Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Friedrich Merz hat ein internationales Spitzentreffen zusammengebracht, bei dem es um einen möglichen Weg zu einem Waffenstillstand in der Ukraine geht. Wolodymyr Selenskyj ist in der Hauptstadt, ebenso die amerikanischen Unterhändler Jared Kushner und Steve Witkoff. Europa verhandelt mit, unter hohem Zeitdruck und mit offenen Fragen zu Sicherheitsgarantien und der Zukunft des amerikanischen Vorschlags für einen Frieden-Rahmen.  Gordon Repinski berichtet, warum dieser Tag zu einem Wendepunkt werden könnte, oder zu einem weiteren gescheiterten Versuch. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview spricht Andrij Melnyk, ukrainischer Botschafter bei den Vereinten Nationen und früherer Botschafter in Berlin, über die Erwartungen an die Gespräche. Er erklärt, warum Europa eine stärkere Rolle einnehmen muss, welche Garantien für die Ukraine unverzichtbar sind und wie weit sein Land bereit ist, in den Verhandlungen zu gehen, ohne seine territoriale Integrität aufzugeben. Danach richtet sich der Blick in die USA. Pauline von Pezold analysiert den Auftritt des AfD-Außenpolitikers Markus Frohnmaier beim Young Republican Club in New York. Dort wurde sichtbar, wie eng sich Teile der AfD an das Umfeld von Donald Trump anbinden und welche strategische Bedeutung dieser Schulterschluss für kommende Wahlen in Deutschland hat. Zum Schluss geht es nach Baden-Württemberg. Maximilian Stascheit berichtet vom Grünen Parteitag in Ludwigsburg. Cem Özdemir setzt im Wahlkampf auf Bekanntheit und Kontinuität, um das Staatsministerium zu verteidigen. Ein Parteitag zwischen Aufholjagd, Personalisierung und der Frage, ob dieses Konzept im Autoland aufgeht. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. Legal Notice (Belgium) POLITICO SRL Forme sociale: Société à Responsabilité Limitée Siège social: Rue De La Loi 62, 1040 Bruxelles Numéro d’entreprise: 0526.900.436 RPM Bruxelles info@politico.eu www.politico.eu

Laura Thornton is the senior director for democracy programs at the McCain Institute. She spent more than two decades in Asia and the former Soviet Union with the National Democratic Institute. Earlier this month, I spoke at a conference in Bucharest for Eastern Europe’s democracy activists and leaders. I was discussing foreign malign influence operations, particularly around elections, highlighting Russia’s hybrid war in Moldova, when a Hungarian participant pointed out that U.S. President Donald Trump had offered Hungary’s illiberal strongman Viktor Orbán a one-year reprieve for complying with U.S. sanctions for using Russian oil and gas. With Hungarian elections around the corner and this respite being a direct relief to Orbán’s economy, “Is that not election interference?” she asked. The next day, while at the Moldova Security Forum in Chișinău, a Polish government official expressed his deep concern about sharing intelligence with the current U.S. administration. While he had great respect for the embassy in Warsaw, he noted a lack of trust in some leaders in Washington and his worry that intelligence would get leaked, in the worst case to Russia — as had happened during Trump’s first term. My week came to an end at a two-day workshop for democracy activists, all who described the catastrophic impact that the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) elimination had on their work, whether that be protecting free and fair elections, combating disinformation campaigns or supporting independent media. “It’s not just about the money. It’s the loss of the U.S. as a democratic partner,” said one Georgian participant. Others then described how this withdrawal had been an extraordinary gift to Russia, China and other autocratic regimes, becoming a main focus of their disinformation campaigns. According to one Moldovan participant, “The U.S. has abandoned Moldova” was now a common Russian narrative, while Chinese messaging in the global south was also capitalizing on the end of USAID to paint Washington as an unreliable ally. Having spent a good deal of my career tracking malign foreign actors who undermine democracy around the world and coming up with strategies to defend against them, this was a rude reality check. I had to ask myself: “Wait, are we the bad guys?” It would be naive to suggest that the U.S. has always been a good faith actor, defending global democracy throughout its history. After all, America has meddled in many countries’ internal struggles, supporting leaders who didn’t have their people’s well-being or freedom in mind. But while it has fallen short in the past, there was always broad bipartisan agreement over what the U.S. should be: a reliable ally; a country that supports those less fortunate, stands up against tyranny worldwide and is a beacon of freedom for human rights defenders. America’s values and interests were viewed as intertwined — particularly the belief that a world with more free and open democracies would benefit the U.S. As the late Senator John McCain famously said: “Our interests are our values, and our values are our interests.” At the Moldova Security Forum in Chișinău, a Polish government official expressed his deep concern about sharing intelligence with the current U.S. administration. | Artur Widak/Getty Images I have proudly seen this born out in my work. I’ve lived in several countries that have had little to offer the U.S. with regards to trade, extractive industries or influence, and yet we supported their health, education and agriculture programs. We also stood up for defenders of democracy and freedom fighters around the world, with little material benefit to ourselves. I’ve worked with hundreds of foreign aid and NGO workers in my life, and I can say not one of them was in it for a “good trade deal” or to colonize resources. But today’s U.S. foreign policy has broken from this approach. It has abandoned the post-World War II consensus on allies and the value of defending freedom, instead revolving around transactions and deal-making, wielding tariffs to punish or reward, and defining allies based on financial benefit rather than shared democratic values. There are new ideological connections taking place as well — they’re just not the democratic alliances of the past. At the Munich Security Forum earlier this year, U.S. Vice President JD Vance chose to meet with the far-right Alternative for Germany party rather than then-Chancellor Olaf Scholz. The Conservative Political Action Committee has also served as a transatlantic bridge to connect far-right movements in Europe to those in the U.S., providing a platform to strongmen like Orbán. The recently released U.S. National Security Strategy explicitly embraces this pivot away from values toward more transactional alliances, as well as a fondness for “patriotic European parties” and a call to “resist” the region’s “current trajectory” — a clear reference to the illiberal, far-right movements in Europe. Meanwhile, according to Harvard University’s school of public health, USAID’s closure has tragically caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, while simultaneously kneecapping the work of those fighting for freedom, human rights and democracy. And according to Moldovan organizations I’ve spoken with, while the EU and others continue to assist them in their fight against Russia’s hybrid attacks ahead of this year’s September elections, the American withdrawal is de facto helping the Kremlin’s efforts. It should have come as no surprise to me that our partners are worried and wondering whose side the U.S. is really on. But I also believe that while a country’s foreign policy often reflects the priorities and values of that nation as a whole, Americans can still find a way to shift this perception. Alliances aren’t only built nation-to-nation — they can take place at the subnational level, creating bonds between democratic cities or states in the U.S. with like-minded local governments elsewhere. Just like Budapest doesn’t reflect its anti-democratic national leadership, we can find connections and share lessons learned. Moreover, partnerships can be forged at the civil society level too. Many American democracy and civic organizations, journalists and foundations firmly believe in a pro-democracy U.S. foreign policy, and they want to build communities with democratic actors globally. At a meeting in Prague last month, a former German government official banged their hand on the table, emphatically stating: “The transatlantic relationship is dead!” And I get it. I understand that the democratic world may well be tempted to cut the U.S. off as an ally and partner. But to them I’d like to say that it’s not our democracy organizations, funding organizations and broader government that abandoned them when national leadership changed. Relationships can take on many shapes, layers and connections, and on both sides of the Atlantic, those in support of democracy must now find new creative avenues of cooperation and support. I hope our friends don’t give up on us so easily.

BRUSSELS — Donald Trump should not get involved in European democracy, Ursula von der Leyen said Thursday, days after the U.S. president launched a stinging attack on Europe. “It is not on us, when it comes to elections, to decide who the leader of the country will be, but on the people of this country … That’s the sovereignty of the voters, and this must be protected,” the European Commission president said in an interview at the POLITICO 28 gala event in Brussels. “Nobody else is supposed to interfere, without any question,” the Commission chief added in response to a question about the U.S. National Security Strategy, which was published last week and caused uproar in Europe. The strategy claims Europe is facing “civilizational erasure” within the next 20 years, a narrative that has resonated well with Europe’s far-right leaders, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, as well as in Russia. The document also bashes European efforts to rein in far-right parties, calling such moves political censorship, and speaks of “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations.” Von der Leyen said this is one of the reasons why the EU proposed the Democracy Shield, meant to step up the fight against foreign interference online, including in elections. The Commission chief said she has always had “a very good working relationship” with U.S. presidents, and ” this is also the case today.” However, she stressed that Europe should focus on itself rather than making comparisons with others. “From the bottom of my heart, I’m a convinced transatlanticist. But what is so important? [What’s] important is that … we take pride in being the European Union, that we look at our strength and that we deal with the challenges that we do have,” she said. “Ofa course, our relationship to the United States has changed. Why? Because we are changing. And this is so important that we keep in mind: what is our position? What is our strength? Let’s work on these. Let’s take pride in that. Let’s stand up for a unified Europe. This is our task … [to] look at ourselves and be proud of ourselves,” von der Leyen said, to applause from the crowd. The U.S. president denounced Europe as a “decaying” group of nations led by “weak” people in an interview with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns that aired Tuesday in a special episode of The Conversation podcast. “I think they’re weak,” Trump said, referring to the continent’s presidents and prime ministers, adding, “I think they don’t know what to do. Europe doesn’t know what to do.”  POLITICO on Thursday named Trump the most powerful person shaping European politics, placing him at the top of the annual P28 list. The list highlights who is expected to have the most sway over Europe’s political direction in the coming year, based on input from POLITICO’s newsroom and the power players POLITICO’s journalists speak with.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s top envoy to the EU told POLITICO that overregulation is causing “real problems” economically and forcing European startups to flee to America. Andrew Puzder said businesses in the bloc “that become successful here go to the United States because the regulatory environment is killing them.” “Wouldn’t it be great if this part of the world, instead of deciding it was going to be the world’s regulator, decided once again to be the world’s innovators?” he added in an interview at this year’s POLITICO 28 event. “You’ll be stronger in the world and you’ll be a much better trade partner and ally to the United States.” Puzder’s remarks come as the Trump administration launched a series of blistering attacks on Europe in recent days. Washington’s National Security Strategy warned of the continent’s “civilizational erasure” and Trump himself blasted European leaders as “weak” and misguided on migration policy in an interview with POLITICO. Those broadsides have sparked concerns in Europe that Trump could seek to jettison the transatlantic relationship. But Puzder downplayed the strategy’s criticism and struck a more conciliatory note, saying the document was “more ‘make Europe great again’ than it was ‘let’s desert Europe’” and highlighted Europe’s potential as a partner.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Die europäische Sicherheitslage steht heute im Mittelpunkt. Mark Rutte, der NATO-Generalsekretär, kommt nach Berlin und trifft den Kanzler. Für Friedrich Merz ist dieses Gespräch zentral, denn es hängt die Frage über allem, wie sich Europa verteidigen soll, wenn Washington sich weiter zurückzieht. Gordon Repinski ordnet ein, welche Erwartungen an das Treffen geknüpft sind und welche Rolle eingefrorene russische Vermögen für die Ukraine dabei spielen Im 200-Sekunden-Interview spricht Franziska Brantner, Co-Vorsitzende der Grünen, über die Verteidigungsfähigkeit Europas. Sie erklärt, warum die Europäer Sicherheitsgarantien für die Ukraine vorbereiten müssen und weshalb eine kleinere Gruppe schneller vorangehen sollte. Im Anschluss berichtet Marion Soletty von POLITICO in Frankreich zu den Gesprächen zwischen Verteidigungsminister Boris Pistorius und seiner neuen französischen Amtskollegin Catherine Vautrin. Das FCAS-Projekt, ein gemeinsamer Kampfjet, steckt fest. Es geht um industrielle Führungsansprüche zwischen Dassault und Airbus und um die Frage, ob noch in diesem Jahr eine Einigung möglich ist. Am Ende ein Blick in die SPD, wo Generalsekretär Tim Klüssendorf mit einer wirtschaftsfreundlichen Rede überrascht und bei Arbeitgebern Zustimmung findet. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. Legal Notice (Belgium) POLITICO SRL Forme sociale: Société à Responsabilité Limitée Siège social: Rue De La Loi 62, 1040 Bruxelles Numéro d’entreprise: 0526.900.436 RPM Bruxelles info@politico.eu www.politico.eu

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is ready to change the Ukrainian law that bans elections during wartime to demonstrate that antidemocratic accusations against him are baseless and to win clear security guarantees for Kyiv. Pressure is building on Zelenskyy from multiple sides. Kremlin chief Vladimir Putin said he will not sign any peace agreement with Zelenskyy, who he derides as an “illegitimate” president. U.S. President Donald Trump wants a swift end to Russia’s war on Ukraine, and is urging Kyiv to cede territory to Moscow to get a deal done — while criticizing Zelenskyy’s commitment to democracy.  “They’re using war not to hold an election, but, uh, I would think the Ukrainian people would … should have that choice. And maybe Zelenskyy would win. I don’t know who would win. But they haven’t had an election in a long time,” Trump said in an interview with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns for a special episode of The Conversation. “You know, they talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it’s not a democracy anymore.” Ukraine was scheduled to hold a presidential vote in 2024. But elections are banned during martial law and active warfare because Kyiv cannot guarantee a free, fair and safe electoral process while Russian missiles rain down, TV channels are censored by the state and more than 20 percent of the country’s territory is occupied. “The issue of elections in Ukraine is a matter for the people of Ukraine, not the people of other states, with all due respect to our partners. I am ready for the elections. I’ve heard that I’m personally holding on to the president’s seat, that I’m clinging to it, and that this is supposedly why the war is not ending — this, frankly, is a completely absurd story,” Zelenskyy told several journalists via a WhatsApp audio message late Tuesday. The powers of the Ukrainian president and parliament, as well as other state bodies, continue until 30 days after the termination of martial law — which was installed on Feb. 24, 2022, as Russian forces poured over the border — according to Ukrainian legislation. Kyiv has already studied different EU models to conduct elections after the war. Zelenskyy said he is ready to amend Ukrainian law and hold elections during wartime — in the next 60-90 days — but he wants the U.S. and Europe to guarantee the election’s security. “I am asking our parliamentarians to prepare legislative proposals enabling changes to the legal framework and to the election law during martial law, and to prepare them for me. I will be back in Ukraine tomorrow; I expect proposals from our partners; I expect proposals from our MPs — and I am ready to go to elections,” Zelenskyy said. To override the legislative block and constitutional limitations, Zelenskyy would need a ceasefire to ensure the security of voters. Putin, for his part, has repeatedly refused to agree to a ceasefire, demanding a peace agreement and territory to stop the war. “If necessary, these articles banning elections are removed by a vote in parliament, a simple majority and two readings,” said Igor Popov, senior expert at the Ukrainian Institute for the Future. Ukrainian parliamentarians would then have to organize refugee voting in Europe and at home, and decide on whether to introduce online voting given the related risk of Russian meddling. An electoral campaign also needs to last at least 90 days. One Ukrainian election expert fears that Trump’s renewed push for Zelenskyy to hold elections is an attempt to remove the legitimate leader — who won a landslide presidential victory in 2019 — who does not want to sign a deal for his country that gives away swathes of territory to Russia. “We see a certain correlation between Donald Trump and the Kremlin’s position that Ukraine needs a new leader,” Olga Ajvazovska, head of the board at the Ukrainian election watchdog OPORA, told POLITICO.   “In the opinion of these two players [U.S. and Russia], it seems that they believe that there should be a new elected president who will sign certain peace documents, and will be ready to accept demands that are unacceptable from the point of view of the constitutional framework of Ukraine, from the point of view of the principles of protecting territorial integrity, sovereignty,” Ajvazovska added. The U.S. president appears focused solely on Ukraine’s presidential election, ignoring that Kyiv also postponed parliamentary elections in 2023 and local elections in 2025. A recent 28-point peace plan, circulated by Trump’s team, demanded that Ukraine hold elections within 100 days of signing a deal — a direct intrusion into its sovereignty. “So, the emphasis is on changing Ukrainian leadership, personified in Zelenskyy. But here you have to read Ukrainian society better. While Trump is quite distant from Ukrainian realities,” Ajvazovska said. Were an election held, those who want Zelenskyy out might be disappointed. While his favorability rating dropped sharply after last month’s blockbuster energy corruption scandal, Zelenskyy is still the most popular politician in Ukraine, with around 20 percent of Ukrainians ready to vote for him again during hypothetical presidential elections, according to the latest poll published by the Info Sapiens social research agency on Tuesday. Zelenskyy’s closest competitor is former Ukrainian army commander Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who currently serves as Kyiv’s ambassador to the U.K. By intervening in domestic politics, Trump risks consolidating Ukrainians around Zelenskyy — despite the issues that voters may have with his leadership. “So, these statements, when they are made in an aggressive form, rather adjust public opinion to a position of not supporting the transfer of power in the interests or at the request of Russia through Washington,” Ajvazovska said.

Pope Leo called on U.S. President Donald Trump not to “break apart” the transatlantic alliance after the Republican leader harshly criticized Europe in an interview with POLITICO.  Speaking to reporters after a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at Castel Gandolfo near Rome, the pontiff said Trump’s recent statements — in which he derided European leaders as “weak” and the continent as “decaying” — were an attempt to destroy the U.S.-Europe relationship.  “The remarks that were made about Europe also in interviews recently I think are trying to break apart what I think needs to be a very important alliance today and in the future,” Pope Leo said.    Trump slammed Europe as poorly governed and failing to regulate migration in an interview with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns that aired Tuesday in a special episode of The Conversation podcast.   “I think they’re weak,” Trump said, referring to the continent’s presidents and prime ministers, adding, “I think they don’t know what to do. Europe doesn’t know what to do.”  Pope Leo added the Trump administration’s peace plan for Ukraine “unfortunately” marks “a huge change in what was for many, many years a true alliance between Europe and the United States.”  Trump’s proposal to end the war, which sidelined Brussels and included several major concessions to Russia, including ceding vast swathes of Ukrainian territory and capping the size of its military, drew alarm from Kyiv and its European allies and led to frenzied negotiations in Geneva to come up with an alternative framework.  “It’s a program that President Trump and his advisers put together. He’s the president of the United States and he has a right to do that,” Pope Leo added.  But the Catholic leader said brokering peace talks “without including Europe” was “unrealistic.” “I really think that Europe’s role is very important … seeking a peace agreement without including Europe in the conversations, it’s not realistic,” he said. “The war is in Europe. I think in the guarantees of security that are also being sought today and in the future, Europe must be part of them.” Pope Leo — a Chicago native who was inaugurated in May as the first pontiff from North America — has hit out at Trump before, condemning Washington’s treatment of migrants as “inhuman” and urging him not to invade Venezuela.  Trump also tangled with Pope Leo’s predecessor, Pope Francis, who slammed the U.S.-Mexico border wall as “not Christian” and, months before his death, called Trump’s mass deportation plans a “disgrace.” Trump in turn branded him a “very political person.” Despite the current pontiff’s criticism, Trump signaled openness to talking or meeting with Leo in remarks to POLITICO.  “Sure, I will. Why not?” he said.   

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Tuesday that parts of the U.S. administration’s new National Security Strategy are terrible from Europe’s point of view. “Some of it is comprehensible, some of it is understandable. Some of it is unacceptable to us from a European perspective,” Merz told reporters when asked about the geopolitical strategy and how it would affect the transatlantic relationship. “I see no need for the Americans to now want to save democracy in Europe. If it would need to be saved, we would manage on our own,” he said. Trump’s National Security Strategy released last week, announced a realignment of the geopolitical order while claiming that Europe faces “civilizational erasure,” triggered by excess migration from Muslim-majority and non-European countries. In the document, the U.S administration also appears to hint it could help ideologically allied European parties, saying “the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism.” Trump underscored that aim in an interview with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns that aired Tuesday in a special episode of The Conversation podcast, signaling he would endorse European politicians that share his vision. Merz — who commented on Trump’s new geopolitical strategy during a visit to the German state of Rhineland-Palatinate, where most of the approximately 35,000 U.S. troops in Germany are stationed — said he was not surprised by the general tone of the document, but rather felt reinforced in his assessment that the EU needs to become much more independent from Washington in terms of security and defense. “In my discussions with Americans, I say: ‘America first’ is fine, but ‘America alone’ cannot be in your interest,” Merz said. “You also need partners in the world. One of those partners could be Europe. And if you can’t get on board with Europe, then at least make Germany your partner.” Merz also said Trump had accepted an invitation to Germany in the coming year. Chris Lunday and Hans von der Burchard contributed to this report.

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. “It must be a policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure,” said former U.S. President Harry Truman during a speech to Congress in 1947. The Truman Doctrine, as this approach became known, saw the defense of democracy abroad as of vital interest to the U.S. — but that’s not a view shared by President Donald Trump and his acolytes. If anyone had any doubts about this — or harbored any lingering hopes that Vice President JD Vance was speaking out of turn when he launched a blistering attack on Europe at the Munich Security Conference earlier this this year — then Washington’s new National Security Strategy (NSS) should settle the matter. All U.S. presidents release such a strategy early in their terms to outline their foreign policy thinking and priorities, which in turn shapes how the Pentagon’s budget is allocated. And with all 33 pages of this NSS, the world’s despots have much to celebrate, while democrats have plenty to be anxious about — especially in Europe. Fleshing out what the Trump administration means by “America First,” the new security strategy represents an emphatic break with Truman and the post-1945 order shaped by successive U.S. presidents. It is all about gaining a mercantilist advantage, and its guiding principle is might is right. Moving forward, Trump’s foreign policy won’t be “grounded in traditional, political ideology” but guided by “what works for America.” And apparently what works for America is to go easy on autocrats, whether theocratic or secular, and to turn on traditional allies in a startling familial betrayal. Of course, the hostility this NSS displays toward Europe shouldn’t come as a surprise — Trump’s top aides have barely disguised their contempt for the EU, while the president has said he believes the bloc was formed to “screw” the U.S. But that doesn’t dull the sting. Over the weekend, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas sought to present a brave face despite the excoriating language the NSS reserves for European allies, telling international leaders at the Doha Forum: “We haven’t always seen eye-to-eye on different topics. But the overall principle is still there: We are the biggest allies, and we should stick together.” But other seasoned European hands recognize that this NSS marks a significant departure from what has come before. “The only part of the world where the new security strategy sees any threat to democracy seems to be Europe. Bizarre,” said former Swedish Prime Minister and European Council on Foreign Relations co-chair Carl Bildt. He’s right. As Bildt noted, the NSS includes no mention, let alone criticism, of the authoritarian behavior of the “axis of autocracy” — China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. It also rejects interventionist approaches to autocracies or cajoling them to adopt “democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories.” For example, the 2017 NSS framed China as a systemic global challenger in very hostile terms. “A geopolitical competition between free and repressive visions of world order is taking place in the Indo-Pacific region,” that document noted. But the latest version contains no such language amid clear signs that Trump wants to deescalate tensions; the new paramount objective is to secure a “mutually advantageous economic relationship.” All should be well as long as China stays away from the Western Hemisphere, which is the preserve of the U.S. — although it must also ditch any idea of invading Taiwan. “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority” the NSS reads. Likewise, much to Moscow’s evident satisfaction, the document doesn’t even cast Russia as an adversary — in stark contrast with the 2017 strategy, which described it as a chief geopolitical rival. No wonder Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov welcomed the NSS as a “positive step” and “largely consistent” with Russia’s vision. “Overall, these messages certainly contrast with the approaches of previous administrations,” he purred. While Beijing and Moscow appear delighted with the NSS, the document reserves its harshest language and sharpest barbs for America’s traditional allies in Europe. “The core problem of the European continent, according to the NSS, is a neglect of ‘Western’ values (understood as nationalist conservative values) and a ‘loss of national identities’ due to immigration and ‘cratering birthrates,’” noted Liana Fix of the Council on Foreign Relations. “The alleged result is economic stagnation, military weakness and civilizational erasure.” The new strategy also lambasts America’s European allies for their alleged “anti-democratic” practices,accusing them of censorship and suppressing political opposition in a dilation of Vance’s Munich criticism. Ominously, the NSS talks about cultivating resistance within European nations by endorsing “patriotic” parties — a threat that caused much consternation when Vance made it, but is now laid out as the administration’s official policy. Regime change for Europe but not for autocracies is cause for great alarm. So how will Europe react? Flatter Trump as “daddy,” like NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte did in June? Pretend the U.S. administration isn’t serious, and muddle through while overlooking slights? Take the punishment and button up as it did over higher tariffs? Or toughen up, and get serious about strategic autonomy? Europe has once again been put on the spot to make some fundamental choices — and quickly. But doing anything quickly isn’t Europe’s strong point. Admittedly, that’s no easy task for a bloc that makes decisions by consensus in a process designed to be agonizingly slow. Nor will it be an easy road at the national level, with all 27 countries facing critical economic challenges and profound political divisions that Washington has been seeking to roil. With the assistance of Trump’s ideological bedfellows like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, the impasse will only intensify in the coming months. Trump 2.0 is clearly a disorienting step change from the president’s first term — far more triumphalist, confident, uncompromisingly mercantilist; and determined to ignore guardrails; and more revolutionary in how it implements its “America First” agenda. The NSS just makes this clearer, and the howls of disapproval from critics will merely embolden an administration that sees protest as evidence it’s on the right track. Europe’s leaders have had plenty of warnings, but apart from eye-rolling, hand-wringing and wishful thinking they failed to agree on a plan. However, trying to ride things out isn’t going to work this time around — and efforts to foist a very unfavorable “peace” deal on Ukraine may finally the trigger the great unraveling of the Western alliance. The bloc’s options are stark, to be sure. Whether it kowtows or pushes back, it’s going to cost Europe one way or another.

Peace talks between the U.S. and Ukraine have stumbled over one main issue: how to force Ukraine to give up what the Kremlin has failed to seize during the war — the entirety of the Donbas region.  “On the territory issue, Americans are simple: Russia demands Ukraine to give up territories, and Americans keep thinking how to make it happen,” a senior European official familiar with the negotiation process told POLITICO on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.  “The Americans insist that Ukraine must leave the Donbas … one way or another,” the official added. Ukraine has insisted that any peace deal must involve the war being frozen on current lines. At present, some 30 percent of Donbas is still in Ukrainian hands. “In general, the most realistic option is to stand where we stand. But the Russians are pressuring Kyiv to give up territories,” the European official said.  And the U.S. keeps pushing Ukraine to agree to the deal quickly, with President Donald Trump once again getting visibly frustrated with Kyiv. “Russia, I guess, would rather have the whole country when you think of it. But Russia is, I believe, fine with it [the U.S. plan], but I’m not sure Zelenskyy is fine with it. His people love it, but he hasn’t read it,” Trump said on the red carpet at the Kennedy Center awards in Washington on Sunday. Zelenskyy has not commented on Trump’s latest remarks, but he told Bloomberg that the U.S. and Ukraine have not reached agreement when it comes to Ukraine’s east. Kyiv has been trying to explain to the U.S. that giving Vladimir Putin what he has not managed to win in more than three years of war will only encourage him to take more. It also feels pressured by the speed at which the Americans want to move. “Maybe Trump also wants it to happen fast, so his team is forced to explain to him they are not the ones to blame for why this is not happening as fast as he wanted it to happen,” the European official said. Last week, Putin said Russia will take Donbas anyway. However, Ukraine believes that giving up the remaining 30 percent of the Donetsk region, which includes the cities of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, with a total population of more than 100,000, would allow Putin to invade the Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kharkiv regions, Zelenskyy said earlier this year. In August, Zelenskyy said it would take Russia about four years to fully occupy Donbas. “Therefore, it is important how America will behave, as a mediator or will it lean toward the Russians?” the European official said, adding that Ukraine is also waiting for clarity on what security guarantees the U.S. is ready to provide.