PARIS — The European Union should stop raging at Donald Trump and learn its lessons from the U.S. president’s saber-rattling on tariffs, France’s trade minister told POLITICO. “The European Union, the European countries, should not get angry at America’s positions, but should try to better understand America’s logic — which, by the way, began well before Donald Trump,” Nicolas Forissier said in an interview on Thursday.  Forissier, who said riding a Harley-Davidson motorbike down the iconic Chicago-to-California Route 66 highway had given him a feel for American culture, argued Trump’s approach should motivate the EU to fix its own shortcomings.  The U.S. president’s erratic trade policy, along with a glut of Chinese exports, has triggered deeper reflection within the 27-nation bloc about how to regain industrial competitiveness — including by diversifying trade partners, cutting red tape for businesses, and rewriting public procurement rules to include a “Made in Europe” preference.  “It’s also a way of asking us to take responsibility, to step out of our comfort zone. Before criticizing or getting angry at each other, we need to look at what we haven’t done well and where we can improve,” the 65-year-old minister added. The U.S. Supreme Court last week struck down the “reciprocal tariffs” that had underpinned the trade deal Trump struck with the EU at his Turnberry golf resort in Scotland last July. Despite the ruling, the European Commission wants to finalize ratification of the deal, which is now stuck in the European Parliament. Forissier convened G7 trade ministers for a virtual call on Monday, at which U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer made it clear that Washington was aiming to reinstate the tariffs that were struck down via other legal tools. Greer has also said that the U.S. wants to stick to the terms of deals it has already struck. “The European Parliament’s wait-and-see approach and suspension of the vote is quite logical,” Forissier said. “It’s now up to the Americans to clarify things, to calm things down. I don’t think it’s in the United States’ interest to take a stance of high tariffs, toughening measures.” HOLDING THE (15 PERCENT) LINE Forissier, a veteran who hails from the conservative Les Républicains party, said the EU should focus on strengthening its own foundations, also by building a real capital markets union. “That may also enable us to provide concrete answers to the questions raised by Mario Draghi and Enrico Letta. Because we know full well that the European Union really needs to make a huge investment effort, particularly in innovation,” Forissier said, referring to landmark strategy recommendations from the two former Italian PMs.  “Basically, the Americans are doing us a favor by forcing us to take action, make decisions, and step outside our comfort zones or areas of uncertainty that suited us just fine.” Forissier’s comments were a departure from the usually more hawkish French position toward Washington. As recently as January, President Emmanuel Macron called for the EU to use its strongest trade weapon in response to Trump’s threats to annex Greenland.  France has been the fiercest supporter of making the EU economically less dependent on the rest of the world, with Macron for years pushing for more public investment in the EU economy and for more trade defense and “Made in Europe” measures to ensure European firms can compete with their Asian and U.S. rivals.  The trade minister stressed that the deal with Washington — which foresees an “all-inclusive” tariff of 15 percent on most EU exports and exempts aircraft and pharmaceuticals — should remain the baseline of the EU’s relationship to Washington.  He urged, however, that Brussels keep negotiating further exemptions — something the U.S. has so far been reluctant to do given the EU still hasn’t completed its side of the bargain on the deal struck last July at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland. Legislation to scrap duties on imports of U.S. industrial goods remains stuck in the European Parliament. “I would like us not simply to revert to the Turnberry agreement. We must also continue the process, ensure that the conversation is constructive, and move forward,” he said.  “Frankly, is it in the interest of American consumers to have a 15 percent tariff on French spirits?”

EUROPE’S VANISHING CARS ARE JEOPARDIZING ITS RAW MATERIALS SECURITY Used cars are a treasure trove of metals essential in energy technology, but the EU is letting them vanish without a trace. By MARIANNE GROS in Brussels Illustration by Natália Delgado/ POLITICO EU decision-makers don’t have to look far to find cheap critical raw materials: Just 5 kilometers away from the EU quarter, car dealers up and down Heyvaert Street are scooping them up and shipping them to Africa. Dealerships in this industrial precinct in southwest Brussels send European used vehicles — many too polluting to be allowed on the continent’s roads — to African countries like Senegal, Sierra Leone and Nigeria, where the market for Europe’s unwanted automobiles is thriving. That one street intimately connects the capital of the EU — where some 10 million new cars hit the roads each year — to a global supply chain of used vehicles that sustains road transport in developing markets. One day these cars will end up in junkyards far away, and with them tons of valuable metals that the EU could recycle and reuse to run its economy. But Europe’s age-old habit of exporting unwanted goods is coming back to bite it as the bloc looks to recycle its way out of its reliance on raw materials imported from China.  The EU is scrambling to secure new sources of critical metals and minerals necessary for clean energy and military technology — a task of increasing urgency as geopolitical tensions disrupt traditional supply chains. For a small continent like Europe that is poor in natural resources but rich in consumer goods, old cars are a promising source of these materials. The vehicles are full of metals such as copper, platinum and steel that are essential in a long list of critical industries such as clean energy and military technology. And they’ll become even more valuable as early generations of electric vehicles — full of battery metals like lithium, cobalt and nickel — reach the end of their lifespans. But the EU isn’t close to taking advantage of this prospect. Along with those that are legally exported, between 3 million and 4 million end-of-life cars disappear without a trace from the EU each year. That’s a third of all cars that get deregistered. Some go missing because of a gap in the paper trail. Others get exported through obscure trade routes. Many are dismantled illegally, with the more valuable parts sold online or in non-compliant dealerships — while the rest are dumped, creating a pollution risk. “We see big and currently unused potential in recycling, reuse and also substitution” of critical raw materials, said Keit Pentus-Rosimannus, a member of the European Court of Auditors who last month co-authored a report on the EU’s difficulties in securing a supply of critical raw materials.  But that recycling and reuse can only happen if the waste products, e.g. cars, make it to recycling hubs in the first place.  The market for Europe’s unwanted automobiles is thriving in cities like Lagos in Nigeria. | Olympia De Maismont/AFP via Getty Images “The illegal dismantling and export of [end-of-life vehicles] is mainly motivated by profits from the sale of spare parts and metals,” the German Environment Agency wrote in a study on the topic back in 2020. Unauthorized dismantlers are “neglecting proper depollution, to avoid additional costs,” the study explained.  In a separate paper published in 2022, the agency estimated that 20 percent of all German vehicles that “go missing” — over 72,000 cars — are exported illegally.  According to Interpol data, nearly 3.6 million vehicles and vehicle parts from Europe — not just EU countries — were registered in the Stolen Motor Vehicles database as of Dec. 31, 2025. EUROPE’S MISSED OPPORTUNITY  The EU has made materials recycling a strategic pillar of its mission to reduce reliance on imports from China in an increasingly hostile geopolitical environment. Europe’s economy runs on importing critical raw materials, such as nickel, copper and lithium, as well as rare earths and so-called platinum group metals like palladium or platinum. It needs them to build car engines, weapons and products that contribute to the bloc’s green tech transition, including batteries, chips and solar panels.   While the metals are mined all over the world, China overwhelmingly dominates the processing and refining of these critical raw materials.  To address this, the European Commission says it wants to launch new mining projects, sign deals with other countries to diversify its supply, and promote recycling projects.  With the introduction of the Critical Raw Materials Act in 2024, EU governments are required to adopt national circularity measures to boost the recovery of critical raw materials and simplify permitting processes for recycling and recovery projects. The law says that 25 percent of the EU’s annual strategic raw material consumption should come from domestic recycling by 2030. Last December, the Commission announced additional measures as part of a new plan called RESourceEU.  But many argue that progress is too slow. “Most EU targets that are in place do not incentivize the recycling of specific individual materials. High processing costs, limited availability of materials, technical and regulatory issues also make the use of the recycling sector less competitive,” the Court of Auditors’ Pentus-Rosimannus said. Others say the EU is doing little to reduce consumption in the first place. Policymakers need to be “addressing [materials] consumption aspects to accelerate this process in addition to everything else that is being done on the recycling part” said the European Environment Agency’s head of the clean and circular economy group, Daniel Montalvo. EU policies should tackle “how we can change this upstream part of the material cycle so that we use products more intensively and for longer,” he added. RECYCLERS NEED HELP  End-of-life vehicles should all end up in one of Europe’s 13,000 authorized treatment facilities like the one in Menen, Belgium, which straddles the country’s border with France and is run by recycling company Galloo.   Running a recycling center is expensive and illegal dismantlers create unfair competition because they avoid regulatory and compliance costs. | Sebastian Kahnert/picture alliance via Getty Images “We can dismantle 17 cars at once here. Usually, we treat 10 to 15 thousand cars a year, but this year we’re around 3 or 4 thousand on this site,” said Emmanuel Katrakis, the company’s director of public and regulatory affairs. Galloo set up Valorauto, a joint venture with French-Italian automaker Stellantis, in 2023. Valorauto runs a vehicle take-back and recycling service through 300 authorized treatment facilities in Western Europe. The low turnover in Europe’s car fleet — a result of stagnating sales since the Covid pandemic due to Europe’s weaker economy — means fewer cars end up in recycling centers. Once the vehicles reach what can only be described as a cemetery for cars, the vehicles get scrubbed of polluting substances and taken apart. Most of the plastic, rubber, glass and iron can be recycled. Crucially, the more precious resources in their engines, catalytic converters and electrical systems can be collected. Two thirds of vehicles that reach end-of-life status end up in this system.  But running a recycling center is expensive. Illegal dismantlers create unfair competition because they avoid regulatory and compliance costs, which drives the price down, while also diverting some of the end-of-life-vehicle flow — and therefore revenue — away from authorized centers.  “We’re tired of having bad actors in our sectors who are willing to work with a completely illegal market,” Katrakis said.  Cars also get dropped off with missing parts.”We’re going to buy their car for €150, maybe €200, but they know they can sell their catalytic converter separately for €60. They do the math,” he added.  For Valorauto’s general manager, Thomas Delgado, online marketplaces should be held responsible for enabling the car dismantling grey market, saying they don’t monitor the sellers properly. “There are several marketplaces that should do their part to help [us] fight this system” he said, by preventing individual sellers from selling a car part unless they can prove they are registered as an authorized treatment facility.   Then there are Europe’s faulty registration systems. A lot of these cars go missing because they are sold second-hand in another country but are never deregistered in their country of origin. “Today we have national computer systems that are supposed to track things, but they’re totally overwhelmed,” Delgado said.  There are also gaps between the car registries and the database of insured vehicles. Responsibility for monitoring these systems is often shared by several national ministries.  National governments have tried to address the issue by creating incentives for car owners to drop their vehicles off at authorized centers. In Denmark, for example, owners can get a “scrapping premium” when their vehicle is dropped off at an approved dealer.  A new regulation on end-of-life vehicles aims to clarify when a car is legally considered waste.  | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images At the EU level, a new regulation on end-of-life vehicles aims to address the issue with “clearer rules on the distinction between a used vehicle and an end-of-life vehicle” and “a strict framework for transfers of ownership,” but some of the technical aspects of the law are still being discussed. The law also aims to clarify when a car is legally considered waste.  The automotive sector is glad to see the EU will “implement an EU-wide registration/deregistration system and regulate the export of ELVs outside the EU, preventing valuable raw materials from leaving the European market,” according to ACEA, the sector’s main lobby.  GETTING A SECOND LIFE  Over 800,000 used vehicles are exported from the EU each year, mainly to African countries, according to EU data. The revised end-of-life vehicle regulation states that only roadworthy cars can be exported from the EU.   Just because a car isn’t allowed on the streets of a European city doesn’t mean it should be dismantled immediately, however.   “It’s important to make the distinction because they are not necessarily at the end of life everywhere,” said Pierre Hajjar, chief executive officer of Socar Shipping Agencies, a vehicle shipping company on Brussels’ Heyvaert St. Last December local police raided the street, seizing 45 vehicles and forcing several dealerships to close for not complying with national rules on cash payments or for not having the right environmental permits.   With the revised end-of-life-vehicle regulation, the EU wants to increase traceability so “only high-quality, technically fit European vehicles will be exported.” But for African markets, Hajjar says that’s already the case.  “For Africa, everything goes by boat, everything is extremely traceable,” he said, because port authorities and maritime shipping companies have high thresholds for the kind of vehicles that can be exported. “Whereas in Eastern countries it’s road transport … there isn’t really any traceability, they cross the borders quite easily,” he added.  

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán on Monday blamed “an unprovoked act of hostility” from Ukraine to justify his decision to block the EU’s €90 billion loan to Kyiv, according to a letter he sent to European Council President António Costa. Orbán backed the loan in December on the basis that EU leaders exempted Czechia, Hungary and Slovakia from paying down the EU debt. That changed on Friday after Budapest and Bratislava accused Kyiv of slow walking repairs to the damaged 4,000-kilometer Druzhba pipeline, which carries Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia. “Hungary did not oppose the decision based on the understanding that the loan will not have an impact on the financial obligations” of Prague, Budapest and Bratislava, Orbán wrote in a short letter, dated Feb. 23 and seen by POLITICO. “Recent developments have forced me to reconsider my position.” Costa’s office was not immediately available for comment. Ukraine’s war chest will run out in April without fresh funds, putting Kyiv at a disadvantage against Russian forces and ongoing U.S.-led peace talks with the Kremlin. A Russian drone attack in late January damaged the Druzhba pipeline, which transports Russian oil that is vital to Hungary’s and Slovakia’s energy needs. The European Commission last week said that both countries have 90 days’ worth of oil supplies to avoid an immediate energy crunch. Orbán said Kyiv has refused to restore crude oil supplies via the pipeline since mid-February on political grounds, an accusation Ukraine has dismissed. Hungary and Slovakia are exempt from EU sanctions on Russian product. Russian oil accounted for for 92 percent of Hungary’s energy imports last year, according to the Center for the Study of Democracy, a European policy institute. The Hungarian leader has weaponized anti-Ukraine sentiment ahead of April’s national election, with his political party, Fidesz, trailing the opposition, Tisza, in the polls by a wide margin. He has also used the pipeline issue to justify blocking the EU’s 20th sanctions package against Russia, which requires unanimous support to pass. Brussels had planned to unveil the package on the fourth anniversary of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, which is on Tuesday. Hungary can block the €90 billion loan because one of the three bills underpinning the financial aid also requires EU unanimity to expand the cash buffer of the EU’s long-term budget to issue the loan. EU ambassadors will discuss the sanctions package on Monday during the Foreign Affairs Council. Both initiatives remain stuck until the Druzhba pipeline crisis is resolved. “As long as this remains the case, Hungary will not support the amendment of the [multiannual financial framework] regulation necessary for the use of the EU budget headroom for the loan facility,” Orbán wrote.

KYIV — The U.S. operation to snatch Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro is breeding both joy and worry in Ukraine’s capital. On the angst side, President Donald Trump’s trampling of international rules to grab the leader of another country has Ukraine fearing for its own argument that Russia’s invasion is a clear violation of international law. “For us, morally, it always would be important to speak about international law and sovereignty, about the necessity to follow the rules,” said Hanna Shelest, director of security programs at the Foreign Policy Council Ukrainian Prism NGO. But Kyiv also takes great pleasure in seeing Maduro, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, being taken for trial to the U.S. — proof of the futility of previous Russian arms sales and security guarantees from the Kremlin. “The Maduro dictatorship helped Putin. Now, Putin lost his ally — this is a plus for us,” Oleksandr Merezhko, head of the Ukrainian parliament’s foreign relations committee and co-head of the Ukrainian parliament’s Free Venezuela friendship group, told POLITICO. “This situation could lead to a weakening of Russia on the international stage, a fall in oil prices and, accordingly, a decrease in revenues for the Russian military machine,” Merezhko added, noting that Ukraine could also benefit if Venezuela starts developing in a democratic direction under U.S. pressure. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has avoided saying much about Venezuela. His country hadn’t recognized Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate president, and the Ukrainian leader is extremely gun-shy about criticizing Trump. Ukraine’s foreign ministry expressed hope for “further developments in accordance with the principles of international law, prioritising democracy, human rights, and the interests of Venezuelans.” But Zelenskyy did take a dig at Putin, who, like Maduro, is also clinging to power after running roughshod over democratic principles. “What can I say? If you can do this to dictators … the United States of America knows what to do next,”  Zelenskyy joked at a press conference in Kyiv on Saturday. The U.S. operation in Venezuela cast a shadow over Tuesday’s Paris meeting of Ukraine’s allies known as the “coalition of the willing.” A key issue for the grouping was Kyiv’s demand for ironclad security guarantees from the U.S. and other allies to prevent another Russian attack after a peace deal. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has avoided saying much about Venezuela. | Chris J Ratcliffe via Getty Images However, the recent U.S. actions in Venezuela will raise questions as to whether Kyiv can rely on Washington’s word. In an indication of his unease over the Trump administration’s credibility, Zelenskyy said after Tuesday’s meeting that he wanted American security guarantees to be made legally binding by the U.S. Congress. “The Trump administration is showing [the] Venezuela intervention was not about human rights or democracy in Venezuela, but about implementing U.S. dominance in the Western hemisphere,” said Mykola Bielieskov, research fellow at the National Institute for Strategic Studies and senior analyst at the NGO Come Back Alive. “And this can also be used by Russia to legitimize actions against Ukraine. Even post-factum. From Ukraine’s point of view, any use of force that undermines the primacy of international law and legitimizes the right of the strong is against our interests, even if the object of such actions is a bad autocrat,” Bielieskov said. Moscow has seized on the U.S. operation to attack Western countries criticizing its invasion of Ukraine. Russian Security Council Deputy Chair and former President Dmitry Medvedev called Trump’s actions a “clear violation of international law,” but praised the U.S. defense of “their country’s national interests.” The worry in Kyiv is that any erosion of the international order will help Russia and harm Ukraine. “If we start adhering to international law selectively, then it will also be applied selectively toward us,” Merezhko said. This article has been updated.

BRUSSELS — The EU’s top defense official issued an unusually sharp warning on Wednesday, arguing that the new U.S. National Security Strategy “surprises by its clear antagonism towards the European Union” and amounts to a geopolitical play to prevent Europe from ever becoming a unified power. In a strongly worded blog post published just days after Washington released its 2025 NSS, EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius argued that Washington’s framing of Europe’s supposed “civilizational erasure” is not rooted in genuine concerns about values or democracy, but in hard-edged U.S. geopolitical calculations.  “EU unity is against USA interests,” Kubilius wrote, summarizing the logic he said underpins the Trump administration’s document. He pointed to passages in the strategy urging Washington to “cultivate resistance” inside European countries and to work with nationalist parties opposed to deeper integration, language he interpreted as evidence the U.S. is ready “to fight against the European Union, against our strength through unity.” Trump’s view on Europe was underlined in an interview with POLITICO where he denounced European leaders as “weak” and that he would endorse candidates in European elections, even at the risk of offending local sensitivities. Kubilius wrote that the U.S. now sees a more cohesive EU as a potential challenger to American influence. “The US National Security Strategy’s antagonistic language on the European Union comes not from American sentimental emotions about ‘good old Europe,’ but from deep strategic considerations,” he wrote. Kubilius linked the strategy’s worldview to the ideas of Elbridge Colby — now a senior Pentagon official — whose book “The Strategy of Denial” argues that the U.S. must prevent any region from forming a dominant power capable of constraining American access to markets.  Kubilius noted that Colby identifies “the European Union or a more cohesive entity emerging from it” as being “capable of establishing regional hegemony and unduly burdening or even excluding US trade and engagement.” Kubilius argued that this strategic perspective, rather than ideological disagreements, explain the NSS’s unusually hostile tone toward Brussels. “Let’s hope,” he concluded, there “will be enough prudence on American soil not to fight against the emerging power of European unity.”

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has proposed rolling back several EU environmental laws including industrial emissions reporting requirements, confirming previous reporting by POLITICO. It’s the latest in a series of proposed deregulation plans — known as omnibus bills — as Commission President Ursula von der Leyen tries to make good on a promise to EU leaders to dramatically reduce administrative burden for companies.   The bill’s aim is to make it easier for businesses to comply with EU laws on waste management, emissions, and resource use, with the Commission stressing the benefits to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which make up 99 percent of all EU businesses. The Commission insisted the rollbacks would not have a negative impact on the environment. “We all agree that we need to protect our environmental standards, but we also at the same time need to do it more efficiently,” said Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall during a press conference on Wednesday.  “This is a complex exercise,” said Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera during a press conference on Wednesday. “It is not easy for anyone to try to identify how we can respond to this demand to simplify while responding to this other demand to keep these [environmental] standards high.”  Like previous omnibus packages, the environmental omnibus was released without an impact assessment. The Commission found that “without considering other alternative options, an impact assessment is not deemed necessary.” This comes right after the Ombudswoman found the Commission at fault for “maladministration” for the first omnibus.   The Commission claims “the proposed amendments will not affect environmental standards” — a claim that’s already under attack from environmental groups.   MORE REPORTING CUTS  The Commission wants to exempt livestock and aquaculture operators from reporting on water, energy and materials use under the industrial emissions reporting legislation.  EU countries, competent authorities and operators would also be given more time to comply with some of the new or revised provisions in the updated Industrial Emissions Directive while being given further “clarity on when these provisions apply.”  The Commission is also proposing “significant simplification” for environmental management systems (EMS) — which lay out goals and performance measures related to environmental impacts of an industrial site — under the industrial and livestock rearing emissions directive.  These would be completed by industrial plants at the level of a company and not at the level of every installation, as it currently stands.   There would also be fewer compliance obligations under EU waste laws.   The Commission wants to remove the Substances of Concern in Products (SCIP) database, for example, claiming that it “has not been effective in informing recyclers about the presence of hazardous substances in products and has imposed substantial administrative costs.”  Producers selling goods in another EU country will also not have to appoint an authorized representative in both countries to comply with extended producer responsibility (EPR). The Commission calls it a “stepping stone to more profound simplification,” also reducing reporting requirements to just once per year.  The Commission will not be changing the Nature Restoration Regulation — which has been a key question in discussions between EU commissioners — but it will intensify its support to EU countries and regional authorities in preparing their draft National Restoration Plans.  The Commission will stress-test the Birds and Habitats Directives in 2026 “taking into account climate change, food security, and other developments and present a series of guidelines to facilitate implementation,” it said.  CRITIQUES ROLL IN   Some industry groups, like the Computer & Communications Industry Association, have welcomed the changes, calling it a “a common-sense fix.” German center-right MEP Pieter Liese also welcomed the omnibus package, saying, “[W]e need to streamline environmental laws precisely because we want to preserve them. Bureaucracy and paperwork are not environmental protection.” But environmental groups opposed the rollbacks.  “The Von der Leyen Commission is dismantling decades of hard-won nature protections, putting air, water, and public health at risk in the name of competitiveness,” WWF said in a statement. The estimated savings “come with no impact assessment and focus only on reduced compliance costs, ignoring the far larger price of pollution, ecosystem decline, and climate-related disasters,” it added.   The Industrial Emissions Directive, which entered into force last year and is already being transposed by member countries, was “already much weaker than what the European Commission had originally proposed” during the last revision, pointed out ClientEarth lawyer Selin Esen.  “The Birds and Habitats Directives are the backbone of nature protection in Europe,” said BirdLife Europe’s Sofie Ruysschaert. “Undermining them now would not only wipe out decades of hard-won progress but also push the EU toward a future where ecosystems and the communities that rely on them are left dangerously exposed.” 

BRUSSELS — France and Italy can breathe a sigh of relief after the EU’s statistics office signaled that the financial guarantees needed to back a €210 billion financing package to Ukraine won’t increase their heavy debt burdens. Eurostat on Tuesday evening sent a letter, obtained by POLITICO, informing the bloc’s treasuries that the financial guarantees underpinning the loan, backed by frozen Russian state assets on Belgian soil, would be considered “contingent liabilities.” In other words, the guarantees would only impact countries’ debt piles if triggered. Paris and Rome wanted Eurostat to clarify how the guarantees would be treated under EU rules for public spending, as both countries carry a debt burden above 100 percent of their respective economic output. Eurostat’s letter is expected to allay fears that signing up to the loan would undermine investor confidence in highly indebted countries and potentially raise their borrowing costs. That’s key for the Italians and French, as EU leaders prepare to discuss the initiative at a summit next week. Failure to secure a deal could leave Ukraine without enough funds to keep Russian forces at bay next year. The Commission has suggested all EU countries share the risk by providing financial guarantees against the loan in case the Kremlin manages to claw back its sanctioned cash, which is held in the Brussels-based financial depository Euroclear. “None of the conditions” that would lead to EU liability being transferred to member states “would be met,” Eurostat wrote in a letter, adding that the chances of EU countries ever paying those guarantees are weak. The Commission instead will be held liable for those guarantees, the agency added. Germany is set to bear the brunt of the loan, guaranteeing some €52 billion under the Commission’s draft rules. This figure will likely rise as Hungary has already refused to take part in the funding drive for Ukraine. The letter is unlikely to change Belgium’s stance, as it wants much higher guarantees and greater legal safeguards against Russian retaliation at home and abroad. The biggest risk facing the Commission’s proposal is the prospect of the assets being unfrozen if pro-Russia countries refuse to keep existing sanctions in place. Under current rules, the EU must unanimously reauthorize the sanctions every six months. That means Kremlin-friendly countries, such as Hungary and Slovakia, can force the EU to release the sanctioned money with a simple no vote. To make this scenario more unlikely, the Commission suggested a controversial legal fix that will be discussed today by EU ambassadors. Eurostat described the possibility of EU countries paying out for the loan as “a complex event with no obvious probability assessment at the time of inception.”

BRUSSELS — It’s time for Europeans to stop trailing behind Donald Trump and instead draw up their own peace plan for Ukraine, Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius told POLITICO. The EU “needs to be independent or at least be ready to be strong in geopolitical developments, including to have our plans on how peace in Ukraine can be brought and to discuss them with our transatlantic partners,” Kubilius said. The EU is scrambling to respond after the U.S. president’s negotiators — real estate tycoon Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner — were in Moscow Tuesday to talk over the latest peace proposal with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Europe was caught off guard by the 28-point peace plan drafted by Witkoff and Russia’s Kirill Dmitriev, which included a ban on Ukraine’s membership of NATO and a limit on the size of the Ukrainian army. That draft was modified after a desperate intervention by European allies and Ukraine, but there is wariness about yet another Trump-led peace effort. European countries were not represented at the Kremlin during the meeting with Putin, despite Ukraine’s future being crucial to the continent’s security. EU officials worry that even if this new Trump plan doesn’t fly, in a few months, there’ll be a new one.  “Each six months, we’re getting new plans and in some way I feel that we are waiting here to know the plans that will come from Washington this year. The plans should come also from Brussels or from Berlin,” Kubilius said. The defense commissioner argued that it is “very much needed” for Europe to craft its own plan to end the war to secure a seat at the table. “We should have the possibility to discuss two plans: one that is European and another one, maybe, prepared by our American friends,” he said. The aim would be to “find synergies between these two plans and achieve the best outcome.” DEFENSE IS A TOP PRIORITY The former Lithuanian prime minister has been the bloc’s first defense commissioner for a year — a sign of how much has changed in the EU as it wakes up to the threat posed by Russia and ramps up its rearmament efforts, all while the Trump-led U.S. pulls back from the continent. The U.S. has been the linchpin of Europe’s security since the end of World War II, and Kubilius said, “We should always count on Article 5,” referring to NATO’s common defense provision. However, he argued that America’s shift toward the Pacific “is happening.” “The question is whether we need to have some kind of additional security guarantees and institutional arrangements in order to be ready — in case Article 5 suddenly is not implemented,” he said.   He also mentioned recent comments by U.S. NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker that Germany might take over NATO’s top military job, rather than keeping it in the hands of an American general. That “is a signal that really Americans are asking us to take care about European defense,” not only from a military point of view but also from an institutional perspective, Kubilius said. The geopolitical shift “pushed Europe to understand that defense is a clear strategic priority, which demands action from our side,” the commissioner said, mentioning some of the EU’s key legislative actions like the €150 billion SAFE loans-for-weapons program aimed at boosting the bloc’s military production. Next year, “we are planning to spend a lot of our efforts on the development of industry,” he said, including a communication on the single market. Defense companies are currently not fully integrated into the single market as governments have an opt-out for national security interests, but that is a cause of the bloc’s fragmented defense industry and is hampering rearmament efforts. Kubilius also said he wants to open a discussion on “institutional defense readiness,” including revamping the bloc’s mutual defense provision — often overshadowed by NATO’s more muscular promise. The EU clause needs procedural language that spells out the actions member countries must take to protect each other.

Canada has reached a final agreement to join the EU’s €150 billion Security Action for Europe program, two EU diplomats told POLITICO, marking the first time a third country will formally participate in the bloc’s flagship joint procurement initiative. The breakthrough follows months of technically complex negotiations and was communicated directly to ministers taking part in Monday’s Foreign Affairs Council; Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius informed delegations that negotiations with Ottawa had concluded.  Canada’s accession to the loan-for-weapons SAFE scheme gives Ottawa access to jointly financed defense projects and allows Canadian companies to bid into EU-supported joint procurement projects. For Brussels, securing a G7 partner strengthens the credibility of SAFE as it seeks to coordinate long-term weapons demand and ramp up Europe’s defense industrial base. Under SAFE, third countries can account for a maximum of 35 percent of the value of a weapons system paid for by the scheme; Canada will be able to have a larger share but it will have to pay a fee “commensurate with the benefits the Partner Country and its entities are expected to derive,” factoring in GDP, industrial competitiveness and the depth of cooperation with European manufacturers. Other issues tackled in negotiations covered conditions on intellectual property control and limits on non-EU inputs for sensitive systems including drones, missile-defense assets and strategic enablers. Similar talks with the U.K. broke down on Friday. The timing aligns with a major SAFE milestone: Kubilius announced on X that all 19 participating EU countries had submitted their spending plans that will be financed by low interest SAFE loans. He added that 15 members included support for Ukraine in their plans, involving “billions, not millions” — something the Commission has been keen to encourage. This article has been updated.

The center-right European People’s Party voted with right-wing and far-right lawmakers in the European Parliament Wednesday to back a proposal to delay by a year and weaken the EU’s anti-deforestation law. It comes two weeks after the EPP teamed up with far-right MEPs to exempt more companies from green reporting rules, as the center-right party demonstrates willingness to ally with far-right groups when politically convenient — angering its traditional centrist allies. It confirms a new normal now exists in the European Parliament, where the center-right no longer feels bound by a longstanding unspoken rule that forbids mainstream parties from siding with the far-right on important legislation. Under pressure from unhappy trade partners and business groups, the European Commission last month proposed bringing the law — designed to monitor the origins of commodities like coffee, soy and beef that are often produced on deforested land — into effect on Dec. 30 with some simplifying amendments and a six-month grace period for companies that struggle to comply. Member countries proposed amendments to push those concessions far further, with a one-year delay for medium and large operators, a longer delay for small operators and a 2026 review clause to allow for further regulatory cuts. Talks between the center-right European People’s Party, centrist Renew Europe and center-left Socialists & Democrats on the file continued into Tuesday, before ending with no deal. One key sticking point was whether to back the year-long delay that features in the Council’s position. The EPP ultimately backed the Council’s proposal, leaning on the right-wing and far-right groups including the European Conservatives and Reformists and the Patriots for Europe for support. “It’s difficult to understand why a compromise supported by 24 of the 27 member states is deemed unacceptable for S&D and Renew,” said EPP MEP Christine Schneider ahead of the vote. “Unfortunately, the three groups from the platform were unable again to find an agreement on a green file. Renew tried until the very end to strike a compromise,” said Renew Europe lawmaker Pascal Canfin ahead of the vote. “This is another bad news for the Von der Leyen coalition and for the spirit of compromise which is at the heart of the EU’s history.” The Parliament can now begin negotiations on the file with EU member countries.