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.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico’s national security adviser, who resigned on Saturday over his messages to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, said he feels like a “fool” after reading them again. “When I read those messages today, I feel like a fool. It was a private conversation, let’s be honest, who would be happy if the whole nation were reading their messages? At the very least, I exercised poor judgment,” Miroslav Lajčák, who served as Slovak foreign minister in multiple Fico governments between 2009 and 2020, told Radio Slovakia on Monday evening. In the newly released files, Epstein bantered with Lajčák about women while discussing Lajčák’s meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The exchanges also show Lajčák suggested a meeting between Fico and Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon, which he refuted in the radio session. “This meeting did not happen … nor did I organize it,” Lajčák said. Lajčák denied any wrongdoing but subsequently resigned, saying he wanted to prevent political blowback on Prime Minister Robert Fico. He went on to say that he “does not recall and therefore cannot confirm or deny the authenticity of the texts.” According to Lajčák, Epstein was a well-known figure accepted among high-profile politicians, and he looked at him as a “valuable contact that could open a lot of doors.” “But that does not absolve me of responsibility,” he said. “I showed poor judgement and inappropriate communication. Those messages were nothing more than foolish male egos in action — self-satisfied male banter,” he added, refering to conversation about women. Lajčák added that his communication with Epstein was limited to words, not actions. “There were no girls … the fact that someone is communicating with a sexual predator does not make him a sexual predator,” he said, condemning the crimes that came to light after Epstein’s arrest in 2019. The messages were included in Friday’s release by the U.S. Justice Department of investigative materials related to Epstein. 

BRUSSELS — Ursula von der Leyen has summoned her team of European commissioners to a meeting to try to defuse mounting tensions and improve the way they work. The meeting is set for Feb. 4 in Leuven and is open to all members of the College, though attendance is not mandatory, according to a Commission official involved in organizing the event. The idea for such a meeting was conceived after tense exchanges between commissioners and frustration at the repeated late arrival of files on the desks of top officials, Commission officials said. POLITICO spoke to eight officials from different commissioners’ cabinets, all of whom were granted anonymity to speak candidly about the internal dynamics. While the meeting will focus on competitiveness and will feature a special guest — IMF Managing Director and former Commission Vice President Kristalina Georgieva — also on the agenda are discussions on “geopolitics in the current context and the working methods of the European Commission,” Commission deputy chief spokesperson Arianna Podestà told POLITICO. The latter element was prompted by what staffers inside the Berlaymont, the Commission’s HQ, describe as an unusually tense atmosphere. The spark for the idea of the meeting, according to four of the Commission officials, was a tense exchange in early December in which Dan Jørgensen, the energy commissioner, confronted Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera during a meeting of the College of Commissioners — as first reported in Brussels Playbook. Jørgensen will be attending the Feb. 4 meeting, his team said. Ribera’s team did not respond. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Both commissioners declined to comment on the incident but one official said Jørgensen had raised his voice when confronting Ribera, while another said the Danish commissioner “made a point toward Ribera that was unusually forceful by College standards” as they discussed a key environmental file. Jørgensen will be attending the Feb. 4 meeting, his team said. Ribera’s team did not respond. Meetings of the full College in the new year are not unusual, and in fact have been a regular practice since 2010, Podestà told POLITICO. However, this one features a session explicitly dedicated to finding better working methods and preventing differences of opinion between commissioners from getting out of hand. Descriptions of the meeting varied, with one official calling it “talks” rather than a formal team-building exercise, and another describing it as “a working group on working methods.” Several Cabinets are growing frustrated with files arriving on their desk just hours before College meetings, or late at night, on the weekend, or on the eve of the presentation of legal proposals. “This prevents us from working professionally,” one official said. “Of course emergencies happen but this can’t be the norm.” The frustration peaked during the presentation of the EU’s long-term budget plan last July, when official figures were reportedly shared with commissioners only hours before the presentation. According to officials close to von der Leyen’s Cabinet, the late arrival of the budget figures was justified as a tactic to prevent leaks. But the approach has only deepened irritation inside the College. According to one official, the “altercation” between Jørgensen and Ribera also concerned fast-tracking files. To get a file presented to the College, an executive vice president must “push the button” (Berlaymont jargon for putting something on the agenda). Faced with a tight deadline to examine the details of a file — the environmental omnibus, designed to simplify green rules — Ribera decided to wait before pushing the button, as she is entitled to do, according to her team. This led to tensions with Jørgensen, a fellow member of the socialist family. One Commission official noted that both center-left commissioners lead teams “with strong views,” making friction likely. “There’s a lot more infighting in [the] College than one might think,” a Commission official said. Some of these frictions reflect genuine differences of opinion but are magnified by a highly centralized system, in which many decisions must get approval on the 13th floor of the Berlaymont — home to von der Leyen’s Cabinet. “The way it works now creates situations that are avoidable and some problems where there aren’t any,” another official said. Jørgensen and Ribera are not the only pair under strain. Tensions have surfaced between Executive Vice President Stéphane Séjourné and Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi, for example, particularly over the Biotech Act. Várhelyi has long objected to the package’s non-health elements, and insiders say his resistance has only hardened as Séjourné pushes a broader industrial strategy. Two officials also said Várhelyi’s behavior is sometimes interpreted as provocative — keeping his phone ringtone on or sprawling in his chair. According to the same officials, Várhelyi has even insisted that only von der Leyen, not fellow commissioners, may substitute for him at events. Neither Séjourné nor Várhelyi responded to requests for comment. Séjourné will not be present at the seminar, as he is taking part in ministerial discussions in Washington on critical raw materials, but will submit written contributions, according to his team. Várhelyi did not confirm if he would be attending the Feb. 4 meeting. Commission officials say that friction between EVPs and other commissioners is almost built into the system. EVPs are meant to coordinate and oversee the work of others, whereas under EU law all commissioners are supposed to be equal. That ambiguity, one official said, is manageable on good days, but doesn’t help when tempers flare. Von der Leyen did not respond to requests for comment. The meeting comes ahead of an EU leaders’ retreat on competitiveness scheduled for Feb. 12.

BRUSSELS — The “presidential” way Ursula von der Leyen runs the European Commission is hurting Europe, according to a former member of her team. “I have the impression that commissioners are now largely silenced,” Nicolas Schmit, who was the commissioner for jobs and social rights in the first von der Leyen Commission, told POLITICO in an interview. “The system, how the College is organized — very centralized, call it presidential or whatever system — is not good for the College, it’s not good for the Commission, and it is not good for Europe in general,” he said. Schmit represented Luxembourg in the Commission from 2019 to 2024 and was the Party of European Socialists’ lead candidate in the 2024 EU election. The Socialists had hoped he could stay on for a second term, but Luxembourg’s government instead nominated Christophe Hansen, from von der Leyen’s own center-right European People’s Party. Schmit is now the president of the Foundation for European Progressive Studies, the PES think tank. While it is unusual for sitting commissioners to openly criticize von der Leyen, several former members of the College have done so. Michel Barnier used his memoir to accuse his former boss of presiding over an “authoritarian drift” in the Commission. Another former commissioner, Thierry Breton, also said von der Leyen wielded too much power, arguing that Europe “was not built to have an empress or an emperor.” As a commissioner, Schmit belonged to a faction that challenged some of von der Leyen’s moves from within, including the appointment of a close ally as envoy for small businesses — a move that the European Parliament criticized for a lack of transparency. He also accused the Commission of lacking long-term vision and strategic planning. “Did we have a real strategic debate on Europe in the world, which was already a different world from the one we knew before? We did not have a real strategic approach, a real strategy,” he said of von der Leyen’s first term. A Commission spokesperson declined to comment. On U.S. relations, Schmit criticized the Commission for not publicly defending former commissioner Breton, who was handed a travel ban by Washington over what it views as unfair efforts to regulate American social media and tech giants. Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier told POLITICO at the time that the College of Commissioners agreed to provide Breton with legal and financial support. Breton was the commissioner who pushed through and helped enforce the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a piece of regulation designed to enforce content moderation policies on large online platforms. Schmit said the laws that the U.S. is unhappy about — regulating digital services and digital markets — were adopted by all 27 commissioners, including von der Leyen, and not by Breton alone. Thierry Breton was the commissioner who pushed through and helped enforce the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a piece of regulation designed to enforce content moderation policies on large online platforms. | Olivier Hoslet/EPA “This is the point where we should have shown more solidarity and said ‘no, it’s not one, it is all of us.’ But you know, courage is not always shared, including in political spheres,” he said. Schmit also took aim at the Commission’s deregulation push, which seeks to slash red tape in areas ranging from technology to environment policy through so-called omnibus packages. He said that although it can take too long to come up with laws, “in just one moment, you can issue this anti-legislation or try to draw back the whole thing.” He said this was “not a good way” to deal with the issue of reducing bureaucracy. Other figures on the center-left have echoed the criticism. Iratxe García — leader of the Socialists & Democrats group in the Parliament — has likened the deregulation drive to something straight out of the Donald Trump playbook. The European Ombudsman said in November that the Commission’s handling of the omnibus process had “procedural shortcomings” amounting to “maladministration,” citing the compressed timelines and the speed with which the reforms were drafted. The Commission has consistently justified the omnibus packages as simplification measures meant to boost competitiveness and cut administrative burdens on businesses. Nicholas Vinocur contributed to this report.

Iran escalated its warning to Washington on Sunday, threatening a regional war if the United States launches military action. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that if U.S. forces attack Iran, the fallout would spread across the Middle East, according to the semi-official Tasnim News Agency. “The Americans should know that if they start a war, this time it will be a regional war,” the 86-year-old leader was quoted as saying. Tehran has separately warned that any American military action ordered by U.S. President Donald Trump would trigger retaliation against Israel and American forces stationed across the region. Trump said last week that Iran is “seriously talking” with Washington, hinting at ongoing diplomatic contacts even as tensions flare. Europe was also singled out when Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, declared on Saturday that Tehran now considers all EU militaries to be terrorist groups. The move came after the EU designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terror organization over its violent suppression of nationwide protests.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico on Saturday accepted the resignation of his national security adviser, Miroslav Lajčák, following revelations that Lajčák exchanged messages with convicted sex offended Jeffrey Epstein. The messages were included in Friday’s release by the U.S. Justice Department of investigative materials related to Epstein.  Fico, announcing the decision in a video statement on Facebook, praised Lajčák as “a great diplomat” and said Slovakia was losing “an incredible source of experience in diplomacy and foreign policy.” Lajčák served as Slovak foreign minister in multiple Fico governments between 2009 and 2020. The U.S. Justice Department on Friday released more than three million pages of documents in the Epstein files. The documents, which reference several prominent figures, such as Steve Bannon, Elon Musk and world leaders, also include exchanges between Lajčák and Epstein. In the newly released files, Epstein bantered with Lajčák about women while discussing Lajčák’s meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Lajčák initially denied any wrongdoing, describing the communications as informal and light-hearted, and later offered his resignation to prevent political costs from falling on the prime minister, according to reports in Slovak media. “Not because I did anything criminal or unethical, but so that he does not bear political costs for something unrelated to his decisions,” Lajčák was quoted as saying. The opposition has united in calling for him to resign. The coalition Slovak National Party has also joined this stance, saying that Lajčák represents a security risk, according to local media. Lajčák did not immediately respond to a request for comment by POLITICO.  In his video address, the prime minister also criticized media coverage of the case, calling it “hypocritical” and overstated.

BRUSSELS — The EU’s move to designate Iran’s feared paramilitary force as a terrorist organization was the product of a recalculation by several governments, in which the need to respond to Tehran’s brutal crackdown outweighed the diplomatic risks. For weeks, a group of influential EU capitals — led by France and, until recently, Italy and Spain — warned that a terror listing would close off what little diplomatic leverage Europe still had with Iran, risking reprisals against European nationals and complicating nuclear talks. That argument began to unravel as the regime’s internet blackout lifted and video footage circulated of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ violence against protesters. By Wednesday afternoon, the capitals championing the designation, among them Berlin, had managed to peel away Italy and Spain from France — with Paris loath to be out on its own. While “there was an internet ban everything was not clear,” said EU chief diplomat Kaja Kallas when asked by POLITICO on Thursday what had changed capitals’ minds. But “when the atrocities were clear, then also it was clear there has to be a very strong response from the European side.” European Parliament President Roberta Metsola told POLITICO that after “seeing the appalling images emerging from Iran of the continued brutality of the regime … it was necessary for Europe to act.” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said Paris had revised its view due to the “unwavering courage of the Iranians, who have been the target of this violence.” As other capitals got on board, “the pressure [on France] became too much,” a European Parliament official said. “They didn’t want to stand there like the only ones blocking this decision and supporting that regime … The shame of being the one to block this, the cost became too big.” DOMINOES FALLING Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel told POLITICO that the emergence of new video evidence of killings and violence from regime forces had crossed a “big line” for many EU countries. The Netherlands has been one of the key proponents of designating the Revolutionary Guard. Italy was the first to publicly declare it had changed camps, with Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani on Monday saying “the losses suffered by the civilian population during the protests require a clear response.” One EU diplomat from a country that had pushed for the listing in the lead-up to Thursday’s meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels said footage of parents looking for their children in body bags had been particularly “horrific” and “motivating,” along with reports of deaths in the tens of thousands. Early on Wednesday afternoon, Spain signaled its position had also shifted, with the foreign ministry telling POLITICO it supported the designation, which puts the Revolutionary Guard in the same category as al Qaeda, Hamas and Daesh. Paris was the last holdout. U.S. President Donald Trump warned on Wednesday that “time is running out” for the regime. | Laurent Gillieron/EPA French officials had argued such a massive terror listing — the group has more than 100,000 personnel — would limit opportunities to talk about nuclear nonproliferation and other matters due to the fact that many of Europe’s interlocutors are tied to the sprawling Revolutionary Guards.  France, along with the U.K. and Germany, is also a member of the E3 group of nations that are holding nuclear talks with Iran. While the E3 recently activated snapback sanctions on Tehran over its failure to cooperate with inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, Paris was still hoping for a diplomatic solution. For France, keeping the Revolutionary Guard off the EU terror list “maintained the possibility that the E3 could play a role if the negotiations on the nuclear program started again,” said a European diplomat.  But there was another reason preventing Paris from coming aboard. While French officials had avoided making the link between France’s stance and Iran’s use of hostage diplomacy, weighing on them were the fates of two of their nationals — Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris — who had recently been released from the notorious Evin Prison and are under house arrest at the French Embassy in Tehran. But lacking support from its allies to continue to resist the move, Paris dropped its opposition. France’s Barrot said the deaths of thousands of protesters could not “happen in vain.” The United States, which designated the Revolutionary Guard as a terror group in 2019, has also been pressing the EU to follow suit, with a French presidency official saying Paris had had “a very large number of exchanges with the Americans” on Iran.  U.S. President Donald Trump warned on Wednesday that “time is running out” for the regime and that a “massive Armada” was “moving quickly, with great power, enthusiasm, and purpose” toward the country. Clea Caulcutt, Victor Goury-Laffont, Gabriel Gavin and Tim Ross contributed reporting.

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. Today’s angry and discombobulating geopolitical landscape is giving rise to noticeably more acrimonious diplomatic exchanges than seen in preceding decades — even sharper than during U.S. President Donald Trump’s first term. This is likely just a reflection of the times we live in: Roiled by shocks and uncertainty, even world leaders and their envoys are on edge. And social media doesn’t help keep exchanges calm and respectful either. Measured speech doesn’t go viral. If you want attention, be disparaging and abrasive. Let’s take Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s carefully crafted speech at Davos last week. Carney earned a standing ovation from global and corporate leaders as he bewailed the unfolding great-power rivalry, urging “middle powers” to act together “because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.” Yet, it was Trump’s free-wheeling, sharp-edged speech with its personal criticism of fellow Western leaders — including a jab at French President Emmanuel Macron — that roared on social media. This shift away from traditional diplomatic etiquette toward more confrontational, seemingly no-nonsense and aggressive public-facing communication is very much in keeping with populist styles of leadership. And it’s now shaping an era where antagonistic communication isn’t just tolerated but celebrated and applauded by many. Trump is very much a man of his times. And it’s time Europe finally caught on. Aside from Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin is also often known to use colloquial and crude language to attack Western and Ukrainian leaders — though noticeably, he never uses such language with Trump. In an address last month, Putin referred to European leaders as podsvinki — little pigs. And before invading Ukraine in February 2022, he used a vulgar Russian rhyme to insinuate Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy needed to be raped. China, too, has been noticeably more menacing in its diplomatic speech in recent years — though it tends to eschew personal invective. The shift began around 2019, when Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi instructed envoys to display a stronger “fighting spirit” to defend Beijing from supposed Western bullying. The abrasive style led to the more aggressive envoys being dubbed “wolf warriors,” after a blockbuster movie in which Chinese commandos vanquish American mercenaries. But driving the trend are Trump and his aides, who can go toe-to-toe with anyone when it comes to put-downs, slurs or retaliation. And if met with pushback, they simply escalate. Hence the avuncular counsel of U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to Europeans on the Greenland-related tariff threats last week: “Sit back, take a deep breath, do not retaliate.” But here’s the curious thing: While the Russians and Chinese use such language to target their foes, Trump and his senior aides reserve much of their invective for supposed allies, namely Europe with Canada thrown in for good measure. And they’re utterly relentless in doing so — far more than during his first term, when there were still some more traditionally minded folks in the White House to temper or walk back the rhetoric. This all seemed to reach its pinnacle in Davos last week, where it seemed belittling European allies was part of virtually everything the U.S. delegation said in the Swiss ski resort. Bessent couldn’t even restrain himself from insulting Swiss-German fare. And U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik appeared almost gleeful in infuriating Europe’s leaders with his combative remarks at a VIP dinner which, according to the Financial Times, not only sparked uproar but prompted European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde to leave the event early. “Only one person booed, and it was Al Gore,” said the U.S. Commerce Department in a statement to media. But others at the event — around 200 people — said there was, indeed, some heckling, though not so much because of the content of Lutnik’s criticism, some of which Europeans have also made about net zero, energy policy, globalization and regulation. According to two attendees, who asked to be granted anonymity to speak freely, it was in reaction to the contemptuous tone instead. Likewise, Trump’s delegation — the largest ever brought from Washington to Davos — didn’t miss a beat in pressing America First themes, making it clear the U.S. would prioritize its own economic interests regardless of how it affects allies. “When America shines, the world shines,” Lutnik said. China, too, has been noticeably more menacing in its diplomatic speech in recent years — though it tends to eschew personal invective. | Pool photo by Vincent Thian/EPA As the forum unfolded, however, U.S. Vice President JD Vance insisted that what was fueling such criticism wasn’t hatred for the old continent, but that it was more a matter of tough love. “They think that we hate Europe. We don’t. We love Europe,” he said. “We love European civilization. We want it to preserve itself.” That in itself seems pretty condescending. Tough love or not, Europe-bashing plays well with the MAGA crowd back home who feel Europeans are the haughty ones, lacking gratitude, freeloading and in dire need of subordination — and squeals of complaint merely incite more of the same. To that end, Zelenskyy made a telling a point: European leaders shouldn’t waste their time trying to change Trump but rather focus on themselves. Time to stop complaining about America First and get on with putting Europe First.

BRUSSELS — The European Union is poised to list the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization following a brutal crackdown against protesters that has claimed thousands of lives in recent weeks, top diplomat Kaja Kallas told reporters on Thursday. “I also expect that we agree on listing the Iran Revolutionary Guard on the terrorist list,” Kallas said on her way into a meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels. “This will put them on the same footing with al Qaeda, Hamas, Daesh. If you act as a terrorist, you should also be treated as a terrorist.” Kallas added that the move, which will require unanimous support from the EU’s 27 member countries, came in response to reports of brutal repression against protesters who took to the streets in dozens of Iranian cities to voice dissatisfaction with the clerical regime in Tehran.  The expected move sends a “clear message that if you are suppressing people, it has a price and you will be sanctioned for this,” added Kallas, who was previously prime minister of Estonia. If the Revolutionary Guard is listed as a terror group, it will mark a ramping up of the European Union’s pressure against Tehran, coming on top of plans to sanction more than two dozen individuals and entities linked to the repression of protesters or Iran’s support of Moscow in its war against Ukraine. Designating the Revolutionary Guard, which has tens of thousands of personnel and is a major branch of Iran’s armed forces, also points to a significant shift in European capitals’ positions, as securing unanimous support will require countries such as France and Italy, both previously opposed to the move, to come on board.  On Wednesday, France dropped its opposition to the terror listing. “The unwavering courage of the Iranians, who have been the target of this violence, cannot happen in vain. This is the reason why we will today take European sanctions against those responsible,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot told reporters on Thursday. Rome also switched camps in the lead-up to the summit, citing the brutality of Iran’s crackdown, and Madrid now also supports the designation, per a statement shared with POLITICO by the Spanish foreign ministry. Ahead of the foreign ministers’ gathering, Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel said recent footage emerging from Tehran documenting the brutal crackdown had crossed “a big line” for EU countries. 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. 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. Gabriel Gavin, Zoya Sheftalovich and Tim Ross contributed reporting.

The territorial destiny of Donetsk is the key issue preventing the conclusion of a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday. “The one remaining item … is the territorial claim on Donetsk. There is active work going to try to see if both sides’ views on this can be reconciled,” Rubio told a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting. “It’s still a bridge we haven’t crossed. It’s still a gap, but at least we’ve been able to narrow down the issue set to one central one, and it will probably be a very difficult one.” Ukraine’s Donbas, which consists of the coal-rich Donetsk and Luhansk regions in the east of the country, has since 2014 been the site of an armed conflict between the Ukrainian military and Russia-backed separatists. According to open-source maps of the conflict, Russian forces now control about 80 percent of the Donbas region. Annexing the Donbas has been one of the maximalist war goals of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who in December said Russia will seize it “one way or another” if Ukraine doesn’t give it up voluntarily. Ceding Donbas was also one of the points in a 28-point plan circulated by U.S. President Donald Trump’s team, which drew criticism from Ukrainian and European officials as heavily skewed in Russia’s favor. An updated proposal watered down some of the more pro-Russian aspects of the initial plan. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly vowed that Ukraine will not give up Donbas as part of any ceasefire deal, as that would give Putin a springboard for a future invasion.