LONDON — Britain will reduce its aid sent to Africa by more than half, as the government unveils the impact of steep cuts to development assistance for countries across the world. On Thursday the Foreign Office revealed the next three years of its overseas development spending, giving MPs and the public the first look at the impact of Labour’s decision to gut Britain’s aid budget in order to fund an increase in defense spending. Government figures show that the value of Britain’s programs in Africa will fall by 56 percent from the £1.5 billion in 2024/25 when Labour took office to £677 million in 2028/9. It follows the move to reduce aid spending from 0.5 to 0.3 percent of gross national income. However, the government did not release the details of the funding for specific countries, giving Britain’s ambassadors and diplomats time to deliver the news personally to their counterparts across the world ahead of any potential backlash from allies. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper told MPs that affected countries want Britain “to be an investor, not just a donor” and “want to attract finance, not be dependent on aid,” as she pointed to money her department had committed to development banks and funds which will help Africa raise money. The decision shows a substantial shift in the government’s focus, moving away from direct assistance for countries, and funneling much of the remaining money into international organizations and private finance initiatives. Chi Onwurah, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Africa, told POLITICO that she was “dismayed at the level and extent of the cuts to investment in Africa and the impact it will have particularly on health and economic development.” She added: “I hope the government recognizes that security of the British people is not increased by insecurity in Africa and increased migration from Africa, quite the opposite.” Ian Mitchell from the Center for Global Development think tank noted the move was “a remarkable step back from Africa by the U.K.” NEW PRIORITIES Announcing the cuts in the House of Commons, Cooper stressed that the decision to reduce the aid budget had been “hugely difficult,” pointing to similar moves by allies such as France and Germany following the U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to dramatically shrink America’s aid programs after taking office in January 2025. She insisted that it was still “part of our moral purpose” to tackle global disease and hunger, reiterating Labour’s ambition to work towards “a world free from extreme poverty on a livable planet.” Cooper set out three new priorities for Britain’s remaining budget: funding for unstable countries with conflict and humanitarian disasters, funneling money into “proven” global partnerships such as vaccine organizations, and a focus on women and girls, pledging that these will be at the core of 90 percent of Britain’s bilateral aid programs by 2030. A box with the Ukrainian flag on it awaits collection in Peterborough, U.K. on March 10, 2022. | Martin Pope/Getty Images Only three recipients will see their aid spending fully protected: Ukraine, the Palestinian territories and Sudan. Lebanon will also see its funding protected for another year. All bilateral funding for G20 countries will end. Despite the government’s stated priorities, the scale of the cuts mean that even the areas it is seeking to protect will not be protected fully. An impact assessment — which was so stark that ministers claimed they had to rethink some of the cuts in order to better protect focus areas such as contraception — published alongside the announcement found that there will likely be an end to programs in Malawi where 250,000 young people will lose access to family planning, and 20,000 children risk dropping out of school. “These steep cuts will impact the most marginalized and left behind communities,” said Romilly Greenhill, CEO of Bond, the U.K. network for NGOs, adding: “The U.K. is turning its back on the communities that need support the most.” Last-minute negotiations did see some areas protected from more severe cuts, with the BBC World Service seeing a funding boost, the British Council set to receive an uplift amid its financial struggles, and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) — the aid spending watchdog that had been at risk of being axed — continuing to operate with a 40 percent budget cut. GREEN THREAT Though the move will not require legislation to be confirmed — after Prime Minister Keir Starmer successfully got the move past his MPs last year — MPs inside his party and out have lamented the impact of the cuts, amid the ongoing threat to Labour’s left from a resurgent Green Party under new leader Zack Polanski. Labour MP Becky Cooper, chair of the APPG on global health and security said that her party “is, and always has been, a party of internationalism” but today’s plans would “put Britain and the world at risk.” Sarah Champion, another Labour MP who chairs the House of Commons international development committee said that the announcement confirmed that there “will be no winners from unrelenting U.K. aid cuts, just different degrees of losers,” creating a “desperately bleak” picture for the world’s most vulnerable. “These cuts do not aid our defense, they make the whole world more vulnerable,” she added. Her Labour colleague Gareth Thomas, a former development minister, added: “In an already unsafe world, cutting aid risks alienating key allies and will make improving children’s health and education in Commonwealth countries more difficult.” The announcement may give fresh ammunition to the Greens ahead of May’s local elections, where the party is eyeing up one of its best nights in local government amid a collapse in support for Labour among Britain’s young, progressive, and Muslim voters. Reacting to the news that Britain will cut its aid to developing countries aimed at combatting climate change, Polanski said: “Appalling and just unbelievably short-sighted. Our security here in the U.K. relies on action around the world to tackle the climate crisis.”

India wants to “dramatically” deepen its partnership with the European Union, including by striking defense deals, as the Iran war and global crises push New Delhi closer to Brussels, the country’s foreign minister told POLITICO. In January, the EU inked what’s been described as the “mother of all” trade deals with India during a bilateral summit where Ursula von der Leyen and Antonio Costa, the top two officials in the EU, were welcomed as official state guests during Republic Day celebrations. As that deal snakes its way toward approval in the European Parliament, India sees potential for further upgrading EU-India ties, notably by inking a security of information deal that could pave the way for much closer cooperation on defense armament agreements, per Subrahmanyam Jaishankar. “In my career, I have seen some of our relationships really change, dramatically change. And I am convinced that we are poised at that moment where Europe is concerned,” he said during a visit to Brussels where he attended a gathering of EU foreign ministers. “We are aware of the strategic nature of what we’re doing … This is not just one more trade deal. It’s something much much bigger,” he added. Jaishankar went on to cite potential deals for the EU to procure weapons from India’s armaments industry, including via the purchase of ammunition and drone and counter-drone technology, citing a deal with Airbus to construct in India as an example of deals to come. Such deals should occur within “an enabling environment where Indian companies and European companies have the ability to work with each other without any regulatory or political restriction,” he said, adding that he was “bullish” about prospects for EU-India relations. On trade, Jaishankar said he did not expect the Parliament to get in the way of the EU-India deal. “I think on India, frankly, there is a unity of purpose, and even in the European Parliament the overwhelming sentiment is very much, very much in favor.” Before the EU-India deal was signed, New Delhi had hoped to be exempted from the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, an exemption that was not granted. Jaishankar said that the two sides would “continue our discussions to see how any issues pertaining to that can be addressed.” GLOBAL MEDIATOR But there’s a dark cloud on the EU-India horizon: Russia. New Delhi has maintained its relations with Moscow, including purchasing its energy exports despite U.S. and EU sanctions on Russian oil. Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in December of last year, amid other ongoing contacts. The Indian minister — who cited the term “values-based realism” to describe India’s foreign policy outlook — said he expected to hear criticism from some EU counterparts about India-Russia ties during his stay in Brussels, but that this would be outweighed by desire for “mutual de-risking” in a time of turmoil. “I would certainly assume that I will hear views … which will be based on the European Union’s experience of dealing with Russia,” he said. “I think our position has been frankly very balanced and very objective. If you look at how many world leaders from 2022 have been to both Moscow and Kyiv, there are not that many. And my prime minister [Modi] happens to be one of them.” Jaishankar’s visit coincided with growing concerns about the impact of a U.S.-Israeli war against Iran — which the Indian foreign minister described as “deeply concerning.” “We have really enormous stakes there,” he said, referring to Iran. India had “very early on expressed deep concern because … when you see instability, when you [see] conflict in a contiguous area, that has consequences for a lot of people, and if on top of it your trade and energy are impacted, it matters a lot.” While U.S. President Donald Trump is pressing EU countries to help clear the Strait of Hormuz, India has avoided taking any sides. Jaishankar maintains regular contact with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, including a phone call late last week. Another conversation is expected to take place in coming days. Asked what sort of message he was relaying to Tehran, Jaishankar cited “the need to de-escalate,” “concern at the widening of the conflict,” the “energy implications for us,” as well as concern for the roughly 10,000 Indians residing in Iran and millions living across the wider region. “Our hope is that there is a decision made that heads toward an end to the conflict, certainly toward de-escalation, and then an end to the conflict,” he said, adding: “We only see a downside to this conflict.” As for India’s relationship with the United States, Jaishankar — who met with his counterpart, Marco Rubio, on Feb. 3 — steered clear of critical comments on Washington. Asked if he welcomed Trump’s decision to lift sanctions on exports of Russian energy firms Lukoil and Rosneft, he sidestepped, saying: “If you want the global economy to grow, if you want to see stability, predictability in the markets, then let the markets be the focus.” The U.S. and India are negotiating their own trade deal, which has stalled following a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court against Trump’s tariff policy. Asked if the delay had to do with the U.S. campaign against Iran, he added: “Well, I want to be very clear: what’s happening in the Middle East has nothing to do with that.”

U.S. President Donald Trump did not commit to a definitive timeline for the war in Iran, saying in a Friday interview that the fighting would end when he feels it “in my bones.” Trump told Fox News Radio that he didn’t think the war “would be long.” But he suggested that only he will know when it will be over, saying the conflict will end “when I feel it, feel it in my bones.” The Trump administration has sent mixed signals on the length of the war, with senior administration officials suggesting at times that the war could last anywhere from days to months. Trump on Friday said he expected the conflict to end soon but added that it could also continue indefinitely if necessary. The president dismissed reports that the U.S. was facing a munitions shortage. “Nobody has the technology or the weapons that we have,” Trump told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade. “We’re way ahead of schedule. Way ahead.” He later said the U.S. had “virtually unlimited ammunition. We’re using it, we’re using it. We can go forever.” While the president suggested the decision to end the war will ultimately be based on his personal judgment, he said he was consulting with senior advisers, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance. “Operation Epic Fury will continue until President Trump, as Commander-in-Chief, determines that the goals of Operation Epic Fury, including for Iran to no longer pose a military threat, have been fully realized,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement when asked for comment. Earlier on Friday, Hegseth suggested victory was a certainty and attacked the press for what he viewed as unfriendly media coverage about the war. Trump also sought to downplay any economic ramifications of the conflict, saying the U.S. economy was the greatest in the world and would “bounce right back, so fast.” The Trump administration has sought to quell concerns over rising oil and gas prices after U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran began in February. The war triggered the largest oil supply disruption in history and cost $11 billion in its first week, according to the Pentagon. The president’s messaging around the run-up in crude prices has caused a potential public relations nightmare for the oil industry. “The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money,” Trump wrote Wednesday on Truth Social.

BRUSSELS — The European Union must move more quickly to include new members and expand the 27-member club, the bloc’s top diplomat said Monday in a nod to Ukraine, Montenegro and other candidate countries waiting to join. Enlargement must “remain merit-based but in the current context we need to step up the pace,” Kaja Kallas told an annual conference of EU diplomats in Brussels. “Enlargement is the antidote to Russian imperialism, and a sign that the most ambitious multilateral project in history, the European Union, is here to stay.” Kallas’ push for faster integration of EU candidate countries lands amid tense discussions between the European Commission, which advocates for speedy enlargement, and national capitals that have backed a more gradual approach. At a dinner last week attended by the European Commission president’s chief of staff, Bjoern Seibert, EU ambassadors rejected the possibility of allowing in new members with limited privileges. Kallas’ words offer heavyweight backing to the idea that enlargement isn’t simply a bureaucratic process by which candidates fulfill EU criteria but a geopolitical choice — as Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has suggested.  “Enlargement has been described as the union’s most successful foreign policy, extending the area of stability, peace and prosperity,” Kallas said, citing Eurobarometer data showing wide support for expanding the 27-member bloc. But, she added, “it is up to us to keep telling the enlargement story.” A senior EU diplomat, granted anonymity to speak freely, said countries would do their best to keep the bloc’s enlargement process on track, despite the differences between the Council and the Commission.  Work is now underway to make the next three presidencies of the Council of the EU focus on bringing in new member countries, with an eye to finishing Ukraine’s negotiations by the end of 2027, even if an accession treaty might take longer to complete. The prospect of a public debate about Ukraine’s membership is worrying to some EU leaders, who fear it could give ammunition to far-right parties ahead of elections in France, Finland and other countries next year. “You need to have a political narrative on Ukraine,” the senior EU diplomat said.

American allies are watching in disbelief as the Pentagon reroutes weapon shipments to aid the Iran war, angry and scared that arms the U.S. demanded they buy will never reach them. European nations that have struggled to rebuild arsenals after sending weapons to Ukraine fear they won’t be able to ward off a Russian attack. Asian allies, startled by America’s rate of fire, question whether it could embolden China and North Korea. And even in the Middle East, countries aren’t clear if they will get air defenses from the U.S. for future priorities. Nearly a dozen officials in allied nations in Asia and Europe say they can’t win. The Trump administration has put them under extreme political pressure to raise defense budgets and buy American weapons — from air defense interceptors to guided bombs — only to quickly burn through those munitions in a war of its own. “It shouldn’t be a secret to anyone that the munitions that have been and will be fired are the ones that everybody needs to acquire in large numbers,” said one northern European official. Weapons production is a complex process that takes years of planning and runs through a supply chain riddled with bottlenecks. Trump’s reassurances that the U.S. has a “virtually unlimited supply” of munitions to fight Iran has done little to soothe allies’ fears. “It is very frustrating, the words are not matching the deeds,” said an Eastern European official, who like others interviewed, was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “It is pretty clear to everyone that the U.S. will put their own, Taiwan’s, Israel’s, and hemisphere priorities before Europe.” The joint U.S.-Israel war, officials warn, could accelerate the distancing between America and its allies when it comes to defense. The European Union already has approved rules to favor its own arms-makers over American contractors — risking tens, if not hundreds of billions in future U.S. sales. Even major companies, such as the German drone-maker Helsing are touting “European sovereignty.” Poland, a longtime American ally, has bought tanks and artillery from South Korea instead of U.S. contractors such as General Dynamics. It’s been a wake-up call for officials in Asia and Europe who once took Pentagon arms sales for granted. “The Europeans still live in a dream world in which the U.S. is a gigantic Walmart, where you buy the stuff and you get it immediately, and that is simply not true,” said Camille Grand, a former top NATO official who now heads the Brussels-based Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe. Allies in the Pacific — where China has built the world’s largest Navy and now has missiles that can attack American troops on Guam — are worried that the Pentagon will run out of ammunition in Iran and won’t have any left to deter a war in Asia. “It’s natural that the longer the conflict, the more urgent the supply of munitions and its inevitable for the U.S. to mobilize its foreign assets to maintain the operation,” said a Washington-based Asian diplomat, who warned it would affect “readiness” in the region. The fears of depleted weapons stockpiles extend to the U.S., where some Pentagon officials are warning about the state of the military’s munitions stockpiles, according to a congressional aide and two other people familiar with the dynamic. Defense Department officials warned Congress this week that the U.S. military was expending “an enormous amount” of munitions in the conflict, according to two of the people familiar with the conversations. The congressional aide briefed by the Pentagon said the U.S. was using precision strike missiles and cutting-edge interceptors in “scary high” numbers despite the Iranian military’s relative weakness. The weapons also include Tomahawk land-attack missiles, Patriot PAC-3 and ship-launched air defenses fired by the Navy. “The idea of doing a larger campaign with Iran was not on anyone’s mathematical bingo card as we were looking at munitions implications,” said a former defense official. “I struggle to see a way that layering on the Iran element makes the math problem get any better.” The Pentagon referred questions to the White House. Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said Iran’s retaliatory ballistic missile attacks had fallen by 90 percent because of U.S. strikes. “President Trump is in close contact with our partners in Europe and the Middle East, and the terrorist Iranian regime’s attacks on its neighbors prove how imperative it was that President Trump eliminate this threat to our country and our allies,” she said. But some defense hawks in Congress are worried. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned Wednesday on the Senate floor that the military is “not prepared” to deter aggression from both Russia and China at once due to the munitions shortfall. McConnell did not reply to a request for comment. Trump said in a social media post that he met with defense executives on Friday, including Boeing, Northrop Grumman, RTX, and Lockheed, who agreed to quadruple their production of “Exquisite Class” weapons. He did not explain which systems that entailed or how the U.S. planned to rapidly build factories, hire workers and increase weapons production. Some allies worried about weapons are hoping that’s more than an empty promise. “It seems that U.S. defense primes are still challenged to produce at the speed of demand,” said Giedrimas Jeglinskas, a Lithuanian member of Parliament who is also a former deputy Defense minister. “We welcome any effort by the administration to incentivize defense companies to get into war mode of production.” Others cautioned that the defense industrial base can’t be turned on with a switch to start mass producing the sophisticated missiles and air defenses that the U.S. and its allies desperately need. “There’s always this idea that there is a world in which we just have to go World War II,” said Grand, the former NATO official. “But [in] World War II, producing Sherman tanks was pretty close to producing tractor engines. Producing a Patriot is not pretty close to producing a Tesla.” Paul McLeary contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump is on the warpath: In an interview Thursday, he dismissed concerns about the Iran war, told POLITICO the United States would help choose Iran’s next leader, predicted the downfall of the Cuban regime and attacked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the tech giant Anthropic. The president is facing domestic political backlash on numerous fronts, including criticism of the Iran war from within the MAGA coalition and unrelenting attacks from Democrats over the cost of living. But speaking in a phone call Thursday, Trump was entirely on offense. He brushed off worries about the impact of the Iran war on gas prices and U.S. ammunition reserves, and he insisted that the military onslaught was popular with voters. Many recent public polls show the opposite is true, although a survey released Thursday by Fox News found voters have mixed opinions on Iran. “People are loving what’s happening,” Trump insisted. He predicted that Iran’s government would not be the last to buckle in a Trump-initiated confrontation: “Cuba’s going to fall, too.” “We cut off all oil, all money, or we cut off everything coming in from Venezuela, which was the sole source. And they want to make a deal,” he said. INTERVENTION IN CUBA Asked whether the United States was playing a role in the Cuban government’s demise, Trump responded: “Well, what do you think? For 50 years, that’s icing on the cake. Venezuela is doing fantastically. [Delcy Rodríguez] is doing a fantastic job. The relationship with them is great.” Trump also confirmed the United States is in touch with Cuba’s communist leadership as instability on the island intensifies following the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. “They need help. We are talking to Cuba,” Trump said. And he suggested the island’s worsening situation is partly the result of U.S. pressure, including cutting off the Venezuelan oil supplies that once sustained Havana. “Well, it’s because of my intervention, intervention that is happening,” Trump said. “Obviously, otherwise they wouldn’t have this problem. We cut off all oil, all money, … everything coming in from Venezuela, which was the sole source.” “How long have you been hearing about Cuba — Cuba, Cuba — for 50 years?” Trump added. “And that’s one of the small ones for me.” CONFIDENCE ON IRAN Speaking as U.S. military operations against Iran continue to dominate the administration’s foreign policy agenda, Trump indicated the United States intends to play a significant role in shaping Iran’s postwar political landscape. Asked how much influence he expects to have over Iran’s future leadership, Trump replied: “I’m going to have a big impact, or they’re not going to have any settlement, because we’re not going to have to go do this again.” “We’ll work with the people and the regime to make sure that somebody gets there that can nicely build Iran but without nuclear weapons,” Trump said. The president also weighed in on the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s son, who is in contention to be the new supreme leader saying, “Now they’re looking at the son. The reason the father wouldn’t give it to the son is they say he’s incompetent.” Trump emphasized the U.S. is going to “work with them to help them make the proper choice” because he wants to avoid having a head of Iran “that’s going to lead to having to do this again in another 10 years.” Trump projected confidence about the campaign’s trajectory and dismissed concerns that rising gas prices tied to the conflict could hurt Republicans politically ahead of the November elections that could break the party’s power trifecta in Washington. “People are loving what’s happening,” Trump said. “We’re taking out a threat to the United States of America, major threat, … and doing it like nobody’s ever seen before.” Trump described the U.S. campaign against Iran as highly controlled while boasting about overwhelming military capacity despite Pentagon officials and Hill lawmakers’ concern over dwindling weapons supplies. “We’re being surgical,” he said. “We have unlimited supply of weapons, unlimited. … We have thousands, thousands, of them.” The president also painted a picture of Iran’s military capability being effectively dismantled. “They have no navy. They have no air force. They have no detection of air. It’s all wiped out. Their radar is all wiped out. Their military is decimated,” Trump said. “All they have is guts.” IMPATIENCE WITH ZELENSKYY Even as Iran remains a top focus, Trump said negotiations over the war in Ukraine continue. And he again expressed frustration with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. “Zelenksyy he has to get on the ball, and he has to get a deal done,” Trump said. On the other hand, Trump said he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin is prepared to negotiate an end to the war. “I think Putin is ready to make a deal,” he said. Trump has said that before. When pressed on what Zelenskyy’s obstacle is to a peace deal, Trump declined to elaborate but maintained that Ukraine’s leader is not showing enough willingness to negotiate. “It’s unthinkable that he’s the obstacle,” Trump said. “You don’t have the cards. Now he’s got even less cards.” ‘I FIRED ANTHROPIC’ Trump also stepped into the increasingly contentious dispute between the Pentagon and Anthropic over the AI startup’s refusal to give the military unfettered access to its technology. “Well, I fired Anthropic. Anthropic is in trouble because I fired [them] like dogs, because they shouldn’t have done that,” he said. And underscored his support for his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. “You see how good Pete’s doing, and you see how good the military. And so we have an amazing military. The whole world is seeing that now I built the military in my first term, and I’m using it in my second term,” he said.

BERLIN — German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has worked hard to curry favor with U.S. President Donald Trump. But their Oval Office meeting on Tuesday begged two important questions: How far is Merz willing to go to stay on Trump’s good side — and at what political cost? The conservative German chancellor sat deferentially and mostly silent as Trump threatened to “embargo” Spain for not spending more on defense and for condemning U.S. strikes on Iran. Nor did Merz respond when Trump attacked British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on an array of issues — “this is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with” — and threatened to escalate his trade war with Europe. Merz’s silence was part of an obvious strategy: Never contradict Trump in front of the cameras, and try in private talks to cajole the president into seeing things Germany’s way. Yet the image of the EU’s most powerful national leader sitting obsequiously beside Trump as he berated fellow European leaders will likely have jarred many Germans and left a sour taste in capitals across Europe, underscoring the political dangers of placating the U.S. president. It also shows the relative powerlessness of a German leader whose chief foreign policy goals —from deterring Russian aggression to bolstering Germany’s export-driven economy— depend largely on a frequently humiliating balancing act to manage relations with a thin-skinned, unpredictable Trump. Merz appears to have succeeded at getting Trump to like him. The president called the chancellor a “friend” on Tuesday and praised him for doing “really a great job.” Trump also sounded thankful for the chancellor’s rhetorical support for U.S. strikes on Iran, saying Merz has been “helping us out” and “very nice” on the matter. This was, in fact, Merz’s strategy going into the talks with Trump. Before his departure he said he supported Trump’s goals regarding Tehran even as he acknowledged a fear that the strikes could lead to an Iraq-style quagmire. “Now is not the time to lecture our partners and allies,” he concluded, stowing his concerns. Once in the Oval Office, as Trump bragged of the damage U.S. airstrikes had inflicted on Iran — “just about everything has been knocked out” — Merz gave an approving chuckle and said Germany was on the “same page” on the need to eliminate the regime in Tehran. By contrast, Spain’s socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has drawn Trump’s ire for criticizing the Iran strikes as illegal and barring the U.S. from using Spanish bases to attack the country. He has also refused to abide by NATO’s new 5-percent-of-GDP spending target.  For those reasons, Trump said: “We’re going to cut off all trade with Spain. We don’t want anything to do with Spain.” Merz said nothing in response, agreeing only that Spain needs to spend more on defense. “We are trying to convince them that this is a part of our common security, that we all have to comply with these numbers,” he said. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Washington after his Oval Office meeting. He later said “there is no way that Spain will be treated particularly badly” on trade as a member of the EU. | Andrew Harnik/Getty Images French President Emmanuel Macron, in stark contrast to Merz, later publicly aligned with Sánchez in questioning the legality of Trump’s war. NO CHURCHILL Merz also said nothing when Trump attacked the center-left Starmer over an ongoing dispute between Washington and London about the status of Diego Garcia — an island in the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean that is home to a joint U.S.-U.K. military base.  “The U.K. has been very, very uncooperative with that stupid island that they have, that they gave away,” Trump said. “They ruin relationships. It’s a shame.” Merz needs close ties with both the British prime minister and Sánchez. Starmer is an important ally in the “E3” format that Germany, France and the U.K. use to coordinate European strategy toward Ukraine. Sánchez, meanwhile, represents the largest faction within the center-left Socialists and Democrats group in the European Parliament, with whom Merz’s conservatives must reach compromises.  Following his meeting with Trump on Tuesday, Merz said: “There is no way that Spain will be treated particularly badly” on trade as a member of the EU. He also said he had defended Starmer to Trump, telling the president the British leader “is making a really very, very large, very, very valuable contribution in the E3 format to ending the war in Ukraine, and that I consider this criticism of him to be unjustified.” The key, Merz said, had been not to correct Trump in front of the cameras. “I did this behind closed doors because, as I said, I did not want to play out the conflict on the open stage there.” Perhaps the biggest question for Merz, however,  is whether the appeasement is working. Merz’s goal, after all, had been to convince Trump to deescalate his tariff war on Europe and to get the U.S. leader to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin more aggressively with sanctions to end the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine. Merz said after his meeting with Trump that he had shown the U.S. president a map of the front lines in Ukraine, and that he had come away with the impression “that the president is now more understanding what is at stake for this country” when it comes to the need to avoid territorial concessions. He also said he had told Trump that the EU-U.S. trade agreement agreed last summer is not up for debate. “Here in Washington, they know that we on the European side have reached a limit in terms of what we are willing to accept,” Merz said. “I have gained the impression that the president and his staff see it that way too.” Preserving that opportunity to persuade Trump on such issues is why Merz avoids open confrontation with the president. Of course, behind closed doors, Trump may also have told Merz what he wanted to hear. In front of the cameras, however, Tuesday’s meeting provided no evidence that Merz was able win Trump around on the key issues. On the contrary, Trump threatened to intensify his trade wars and complained of having given away “massive amounts of ammunition” to Ukraine. As a foreign policy tactic, Merz may have discovered, flattering Trump has its dangers and limits.

Belgian authorities have arrested four people over suspected links to war crimes and crimes against humanity tied to Cameroon’s ongoing separatist conflict, federal prosecutors said Tuesday. The Federal Prosecutor’s Office said in a press statement that since last summer it has been probing “possible crimes against humanity and war crimes allegedly committed in Cameroon since 2020” following a tip from Norwegian judicial authorities. The investigation targets individuals in Belgium who are suspected of belonging to the leadership of the Ambazonia Defence Forces (ADF), an armed separatist movement. Four suspects were picked up during coordinated searches in the town of Londerzeel, 20 kilometers north of Brussels, and Antwerp on Sunday, three of whom were placed in pre-trial detention. Prosecutors said “money is reportedly being raised for the armed struggle and for the purchase of arms and ammunition,” adding that “instructions for attacks and liquidations are said to be given from Belgium.” Cameroon’s conflict pits French-speaking forces loyal to the government in the capital Yaoundé against English-speaking separatists seeking to create the breakaway state of Ambazonia in northwest Cameroon. The violence, which erupted in 2017 after protests over the perceived marginalization of the country’s anglophone regions, has killed at least 6,000 people and displaced hundreds of thousands. Prosecutors said they continue to work with authorities in Norway and the United States, where parallel probes into suspected ADF members are underway. U.S. prosecutors indicted two alleged ADF leaders in Minnesota last September, accusing them of financing and directing attacks in Cameroon. In 2024, Norwegian authorities arrested prominent Ambazonian separatist figure Ayaba Cho Lucas in Norway on suspicion of inciting crimes against humanity.

LONDON — Keir Starmer has offered fresh support for Kyiv on the fourth anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Britain announced Tuesday it will provide £20 million for emergency repairs to energy supplies damaged by Russian attacks over the winter, as well as help to resist so-called “Russification” tactics, and helicopter training for Ukrainian pilots in the U.K.  The announcement comes ahead of a a virtual “coalition of the willing” meeting of Ukraine’s allies Tuesday —  the first since Britain and France signed a declaration to send troops to Ukraine if a peace deal is agreed. Starmer will co-chair the meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron to discuss plans in the event of a ceasefire. “This war remains the most critical issue of our age. It asks the question of whether Ukrainian and European freedom will endure. Our answer, together, is unequivocal. Russia is not winning this war. They will not win this war,” Starmer said in a statement announcing the extra support. The British government said preparations for the peacekeeping effort — known as Multinational Force Ukraine — are being overseen from its headquarters in Paris, now staffed by 70 personnel. The latest show of support takes place amid stalled peace negotiations, as recent talks in Geneva yielded little progress on the key questions of halting hostilities, prisoner of war exchanges or a pause in strikes on energy infrastructure. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told the BBC in an interview to mark the anniversary he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin has already started a third world war. “The question is how much territory he will be able to seize and how to stop him,” he said. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper will visit Kyiv Tuesday. She is expected to condemn the attempted “Russification” of Ukrainians in occupied territories via the imposition of Russian passports and banning the Ukrainian language. Russia is facing economic hardship and issues with army recruitment, according to Western officials, who said the prospect of a summer offensive will depend on whether they are able to find enough manpower. Nonetheless, the same officials said there is no imminent prospect of Moscow seeking an end to the war as Kyiv also experiences a strain on infantry and ammunition. Speaking to reporters, Defence Minister Al Carns stressed there is an active threat to the U.K. from Russia, particularly through cyber attacks. “A lot of people say that the U.K. doesn’t have a front line, but the reality is we do. It sits in the north Atlantic. It sits in the High North. It sits in cyberspace, and it sits in influence. It is being battled out every day,” he said. “The defense industry across the whole of Europe is starting to pick up pace” in order to boost supply chains and the delivery of weapons to Ukraine, despite internal struggles in London over the pace of defense spending, Carns added.

Andrew Puzder is U.S. Ambassador to the EU and Matthew Whitaker is U.S. Ambassador to NATO. The NATO transatlantic alliance has been the foundation of European and American security for decades. Today, as the world faces complex and unprecedented security challenges, the United States and Europe must work together to sustain and strengthen this partnership. Limiting U.S. defense industry participation in European procurement programs threatens that partnership and weakens our mutual security. To their credit, NATO allies have responded to President Donald Trump’s call for increased defense investment, with commitments to raise defense spending to 5 percent of GDP. But for the most part those commitments are as yet unfulfilled, meaning the U.S. still bears a disproportionate share of Europe’s security costs and provides technical and defense production capabilities our NATO allies lack. As the war in Ukraine rages on, U.S. production lines must operate at capacity to supply munitions other nations cannot, such as U.S. air defense systems and their interceptor missiles and F-16 ammunition and spare parts. This is particularly true as the U.S. strives to meet its own defense production needs as well as those of our allies across the world. For the U.S. to continue supplying the armaments Ukraine and NATO member countries need requires orders sufficient to justify their production and the resources to pay for them. With that in mind, the United States has expressed concerns about how EU defense initiatives like Security Action for Europe (SAFE) and the European Defense Industry Program (EDIP) restrict market access for American companies. Such exclusionary measures undermine our collective defense by limiting competition, stifling innovation and depriving these companies of the orders they need to maintain production at the levels required to meet our allies’ needs. EDIP and SAFE mandate the EU maintain control over the design, configuration, and future modification of defense systems. And these requirements threaten intellectual property rights, constrain supply chains, and impede transatlantic interoperability. Additionally, these programs impose a 35 percent cap on U.S. industrial participation, limiting the possibility of U.S.-EU joint defense ventures. EU policymakers considering the future of defense cooperation face a clear choice. | Armend Nimani/AFP via Getty Images Looking ahead, we are especially concerned about the Commission’s plan to incorporate “European preference” in the Defense Procurement Directive in 2026. Revisions to the Directive are critical because they will directly impact how EU countries spend their national money on defense procurements. Our view is that EU countries should have the full sovereign autonomy to make decisions about defense procurements — including where to make purchases — without the EU imposing additional eligibility criteria similar to those present in SAFE and EDIP. Similarly, if the goal of the European Commission’s proposed €90 billion loan to Ukraine is for Ukraine to defeat Russia, the EU should allow Ukraine to purchase what it needs as quickly as possible. Otherwise, the loan appears to serve more as an economic development initiative that favors certain EU countries’ defense industries. Let us be clear: We welcome member countries’ efforts to ramp up their defense budgets and the EU utilizing financial levers to encourage more defense spending. But not at the cost of decades of cooperation by fragmenting the defense market and reducing the effectiveness of joint efforts. The economic implications are significant. U.S. defense companies are not merely suppliers; they’re partners who have invested in European economies, created tens of thousands of good-paying European jobs, and provided the advanced technology that strengthens NATO. Our transatlantic defense industry is most effective when nations are free from protectionist policies and able to choose equipment and capabilities best suited to their needs. Joint ventures and transatlantic supply chains have enabled collaboration on next-generation technologies including missile and cyber defense. By leveraging the expertise and resources of American industry, Europe can share the burden of defense investment and ensure access to the best possible equipment. The U.S. has consistently welcomed European investment and competition in our own defense market, including through Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreements (RDPAs) with 19 of 27 EU countries. Reciprocal openness is essential to maintain trust and ensure both sides benefit from shared investments. Restrictive measures stand in direct contrast to member countries’ commitments under these agreements and undermine access to our long shared, transatlantic defense industrial base. The stakes are high. A prosperous, secure Europe is in the best interests of both the EU and the United States. European defense capability strengthens NATO and enables both sides to meet global challenges more effectively.  Creating barriers for U.S. industry will slow Europe’s rearming efforts and undermine both NATO readiness and interoperability by severing access to integrated transatlantic supply chains. EU policymakers considering the future of defense cooperation face a clear choice — pursue policies that restrict market access and fragment the defense sector, or foster an environment of openness, competition, and innovation. The latter approach supports our collective security, readiness, resilience, and cost-effective investment, benefiting taxpayers, workers, and service members on both sides of the Atlantic.