Finland has urged U.S. officials not to describe future security pledges to a postwar Ukraine as “Article 5-like,” implying that doing so could undercut the mutual defense clause at the heart of the NATO military alliance, according to a State Department cable obtained by POLITICO. The Jan. 20 cable hints at worries in some corners over the labels used during peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow. They show how sensitive some phrases can be in the national security realm, even when officials are merely trying to offer an analogy to various audiences. According to the cable, sent from the U.S. Embassy in Helsinki to Washington, Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen discussed the issue on Jan. 19 with U.S. Reps. Jack Bergman (R-Mich.) and Sarah Elfreth (D-Md.), both of whom are members of the House Armed Services Committee. Valtonen underscored Finland’s view that Russia is a “long-term strategic threat” and cautioned against a “weak” peace deal for Ukraine that would hinder its ability to defend itself against future Russian aggression, the cable states. But Valtonen cautioned against any suggestions of “Article 5-like” security guarantees in a postwar Ukraine, the cable adds. She warned that it risked conflating NATO’s Article 5 guarantees with whatever bilateral promises are made to Ukraine. It also quotes her as saying there should be a “firewall” between NATO and future security guarantees to Ukraine. Finland’s defense minister made similar points in a later meeting, according to the cable. Article 5 is a critical clause in the NATO pact that means an armed attack on one member of the 32-member alliance will be treated as an attack on all members. NATO has invoked the article only once: after Islamist terrorists attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. The documents’ contents offer insight into concerns voiced by other Finnish leaders who have said that, while they want to help Ukraine protect itself, the concept of a security “guarantee” is a more serious matter they’re not ready to agree to just yet. A Finnish official said Valtonen’s office wouldn’t comment on confidential discussions, though underscored Helsinki’s long-standing goal of eventually accepting Ukraine into the NATO alliance. “Finland’s objective is to ensure that Ukraine receives the strongest possible security arrangements and guarantees in support of a sustainable and lasting peace,” the official said, who was granted anonymity to speak about sensitive policy matters. “Finland’s position is that Ukraine’s future lies within NATO.” Former NATO officials and analysts said the cable reflects growing concerns in various capitals about how engaging with a postwar Ukraine could affect individual countries in the long run. One potential problem is that “using the term Article 5 in other contexts implies NATO involvement that is not in fact a part of any of these proposed arrangements,” said Edward Wrong, a former NATO official. “Finland and many other NATO members want to ensure it is understood that Article 5 is unique to NATO.” The State Department declined to comment. Elfreth, one of the U.S. lawmakers Valtonen met with, did not address the session with the Finnish foreign minister directly, but said in a statement: “From our many meetings, it was clear to me that our NATO allies, new and old, are committed to advancing shared goals of defending our partners from Russian and other adversarial influences. Bergman declined to comment. Using Article 5 as a parallel has multiple upsides and downsides, especially given the range of attitudes toward Ukraine in NATO, the former officials and analysts said. That’s further complicated by the likelihood that individual countries, or select groups of countries — but not NATO itself — will offer Ukraine security aid in the near future. One challenge is that by referring to Article 5, even with the “like” attached to it, national leaders could hand political ammunition to opposition groups, said Josh Shifrinson, a scholar with the University of Maryland, College Park, who advocates for a more restrained foreign policy. There’s also the possibility that framing a security pledge to Ukraine as “Article 5-like” will entice Russia to test what that truly means. If Russia stages some sort of an armed attack and the countries backing Ukraine struggle to respond, that could raise questions about the strength of NATO’s Article 5, said Rachel Ellehuus, a former Biden administration Defense Department official assigned to NATO. On top of that, other members of NATO, especially those in Europe, are acutely aware of President Donald Trump’s dim views of the alliance. They are reacting to his demands that they step up defense spending and have taken on the lion’s share of aid to Ukraine. Given economic uncertainties in the years ahead, just how much they can support Ukraine is in question. “I’m guessing the Finns don’t want to overpromise and under-deliver,” Ellehuus said. Spokespeople for NATO declined to comment. Finland is one of NATO’s newest members, having joined after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The Finnish foreign minister comes across in the cable as tough on Russia, a country with which Finland shares an 830-mile border. “We should not be naïve in thinking they will change, especially if sanctions get [lifted]” and Russia becomes “empowered politically and economically,” Valtonen is quoted as saying. Although there are ongoing talks among the U.S., Ukraine and Russia in various formats, Russian leader Vladimir Putin has not committed to a substantial cease-fire and has made demands that many Ukrainians consider unacceptable for a peace deal. Victor Jack contributed to this report from Brussels.

Second Amendment advocates are warning that Republicans shouldn’t count on them to show up in November, after President Donald Trump insisted that demonstrator Alex Pretti “should not have been carrying a gun.” The White House labels itself the “most pro-Second Amendment administration in history.” But Trump’s comments about Pretti, who was legally carrying a licensed firearm when he was killed by federal agents last week, have some gun rights advocates threatening to sit out the midterms. “I’ve spent 72 hours on the phone trying to unfuck this thing. Trump has got to correct his statements now,” said one Second Amendment advocate, granted anonymity to speak about private conservations. The person said Second Amendment advocates are “furious.” “And they will not come out and vote. He can’t correct it three months before the election.” The response to Pretti’s killing isn’t the first time Second Amendment advocates have felt abandoned by Trump. The powerful lobbying and advocacy groups, that for decades reliably struck fear into the hearts of Republicans, have clashed multiple times with Trump during his first year back in power. And their ire comes at a delicate moment for the GOP. While Democrats are unlikely to pick up support from gun-rights groups, the repeated criticisms from organizations such as the National Association for Gun Rights suggest that the Trump administration may be alienating a core constituency it needs to turn out as it seeks to retain its slim majority in the House and Senate. It doesn’t take much to swing an election, said Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights. “All you have to do is lose four, five, six percent of their base who left it blank, who didn’t write a check, who didn’t walk districts, you lose,” he said. “Especially marginal districts — and the House is not a good situation right now.” And it wasn’t only the president who angered gun-rights advocates. Others in the administration made similar remarks about Pretti, denouncing the idea of carrying a gun into a charged environment such as a protest. FBI Director Kash Patel said “you cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want,” and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said she didn’t “know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.” These sentiments are anathema to many Republicans who have fought for years against the idea that carrying a gun or multiple magazine clips implies guilt or an intent to commit a crime. “I sent a message to high-place people in the administration with three letters, W.T.F.,” Brown said. “If it had just been the FBI director and a few other highly-placed administration officials, that would have been one thing but when the president came out and doubled down that was a whole new level. This was not a good look for your base. You can’t be a conservative and not be radically pro-gun.” A senior administration official brushed off concerns about Republicans losing voters in the midterms over the outrage. “No, I don’t think that some of the comments that were made over the past 96 hours by certain administration officials are going to impede the unbelievable and strong relationship the administration has with the Second Amendment community, both on a personal level and given the historic successes that President Trump has been able to deliver for gun rights,” the official said. But this wasn’t the only instance when the Trump administration angered gun-rights advocates. In September after the shooting at a Catholic church in Minneapolis that killed two children, reports surfaced that the Department of Justice was looking into restricting transgender Americans from owning firearms. The suspect, who died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound at the scene of the shooting, was a 23-year-old transgender woman. “The signaling out of a specific demographic for a total ban on firearms possession needs to comport with the Constitution and its bounds and anything that exceeds the bounds of the Constitution is simply impermissible,” Adam Kraut, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, told POLITICO. At the time, the National Rifle Association, which endorsed Trump in three consecutive elections, said they don’t support any proposals to “arbitrarily strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights without due process.” Additionally, some activists, who spoke to the gun-focused independent publication “The Reload,” said they were upset about the focus from federal law enforcement about seizing firearms during the Washington crime crackdown in the summer. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said her office wouldn’t pursue felony charges in Washington over carrying guns, The Washington Post reported. Trump, during his first term, infuriated some in the pro-gun movement when in 2018 his administration issued a regulation to ban bump stocks. The Supreme Court ultimately blocked the rule in 2024. “I think the administration clearly wants to be known as pro-Second Amendment, and many of the officials do believe in the Second Amendment, but my job at Gun Owners of America is to hold them to their words and to get them to act on their promises. And right now it’s a mixed record,” said Gun Owners for America director of federal affairs Aidan Johnston. In the immediate aftermath of the Pretti shooting, the NRA called for a full investigation rather than for “making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.” But now, the lobbying group is defending Trump’s fuller record. “Rather than trying to extract meaning from every off-the-cuff remark, we look at what the administration is doing, and the Trump administration is, and has been, the most pro-2A administration in modern history,” said John Commerford, NRA Institute for Legislative Action executive director. “From signing marquee legislation that dropped unconstitutional taxes on certain firearms and suppressors to joining pro-2A plaintiffs in cases around the country, the Trump administration is taking action to support the right of every American to keep and bear arms.” In his first month in office, Trump directed the Department of Justice to examine all regulations, guidance, plans and executive actions from President Joe Biden’s administration that may infringe on Second Amendment rights. The administration in December created a civil rights division office of Second Amendment rights at DOJ to work on gun issues. That work, said a second senior White House official granted anonymity to discuss internal thinking, should prove the administration’s bona fides and nothing said in the last week means they’ve changed their stance on the Second Amendment. “Gun groups know and gun owners know that there hasn’t been a bigger defender of the Second Amendment than the president,” said a second senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak on a sensitive issue. “But I think the president’s talking about in the moment— in that very specific moment— when it is such a powder keg going on, and when there’s someone who’s actively impeding enforcement operations, things are going to happen. Or things can happen.” Andrew Howard contributed to this report.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Davos speech went viral, but it has sparked a predictably angry reaction from the Trump White House that could torpedo trade talks already on thin ice. Carney’s call to arms to smaller countries to band together against the economic coercion of “great powers” sparked criticism from Donald Trump and his inner circle — and it is renewing warnings on both sides of the border that it could undermine Ottawa as it faces a review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the continental trade deal worth C$1.3 trillion in two-way merchandise trade. Goldy Hyder, the president of the lobby group for Canada’s top CEOs, spent several days in Washington this week where he said he got an earful from U.S. lawmakers and business leaders. “Obviously, the response from the Americans suggests that some harm has been done. I don’t believe it to have been significant or fatal, but I do think we need to make sure we’re sending the signals that we care about this agreement,” Hyder, the president of the Business Council of Canada, told POLITICO on Friday. The standing ovation and breathless praise Carney initially received in Davos gave way to some hand-wringing Friday at the World Economic Forum and beyond. “I’m not exactly on the same page as Mark,” European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde said in a panel, a departure from earlier in the week when she walked out of a dinner with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick during an anti-Europe speech. “We should be talking about alternatives,” she said. “We should be identifying, much more so than we have probably in the past, the weaknesses, the sore points, the dependencies, the autonomy.” Trump and Carney, as well as their top Cabinet members, are exchanging blows against the backdrop of the looming mandatory six-year review of the USMCA, a process that could lead to renewal, modifications or the potential demise of a pact Trump once called the biggest and most important deal in U.S. history. Trump fired the first shot back at Carney’s speech during his own Davos address the following day, telling the world: “Canada lives because of the United States.” He repeated past gripes that Canada “gets a lot of freebies” from the U.S. and it “should be grateful.” Carney counterpunched the next day at his Quebec City Cabinet retreat, making a last-minute edit to a speech on his domestic ambitions. “Canada doesn’t live because of the United States,” he said. “Canada thrives because we are Canadian.” Hours later, Trump revoked Canada’s invitation to participate in his Gaza “Board of Peace” initiative. Trump didn’t offer a specific reason. Then on Friday, Trump trolled Canada in a Truth Social post that included a dig about “doing business with China.” Louise Blais, a former Canadian deputy ambassador to the United Nations, said the post-Davos bickering between Trump and Carney evokes the hostility that erupted between Trump and former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2018 at the G7 Canada hosted, and could be damaging to the USMCA review. “Canada thinks that we’re pushing back on the Americans blackmailing us and holding us to account, but to the White House mind, it looks as if we are ungrateful,” Blais told POLITICO from Mexico on Friday, where she was attending meetings on the USMCA. She now works as a senior adviser for a U.S. consultancy and Hyder’s council. “The damage could be eight out of 10, but it’s really totally up to the Americans. They are going to decide whether or not they push back. We certainly have given them a lot of ammunition to do so,” she added. Trump’s top political lieutenants also piled on with insults and sideswipes of their own. In an interview with Bloomberg from Davos, Lutnick called Carney “arrogant” and said his decision to strike new agreements with China will work against Canada in this year’s review of USMCA. “This is the silliest thing I’ve ever seen,” Lutnick said of the idea that China will then increase imports from Canada. “Give me a break — they have the second-best deal in the world. And all we got to do is listen to this guy whine and complain.” Lutnick said Mexico has the best deal, followed by Canada because 85 percent of its exports flow tariff-free to the U.S. under USMCA. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accused Carney of “value signaling.” “If he believes what’s best for Canada is to make speeches like that, which I don’t think is very helpful, then he should make speeches like that,” Bessent told POLITICO’s Dasha Burns. Bessent added: “In the context of the United States, I’ll point out the Canadian economy is smaller than the economy of Texas.” Bessent noted in the interview that Trump stood up to China’s manipulation of the rare earths market. “Prime Minister Carney should say ‘thank you,’ rather than giving this value-signaling speech,” Bessent said. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer also questioned the wisdom of Carney’s dealmaking with China in light of the upcoming USMCA review and has been speculating the U.S. could negotiate separate deals with Canada and Mexico. As Carney returned from Europe for a Cabinet meeting in Quebec City, his leading lieutenants remained defiant. “There are always going to be stressful times, and let’s not sugarcoat it. The prime minister never does. It’s a difficult world,” Artificial Intelligence Minister Evan Solomon told reporters Friday morning. When asked about the U.S. criticism, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said Carney was simply saying “a lot of things that people thought. And he had the courage to say it loud.” Greenland’s Energy and Industry Minister Naaja Nathanielsen told POLITICO that Carney’s speech was “brilliant.” “Right now, we’re still figuring out what is the American intentions,” she said from Davos. “I thought [it] was the most clear-eyed speech I’ve heard in a long time.” But Hyder and Blais say Carney’s next priority must be finding a path back to bargaining with Trump and his team, and to end the bickering in interest of preserving USMCA. Talks were expected to resume this month after Trump abruptly halted them in October, apparently angry the Ontario government used Ronald Reagan’s voice in an anti-tariff commercial. Hyder said he got a lengthy briefing from senior officials in the Office of the United States Trade Representative, met one Democrat and seven Republican lawmakers and consulted his U.S. counterparts at the Business Roundtable, which represents the leaders of the largest American companies. During his 90 minutes at USTR, Hyder said he was told Mexico was making “great progress” in dealing with trade irritants. “They have the lowest tariff rate in the world as a result of it, lower than ours,” said Hyder. “We’re now not engaged, we’re not conversing, and we’re waiting for the Americans to call us. Why would they call us to lower the tariffs that they’re imposing on us? We need to lean in.” Hyder said he believes Carney has convinced himself Trump has no intention of renewing USMCA, and that he needs to disabuse himself of that “self-fulfilling prophecy.” “It’s not too late to recognize the opportunity to still get this agreement across the finish line, and we need to be at the table to do that,” he said. Carney signaled he was irritated when he brushed off what he called a “boring question” from a reporter about how talks with Trump were going as he departed the Cabinet retreat this week. Blais said that Carney needs the USCMA if he wants to achieve his goal of increasing exports to other countries. “The strength of our economy and our ability to diversify is very much anchored in our North American competitiveness … because we’re seen to have access to the U.S. market that has supply chains that are healthy,” she said. “The more we say that there’s a rupture with that, the less attractive we become as a country to invest. “That’s the worry.” Jakob Weizman and Marianne Gros contributed to this report from Brussels. Mickey Djuric reported from Quebec City.

LONDON — Nigel Farage was beaming about his newest recruit Thursday. But the defection from the Tories of frontbench star Robert Jenrick hints at sizable problems for Farage’s insurgent right-wing party too. By securing his highest-profile defection from the Conservatives yet, Reform UK gains one of its rival party’s best communicators — a pugnacious and energetic hardliner, capable of shaping the narrative in Westminster and beyond. But Jenrick — preemptively kicked out of the Tories earlier on Thursday by Leader Kemi Badenoch after she got wind of his looming defection — presents his own problems for Farage’s insurgent party as it tries to redraw Britain’s political map. Jenrick’s vaulting ambition, eagerness to rebel and to challenge the leadership are now Farage’s problem. And Reform’s critics have been handed more ammunition to claim the party is little more than the Conservatives 2.0, as they embrace a serial minister Tory administrations that crashed to a hefty defeat in the 2024 general election. Farage underlined that problem himself as he unveiled his new acquisition at a chaotic press conference Thursday. The event was hastily repurposed because Badenoch got the jump on their secret plot hours earlier. “Our biggest weakness is we haven’t had people who’ve actually been there in cabinet, in No.10, who understand how these things work,” Farage said —before pausing and backtracking. “Maybe he understands why the system doesn’t work,” Farage clarified. Reform’s critics can now add Jenrick to the long list of high-profile Conservatives to join Farage’s ranks after serving in a government that voters turfed out of power just 18 months ago. Among them are former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi, who joined Reform earlier this week, and former Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries. Jenrick was there in government when Liz Truss detonated the economy, and when Boris Johnson conceived a wave of post-Brexit migration. Jenrick was immigration minister as the number of small boats crossing the Channel carrying asylum seekers surged. He opened many of the asylum hotels that now house them, and which are so hated by Reform voters. Farage himself appears live to the risks posed by adopting former Conservative ministers. At that same late afternoon press conference he set a deadline of the May 7 local elections for any further defections of MPs. Robert Jenrick presents his own problems for Farage’s insurgent party as it tries to redraw Britain’s political map. | Andy Rain/EPA Jenrick counters criticisms by pointing out he resigned from Rishi Sunak’s doomed government in 2023 because of his disagreements over migration policy. Former colleagues still suspect his burning ambition to lead the Conservatives was a factor too. He lost to Badenoch in the leadership election that followed his former party’s crushing 2024 defeat. Despite joining her top team as shadow justice secretary, he never really stopped waging the next leadership battle behind the scenes.  Jenrick would often float different policy positions to Badenoch. He angered Conservative colleagues with what was perceived by some critics to be “racist” rhetoric — an allegation he always strongly denied. If a wave of Tory defections do not rapidly follow Jenrick’s then Badenoch also can argue she’s come out stronger from Thursday’s dramatic departure. She got the march on Farage by preemptively ejecting her great rival from the party, and spoiling the Reform leader’s surprise. She also looked decisive in kicking out her would-be leadership rival. Badenoch’s own personality and policy clash with Jenrick could signal trouble ahead as the ex-Tory competes with Reform’s many egos. Farage has frequently traded barbs with Jenrick, who he has branded a “fraud” and a “hypocrite” —  but the potential rift Jenrick’s former Conservative colleagues are most closely watching is with Reform Head of Policy Zia Yusuf. Jenrick branded him “Zia Useless” during one online slanging match — although he name-checked Yusuf Thursday in a roll-call paying tribute to his new colleagues. “All I would say to Nigel is Rob’s not my problem any more — he’s your problem,” Badenoch quipped in an interview with GB News. While Badenoch has publicly ruled out any pacts with Reform to reunite the right ahead of the next general election, Jenrick was always more ambiguous about a potential deal. With Jenrick out of the Tory tent, an alliance looks less likely. In welcoming Jenrick, Farage has gone for the Conservative jugular, and committed to absorbing and overthrowing the establishment party in his quest to become the dominant force in right-wing politics.  For Keir Starmer’s struggling Labour Party it offers a glimmer of hope. If splits remain on the right, then Starmer — or whoever is prime minister at the the time of the next U.K. general election — is in a far better position to rally the sizable anti-Farage sentiment that counterbalances his popularity.

BRUSSELS — Germany and the Netherlands are at odds with France in seeking to ensure Kyiv will be able buy U.S. weapons using the EU’s €90 billion loan to Ukraine. EU countries agreed the crucial lifeline to Kyiv at a European Council summit in December, but the capitals will still have to negotiate the formal conditions of that financing after a European Commission proposal on Wednesday. This sets up tense negotiations with Paris, which is leading a rearguard push to prevent money flowing to Washington amid a growing rift in the transatlantic alliance. French President Emmanuel Macron is keen to give preferential treatment to EU military companies to strengthen the bloc’s defense industry — even if that means Kyiv can’t immediately buy what it needs to keep Russian forces at bay. A majority of countries, led by governments in Berlin and The Hague, respond that Kyiv must have more leeway in how it spends the EU’s financial package to help fund its defense, according to position papers seen by POLITICO. These frictions are coming to a head after years of debate over whether to include Washington in EU defense purchasing programs. Divisions have only worsened since U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration threatened a military takeover of Greenland. Critics retort France’s push to introduce a strict “Buy European” clause would tie Kyiv’s hands and limit its ability to defend itself against Russia. “Ukraine also urgently requires equipment produced by third countries, notably U.S.-produced air defense systems and interceptors, F-16 ammunition and spare parts and deep-strike capacities,” the Dutch government wrote in a letter to other EU countries seen by POLITICO. While most countries including Germany and the Netherlands support a general “Buy European” clause, only Greece and Cyprus — which currently maintains a neutral stance as it is chairing talks under its rotating presidency of the Council of the EU — are backing the French push to limit the scheme to EU firms, according to multiple diplomats with knowledge of the talks. CASH FOR KYIV EU leaders agreed last month to issue €90 billion in joint debt to support Ukraine, after Belgium and others derailed a separate plan to mobilize Russian frozen state assets. Over two-thirds of the Commission’s funding is expected to go toward military expenditure rather than ordinary budget support, according to two EU diplomats briefed on the discussions. With only a few days until the Commission formally unveils its plan, EU capitals are trying to influence its most sensitive elements. French President Emmanuel Macron is keen to give preferential treatment to EU military companies to strengthen the bloc’s defense industry. | Pool photo by Sarah Meyssonnier via AFP/Getty Images Germany broke with France by proposing to open up purchases to defense firms from non-EU countries. “Germany does not support proposals to limit third country procurement to certain products and is concerned that this would put excessive restrictions on Ukraine to defend itself,” Berlin’s government wrote in a letter sent to EU capitals on Monday and seen by POLITICO. The Netherlands suggested earmarking at least €15 billion for Ukraine to buy foreign weapons that are not immediately available in Europe.  “The EU’s defence industry is currently either unable to produce equivalent systems or to do so within the required timeframe,” the Dutch government wrote in its letter. The French counterargument is that Brussels should seek to extract maximum value from its funding to Ukraine. Critics say that boosting Ukraine’s defense against Russia should take precedence over any other goal.    “It’s very frustrating. We lose the focus on our aim, and our aim is not to do business,” said a third EU diplomat. Another diplomat said that a potential French veto can be easily overcome as the proposal can be agreed by a simple majority of member countries. GERMANY FIRST In a further point of controversy, the German government, while rejecting the EU preference sought by France, still suggested giving preferential treatment to firms from countries that provided the most financial support to Ukraine. This would play to the advantage of Berlin, which is among the country’s biggest donors. “Germany requests for the logic of rewarding strong bilateral support (as originally proposed for third countries by the Commission) to be applied to member states, too,” Berlin wrote in the letter. Diplomats see this as a workaround to boost German firms and incentivize other countries to stump up more cash for the war-torn country. Giovanna Faggionato contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Thursday that EU governments are already asking Brussels to create a second edition of the bloc’s SAFE defense financing scheme, even before the first one has begun distributing money. Speaking at the POLITICO 28 event, von der Leyen said the EU’s flagship Security Action for Europe loans-for-weapons program has become the runaway success of the bloc’s rearmament push.  “I think the most successful is the €150 billion of the SAFE instrument,” she said. “It is so oversubscribed by the member states that some are calling for a second SAFE instrument.” SAFE is designed to help countries jointly buy arms and ammunition from European industry financed by low interest loans. Countries had to file national procurement plans this fall, and demand has exceeded available funds, the Commission president said. The Commission chief used the appearance to argue that the past year has reshaped the EU’s defense role at unprecedented speed.  “If you look at the last year when it comes to defense, more has happened than during the last decades in the European Union,” she said, pointing to the creation of the EU’s first full-time defense commissioner and the publication of its first defense readiness plan. She contrasted the bloc’s limited defense spending in the previous decade, when only €8 billion was invested in defense on the European level, with the surge now underway. “During the last year, we enabled an investment … of €800 billion till 2030,” she said. Von der Leyen’s acknowledgment that capitals want a “second SAFE” is part of an ongoing push to continue ramping up defensing spending. That is likely to create a major political clash for 2026, when countries will reopen negotiations over the next long-term EU budget as there are calls for defense spending to be 10 times larger than under the current budget. Any effort for countries to borrow jointly to fund defense will also spark pushback from frugal capitals.

President Donald Trump’s pursuit of an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine is increasingly being driven by his own impatience — with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders who Trump believes are standing in the way of both peace and future economic cooperation between Washington and Moscow. Trump, who has called for Russia’s return to the G7 and spoken repeatedly about his eagerness to bring Russia back into the economic fold, laid bare his frustrations Monday at the White House with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns for a special episode of “The Conversation.” He derided European leaders as talkers who “don’t produce” and declared that Zelenskyy has “to play ball” given that, in his view, “Russia has the upper hand.” Zelenskyy, who Trump grumbled hadn’t read the latest peace proposal, spent Monday working with the leaders of France, Germany and Britain on a revision of the Americans’ 28-point proposal that he said has been shaved down to 20 points. “We took out openly anti-Ukrainian points,” Zelenskyy told a group of reporters in Kyiv, emphasizing that Ukraine still needs stronger security guarantees and that he isn’t ready to give Russia more land in the Donbas than its military currently holds. With Russia unlikely to budge from its demands, the White House-driven peace talks appear stalled. And as Trump’s irritation deepens, pressure is mounting on the Europeans backing Zelenskyy to prove Trump wrong. “He says we don’t produce, and I hate to say it, but there’s been some truth to that,” said a European official, one of three interviewed for this report who were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. “We are doing it now, but we have been slow to realize we are the solution to our problem.” The official pointed to NATO’s increased defense spending commitments and the PURL initiative, through which NATO allies are buying U.S. weapons to send to Ukraine, as evidence that things have started to shift. But in the near term, the European Union is struggling to convince Belgium to support a nearly $200 billion loan to Ukraine funded with seized Russian assets. “If we fail on this one, we’re in trouble,” said a second European official. Trump’s mounting pressure on Ukraine makes clear that months of careful management of the president through private texts, public flattery and general deference has gotten Europe very little. But Liana Fix, a senior fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the leaders on the other side of the Atlantic “know very well that they can’t just stand up to Trump and tell him courageously that, you know, this is not how you treat Europe, because [of] the existential dependence that is still there between Europe and the United States.” Still, some in Europe continue to express shock and revulsion over Trump’s lopsided diplomacy in favor of Russia, disputing the president’s assessment during his POLITICO interview that Putin’s army has the upper hand despite its slow advance across the Donbas, more than half of which is now in Russian control. “Our view is not that Ukraine is losing. If Russia was so powerful they would have been able to finish the war within 24 hours,” a third European diplomat said. “If you think that Russia is winning, what does that mean — you give them everything? That’s not a sustainable peace. You’ll reward the Russians for their aggression and they will look for more – not only in Ukraine but also in Europe.” Trump has refused to approve additional defense aid to Ukraine, while blasting his predecessor for sending billions in aid — approved by Democrats and many Republicans in Congress — to help the country defend itself following Russia’s Feb. 2022 invasion. Jake Sullivan, President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, said Trump’s brief that Russia is prevailing on the battlefield doesn’t match the reality. “Russia has not achieved its strategic objectives in Ukraine. It has completely failed in its initial objective to take Kyiv and subjugate the country, and it has even failed in its more limited objective in taking all of the Donbas and neutering Ukraine from a security perspective,” Sullivan said, adding that he thinks Ukraine could prevail militarily with stronger U.S. support. “But if the United States throws Ukraine under the bus and essentially takes Russia’s side functionally, then things, of course, are much more difficult for Ukraine, and that seems to be the direction of travel this administration is taking.” The White House did not respond to a request for additional comment. Clearly eager to normalize relations with Moscow, Trump appears to be motivated more by the prospect of cutting deals with Putin than maintaining a transatlantic alliance built on shared democratic principles. Fiona Hill, a Russia expert who served on Trump’s national security council in his first term, noted that the U.S.-Russia diplomacy involves three people with business backgrounds and investment portfolios: special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner on the U.S. side and Russia’s Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia’s sovereign investment fund. “Putin’s always thinking about what’s the angle here? How do I approach somebody? He’s got the number of President Trump,” Hill said Monday on a Brookings Institution podcast. “He knows he wants to make a deal, and he’s emphasizing this, and all the context is business, not really as diplomacy.” Additionally, Trump is eager to end Europe’s decades-long dependence on the U.S., which he believes has been saddled with the burden of its continental security for far too long. Ending the war with a deal that largely favors Putin would not only burnish Trump’s own self-conception as a global peacemaker — it would serve final notice to Europe that many of America’s oldest and most steadfast allies are truly on their own. Trump’s new national security strategy, released last week, made that point explicit, devoting more words to the threat of Europe’s civilizational decline — castigating the entire continent over its immigration and economic policies — than to threats posed by China, Russia or North Korea. Asked by POLITICO if European countries would continue to be U.S. allies, Trump demurred: “It depends,” he said, harshly criticizing immigration policies. “They want to be politically correct, and it makes them weak.” Europe, despite years of warnings from Trump and their own growing awareness about the need for what French President Emanuel Macron has called “strategic autonomy,” has been slow to mobilize its defenses to be able to defend the continent — and Ukraine — on its own. At Trump’s behest, NATO members agreed in June to increase defense spending to 5 percent of GDP over the coming decade. And NATO is now purchasing U.S. weapons to send to Ukraine through a new NATO initiative. But it may be too little, too late as the war grinds into a fourth winter with Ukraine’s military low on ammunition, weapons and morale. “That is why they will continue to engage this administration despite the strategy,” Fix said. And while Trump sees Ukraine and European stubbornness as the primary impediment to peace, many longtime diplomats believe that it’s his own unwillingness to ratchet up pressure on Moscow — Trump imposed new sanctions on Russian oil last month, only to pull some of them back — that is rendering his peacemaking efforts so fruitless. “It’s not enough to want peace. You’ve got to create a context in which the protagonists are willing to compromise either enthusiastically or reluctantly,” said Richard Haass, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations who served as a senior adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell in the George W. Bush administration. “The president has totally failed to do that, so it’s not a question of wordsmithing. In order to succeed at the table, you have to succeed away from the table. And they have failed to do that.” Veronika Melkozerova, Ari Hawkins and Daniella Cheslow contributed to this report.

BERLIN — Europe’s top defense officials used a meeting in Berlin on Friday to send a unified message of support for Ukraine. The main takeaways: Backing for Kyiv will remain open-ended, hybrid threats against Europe are accelerating, and the continent’s biggest military powers intend to take on a larger share of their own defense as the war enters another hard winter. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius opened the session by emphasizing continuity. “Germany is prepared to continue taking the lead in supporting Ukraine,” he said, stressing that Berlin will maintain its multi-year funding for U.S.-made Patriot air defense systems and interceptors under the Ukraine-focused PURL mechanism, which coordinates deliveries of U.S. arms and tech to Ukraine via NATO members. Germany has already financed a €500 million air-defense package through this instrument and will contribute at least €150 million to a new package agreed this week. Berlin, he added, aims to present “something substantial” on joint procurement with the U.K. at the group’s next meeting in Warsaw. France stressed that long-term military and economic pressure on Moscow must intensify. French Armed Forces Minister Catherine Vautrin pledged that Paris “will continue to support Ukraine for as long as it takes,” and pointed to France’s work preparing security guarantees for Kyiv in the Franco-British “coalition of the willing.”  She also called for stricter enforcement of sanctions, warning that Russia’s sanctions-evading “ghost fleet” finances a significant share of its war effort. “We have to increase the pressure to break this economic model,” she said. Italy highlighted its own set of assistance measures. Defense Minister Guido Crosetto said Italy will deliver €800 million in civilian support, including generators needed to navigate winter energy shortages, as well as additional military assistance through its fourth and 12th aid packages. “Our commitment to Kyiv will continue — always,” he said. Representing Poland, Deputy Defense Minister Paweł Zalewski linked Europe’s security directly to Ukrainian resilience. He underlined that Poland provides Kyiv with military equipment, financial support and political backing, insisting: “We believe that the security line of Europe lies on the Russo-Ukrainian front line.”  Warsaw plans to submit more than €40 billion in defense-industrial projects under the EU’s new investment scheme, including joint ventures with Ukrainian defense companies inside Poland to help boost Ukraine’s long-term capacity. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas delivered the meeting’s sharpest warning, citing a surge in “daily” hybrid attacks — sabotage, cyberattacks, drone incursions — and urging capitals not to normalize them.  “It is clear that Ukraine needs more air defense and more ammunition,” she said, arguing that the EU must help Kyiv keep pace with Russia’s escalating strikes. She stressed that EU capability planning complements that of NATO: “We cannot accept this as the new normal.” Threaded throughout the meeting was a shared conclusion: Europe expects a long war, and is preparing accordingly. As Pistorius put it, “Our measures are having an effect — and we must not ease up.”

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. This winter is shaping up to be the most hazardous of the war for Ukraine — at least since the early months of the invasion nearly four years ago, when Russia’s armored columns were closing in on Kyiv.  Back then, doughty Ukrainian resistance, the 2,000 anti-tank missiles Britain supplied just weeks before the invasion and Russian tactical incompetence saved the day — along with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s defiant refusal of an American offer to evacuate him. Now Ukraine is facing another crunch winter — one that heroism and improvisation might not be able to overcome. That’s in part because the country’s fate won’t entirely be in its own hands. A lot will rest with Western allies as the Ukrainians struggle through the frigid weeks and months to grapple with three huge challenges.  First, Ukraine will face a funding crisis as 2025 turns into 2026 and is on course to run out of cash in February unless Belgium lifts its block on an audacious plan to issue a €140 billion reparations loan using immobilized Russian Central Bank assets held in a securities depository based in Brussels. The proposed scheme would see the EU exchange the Russian assets for zero-coupon AAA bonds, with the cash going to Kyiv. Ukraine would only have to repay in the event Moscow agrees to pay Kyiv war reparations. But as the clock ticks toward a make-or-break EU summit next month, there are few signs of the deadlock being broken between EU officials and the Belgian government, which is worried about legal claims against it and retaliation from Russia. And the problem has only been complicated by Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico announcing last week that he will also oppose using Russian frozen assets to fund Ukraine’s defense spending. Without the reparations loan, the EU will be hard-pressed to come up with the funding Ukraine needs, which is even more urgent now that U.S. financial support has been discontinued under President Donald Trump. Without the reparations loan, it seems highly unlikely that member countries will agree instead to borrow the funds on the market. Cash-strapped governments are not keen on the idea of being on the hook to pay the interest.  That might leave a “coalition of the willing” to try to raise funds against the backdrop of political turmoil in Kyiv and a mounting hue and cry over corruption allegations. This week, a former business associate of Zelenskyy fled the country as independent corruption investigators charged him and six others over an illegal scheme to control key state-owned enterprises, including Energoatom, Ukraine’s nuclear energy agency.  Defense procurement corruption is also in the sights of investigators and, according to people close to the investigation, who asked not to be identified, more raids will take place shortly on the Ukrainian defense ministry as part of a probe into inflated procurement contracts. “All of this is very bad timing just as Brussels has to decide on more funding for Kyiv,” a foreign adviser to the Ukrainian government told POLITICO. “This is causing the Ukrainians tremendous problems in terms of convincing Western allies to continue funding. And it’s ammunition for those in the MAGA crowd and those in Central Europe, the Hungarians for example, to say, ‘Why are we doing this?’” A former Ukrainian official, who also was granted the right not to be identified in order to discuss sensitive issues, said he expected Western funding and weapons would continue as Ukraine is “too big to fail.” But Brussels will communicate very strongly behind the scenes its displeasure and tie more tightly some future project funding to reforms. The second problem is on the battlefield, where Ukraine is coming under increasing pressure from Russian forces and on the brink of losing the town of Pokrovsk, an important logistical and transport hub where fighting has been raging for more than a year.  Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico announcing last week that he will also oppose using Russian frozen assets to fund Ukraine’s defense spending. | Tetiana Dzhafarova/Getty Images Losing Pokrovsk would trigger a new stage in the battle for Donetsk and give the Russians greater leeway in trying to overrun the 25 percent of the region it hasn’t managed to seize. It would put Russian commanders in a stronger position to threaten the strategically significant towns of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. What’s adding to worries is that Ukrainian commanders may have been tactically outmatched in the battle for Pokrovsk, having fallen for a Russian ruse in August when they were seemingly hoodwinked by a Russian offensive on the neighboring town of Dobropillia. “The Russians distracted our generals with a breakthrough at Dobropillia, then used this to break through at Pokrovsk,” said Mariana Bezuhla, a lawmaker who’s a strident critic of the Ukrainian Armed Forces commander, General Oleksandr Syrskyi.  Bezuhla, a former deputy chair of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security and Defense, isn’t alone in thinking Ukrainian commanders made tactical errors in Pokrovsk, including diverting reinforcements to Dobropillia at a key moment.  Now there’s concern that the Russians are seeking to capitalize on Ukraine’s rearguard action in Pokrovsk by mounting forays into Dnipropetrovsk region in the south and Zaporizhzhia. “Despite the heroism and modernity of many people in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Ukrainian army’s decision-making system simply can’t keep up and is being jerked around within a framework set by the enemy,” Bezuhla added. The battle for Pokrovsk has again highlighted Ukraine’s severe manpower shortage. In some sections of the front line, Russia enjoys a 10-to-1 manpower advantage. In the countryside, that isn’t such a problem as drones and remote-controlled systems dominate the battlefield. But when engagements involve close-quarter combat in urban settings, as in Pokrovsk, the Russians have an advantage.  Aside from worries over funding and what’s happening on the battlefield, there’s the third big challenge of the winter — the energy war.  In past winters, Ukrainians were focused on keeping the lights on as Russian airstrikes relentlessly pummeled its power grid, part of the Kremlin’s strategy to enlist “General Winter” to exhaust Ukrainians’ stubborn spirit of resistance. Thanks to Ukrainian improvisation and engineering ingenuity in patching up the damaged system, along with energy imports from Europe, the lights largely stayed on — albeit with rolling blackouts and outages, among the worst back in October 2022.  This time round, though, the Russian attacks are of much greater magnitude and the Ukrainians don’t have the air defenses to cope, nor are they likely to get them soon. On top of that, Russia has adjusted its tactics by targeting not only the power grid but also Ukraine’s natural gas infrastructure. Sixty percent of Ukrainians rely on natural gas to keep their homes warm.  With the Ukrainian winter just a month away, the country may have lost a third of its natural gas production capacity, possibly more. In early October, Bloomberg reported that 60 percent of domestic production capacity had been disabled in strikes on facilities in Poltava and Kharkiv, Ukraine’s main gas extraction regions. Authorities subsequently claimed that repairs had restored half of what was lost.  But attacks have come thick and fast since, in what Sergii Koretskyi, chairman of Naftogaz, the state-owned national oil and gas company, has dubbed “acts of terrorism.” In just one October week alone, a series of three Russian strikes targeted gas extraction facilities in the regions of Kharkiv, Sumy and Chernihiv. The size of the challenge was highlighted over the weekend with yet another massive attack on Ukraine’s energy and gas infrastructure, which plunged a large part of the country into the cold and dark. Former Energy Minister Olga Bohuslavets has warned: “It is already clear that this winter will be much harder than all previous ones.” It is indeed going to be a hard winter for Ukraine. The big question is whether the country will emerge in good enough shape to resist a bad peace deal being foisted on it. 

China suspended a ban on exporting some dual-use materials to the U.S., the Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced on Sunday, following the easing of trade tensions between the two sides. The move covers exports of gallium, germanium and antimony, which are used in the production of advanced semiconductors used in smartphones and computing. The materials are also used in military technologies such as electronic warfare and surveillance systems, and, in the case of antimony, also missile systems and ammunition. Beijing suspended a measure introduced last year that restricted exports of those materials and imposed stricter checks on dual-use items that include graphite. The suspension will be in effect “from now until Nov. 27, 2026,” the ministry said in a statement. China’s President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump recently agree to lower tariffs and ease other trade measures for one year, providing relief to global value chains after a trade war that threatened to escalate. Beijing has relaxed checks on exports of rare earths and lithium battery materials and agreed to resume shipping key chips for Europe’s manufacturers.