The Trump administration wants to work with traditional allies to secure new supplies of critical minerals. But months of aggression toward allies, culminating with since-aborted threats to seize Greenland, have left many cool to the overtures. While the State Department has drawn a lengthy list of participating countries for its first Critical Minerals Ministerial scheduled for Wednesday, a number of those attending are hesitant to commit to partnering with the U.S. in creating a supply chain that bypasses China’s current chokehold on those materials, according to five Washington-based diplomats of countries invited to or attending the event. State Department cables obtained by POLITICO also show wariness among some countries about signing onto a framework agreement pledging joint cooperation in sourcing and processing critical minerals. Representatives from more than 50 countries are expected to attend the meeting, according to the State Department — all gathered to discuss the creation of tech supply chains that can rival Beijing’s. But the meeting comes just two weeks since President Donald Trump took to the stage at Davos to call on fellow NATO member Denmark to allow a U.S. takeover of Greenland, and that isn’t sitting well. “We all need access to critical minerals, but the furor over Greenland is going to be the elephant in the room,” said a European diplomat. In the immediate run-up to the event there’s “not a great deal of interest from the European side,” the person added. The individual and others were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic relationships. Their concerns underscore how international dismay at the Trump administration’s foreign policy and trade actions may kneecap its other global priorities. The Trump administration had had some success over the past two months rallying countries to support U.S. efforts to create secure supply chains for critical minerals, including a major multilateral agreement called the Pax Silica Declaration. Now those gains could be at risk. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wants foreign countries to partner with the U.S. in creating a supply chain for the 60 minerals (including rare earths) that the U.S. Geological Survey deems “vital to the U.S. economy and national security that face potential risks from disrupted supply chains.” They include antimony, used to produce munitions; samarium, which goes into aircraft engines; and germanium, which is essential to fiber-optics. The administration also launched a $12 billion joint public-private sector “strategic critical minerals stockpile” for U.S. manufacturers, a White House official said Monday. Trump has backed away from his threats of possibly deploying the U.S. military to seize Greenland from Denmark. But at Davos he demanded “immediate negotiations” with Copenhagen to transfer Greenland’s sovereignty to the U.S. That makes some EU officials leery of administration initiatives that require cooperation and trust. “We are all very wary,” said a second European diplomat. Rubio’s critical minerals framework “will not be an easy sell until there is final clarity on Greenland.” Trump compounded the damage to relations with NATO countries on Jan. 22 when he accused member country troops that deployed to support U.S. forces in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021 of having shirked combat duty. “The White House really messed up with Greenland and Davos,” a third European diplomat said. “They may have underestimated how much that would have an impact.” The Trump administration needs the critical minerals deals to go through. The U.S. has been scrambling to find alternative supply lines for a group of minerals called rare earths since Beijing temporarily cut the U.S. off from its supply last year. China — which has a near-monopoly on rare earths — relented in the trade truce that Trump brokered with China’s leader Xi Jinping in South Korea in October. The administration is betting that foreign government officials that attend Wednesday’s event also want alternative sources to those materials. “The United States and the countries attending recognize that reliable supply chains are indispensable to our mutual economic and national security and that we must work together to address these issues in this vital sector,” the State Department statement said in a statement. The administration has been expressing confidence that it will secure critical minerals partnerships with the countries attending the ministerial, despite their concerns over Trump’s bellicose policy. “There is a commonality here around countering China,” Ruth Perry, the State Department’s acting principal deputy assistant secretary for ocean, fisheries and polar affairs, said at an industry event on offshore critical minerals in Washington last week. “Many of these countries understand the urgency.” Speaking at a White House event Monday, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum indicated that 11 nations would sign on to a critical minerals framework with the United States this week and another 20 are considering doing so. Greenland has rich deposits of rare earths and other minerals. But Denmark isn’t sending any representatives to the ministerial, according to the person familiar with the event’s planning. Trump said last month that a framework agreement he struck with NATO over Greenland’s future included U.S. access to the island’s minerals. Greenland’s harsh climate and lack of infrastructure in its interior makes the extraction of those materials highly challenging. Concern about the longer term economic and geostrategic risks of turning away from Washington in favor of closer ties with Beijing — despite the Trump administration’s unpredictability — may work in Rubio’s favor on Wednesday. “We still want to work on issues where our viewpoints align,” an Asian diplomat said. “Critical minerals, energy and defense are some areas where there is hope for positive movement.” State Department cables obtained by POLITICO show the administration is leaning on ministerial participants to sign on to a nonbinding framework agreement to ensure U.S. access to critical minerals. The framework establishes standards for government and private investment in areas including mining, processing and recycling, along with price guarantees to protect producers from competitors’ unfair trade policies. The basic template of the agreement being shared with other countries mirrors language in frameworks sealed with Australia and Japan and memorandums of understanding inked with Thailand and Malaysia last year. Enthusiasm for the framework varies. The Philippine and Polish governments have both agreed to the framework text, according to cables from Manila on Jan. 22 and Warsaw on Jan. 26. Romania is interested but “proposed edits to the draft MOU framework,” a cable dated Jan. 16 said. As of Jan. 22 India was noncommittal, telling U.S. diplomats that New Delhi “could be interested in exploring a memorandum of understanding in the future.” European Union members Finland and Germany both expressed reluctance to sign on without clarity on how the framework aligns with wider EU trade policies. A cable dated Jan. 15 said Finland “prefers to observe progress in the EU-U.S. discussions before engaging in substantive bilateral critical mineral framework negotiations.” Berlin also has concerns that the initiative may reap “potential retaliation from China,” according to a cable dated Jan. 16. Trump’s threats over the past two weeks to impose 100 percent tariffs on Canada for cutting a trade deal with China and 25 percent tariffs on South Korea for allegedly slow-walking legislative approval of its U.S. trade agreement are also denting enthusiasm for the U.S. critical minerals initiative. Those levies “have introduced some uncertainty, which naturally leads countries to proceed pragmatically and keep their options open,” a second Asian diplomat said. There are also doubts whether Trump will give the initiative the long-term backing it will require for success. “There’s a sense that this could end up being a TACO too,” a Latin American diplomat said, using shorthand for Trump’s tendency to make big threats or announcements that ultimately fizzle. Analysts, too, argue it’s unlikely the administration will be able to secure any deals amid the fallout from Davos and Trump’s tariff barrages. “We’re very skeptical on the interest and aptitude and trust in trade counterparties right now,” said John Miller, an energy analyst at TD Cowen who tracks critical minerals. “A lot of trading partners are very much in a wait-and-see perspective at this point saying, ‘Where’s Trump really going to go with this?’” And more unpredictability or hostility by the Trump administration toward longtime allies could push them to pursue critical mineral sourcing arrangements that exclude Washington. “The alternative is that these other countries will go the Mark Carney route of the middle powers, cooperating among themselves quietly, not necessarily going out there and saying, ‘Hey, we’re cutting out the U.S.,’ but that these things just start to crop up,” said Jonathan Czin, a former China analyst at the CIA now at the Brookings Institution. “Which will make it more challenging and allow Beijing to play divide and conquer over the long term.” Felicia Schwartz contributed to this report.

France will boost its military presence in Greenland in the coming days, President Emmanuel Macron said Thursday, as U.S. President Donald Trump continues to ramp up pressure in his bid to annex the Danish territory. “An initial team of French soldiers is already on site and will be reinforced in the coming days by land, air and sea assets,” Macron told an audience of top military brass during his new year address to the armed forces. “France and Europeans must continue, wherever their interests are threatened, to be present without escalation, but uncompromising on respect for territorial sovereignty,” he added, speaking in Istres, an airbase in the south of France that hosts nuclear-capable warplanes. On Wednesday, several European nations including France, Germany, Sweden and Norway said they would send troops to Greenland to participate in a Danish military exercise, amid repeated threats by Trump that the U.S. could use force to seize the island. After a White House meeting on Wednesday, Denmark and Greenland “still have a fundamental disagreement” with the U.S., Denmark said. In an obvious jab at Trump, who he didn’t mention by name, Macron criticized “a new colonialism that is at work among some.” Europeans have the means to be less dependent on the U.S., he added, revealing that two-thirds of Ukraine’s intelligence capabilities are now provided by France. In an address to his Cabinet on Wednesday, Macron warned that if the United States seized Greenland from Denmark, it would trigger a wave of “unprecedented” consequences, a government spokesperson said. The French president convened a defense council meeting Thursday morning to discuss both the Iranian uprising and the situation in Greenland, POLITICO reported.  MORE MONEY FOR DEFENSE Macron started increasing defense spending again as soon as he was elected in 2017, even before Russia’s full-scale attack on Ukraine and NATO’s commitment to boost budgets. The French president confirmed that France would seek to increase defense spending by €36 billion between 2026 and 2030, adding he wants the updated military planning law to be voted by parliament by July 14. “This decade of French rearmament is bearing fruit … and rearmament efforts will continue,” he told the audience. However,  the military planning law has been delayed by France’s spiralling political crisis. It was initially scheduled for last fall and has already been put off several times. As well, the €6.7 billion boost for 2026 still hasn’t been approved by lawmakers, and it’s unclear whether (and when) the government will manage to convince MPs to pass this year’s budget. In another jab at Trump, Macron said Paris wasn’t increasing military expenditures to “please this or that ally, but based on our analysis of the threat.” That’s a reference to last year’s NATO decision to set a new defense spending target of 5 percent of GDP — following significant pressure from the U.S. president. The three main priorities for France’s spending boost are: to increase munition stocks; to develop sovereign capabilities in air defense, early warning systems, space and deep strikes; and to improve the ability of the armed forces to engage swiftly. “This year will be a test of credibility in many ways, and we are ready,” Macron said. SLAMMING THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY The French president, who has a history of shaking up the defense industry, also criticized the country’s military contractors — arguing some of them risked being “forced out of the market” for slow innovation and deliveries. “I want to ask even more of you. We need to produce faster, produce in volume, and further increase mass production with lighter systems and innovative methods,” Macron said. “I need an industry that does not consider the French armed forces as a captive customer. We may seek European solutions if they are faster or more efficient. We too must be more European in our own purchasing and in our industrial strategies.” The French state usually buys mostly French military equipment, but Paris is increasingly opening its wallet to other Europeans, most recently by signing a deal with Sweden’s Saab to purchase GlobalEye surveillance and control aircraft. France is also “late” when it comes to drones because French companies didn’t set up enough partnerships with Ukrainians and are now being overtaken by rivals, he said. Although he bashed France’s military industrial complex, Macron did pat Paris on the back for its long-standing skepticism of relying too much on the U.S. and its calls for strategic autonomy and a European pillar within NATO. “What was initially a French conviction in the face of the evolving threat has become obvious for Europeans,” Macron told the audience. “We were right to start, even on our own.”

President Donald Trump on Wednesday declared he would ask Congress for a $1.5 trillion defense budget in 2027, a massive $500 billion increase from this year’s Pentagon budget. The huge boost likely reflects how expensive some of Trump’s military ambitions are, from the Golden Dome air defense effort to his call for a new battleship design. Neither of those programs could be fully funded under current spending levels. The president provided few details in his post on Truth Social, other than to say the money would pay for his “Dream Military.” Trump did suggest that tariff revenues could cover the increase, but even if he managed to circumvent Congress’ constitutionally mandated power over spending, existing tariff collections would still be several hundred billion short of what the president plans to ask for. While finding half-a-trillion dollars in new spending would prove difficult, Trump and some congressional Republicans appeared confident they could do so. The budget reached $1 trillion this year thanks to $150 billion in new money Congress voted to pour into Pentagon coffers via a reconciliation bill, although much of that will be spread out over the next five years on various long-term projects. Lawmakers have yet to complete a defense spending bill for this fiscal year, although a final agreement is expected to increase Trump’s budget request by several billion dollars. Some Republicans have long argued for significant annual increases in Pentagon funding, with a topline total of around 5 percent of GDP, up from the current 3.5 percent. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) called Trump’s aspirations “a good news story” after his administration proposed budgets defense hawks on Capitol Hill saw as lacking. “We think we need a permanent 4 percent [of GDP] or better,” Bacon said. “That’s what it’s gonna take to build our Navy, our Air Force, our ICBMs, our bombers, and take care of our troops.” The 2026 budget only reached $1 trillion due to the $150 billion added on by Congress. That one-time infusion gave a boost to Golden Dome as well as new initiatives to build more precision-guided munitions and air defense weapons. But the funding will need to be included in year-on-year spending legislation, something Trump’s new proposal appears to take into account. Trump’s surprise budget announcement came just hours after he sent defense stocks plunging by railing against the performance of major defense companies. In another social media post, Trump said he would not allow defense companies to buy back their own stocks, offer executives large salaries and issue dividends to shareholders. He also slammed the companies for moving too slowly, and charging too much, for weapons. “A lot of us are saying we want a commitment to a sustained spending [increase], not just a one-year,” Bacon said. The White House and Republicans have left open the possibility of another party-line megabill that could be used to increase defense spending again this year. It is unclear if GOP leaders are willing to pursue the procedurally and politically arduous approach again while they still maintain control of both chambers of Congress. Republicans would need to use that process again to accommodate even a portion of Trump’s request because Democrats are likely to balk at any move that slashes healthcare benefits, education and foreign aid in the ways Republicans have sought, said one defense lobbyist. “Golden Dome and Golden Fleet are completely unaffordable without budgets of this size, so the administration would need to come up with the numbers to back it up,” said the lobbyist, who was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive spending dynamics. “But my guess is that the extra money will have to be in reconciliation.” House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said overall defense spending “needs to go up,” but wouldn’t say if the massive increase pitched by Trump is realistic. “I’ll take any request the president makes seriously, and we’ll see,” Cole said. Another senior House appropriator, Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), hailed Trump as “absolutely right” in his own post. “For too long, we have underfunded our defense apparatus—undermining our national security and benefiting our foreign adversaries,” Womack said. “A strong national defense is critical to our long‑term prosperity and to protecting our country against every emerging threat. I commend President Trump for his leadership and look forward to working to advance a $1.5 trillion defense bill.”

LONDON — In the corridors of Whitehall, armies of officials are working out how best to spend billions of pounds earmarked for defense equipment. However, they have yet to inform the people it concerns the most: Britain’s arms industry. Many in the sector now fear that they’ve wasted their own money developing cutting-edge gear, as the government drags its feet on awarding contracts. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party has made a lot of noise on defense since entering government last year, plundering the aid budget to get defense spending to reach 2.6 percent of GDP by 2027 and a promise of 3.5 percent by 2035.  Alongside the funding boost, Starmer asked George Robertson, a Labour Party politician who is a former NATO secretary-general, to lead a major inquiry into how the U.K. would meet geopolitical threats, known as the Strategic Defence Review (SDR). The SDR was well received across the defense industry and viewed as a statement of intent from the government to devote effort and resources to building up the sector, with an emphasis on resilience and innovation.  Those good intentions were supposed to be followed by a series of complementary announcements — including a defense industrial strategy, the appointment of a new national armaments director, and a defense investment plan.  The industrial strategy and armaments director both arrived late, while the defense investment plan is still missing in action. It is now expected after this week’s fall budget.  Six months since the SDR, many in the industry complain that they haven’t received the certainty they need about where the British government — in many cases, their sole buyer —plans to invest.  Business owners say this is limiting their ability to make long-term plans and risks skilled workers departing for other jobs.  One representative of a mid-sized arms manufacturer — granted anonymity like others in this piece in order not to damage commercial prospects — said the problem was that the “big, bold” prescription of the SDR has given way to “repeated deferral, which always happens with delivery plans of this complexity.” INNOVATING IN THE DARK The war in Ukraine has radically reshaped other countries’ understanding of what’s needed on the battlefield, and the SDR set out a clear expectation that innovation would be rewarded. At September’s DSEI — an industry jamboree held in London — it was plain to see that private companies had stepped up to deliver prototypes for novel weaponry and other equipment, from modular robots that can deliver materiel to a battlefield and can also serve as stretchers, to AI that can read and predict threats on the ground in real time.  Defence Minister Luke Pollard said:  “We need to move to war-fighting readiness, and the SDR gave industry a very clear direction of how an increasing defense budget will be spent on new technologies and looking after our people better.” | John Keeble/Getty Images Much of that research and development was done by companies drawing on their own budgets or taking out loans as they wait for news of any specific government contracts.  For small suppliers in particular, the lag could prove existential.  One small manufacturer based in England said: “We are ready to go; we have built factories that could start making equipment tomorrow. But we can’t until an order is placed.” Armored vehicle maker Supacat has said that while its business is stable, suppliers will suffer without a predictable path ahead. “This is about the wider industry and our partners in the supply chain that have been contributing,” Toby Cox, the company’s head of sales, told POLITICO. “Our assumption is we don’t get more [orders], some of these companies will have a downturn in their orders.” KEEPING PRODUCTION LINES WARM Andrew Kinniburgh, defense director general of manufacturers association Make UK, echoed those concerns. While the industry “warmly welcomed” the Defence Ministry’s commitment to boost SME spending, he said, “the MOD must give companies certainty of long-term demand signals and purchase orders, allowing businesses to make the private investments needed in people, capital, and infrastructure.” Mike Armstrong, U.K. managing director of German defense firm Stark, which has recently opened a plant in Britain, added: “Giving the industry a clear view of future requirements is the fastest way to ensure the U.K. and its allies stay ahead.” Even some bigger companies that deal with the government on components for aircraft and submarines have privately complained about putting money into research and development without knowing what the end result will be.  An engineer working at one of Britain’s largest defense firms said: “We have multi-use items that could be for both military and civilian purposes, but cannot invest until we know what government strategy is. If it’s bad for us, it must be so hard for SMEs.” Mike Armstrong, U.K. managing director of German defense firm Stark, added: “Giving the industry a clear view of future requirements is the fastest way to ensure the U.K. and its allies stay ahead.” | Andrew Matthews/Getty Images The issue is not only one of investment, but also of skills. Supacat’s Cox said that keeping production lines warm matters because the workforce behind complex fabrications is fragile. “The U.K. has a skill shortage, particularly around engineering fabrication. If we’ve got an employee in that sector, we absolutely don’t want to lose them in another sector,” he said.  NOT LONG TO GO The Ministry of Defence said it appreciates the need for clarity. Defence Minister Luke Pollard, speaking to POLITICO at DSEI, said:  “We need to move to war-fighting readiness, and the SDR gave industry a very clear direction of how an increasing defense budget will be spent on new technologies and looking after our people better.” He argued there was “a neat synergy” between the “duty of government to keep the country safe and the first mission of this Labour government to grow the economy.” An MOD spokesperson said the defense investment plan would “offer clear, long-term capability requirements that enable industry to plan and unlocking private investment.” They pointed out that £250 million had already been allocated for “defense growth deals” alongside a £182 million skills package, and that the MOD had placed £31.7 billion in orders with U.K. industry in the last financial year. A government official rejected claims that ministers were moving too slowly, pointing to Defence Secretary John Healey’s recent announcement on new munitions factories as exactly the kind of demand signal that industry is looking for.  The director of a large U.K. defense producer said the signs from the government were “encouraging,” specifying that Chancellor Rachel Reeves, having agreed to more money for defense, “wants to see a return on investment.” While most of the country will be braced for Reeves’s big moment on Wednesday when she announces the national budget, one sector will have to hold its breath a little longer. Luke McGee contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — Sudan’s ambassador to the EU has warned that European-made weapons are winding up on battlefields in the African country and fueling atrocities in its two-year civil war.  Abdelbagi Kabeir called on EU countries to stop selling arms to the United Arab Emirates, which a United Nations panel probed earlier this year over allegations it is backing a notorious rebel militia in the Sudanese conflict. Sudan has been ravaged by a war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) of the government in Khartoum and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group accused by rights group and United Nations experts of ethnic massacres, mass displacement and systematic sexual violence. The U.N. describes the humanitarian crisis as among the world’s largest, with tens of thousands killed since 2023 and some 25 million facing extreme hunger.  “The EU should weigh the moral balance over the trade balance,” said Kabeir, who represents Sudan’s internationally recognized government in Khartoum, during a wide-ranging interview with POLITICO as he criticized the bloc’s ties with the UAE. U.N. experts have investigated the UAE’s role in supplying weapons to the RSF, allegations that Abu Dhabi has denied. A sprawling France24 investigation in April traced munitions manufactured in Bulgaria — an EU member with a booming arms industry — from their sale to the UAE into the hands of RSF fighters, despite the bloc’s long-standing arms embargo on Sudan.  Kabeir said the EU is “bound by its own values” to ensure its weapons do not end up being re-exported to war zones such as Sudan. “Those weapons were not intended for third-party use,” he argued, adding the allegations put the bloc in a “very unpleasant situation.”  Bulgaria confirmed to U.N. investigators it had exported mortar rounds to the UAE in 2019 but said it did not authorize any re-export to Sudan. The Bulgarian foreign ministry did not respond to POLITICO’s request for comment. The British government also acknowledged last month that U.K.-made military equipment has been discovered in Sudan, while human rights group Amnesty International last November highlighted alleged instances in which RSF fighters used UAE-made armored vehicles containing French military systems.  Following Amnesty’s report, French defense firm Lacroix, which manufactured the systems along with KNDS France, said it “confirms that it supplied GALIX self-protection systems to the UAE Armed Forces, employing smoke-based masking countermeasures.” The company added it did so “in strict compliance with the export licenses granted to LACROIX and the associated non-re-export certificates.” A spokesperson for KNDS France directed POLITICO to that statement when reached for comment. The UAE ordered more than €21 billion worth of weapons from France between 2015 and 2024, ranking the country among the top purchasers of French arms, according to a government report released earlier this year. Both the SAF and the RSF have been accused by the U.N. and human rights organizations of serious abuses — including mass killings of civilians, torture and sexual violence. | Stringer/Getty Images A UAE government official told POLITICO that Abu Dhabi “categorically rejects any claims of providing any form of support to either warring party since the onset of the civil war,” adding it “condemns atrocities committed by both” sides in the conflict. “There is no substantiated evidence that the UAE has provided any support to RSF, or has any involvement in the conflict,” the official said. They stressed “the UAE operates a comprehensive and robust export control regime in line with its applicable obligations under international law, including with respect to arms control.” WARM TIES European Council President António Costa visited Abu Dhabi in late October, calling the UAE “an important and reliable partner for the EU: for the prosperity, stability and security of both our regions and beyond.” Mediterranean Commissioner Dubravka Šuica is also due to visit the Gulf countries next month, including the UAE, according to an EU official afforded anonymity to discuss the trip. Kabeir said the EU should use its diplomatic weight and the upcoming visit to press Emirati officials “to cease sending weapons to the RSF.”  “What happens in sub-Saharan Africa, the impact shows in the Mediterranean,” he warned, adding instability in Sudan would spill over into the rest of the region and spur migration flows.  The EU’s foreign affairs spokesperson Anouar El-Anouni told POLITICO the bloc’s common position on arms exports “establishes a duty to deny exports if they may contribute to human rights violations, internal instability or an armed conflict” and that it was up to member countries to comply. “All third parties, notably countries in the region, that are supplying arms and funds to the belligerents must cease their support immediately,” he said, and “refrain from fuelling an already explosive situation.” The EU will use its “diplomatic tools and instruments, including restrictive measures, to seek a peaceful resolution to the conflict,” El-Anouni added. The EU implemented targeted sanctions against senior RSF and SAF figures and firms in 2023, freezing assets linked to both sides and reaffirming its arms embargo on Sudan, which has been in place for more than 30 years. The sanctions were extended for another year in September.  Kabeir said the EU should lift its sanctions on the SAF “sooner than later,” arguing the measures had crippled the Sudanese economy and removing them would “open the way for more constructive engagement with the EU.” He added the EU had provided some humanitarian aid, but the amount “has not been up to the pledges that were made, and certainly not up to the need of the population.” The bloc has allocated more than €273 million in 2025. ‘BREAK THE NATION’ Both the SAF and the RSF have been accused by the U.N. and human rights organizations of serious abuses — including mass killings of civilians, torture and sexual violence.  RSF fighters were accused of massacring members of the Masalit ethnic group in Darfur last year, killing thousands and forcing tens of thousands more to flee. SAF airstrikes, meanwhile, have been blamed for civilian casualties in densely populated urban areas.  The U.N. describes the humanitarian crisis as among the world’s largest, with tens of thousands killed since 2023 and some 25 million facing extreme hunger. | Jerome Gilles/Getty Images “But of course, when you are in a war front, mistakes are liable to happen,” Kabeir said when pressed on the SAF’s own alleged abuses.   “It’s likely that an air raid on a military base killed some civilians in a failed shot. It can happen,” he conceded. “That’s natural when you are in a war.”   The UAE government official said Abu Dhabi “expresses alarm at the heinous attacks against civilians by RSF forces in El Fasher,” along with “the continued offensives by the Sudanese Armed Forces, which … have inflicted unimaginable suffering on a civilian population already on the brink of collapse.” But Kabeir argued the Sudanese army’s violations amounted to isolated “incidents” rather than a “pattern” of “intentional targeting of civilians” — something he said the RSF is doing with the backing of the UAE.  “This is a campaign to break the nation,” he said. “To break the country.”  Antoaneta Roussi and Laura Kayali contributed to this report.

This article is also available in: French. PARIS — Europe’s disunited governments are in denial about the extent to which violence is shaping global politics and must step up to assert their combined force as a hard power, the chief of defense staff of the French military has warned in a sweeping interview. “A weakened Europe may find itself tomorrow as a hunted animal, after two centuries of the West setting the tone,” General Thierry Burkhard said in unusually outspoken remarks to POLITICO and French newspaper Libération.  “It’s not only about armed forces, but about the fact that hard power dynamics now prevail.” Burkhard warned that Europe’s fragmented countries would have to bind together more tightly as a strategic force to counteract the “spheres of influence” being built by China, Russia and the U.S. “On the one hand, European countries have never been so strong. On the other, there is a form of denial from governments and populations in the face of the level of violence in the world today,” he added. The French general’s reality check echoes a growing number of warnings about Europe’s weakness. Former European Central Bank chief Mario Draghi also stressed last week the EU had to stop pretending it could exercise global influence just as an economic force and consumer market. He insisted the bloc had received a “very brutal wake-up call” from Donald Trump that it needed to think in far more strategic terms about security and defense spending. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Wednesday accused the European Union of sliding into irrelevance on the world stage. “We must be willing to pay the price of our freedom and our independence,” she said. Burkhard, who leaves his job at the end of the month to be replaced by Air Force General Fabien Mandon, has been at the helm of France’s military since 2021. Under his watch, France’s armed forces boosted their presence on Europe’s eastern flank and became more active in NATO while preparing for high-intensity warfare. In the past months, the French general also co-chaired the coalition of the willing, a group of countries working on security guarantees for Ukraine in case of a ceasefire with Russia. Burkhard described a world defined by four political factors: The use of force to resolve conflicts; a push by countries including China, Russia, North Korea and Iran to challenge the West; the power of information warfare; and the impact of climate change.  “More than Russian tanks, the establishment of a de-Westernized alternative order threatens Europeans. If Russia can break Europe without an armed attack, that is the path it will choose,” France’s highest-ranking military officer said, speaking in his office at the armed forces ministry’s Paris headquarters, known as Balard. “In tomorrow’s world, the strategic solidarity uniting European countries must be very, very strong. No country in Europe can be a major player alone,” Burkhard added. “It’s not about building something against the United States or even against Russia, but rather about achieving the critical mass needed to have influence and avoid being sold off by the slice.” The challenge for Europeans has always been to speak with one voice, especially when it comes to defense policy. Madrid’s push to be exempt from NATO’s new 5 percent of GDP defense spending target, following comments by Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez that Russia doesn’t pose an immediate threat to Spain, highlights how differently European nations perceive threats. “The difficulty with European defense is to encompass the strategic interests of European countries as a whole,” Burkhard said. “Estonians do not have the same strategic vision as the Portuguese; no one can deny that. A middle ground must be found.”  ‘MOMENTUM’ FOR UKRAINE SECURITY GUARANTEES  Those strategic interests include preserving Ukrainian independence, and there is growing pressure on European countries to step up. Despite many unanswered questions, discussions around security guarantees for Kyiv picked up steam in the past weeks, following Trump’s Aug. 15 Alaska meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.  “The U.S. president’s very strong desire to reach a peace agreement is bringing new momentum,” Burkhard said, speaking one day after flying back from Washington for military talks. After a White House gathering with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy, France’s Emmanuel Macron, Germany’s Friedrich Merz and Meloni, among others, the Trump administration even signaled openness to contribute to security guarantees. That could reportedly include intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets, as well as command and control and air support.  For most European capitals, U.S. military backing is a precondition to engage in any effort to monitor a potential peace agreement in Ukraine.  “The Americans mainly believe that the Europeans must demonstrate their commitment to taking responsibility,” Burkhard stressed. “It’s a chicken or egg dilemma: Some countries are only prepared to commit if there are American guarantees. But it’s not really a military debate, it’s a political one.”  While the “best security guarantees would be to demonstrate American determination in the event of a peace agreement violation,” military operations could include troops in Ukraine, air patrols over the country, ensuring that shipping traffic resumes in the Black Sea, and helping to build the Ukrainian army, the French general explained.  “To restore the Ukrainians’ confidence, we need to send the signal that European countries, possibly supported in some way by the United States, are ready to provide guarantees,” the French general said. “Providing guarantees often means taking risks.”  The danger is that any military contingent becomes involved in the war — especially as the Kremlin repeatedly said it doesn’t want European troops in Ukraine. That’s why the rules of engagement — meaning what militaries in Ukraine would do in case of a Russian attack — remain a key question. “If you are going to uphold a peace agreement, the rules of engagement are self-defense. That’s quite logical,” Burkhard said.  ‘CHOSEN’ VS ‘IMPOSED’ WARS  The high intensity conflict in Ukraine is triggering a deep rethink of how Western armed forces operate, according to Burkhard.  “We have moved from chosen wars — in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Mali — to imposed wars,” the French general said. In what he calls “chosen wars,” political and military leaders retain control over how much ammunition is fired, how long troops remain and how many personnel are deployed. Imposed wars are existential conflicts with no such choices. “If the Ukrainians don’t fight 100 percent [against Russia], they will disappear. That’s what imposed wars mean,” he added.  To face the new reality, Burkhard argued, Western armed forces have to diversify their arsenals. “The question of ‘what kills what and at what cost’ is central. If we only develop high-tech weapons that kill but are actually very, very expensive, we will probably not succeed,” he said, adding that armed forces also need low-cost weapons of attrition. The French general pushed back against the argument that the French armed forces could only last a few days in a high intensity conflict because munitions stocks are too low. France would not fight Russia on its own but alongside NATO allies, he emphasized.  “Our ammunition stocks are not as high as they should be because we have focused more on chosen wars,” Burkhard added. “Does it mean the French armed forces are not able to engage in operations? No. They can do so tonight if necessary.” 

The Pentagon’s top policy official told a small group of allies Tuesday night that the U.S. plans to play a minimal role in any Ukraine security guarantees, one of the clearest signs yet that Europe will need to shoulder the burden of keeping lasting peace in Kyiv. The comments from Elbridge Colby, the Defense undersecretary for policy, came in response to questions from European military leaders in a huddle led by Joint Chiefs chair Gen. Dan Caine. Defense chiefs from the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Finland pushed the U.S. side to disclose what it would provide in troops and air assets to help Ukraine maintain a peace deal with Russia, according to a European official and another person briefed on the talks. The gathering and another hastily arranged meeting of NATO leaders Wednesday left allies increasingly concerned that President Donald Trump will rely on Europe to ensure a long-term peace once Russia ends its invasion, according to six American and European officials, who, like others, were granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. “There’s the dawning reality that this will be Europe making this happen on the ground,” said a NATO diplomat who was briefed on the talks. “The U.S. is not fully committed to anything.” The meetings — which occurred days after Trump and European leaders met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House in a sign of unity — underscore the massive task ahead for allies as they weigh plans to send a peacekeeping force to Ukraine and buy more American-made arms for Kyiv. Trump on Monday said he was ready to send U.S. troops to Ukraine. But he backtracked on Tuesday, suggesting instead that he was open to providing air support for European troops there. “I don’t know where that leaves us,” said one of the European officials. “Pretty much back to where we were in the spring with the coalition of the willing.” U.S. allies in Europe appear skeptical of Colby, who POLITICO reported in June has forged a close alliance with Caine. Colby conducted a review of U.S. munitions stockpiles this year that led Hegseth in July to briefly freeze American military assistance to Ukraine. And he has long pushed for European allies to do more to defend the continent against Russia. His presence in the talks could signify a more difficult road for Europe to lock down American security support. The Defense Department did not respond to a request for comment. Some European officials cautioned that this week’s meetings are the opening salvo in a series of complex negotiations and horse trading as Europe grapples with a potentially large and costly effort to keep the peace. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who was involved in the White House meeting, briefed 32 NATO members on Wednesday in Brussels on the conversations and began to discuss security guarantees in broad terms, according to a NATO official. Defense chiefs of NATO countries were expected to hold a more detailed video call later in the day. Alliance members are hoping to come up with workable plans to present to their political leaders, another NATO official said. “Military planning in Europe is being adjusted for any scenario, even as diplomacy continues in parallel.” The White House has floated Budapest as a possible meeting place for talks between Zelenskyy and Putin, the likely next step in a peace process. But few officials think anything will happen as fast as Trump insists it should. “The main takeaway is [a peace deal is] is not moving very quickly,” one of the European officials said.

LONDON — Donald Trump’s Friday meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin provides “a viable chance” to end the war in Ukraine — but Putin must “prove he is serious about peace, Downing Street said. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Thursday hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Downing Street ahead of the U.S. president’s Alaska meeting with Putin to discuss how the war in Ukraine can be ended three and a half years after Moscow’s full-scale invasion began. The talks “present a viable chance to make progress as long as Putin takes action to prove he is serious about peace,” a Downing Street spokesperson said in a statement issued to reporters following the discussion. Starmer and Zelenskyy praised Wednesday’s meetings between Trump and European leaders for showing a “powerful sense of unity and a strong resolve to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine,” the spokesperson added. Trump warned Wednesday that Russia would face “very severe consequences” if he believed Putin did not end the war, though did not specify what those would be. POLITICO reported Wednesday evening the U.S. president told European leaders he was willing to contribute security guarantees as long as the effort was not part of NATO. Zelenskyy urged the U.K. to join NATO’s Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) in a social media post following the meeting. The Ukrainian president praised the “good, productive meeting” in the X post and said the pair discussed continuing support programs for Kyiv’s army and defense industry. “Under any scenario, Ukraine will maintain its strength,” Zelenskyy posted. “Keir and I also talked about such mechanisms for weapons supplies as the PURL program, and I urged the U.K. to join.” The PURL program was agreed during a meeting between NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and Trump at the White House last month. Funded by European nations and Canada, the initiative will consist of regular payments of around $500 million to purchase equipment identified by Kyiv for its operational priorities. The equipment and munitions would be sourced from U.S. stockpiles, with Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Sweden so far agreeing to take part. Kyiv’s Defense Minister Denys Shmyhal tweeted Wednesday he’d spoken with Britain’s Defence Secretary John Healey about the forthcoming Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting and Ukraine expects “the U.K .to play an important role” in PURL. Zelenskyy said Ukraine plans to ratify a 100 year partnership agreement with the U.K. this month — a document which aims to further deepen security ties between the two countries. The Ukrainian president also pushed for investment to increase drone production which “can truly influence the situation at the strategic level.” The Ministry of Defence did not respond to a request for comment.

PARIS — France will boost defense spending to €64 billion in 2027, French President Emmanuel Macron announced Sunday, without saying where the money will come from. “To be free in this world you must be feared, to be feared you must be powerful,” he told an audience of top military brass in the gardens of the French defense ministry. “While we had planned to double the defense budget by 2030, we will double it by 2027. There will be €64 billion for defense in 2027, that’s twice more than in 2017. It’s a new, historic and proportionate effort,” he added. Macron’s speech on the armed forces — which is a French tradition ahead of the July 14 Bastille Day military parade — comes on the heels of last month’s NATO summit, where allies committed to boosting core defense spending to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2035. Europe’s NATO member countries are looking to deter an expansionist Russia while preparing for reduced American military involvement on the continent. The French president had first hinted back in January that France would need to increase military spending by more than the €3 billion spending rises already foreseen for 2026 and 2027 in the country’s seven-year non-binding military planning law. To prepare the public for the spending increases in the context of the country’s strained public finances, Macron asked the chief of the defense staff, General Thierry Burkhard, to disclose the threats facing France on Friday — mainly from Russia. The new money will not be borrowed but will be generated through “more activity and more production,” Macron said on Sunday, adding that Prime Minister François Bayrou will lay out the details when he presents the main lines of France’s 2026 budget on Tuesday. While Bayrou is expected to come up with €40 billion in overall spending cuts, the French defense budget will increase by €3.5 billion in 2026 and €3 billion in 2027, Macron told his audience. An updated military planning law will be presented in the fall, with aims including increasing drone and munitions stocks (especially loitering munitions such as suicide drones); air defense; and electronic warfare. The French president’s speech came ahead of an update of the country’s National Strategic Review, which will be released later this week. It is expected to say that the future of the continent will be determined by “the continued, durable Russian threat on Europe’s borders.” Macron, who has criticized the trade war U.S. President Donald Trump launched against the EU this year, urged European countries to “act together, produce together, buy together” when it comes to weaponry. He announced that France and Germany will hold a joint Defense and Security Council in late August at which “new decisions will have to be made.” He has also tasked Armed Forces Minister Sébastien Lecornu and Burkhard with speaking with those European nations interested in engaging in a strategic dialogue on France’s nuclear weapons, and will deliver a speech on France’s nuclear doctrine by the end of the year. “In the age of predators, no one can remain motionless. We have a lead now, but tomorrow, at the same pace, we will be overtaken,” Macron told the audience.

President Donald Trump is weighing a new military aid package for Ukraine worth hundreds of millions of dollars, according to two people familiar with the plan, the first potential aid from the administration to the beleaguered country. The discussions come just over a week after the Pentagon blindsided many in the White House by abruptly halting part of an existing aid package with thousands of artillery rounds and precision ammunition. Trump has said that aid will resume. A new weapons package would underline the administration’s internal divisions over Ukraine assistance as its battle against Russia grinds past a third year. The money would come from a fund Congress approved last year under President Joe Biden that allows the Defense Department to take weapons out of U.S. military’s stockpiles for Ukraine. The fund, known as presidential drawdown authority, still holds about $3.8 billion. Trump, who has expressed frustration with the Kremlin’s refusal to help broker an end to the war, hinted in a Thursday interview with NBC News about “a major statement” on Monday involving Russia. He teased the announcement again on Friday, when asked by reporters about Russia’s overnight bombardment of a Ukrainian maternity hospital. “You’ll be seeing things happen,” he said. Neither the White House nor the Pentagon responded to requests for comment. Reuters first reported that the administration was considering new aid. NATO nations, meanwhile, are working on a larger deal to purchase U.S. weapons for Ukraine, said a congressional aide, who like others, was granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations. POLITICO reported earlier this month that Kyiv is asking Washington to let Europe buy American weapons. “We send weapons to NATO, and NATO is going to reimburse the full cost of those weapons,” Trump said in the NBC interview. Defense Department officials said they halted the weapons shipments due to concerns about U.S. stockpiles. But some officials disagreed that these relatively small shipments would have an adverse impact on U.S capabilities. The issue led Deputy Defense Secretary Steven Feinberg to call defense industry executives into his office for a meeting last month to discuss concerns over the stockpiles, according to a person briefed on the conversation. That person said the concerns were similar to those articulated by the Biden administration in its final months: the Ukraine war, along with continued operations in the Middle East, was taking a toll on the Pentagon’s munitions stockpiles. Feinberg, who handles the Pentagon’s budgeting process, is considering sending Congress a proposal for a new munitions funding package, according to the person, and is pushing the defense industry to speed up its production of air defenses and precision rockets and missiles. The aid package for Ukraine that was halted this month included 30 Patriot air defense missiles and hundreds of precision weapons that Ukraine uses for offensive and defensive purposes. Some 8,000 155mm howitzers shells and 250 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System rockets have started moving into Ukraine, but it is unclear if and when the Patriot air defense missiles will move, according to one of the people familiar with the situation. The potential new military assistance, the first from the U.S. since January, comes as Ukraine’s cities have faced the heaviest Russian drone and missile bombardments yet. Russian attacks on Ukraine overnight killed nine people and left dozens wounded.