculation has left in place a regime that, aside from assuring its own survival, is now singularly focused on inflicting as much damage on the U.S. and its allies as it possibly can. Iranian drones and missiles have already attacked Israel and the Gulf states, targeted critical energy production facilities and effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, which hosts one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas export transits. The Salalah oil storage fire in Oman is pictured on March 13, 2026. | Gallo Images/Orbital Horizon/Copernicus Sentinel Data 2026 Less than a month in, the world is now witnessing the largest oil and gas disruption in history. And as the fighting escalates to include gas and oil production infrastructure, the global economic consequences will be felt by every single country for months, if not years, to come — even if the conflict were to end soon. The damage that has already been inflicted on the global economy is far greater than the economic consequences of the Iraq War in its entirety. But that’s not all. Geopolitically, the U.S.-Israel war with Iran will also have far greater reverberations than the war in Iraq ever did. For one, the Bush administration spent a lot of time and effort trying to get allies on board to participate in and support the war. It didn’t fully succeed in this, as key allies like Germany and France continued opposing the war. But it tried. Trump, by contrast, didn’t even try to get America’s most important allies on board. Not only that, he even failed to inform them of his decision. And yet, when Iran responded predictably by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. president then demanded allies send their navies to escort tankers — despite the U.S. Navy so far refusing to do so. And while it’s true that Iraq left many U.S. allies — even those that joined the war, like the U.K. — deeply scarred, Iran has convinced U.S. allies they can no longer rely on the U.S., and that Washington is now a real threat to their economic security. That, too, will have a lasting impact well beyond anything the war in Iraq did. Finally, the fact remains that when Bush decided to invade Iraq, Russia and China were still minor global powers. Russian President Vladimir Putin was only just starting his effort to stabilize the economy and rebuild Russia’s military power, while China had just joined the World Trade Organization and was still a decade or more away from becoming an economic superpower. In other words, America’s blunder in Iraq occurred at a time when the strategic consequences for the global balance of power were still manageable. Trump’s Iran debacle is occurring at a time when China is effectively competing with the U.S. for global power and influence, and Russia is engaged in the largest military action in Europe since the end of World War II. A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in Tehran, Iran on March 15, 2026 after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before. | Majid Saeedi/Getty Images Both stand to benefit greatly. Russia is the short-term winner here. Oil prices are rising, generating more than $150 million per day in extra income for Moscow to feed its war machine. The U.S. is relaxing its sanctions against Russia in a vain attempt to stall prices from ballooning at the pump. All the while, Ukraine is being left to contend with Russia’s missile and drone attacks without the advanced defensive weaponry that’s now being used to protect Israel and the Gulf instead. China, meanwhile, is watching as the U.S. diverts its military forces from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East, where they will likely remain for months, if not years. These forces include a carrier strike group, a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-missile system from Korea, and a Marine Expeditionary Force from Japan. And while a disruption in oil and gas supply will be a short-term problem for Beijing too, China’s rapid transition to renewables and close alignment with energy-rich Russia will leave it well placed to confidently confront the future. Bush and Trump both came to office determined to avoid the mistaken wars of their predecessors. Nevertheless, they both embarked on military adventures fed by a hubristic belief in American power. But while the U.S. was strong enough — and its adversaries still weak enough — to recoup much of the damage inflicted by Bush’s war, the war unfolding in Iran today will leave behind an America that will have lost much of its global power, standing and influence, destined to confront rising adversaries all on its own.

Israel and Iran launched fresh attacks on each other on Saturday, the latest in a string of attacks since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Tehran in late February.  The U.S., meanwhile, was sending thousands more Marines to the Middle East, according to media reports, even as U.S. President Donald Trump broached “winding down” American military operations in the regioin.  Israel’s military said Saturday’s attacks targeted “the Iranian terrorist regime” in Tehran, as well as “Hezbollah targets” in Beruit. Israel also said that it identified missiles fired from Iran at Israeli territory.  Tehran also fired two ballistic missiles at Diego Garcia, a joint U.S.-U.K. military base in the middle of the Indian Ocean, but did not hit the base, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. The British government condemned “Iran’s reckless strikes” and confirmed London’s agreement for Washington to use U.K. bases in attacks against Iranian “missile sites and capabilities being used to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz.” The U.K. “is working closely with international partners to develop a viable plan to safeguard international shipping in the Strait of Hormuz,” it said in a statement.  Defense ministries in Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates said on Saturday that they were responding to incoming missile and drone threats, as the conflict continues to spill over into Persian Gulf states. Trump said in a Truth Social post late Friday that Washington is “getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down” the U.S. military campaign against Iran. He listed the objectives being met as “completely degrading” Iran’s missile capability, “destroying” the country’s defense industrial base, “eliminating” Iran’s navy and air force, keeping the country far away from nuclear capability, and protecting U.S. allies in the Middle East. Trump’s statement is at odds with the reports that the U.S. is sending more troops and warships to the region, and has requested another $200 billion from Congress to fund the war. The conflict has caused global oil prices to spike, driven in part by Israeli strikes on Iran’s vast offshore gas field and Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical trade passage that facilitates a significant share of the world’s oil and natural gas trade. The U.S. said on Friday that it would temporarily waive sanctions on Iranian oil to help ease the short term shock to global markets, as Trump called NATO allies “cowards” for refusing to join the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran and help reopen the Hormuz channel.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music In dieser Sonderfolge spricht Gordon Repinski mit zwei Experten, die sich regelmäßig mit unsichtbaren, hybriden Angriffen beschäftigen: Sinan Selen, Präsident des Bundesverfassungsschutzes, und Marika Linntam, Botschafterin Estlands in Deutschland. Zusammen haben sie auf der Sicherheitstagung des Bundesverfassungsschutzes und des „Verbandes für Sicherheit in der Wirtschaft“ besprochen, wie Russland mit Nadelstichen versucht, die deutsche Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft zu destabilisieren. Während Estland durch jahrelange Erfahrung eine breite gesellschaftliche und wirtschaftliche Resilienz gegen Desinformation und Sabotage entwickelt hat, warnt Sinan Selen vor einem erheblichen Nachholbedarf in deutschen Unternehmen und der breiten Öffentlichkeit. Im Gespräch geht es deswegen auch darum, wie die Sensibilität gesteigert werden kann, ohne dabei paranoid zu werden. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. ⁠Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.⁠ Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: ⁠@gordon.repinski⁠ | X: ⁠@GordonRepinski⁠. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 ⁠information@axelspringer.de⁠ Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

BRUSSELS — EU leaders were supposed to spend Thursday mapping out how to boost Europe’s economy. Instead, they were left scrambling to deal with two wars, a deepening transatlantic rift and a standoff over Ukraine. Twelve hours of talks, a few showdowns and many, many coffees later, here’s POLITICO’s rapid round-up of what we learned at the European Council. 1) Viktor Orbán’s not a man for moving … The most pressing question ahead of this summit was whether Hungary’s prime minister could be convinced to drop his veto to the EU’s €90 billion loan for Ukraine. He wasn’t. The European Commission had attempted to appease Orbán in the days running up to the summit by sending a mission of experts to Ukraine to inspect the damaged Druzhba pipeline, which supplies Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia. Orbán has argued that Ukraine is deliberately not addressing the issue, and tied that to his blocking of the cash. Asked whether he saw any chance for progress on the loan going into the summit, Orbán’s response was simple: “No.” Twelve hours later, that answer was much the same. 2) … But he does like to stretch his legs. In one of the most striking images to have come out of Thursday’s summit, the Hungarian prime minister stands on the sidelines of the outer circle of the room while the rest of the leaders are in their usual spots listening to a virtual address from Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (on screen) speaks to EU leaders via video at the European Council summit in Brussels, March 19, 2026. | Pool photo by Geert Vanden Wijngaert/OL / AFP via Getty Images The relationship between the two has descended into outright acrimony after the Hungarian leader refused to back the EU loan and the Ukrainian leader made veiled threats — which even drew the (rare) rebuke of the Commission. Faced with Zelenskyy’s address, the Hungarian decided to vote with his feet. 3) The new kid on the block is happy to be a part of this European family, dysfunctional as it may be. This was the first leaders’ summit for Rob Jetten, the Netherland’s newly-installed prime minister. Ahead of the meeting, he said he was “very much looking forward to being part of this family.” His verdict after the talks? That leaders differ greatly in their speaking style, with some quite efficient while others take longer to get to the point — but he welcomed the jokes of Belgian’s Bart De Wever, “especially when the meeting has been going on for hours.” 5) Though not everyone was so charitable. Broadly speaking, Orbán digging in his heels did not go down well. Sweden’s prime minister told reporters after the summit that leaders’ criticism of the Hungarian in the room was “very, very harsh,” and like nothing he’d ever heard at an EU summit. Jetten said the vibe in the room with EU leaders was “icy” at points, with “awkward silences.”  6) The EU’s not giving up on the loan. Despite murmurs ahead of the talks of a plan B in the works, multiple EU leaders as well as Costa and Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen were adamant that the loan was the only way to go — and that it will happen, eventually. “We will deliver one way or the other … Today, we have strengthened our resolve,” von der Leyen. Costa added: “Nobody can blackmail the European Council, no one can blackmail the European Union.” Top EU diplomat Kaja Kallas arrives at the European Council summit on March 19, 2026. | Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images 7) Kaja Kallas wants to avoid a messy entanglement. In her address to the bloc’s leaders, Kallas, the EU’s top diplomat, stressed the importance of not getting caught up in the conflict in the Middle East. “Starting war is like a love affair — it’s easy to get in and difficult to get out,” she said, according to two diplomats briefed by leaders on the closed-door talks. At the same time, Kallas reiterated the importance of the EU’s defending its interests in the region but said there was little appetite for expanding the remit of its Aspides naval mission, currently operating in the Red Sea. 8) But it was all roses with the U.N. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres joined the Council for lunch, thanking them for their “strong support for multilateralism and international law.” In an an exclusive interview with POLITICO on the sidelines of the summit, Guterres applauded the restraint shown by the Europeans, despite Donald Trump’s anger at their refusal to actively support the war or help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime artery that Iran has largely sealed off, driving up global energy prices. 9) Kinda. One senior EU official told POLITICO that the lunch meeting was “unnecessary.” “With all appreciation for multilateralism and its importance … considering the role the U.N. is not playing in international crises right now, it is unnecessary,” said the official, granted anonymity to speak freely. 10) Celery is a very versatile vegetable. Also on the table while they picked over the future of the multilateral world order was a pâté en croûte with spring vegetables and fillet of veal with celery three ways. Three ways! And for dessert? A mandarin tartlet with cinnamon. 11) Cyprus and Greece want the EU to get serious about mutual defense. Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis asked the EU to think about a roadmap for acting on the bloc’s mutual defense clause, according to two EU diplomats and one senior European government official. The clause, Article 42.7, is the EU’s equivalent of NATO’s Article 5. Its existence and potential use has recently come into focus since British bases in Cyprus were attacked by drones. 12) And the Commission hopes it’s already got serious enough about migration. Von der Leyen said that while the EU has not yet experienced an increase in migrants as a result of the conflict in Iran, the bloc should be prepared. “There is absolutely no appetite … to repeat the situation of 2015 in the event of large migration flows resulting from the conflict in the Middle East,” said one national official. The Commission chief emphasized that the mistakes of the 2015 refugee crisis won’t happen again. 13) Von der Leyen likes to cross her Ts.   Speaking of emphasis — “temporary, tailored and targeted” was how von der Leyen described the EU’s short-term actions to minimize the impact on Europe of the recent energy price spikes after the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran. The moves will impact four components that affect energy prices: energy costs, grid charges, taxes and levies and carbon pricing, she said. 14) The ETS is here to stay — with some modifications. While EU leaders agreed to make some adjustments to the Emissions Trading System — the bloc’s carbon market — most forcefully backed the continuation of the system itself. “This ETS is a great success. It has been in place for 20 years and is a market-based and technology-neutral system. So we are not calling the ETS into question,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told reporters after the talks had concluded. While the Commission will propose some adjustments to the ETS by July, these are merely adjustments, not fundamental changes, the German leader said. In the run-up to the summit, some EU countries, including Italy, floated the idea of weakening the ETS to help weather soaring energy prices. 15) No matter what, EU leaders want to get home — ASAP. While Costa has so far ensured every European Council under his watch lasts only one day instead of the once-customary two, this time around, that goal was looking optimistic. However, at the end of the day, leaders’ dogged determination to get out of there prevailed (even if that meant kicking a discussion on the long-term budget to April). À bientôt!

BRUSSELS — Viktor Orbán has been attending European summits for 16 years. At what may turn out to be his swan song, he faced EU leaders separating themselves into good cops and bad, hoping to persuade him to approve a €90 billion loan to Ukraine. He saw them all off. But his victory may be short-lived. The bloc’s longest-serving government chief, facing an election in less than a month that he’s forecast to lose, has long been a thorn in the side of Brussels (which also means Paris, Berlin and a score of other capitals). There was no sign at Thursday’s European Council that even if he is preparing to walk off into the sunset he’s any less stubborn — or any more admired. “Nobody can blackmail the European Council, nobody can blackmail the European institutions,” European Council President António Costa, who chaired the meeting, told reporters, in an extraordinary broadside. “It is completely unacceptable what Hungary is doing.” The Hungarian prime minister reneged on a promise he’d made at a summit in December to approve the loan. In doing so, he’s undermining the very fabric of EU decision-making, which relies on governments sticking to iron-clad commitments, leaders said. Orbán “is violating one of the fundamental principles of our cooperation,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said shortly after the summit wrapped. His refusal to approve the Ukraine loan after formally giving his consent in December “is a serious breach of the loyalty among member states, undermines the European Union’s ability to act and damages the reputation of the EU as a whole.” With Europe looking impotent as war in the Middle East escalates, leaders hoped they could at least get money flowing to Ukraine to help it fend off Russia — in a conflict where the EU feels it actually has some sway. But the mood was grim. Even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who was beamed into the meeting by video link after for so long being a ray of light at EU gatherings, seemed to make things worse rather than better. HARSH CRITICISM EU leaders divided into two groups to convince Orbán to change his mind. Most, including Costa, piled on the pressure. “It was very, very harsh criticism and the feeling was this simply cannot go on like this,” Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson told reporters. “I have never heard such hard-hitting criticism at an EU summit of anyone, ever.” Costa said no leader has ever violated “this red line before.”  There were some leaders who tried the opposite approach. Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and, though less effusive, Belgium’s Bart De Wever, attempted to appeal to Orbán’s ego, speaking sympathetically about understanding his position, five diplomats and an EU official granted anonymity to speak freely told POLITICO. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy speaks to EU leaders via video during a rountable of the EU Summit in Brussels on March 19, 2026. | Geert Vanden Wijngaert/Pool/AFP via Getty Images “You have to treat him like a 6-year-old child, you have to humor him,” said one of the diplomats. Ahead of the summit, the EU cooked up a compromise they hoped would let Orbán to save face in his election campaign yet still approve the loan. The EU was prepared to hold back from dispensing the money until oil flowed through the Druzhba pipeline, which brings Russian oil to Hungary and was damaged by a Russian drone in January, according to two EU diplomats and an EU official. In recent weeks, the Hungarian prime minister has linked the pipeline issue to the loan and accused Ukraine of not repairing Druzhba for political reasons — making it an election issue by painting himself as the protector of his country’s interests. Zelenskyy has said he doesn’t want to repair a pipeline that the Russians have repeatedly attacked, which helps fund the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of his country. Costa said during his press conference that Russia had damaged the pipeline 23 times since launching the full-scale invasion. “What I have done today is to crush the oil blockade, which [was] imposed on us by Zelenskyy,” Orbán said after the summit. “So I defended the interest of the country.” AFTER THE ELECTION Merz was among a group of leaders who hoped the Ukrainian president would use his address to the summit to reduce the temperature and reassure Orbán that he would fix the pipeline. Instead, Zelenskyy went on the offensive. “Zelenskyy played it harder than [our] expectations,” perhaps believing “he can wait it out,” said a government official who was granted anonymity to speak freely about the closed-door talks, like others quoted in the article. If Orbán wins the election next month, “maybe [Zelenskyy’s] calculation is that he will change his tone after.” While Ukraine desperately needs the EU’s €90 billion, Zelenskyy now has more time after the International Monetary Fund approved an $8.1 billion loan late last month. Kyiv should have enough money to stay solvent until early May, POLITICO reported. The antipathy between Orbán and Zelenskyy runs deep, according to a senior EU diplomat, and the ill will was on full display on Thursday. The Hungarian prime minister got up from his seat and stood behind the other leaders, looking on with contempt as Zelenskyy appeared on their screens, according to a diplomat. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky (on screen) speaks to EU leaders via video as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán watches from the distance (bottom) at the European Council summit in Brussels, March 19, 2026. | Pool photo by Geert Vanden Wijngaert/OL / AFP via Getty Images After 90 minutes, with Zelenskyy digging in and the Hungarian not budging, the leaders decided to shut down the debate, issuing a statement that “the European Council will revert to this issue at its next meeting.” The bet is that one way or another, things will be different after Hungarians go to the polls on April 12. If Orbán loses, then his successor could be motivated to lift Budapest’s obstruction in exchange for the EU releasing cash. “France and Germany were not willing to spend too much time” or “political capital” to persuade Orbán at Thursday’s summit, and had “no willingness … to help his electoral campaign,” the national official said. If Orbán is reelected — which one EU official said many of the leaders in the summit room on Thursday believe is likely — then he may be more willing to approve the loan, once oil flows through the Druzhba pipeline again. But if he doesn’t, several punishments will be on the table at a leaders’ gathering in Cyprus on April 23-24, including freezing more funding, suing Hungary in the EU’s top court, issuing fines, and even the so-called nuclear option, Article 7, which strips countries of their EU voting rights. AWKWARD SILENCES The atmosphere during Thursday’s discussion was “icy” at points, with “awkward silences,” Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten said. It means the saga of the EU’s loan to Ukraine, which at one point the bloc was hoping to have resolved as long ago as a summit in October, is delayed for at least another month. A failure of leaders’ powers of persuasion? Not quite, maybe. “There was no way Orbán was going to say yes anyway,” one of the EU diplomats said. Most EU leaders hope it’s his last hurrah. Nette Nöstlinger, Nicholas Vinocur, Gerardo Fortuna, Gabriel Gavin, Hans von der Burchard, Sonja Rijnen, Zia Weise, Seb Starcevic, Giorgio Leali, Hanne Cokelaere, Ferdinand Knapp, Milena Wälde, Aude van den Hove, Gregorio Sorgi, Koen Verhelst, Victor Jack, Ben Munster, Jacopo Barigazzi and Bartosz Brzezińksi contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said Thursday there are “reasonable grounds” to believe both sides in the U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran may have committed war crimes, as attacks and retaliatory strikes on energy facilities intensify. Speaking exclusively to POLITICO on a visit to Brussels before Thursday’s European Council summit, Guterres said: “If there are attacks either on Iran or from Iran on energy infrastructure, I think that there are reasonable grounds to think that they might constitute a war crime.”  Israel attacked Iran’s South Pars natural gas field on Wednesday, then Tehran launched a retaliatory strike on a major energy complex in Qatar. Beyond that, Guterres said the growing civilian casualties left both sides in the conflict open to possible war crimes charges. “I don’t see any difference. It doesn’t matter who targets civilians. It is totally unacceptable,” he said. Representatives for the U.S. and Israeli governments did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Guterres’ remarks. America and Israel began a bombing campaign on Feb. 28, killing Iran’s supreme leader and sparking ongoing retaliatory missile-and-drone attacks from Tehran on sites across the Middle East. Having called for deescalation in the region, Guterres appeared to blame Israel for driving the conflict forward, and called on U.S. President Donald Trump to persuade Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu to bring it to an end. “The war needs to stop … and I believe that it is in the hands of the U.S. to make it stop. It is possible [to end the war], but it depends on the political will to do it,” Guterres told host Anne McElvoy for an episode of the EU Confidential podcast publishing Friday morning. “I am convinced that Israel, as a strategy, wants to achieve a total destruction of the military capacity of Iran and regime change. And I believe Iran has a strategy, which is to resist for as much time as possible and to cause as much harm as possible. So the key to solve the problem is that the U.S. decides to claim that they have done their job. “President Trump will be able to convince … those that need to be convinced that the work is done. That the work can end,” Guterres added. The secretary-general also attributed America’s decision to launch strikes on Iran to Israel. “I have no doubt that this was something that corresponds to Israel’s strategy … to draw the United States into a war. That objective was achieved. But this is creating dramatic suffering in Iran, [and] in the region, even in Israel. And it is creating a devastating impact in the global economy and whose consequences are still too early to foresee. So, we absolutely must end this conflict,” he said. But finding an off-ramp might prove difficult, and relations between the U.N. and the Trump administration remain frosty.   Asked if he had spoken with Trump since the conflict began three weeks ago, Guterres responded emphatically: “No, no, no … I speak with those I need to speak to. But this is not a soap opera.” He claimed, however, to have been “in contact with all sides,” including with the Trump administration, since hostilities spread across the Gulf.  “It’s vital for the world at large that this war ends quickly,” Guterres said. “This is indeed spiraling out of control and the recent attacks represent an escalation that is extremely dangerous.” Trump said on his Truth Social site that the U.S. had not authorized the attack by Israel on the South Pars site, and that Israel had “violently lashed out,” raising questions about how much influence the U.S. has over its ally. “My hope is that the United States will be able to understand that this has gone too far,” Guterres said. The conflict was primarily benefitting Russia, Guterres added, with Moscow welcoming the distraction from its own war on Ukraine. “Russia is the biggest beneficiary of the Iran crisis,” Guterres said. “Russia is the country that is gaining more with what’s happening in this horrible disaster. Russia is already the winner.” Meanwhile, European leaders, including U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, have said they won’t be sending ships to the Persian Gulf in response to Trump’s appeal for help to open the Strait of Hormuz. France has said it will only contribute support vessels “when the situation is calmer.” Guterres applauded the restraint shown by the Europeans, despite Trump’s anger at their refusal to actively support the war or help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime artery that Iran has largely sealed off, driving up global energy prices. “I think these countries made their own reading of the situation, and I believe they took a decision not to get too much involved, knowing that the most important objective is the deescalation,” he said. Listen to the full episode of EU Confidential on Friday morning.

BRUSSELS — Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni broke ranks with much of the EU by speaking sympathetically about Hungary’s Viktor Orbán over his stance on Ukraine during a private session of Thursday’s European summit. Meloni told her counterparts she understood the reasons the Hungarian leader had angered the bloc by going back on his word and refusing a €90 billion loan to Ukraine after having approved it in December, five diplomats familiar with the confidential discussions — none of whom were from Italy — told POLITICO. Orbán’s about-turn has infuriated his fellow leaders and stunned Ukraine, which is running out of money as its war with Russia drags into its fifth year, and goes against EU convention because of his formal approval just weeks ago. Meloni and Orbán are both rightwingers but the Italian leader has broadly stuck to the mainstream EU line, in which the Hungarian government has been seen as obstructionist. While Meloni emphasized in the meeting that she personally still supported the loan being channeled to Ukraine immediately, she said she understood the position of Orbán, who faces an election next month, according to the five diplomats, representing four different European countries. One of the five diplomats quoted Meloni as saying that Orbán’s stance was “normal” because “things change” and that “if I were in the same situation I would understand it.” The Italian government denied that. “The sentence attributed to the prime minister is totally baseless” an official from Meloni’s office in Rome said. All diplomats quoted in this article were granted anonymity to allow them to speak freely about the discussions, which were not held in public. None of them were in the room because it was almost exclusively only leaders present. Those leaders briefed diplomats. OIL LINK Hungary and Slovakia are blocking the release of the funds, which needs all EU governments to approve. Budapest has linked its consent to demands Ukraine repair the Druzhba pipeline, which brings Russian oil to Hungary and was damaged by a Russian drone in January, weeks after all 27 EU countries backed the loan plan. Orbán has accused Kyiv of deliberately delaying the repairs. The EU has said the issues of the loan and the pipeline are not connected. An announcement on Tuesday that the EU had agreed with the Ukrainian government to fund repairs and send a fact-finding mission to the site was not enough to overcome Orbán’s objections on Thursday. The Hungarian prime minister has previously been constructive and should be expected to drop his veto if the pipeline reopens, Meloni also said, according to the diplomats. Meloni is a strong advocate for Ukraine and also maintains friendly relations with both Orbán and U.S. President Donald Trump, who has at times wavered in his support for Kyiv. She has also publicly backed Orbán in his reelection bid. RED LINES Most other EU leaders reacted with fury on Thursday morning as it became apparent Orbán didn’t intend to budge on the loan.  European Council President António Costa blasted the decision as “unacceptable” and an unprecedented violation of a “red line” in behavior, diplomats told POLITICO. Aside from Hungary and Slovakia, the remaining 25 countries have since issued a joint statement welcoming the decision to loan the €90 billion and calling for “the first disbursement to Ukraine by the beginning of April.” In a video posted following the talks, Orbán said the discussion had been “tough, I was under pressure from all sides … but they tried this in the wrong place and at the wrong time.”

BRUSSELS — France and Germany will try one more time to agree on how to jointly develop a next-generation fighter jet — with a deadline in April. The project, known as the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), has stalled for months because of bitter disagreements between France’s Dassault and Germany’s Airbus Defence and Space, but French and German officials said Thursday they will try to reboot the program. “They just can’t seem to agree. Our job is to ensure they reach an agreement, so we have jointly decided to launch an initiative to bring Airbus and Dassault closer together in the coming weeks,” French President Emmanuel Macron told reporters ahead of a European Council meeting. “This must be done in a calm and respectful manner, precisely to identify areas of common ground.” A German official told reporters: “Germany and France have agreed to a final attempt at mediation between the industries, to be conducted by experts. Due to the upcoming decisions on the federal budget, a result must be reached by mid-April.” FCAS, which also includes Spain, is intended to replace Germany’s Eurofighter and France’s Rafale jets by around 2040. The program includes a warplane — which lies at the heart of the disagreement between the two defense giants — as well as drones and a combat cloud. While German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is open to developing two separate planes, Macron has spoken against that option. POLITICO previously reported that Macron met with Dassault CEO Eric Trappier and Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury last week to discuss the project. The topic was also discussed at a bilateral meeting between the French president and German chancellor on Wednesday. Laura Kayali reported from Paris, and Giorgio Leali and Hans von der Burchard reported from Brussels.

BRUSSELS — Mark Rutte’s tried-and-tested approach to dealing with Donald Trump is coming under strain as the U.S. president’s war in Iran opens up fresh fault lines inside NATO. On Tuesday, Trump branded NATO allies “very foolish” for snubbing his demands for military support in securing the critical Strait of Hormuz trade artery. As a result, reconsidering the U.S. role in the alliance was “certainly something we should think about,” he warned. In response, NATO’s secretary-general is reaching for his usual Trump playbook: Avoid criticizing the president in public and work behind the scenes for a solution. “He’s calculating there’s little to gain by now speaking up,” said one NATO diplomat, who like others in this story was granted anonymity to speak freely. “I don’t see how he could please [Trump’s] desire. So better to lay low — publicly at least.” But the war is putting Rutte in a bind. Despite Trump’s demands, NATO has few powers to act in Iran, while allies’ distaste for the war makes it hard to find needed consensus for any alliance involvement. Yet the longer the conflict drags on, the more it saps resources from the alliance’s core tasks of supporting Ukraine and preparing for a potential war with Russia. “It’s very clear that whatever is being used in the Middle East right now, in particular air defense systems, will most likely have to be replaced,” said Pieter Wezeman, a senior arms researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute think tank. “All that comes on top of the already very high demand for arms in Europe.” NATO declined to comment on the record. MAKING A MARK Until now, Rutte has succeeded in keeping Trump from blowing up the alliance by handing the U.S. president wins in key areas like getting allies to boost defense spending and finding an off ramp that allowed Trump to drop his campaign to annex Greenland. “When there are debates between allies, I always try to stay a bit muted, and therefore being able, if necessary, to help a bit,” Rutte said last week, referencing feuding between Trump and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez over Madrid’s refusal to allow U.S. planes to use its airfield to attack Iran, and Trump’s wrath at low Spanish defense spending. While the alliance hasn’t collapsed, Rutte has come under fire for being obsequious toward Trump and for siding with him against other allies. “In the European Parliament … we have openly questioned whether we were hearing the representative of NATO or the representative of the United States,” said Lucia Yar, a liberal Slovak lawmaker on the Parliament’s defense committee. “I hope that Mr Rutte will continue to engage regularly with both sides of the Atlantic.” Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who has sparked a feud with President Donald Trump over his refusal to allow U.S. planes to attack Iran from his country, with Rutte during the NATO Summit in The Hague on June 25, 2025. | Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images He’s trying the same play during the Iran crisis. In one of his first comments, Rutte claimed there was “widespread support” among the alliance’s members for the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran — a claim that drew a fierce rebuke from Spain. After days of lying low, Rutte was faced with a direct question on Wednesday about Trump’s threat of a “very bad future” for NATO over the reluctance of allies to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The former Dutch prime minister didn’t take the bait, instead pointing to talks happening behind the scenes. “What I know is that allies are working together discussing how to [reopen the strait],” he said. “Rutte’s job is to keep NATO together, and it’s hard to see how a rhetorical battle with Trump can help him do that,” said Oana Lungescu, a former NATO spokesperson who now works as a senior research fellow at London’s Royal United Services Institute think tank. OUT OF AREA Yet there are limits to how much Rutte can do to assuage Trump over Iran. That’s partly down to a lack of consensus among allies on the war — with many having slammed the conflict that was initiated without consulting them. While NATO has shot down Iranian missiles directed at Turkey, the U.S. cannot convince allies to join on the basis that its own territory is under threat, said a second alliance diplomat. The alliance’s mutual defense clause, “Article 5, applies in the case of an armed attack against an ally, so it’s not directly relevant to situations like this,” the diplomat said. The Middle East lies outside the alliance’s military “area of responsibility,” according to two other alliance diplomats, further complicating a collective response. Finally, Washington has not made any formal demands of NATO. At a closed-door meeting of ambassadors on Tuesday, the U.S. repeated its pleas for allies to help, but did not make any specific requests to the alliance, the two diplomats said. Yet with the war already in its third week, doing nothing comes with its own risks for NATO. Washington has already withdrawn equipment, including F-35 fighter jets, from a NATO exercise in Norway, while the U.K. has diverted its HMS Dragon destroyer away from activities linked to the alliance’s new Arctic mission to the eastern Mediterranean. HMS Dragon, which the U.K. diverted from an Arctic mission, sets sail from Portsmouth Harbour on March 10, 2026 for its deployment to Cyprus. | Leon Neal/Getty Images Defending against Iranian drone and missile counter-attacks has also forced European countries to burn through air defense missiles, depleting stockpiles and hampering NATO’s aim to bolster air defenses, said Wezeman, the analyst. France has already warned its stockpile of air-to-air MICA missiles is running low. It may be only a “matter of weeks” until European countries are forced to decide whether to earmark future deliveries of air defense systems for their Gulf allies or Ukraine, he said.  “Over a longer period of time, it will put a dent in the planning for how to build up the European defences,” he said. “And it has an immediate effect on the capacity of Ukraine to defend itself.” “We’re not starting from a place of surplus … we’re going to get stretched even more thin,” the third NATO diplomat acknowledged.